Inquisitive

[The Engine]

http://www.theparableengine.com/

The system is pretty much done. I need to play test it a little bit more; so far it's just been one shots rather than actual campaign play, but it looks good. I'll get that up a little later.

Any thoughts on the setting in general? The mechanics are heavily tied to the setting (a la My Life With Master), so I need to hammer it down before I cement the rules set.

[The Engine]

Mechanics
The central mechanic of the experiment is an interconnected system of personality Strengths combined with an aspect system similar to FATE or Houses of the Blooded, as well as a number of specialized subsystems.

Core: At the heart of the experiment lies the Cross. The Cross is just that: a set of qualities arranged in the shape of a lower case "t" that interacts with one another in a way that simulates the emotional make-up of a character. It's comprised (clockwise, starting from the top) of Hollow, Zeal, Connection, and Self, with Weary at the center of the Cross. It is a sort of semi-closed economic system.

Ø Hollow represents how "empty" your character is. It allows him to sense the emotions of others and acts as the experiment's "magic" system. Subjects can use this on NPCs or each other to get the measure of one of their Strengths, among other things.

Ø Connection represents how connected the character is to normal human emotions and drives. Subjects use it to form relationships with NPCs, organizations, places, or objects, as well as general deception and the like. When the experiment begins, this Strength is at zero and the character has no ability to form relationships. One of the themes the experiment explores is how the character moves from a state of inhumanity to a state where he's connected to others and to himself.

Ø Zeal represents the character's belief in the Church. It's used for conflicts where the subject is performing physical actions in the pursuit of his Heavenly duties, like chasing a suspect, or beating a suspect, or chasing and beating a suspect. It is also used to "create" suspects.  Every time the characters interact with an NPC verbally, the NPC gets a name. The first time the characters encounter a named NPC in a session, the character with the highest Zeal must make a Zeal roll to see if they are a Heathen. If the roll succeeds, then the GM must ascribe the suspicious aspect to that NPC at Rank 1. The NPC is under suspicion and now does suspicious things. Whether or not they actually ARE a heathen is up to the GM. To some degree, it doesn't matter. In the eyes of the Church, suspected heathens are heathens. You know what to do.

Ø Self represents how balanced the character is within their own skin and how self-directed they are. This Strength will start at zero in the experiment and the character will simply accept the orders being given from Up High.

Ø Weary holds the center position on the Cross. It's where the points spent on other actions go (see below). The weary points are refreshed through the Internal Review mechanic.

Risk mechanics: The Risk mechanic works something like blackjack. You roll a series of d6s, deciding to hit or stay, on a target of 18. In order to roll dice, you must either shift points on the Cross, or use dice from Aspects. The Strengths on the Cross represents reserves of Strength the subject can draw on during conflicts. Each time the subject decides to roll another die, he must declare the task he's performing in the pursuit of the declared conflict and move a point of the Strength being called on into Weary. The nature of the task determines which Strength the character is relying on.  In opposed rolls, both Subjects still resolve the conflict based on the Risk Chart below, with the subject closest to the target achieving his stakes first. In other words, both characters may achieve their stakes but the subject with the highest total not over 18 receives precedence. In the case of stakes that are diametrically opposed, as will usually be the case, the subject with without precedence will achieve his stake to the extent that it does not supersede the character with precedence. In this way, more than two characters may roll at the same time and each may achieve their stake. It's the Experimenter's job to arbitrate disputes.

v Experimenters call for risks for conflict resolution, not task resolution. They call for them when a conflict needs to be resolved, whether that conflict is external or internal. The subject determines what actions the character will take to resolve the conflict with each roll, and the GM and player decide what qualities and aspects that falls under.

v With each roll of the dice, someone should be narrating. These individual rolls represent actions your character is taking towards achieving the intent of the proposed stakes. These dice can represent setbacks, escalations, reversals of fortune, etc. They're the action and reaction, the task resolution used in traditional experiments. From a narrative standpoint, each roll means something. The current value of the dice also lets us know who is narrating. While the dice are under 15, the GM is narrating the conflict even if the entire conflict is not resolved yet and the dice total eventually goes over 14. Once the total reaches 15, then the player is narrating with each die roll. The final total reached when the subject decides he's done with the dice lets us know who narrates the final stakes and ultimately, the outcome of the conflict itself, taking into account the way that the task have been resolved up to this point.

Risk Chart:

Ø 1-11 – The character does not achieve the proposed stakes

Ø 12-14 – The character achieves the proposed stakes, but with a minor complication

Ø 15-17 - The character achieves the proposed stakes exactly.

Ø 18 - The subject narrates the conclusion of the conflict.

Ø Over 18 - Bust - The character achieves the letter of his proposed stake in the conflict, but the GM provides a major complication that is contrary to the spirit of the stakes. If the character is fighting over a girl, he wins the fight, but the girl is disgusted with his violent ways.

[Simon C]

Hi! This sounds like it should be in "Playtesting" rather than "First Thoughts, but no worries.

It's an interesting idea!

I like how your Risk Chart is layed out.  It makes it very tempting to roll that extra die.

I think where your game could maybe use some work (if you want to work on it more) is in the area of how you set stakes, and how you describe actions in a conflict.  At the moment the game advises players (or the GM) to describe what their character is doing with each dice roll, but if they don't do that, the game still works fine.  Because your strengths are quite abstract, I think that it's easy to get away with non-specific actions.

Does this fit with your experience?

Do you have any specific questions about the rules, any things that aren't working?  How did your last playtest go? What worked and what didn't?

[Callan S.]

Hi,

What's the fun (or just one example of fun in the game) of moment to moment play? Could you describe it even in a vague sense?

Side note:I'll say experience makes me think that the longer someone takes to describe the fun the more I think there isn't any and they are just being swept along on a wave of RP enthusiasm thing.

[The Engine]

Hi! This sounds like it should be in "Playtesting" rather than "First Thoughts, but no worries.

It's an interesting idea!

I like how your Risk Chart is layed out.  It makes it very tempting to roll that extra die.

I think where your game could maybe use some work (if you want to work on it more) is in the area of how you set stakes, and how you describe actions in a conflict.  At the moment the game advises players (or the GM) to describe what their character is doing with each dice roll, but if they don't do that, the game still works fine.  Because your strengths are quite abstract, I think that it's easy to get away with non-specific actions.

Does this fit with your experience?

Do you have any specific questions about the rules, any things that aren't working?  How did your last playtest go? What worked and what didn't?

Yeah, I wasn't really sure which one to put it in, as I didn't ever post "First Thoughts"

There's a number of subsystems in the game, currently. So if the conflict is about combat, you'll have combat maneuvers, sort of, as well as a heavily modified Aspect system. I'm cleaning up the text now, before I post it.

It's like this:

Corey and James are in a fight over a girl. The Conflict here is who gets the girl. Corey decides he wants to fight James physically. So Corey would be using Zeal points to play out the risk, plus any free dice he has depending on his ranks in any appropriate aspects. We'll say in this case that they don't have any relevant aspects.

James decides that he won't run, and sets his stakes as generally the same: he wants the girl. Both players roll their first dice and move a point from Zeal into Weary. James gets a 3, Corey, a 4. Since Corey is on top right now, he is free to apply a maneuver to James. Corey has Strike The Enemies of The Lord (Rank 2), which is a Zeal maneuver, like most physical actions. He spends 2 Zeal, puts them into Weary, and a Rank 2 Injury is applied to James. But James has Lord Protect Me (Rank 1), which uses Hollow like most defensive or intuitive maneuvers. He moves one Hollow point from Hollow to Weary and he blocked one Rank of Injury.

The actions are narrated. "Corey stepped forward and kicked at James low, to pull him off balance. James blocks to kick with his own foot, kicking downward into Corey's shin. But Corey uses James's forward motion as an opportunity to punch him in the throat."

The fight continues until Corey has 15 and James has 13. James decides to hit, to roll another dice. Corey now has to decide whether he wants to roll another dice. He's spending a point if he does, making his character more tired. He also may bust. But if he stays pat, then James may pass if with this roll. He decides to do it. Corey rolls a 6, James a 3.

Corey busted. He now achieves how he wants to get his stakes, but not the stakes themselves. So as the GM, I'd let Corey narrate how he won the fight, the few seconds in which he won.. He does, detailing how incredibly awesome as he and how he won the fight. But then the girl comes outside. She's seen them fighting and she's disgusted with Corey's brutality. She runs to James and weeps over him.

James achieved the stakes because he was over 11 and Corey busted. In the case that they both busted, the girl would have been disgusted with both of them.

Hi,

What's the fun (or just one example of fun in the game) of moment to moment play? Could you describe it even in a vague sense?

Side note:I'll say experience makes me think that the longer someone takes to describe the fun the more I think there isn't any and they are just being swept along on a wave of RP enthusiasm thing.

The risk. The feeling of being out of control of yourself and trying to regain it. The idea that you may go overboard with any action. Being out on the edge with your teammates and not knowing who to trust.

In playtest, one player was trying to get the information out of a suspected heathen. The whole things escalated into a gun fight. The stakes were still "I want the information out of him" but the player wanted one more roll and busted and killed the guy. He got no information.

[The Engine]

Traits
Traits add or subtract bonus dice. Each type of Trait does this differently. Each Trait has a rank that represents the number of dice a subject gets while invoking it. Understand, if the subject chooses to use an Trait, he must roll all the Trait's dice in favorable situations and must subtract all of those dice if it's being used against him, the only exception being Actions.

v Qualities are tied to Strengths. They narrow the focus of a Strength toward a particular adjective, like strong, fast, or angry and then apply bonus dice in specific situations. Characters start the experiment with two Qualities.

-Actions are special Traits that allow characters to perform actions that they learned. Things like Loose the Arrows of the Lord (gunplay), or Seraph (Pilot), or Strike Down Mine Enemies (Injure) are maneuvers. The character must have the appropriate maneuver to use the equipment and the dice for equipment, unlike other traits, are optional. So unless you have Seraph, you can't fly a plane. Actions also allow you to apply Traits to opponents during conflicts, like the Injury Trait.

v Litanies are religious mantras that tie the character in some way to the Church and act as both a constraint and a benefit. They give bonus dice when you're acting in accordance with the Church and they take away dice when you're acting against the Church. The subject starts the experiment with the full complement of Litanies and one of the subject's goals is to lose the Litanies to allow more control over the character. Each Litany has a rank, like all Traits, and the rank starts at five. During the Refresh phase, the subject has the opportunity to buy down a rank of Litany. When it reaches zero, the character is free of it.

§ I Will Wear the Skin of the Sheep (Rank 5): gives a bonus to the character to blend in a crowd or pretending that he belongs somewhere he clearly doesn't. It also forces the character to not call attention to himself in social situations by actively engaging in conversation or making overt gestures that might be remembered later.

§ Mine Right Hand Shall Find Out Those That Hate Thee (Rank 5): the character is always on the lookout for heathens. The subject must roll at least his rank in dice, whenever he meets a named NPC for the first time in a session. A success gives the NPC the Suspected Trait (Rank 1). Although it doesn't mean that they ARE a heathen, they now perform suspicious deeds. Subsequent rolls add the Rank of Suspected. Being suspected by the Church is a slippery slope.

§ I Shall Hate Them With Perfect Hatred (Rank 5): the character is compelled to eliminate heathens. This is not used in combat. It's not a measure of how well the Hound kills heathens; it's a measure of how much he believes in the directive to perform the deed. To resist, the Hound may roll Self dice minus the rank.

§ Loyalty and Faithfulness Will Not Forsake Me (Rank 5): the character places his faith in the Church above all things. He must Self dice, minus the rank, to disobey orders from the Clergy.

v  Relationships are the connections that the characters have with NPCs, institutions, places, or objects. Each rank of a connection represents the amount of bonus dice the subject must roll when defending or deepening the relationship. The rank also represents how many dice the subject loses when the relationship is used against him, either by the relationship itself, or by an outside party. So if the subject wants to resist something the relationship wants him to do, he rolls his Self, minus the ranks in the Relationship. At the outset of the experiment, the character has a Rank 3 Relationship with each member of his team as well as a rank 2 with a person from their former life.

[The Engine]

Because your strengths are quite abstract, I think that it's easy to get away with non-specific actions.

Does this fit with your experience?

Do you have any specific questions about the rules, any things that aren't working?  How did your last playtest go? What worked and what didn't?

What sort of non-specific actions do you mean? The Strengths are abstract. They're more a measure of a person's internal landscape as a measure of they're outward abilities. I'm really channeling My Life With Master Here.

I have seen a tendency to try to work certain stuff in, mostly by one player who always does that, but since the Strengths are so polar, it's usually easy to see where an action would fall.

The real thing I'm looking at here is to try to get the text down in such a way that I'm not required to be there. Right now, I, myself, can run the whole game. But the text isn't doing a good job of getting across what I mean. The things I think are clear are getting questions and on the parts I think are difficult, people are telling me I went in too much detail.

[Simon C]

Cool.  What I think you should do is put together a PDF of the game as best you can, and give it to someone else for comment.  It's quite hard to find people willing to playtest your game for you, but it's quite easy to find people who are willing to read the game.

Ask them to give you feedback on what bits are clear and what bits aren't.  It's tricky writing a text that decribes the entirety of how to play a game.  It's very easy to leave out bits that seem obvious to you, but are not obvious to others.  Getting people to read your text can help with that.

By the way, are all the players and characters in your game men?

Also: In your example of conflict, see how all the narration happens after the dice have been rolled and everything's resolved? That means that it doesn't need to be there.  That's the case with a lot of games, so you shouldn't feel like it's a glaring problem, but there are ways of making narration more vital to your resolution process.

[The Engine]

By the way, are all the players and characters in your game men?

Nah. Like a lot of games, the fiction just glosses over the whole "men are superior" thing. It's worth losing accuracy for fun in that case.

Also: In your example of conflict, see how all the narration happens after the dice have been rolled and everything's resolved? That means that it doesn't need to be there.  That's the case with a lot of games, so you shouldn't feel like it's a glaring problem, but there are ways of making narration more vital to your resolution process.

Well, the idea is to combine task resolution and scene resolution somehow. You should be narrating the whole time:

At the beginning, the players and GM set the stakes.
In the middle is somewhat of a task resolution system; things are happening, but they can't decide stakes.
At the end, the players and GM resolve the conflict using the Risk Chart, deciding stakes.

I get what you're saying. But in this case, without the end narration, the GM would just have to resolve the scene himself based on how the task went, as in most games. I've never really liked that as a player or a GM.

To use Vincent Baker's example, in terms of this system:

Conflict: The playeris in the supervillian's office and wants to get the super secret plans. This is what the player set his stakes as. If he succeeds overall at the little game of dicejack, then he gets the plans.
Task: This up to the players. They have to still come up with a WAY to achieve their stakes. In this case, the player has a investigative type Trait at Rank 2. He'll use those dice, and any extras will have to come out of Zeal and go into Weary.
Each dice will receive some narration and lets the player make up facts about the world. In this case, maybe he says he finds a safe. We all know the safe is locked because he still hasn't succeeded on the risk chart. He's declaring actions but those actions can't bring true resolution. So while there is narration in the middle, the player CAN'T achieve his stakes until that the last roll at the end of the conflict.

In play, this works out nicely because the player is usually still below the Success Target of 12 for most of his roles. Once he's in that 12-18 range, then he's thinking that he may not want to roll another die, because he may bust.
One thing I didn't expect is that it's actually beneficial for players to roll low once you pass 11; if you can squeeze in three rolls between 12 and 18, then that's three chances for you to make up facts before the scene is resolved.

So the scene can't be resolved until that final roll, even though things are happening towards that goal. In opposed rolls, one player can be winning the whole time (task-wise) and lose his stakes at the end because he got greedy.

Does that make any sense? So it's really: the setting of stakes, narration, die roll, narration, die roll, narration, die roll, resolution.

Sigh. Now I'm confused.

[The Engine]

Ha. I didn't mean above that the accuracy I'm talking about is that men are superior. I meant that no, this particular Church, unlike a lot of them, doesn't have that particular discrimination.

[Michael Pfaff]

Hey, The Engine, this is DM from LouisvilleRPG.

I'll definitely check out your system. Good to see you here.

Mike

[The Engine]

Yeah, I was going to find your email on there and send you a copy, but after deleted my account it was listed as hidden.

[Simon C]

Hi,

What I meant was that all your examples use men, and your text uses "he" to refer to players and to characters.  If your game allows women players and characters, then that's confusing.

Also, do you have a real name we can use?

I think I get what you're saying about narration with your system.  It's a good approach, I think.  Maybe it's something you could watch out for in future playtests?  I think as much as possible making traits and such which require concrete actions will help your game.

Cheers,

Simon

[The Engine]

The name's Chris.

Yeah. Everything you've said here has become it's own document on my thumbdrive as I play around with ways to make myself clearer.

What do you mean by concrete actions? Right now, during the refresh, the characters can spend Weary points to create Traits for themselves, or NPCs, or places. Anything the player wants a mechanical connection to. It's not the best system as sometimes the players all focus on different things, making the party come apart a little. Doesn't bother me in play, but I haven't "campaign" tested it yet, as my group is tied up with other games right now.

[Simon C]

"Singular They" is your friend.  For example: "The player is in the supervillian's office and wants to get the super secret plans. This is what the player set their stakes as. If they succeeds overall at the little game of dicejack, then they get the plans. "

Another good technique is to write your rules in the second person: "Your character is in the supervillian's office and wants to get the super secret plans. This is what you set your stakes as. If you succeed overall at the little game of dicejack, then your character gets the plans."

Also, it's a good idea to be clear on the distinction between players and characters.  The player is not in the villain's office.  The character does not roll dice.

What I mean by "concrete" actions is this:

Let's say you've got a trait that's like "Hungry for the Truth" or something.

You are searching for some information, so the stakes are like "do you get the information?"

You describe your specific action "Well, I'm using "Hungry for the Truth" so I guess the character is all looking around for the truth"

So you get weak, kinda vague narration.

Imagine your trait is instead "No Lock Can Stop Me", your narration will be something specific, like "I pick the lock on the file cabinet" or something.  Specific narration is better because it makes it seem like things are actually happening in the game, rather than you just getting an outline of what's happening.