FaeEarths (working title): draft die mechanics thoughts

[szilard]

Hey all. Here are some basic draft mechanics for the (rather Narrativist) game that I mentioned in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3928">this thread. Right now, I am using the working title FaeEarths, which is subject to change.

Part of my inspiration for this mechanic is a deep-seated suspicion about Target Numbers. Many RPGs set a single target number for a task. Those with high skill levels have a better chance of making that target number than those with low skill levels. This often (not always) ignores two things: (1) some tasks that may be extremely difficult for someone with little or no training are trivial for someone accomplished in the field and (2) some tasks are really only possible for someone who has received a certain amount of training. In the following system, I try to take these two factors into account. The result is a system that is somewhat free-form, but can provide good results as long as both the players and the guide (i.e., gamemaster or whatever) have an agreed upon understanding of what someone at the character's skill level should be capable of accomplishing.

Skills are rated on the following scale:

Skill Ratings    

Numerical Rating    . . .   Skill Rating . . .    Rating Bonus

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   Unskilled              . . . . . . . .   0

2  . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .     Unskilled        . . . . . . . .            +1

3 . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .     Unskilled          . . . . . . . .           +2

4 . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .     Beginner              . . . . . . . .   0

5. . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . .     Beginner          . . . . . . . .          +1

6. . . . . . . .       . . . . . . . .           Beginner         . . . . . . . .           +2

7         . . . . . . . .        . . . . . . . .  Competent       . . . . . . . .   0      

8    . . . . . . . .       . . . . . . . .        Competent    . . . . . . . .             +1

9       . . . . . . . .     . . . . . . . .       Competent     . . . . . . . .           +2

10      . . . . . . . .        . . . . . . . .     Expert         . . . . . . . .   0    

11       . . . . . . . .    . . . . . . . .        Expert         . . . . . . . .            +1

12         . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . .       Expert          . . . . . . . .             +2

13        . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . .        Master           . . . . . . . .   0  

14         . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . .       Master             . . . . . . . .       +1

15         . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . .       Master      . . . . . . . .            +2


There may be a Legendary level after Master. I have yet to decide. Ultimately, it should make little difference. You should be able to add as many extra levels as you can conceive of without the system breaking down.

Attributes do not factor into skill rolls. Characters with high attributes will find it easier to advance in skills more quickly than those without, and they may have higher default skill levels. Since attributes do not factor into skill rolls, any two characters at a single skill level are equally matched, assuming no external complications (such as environmental conditions, differences between equipment, additional assistance from others, etc.)

Skill Outcome table: Skill rolls are 2d6

Roll . . . Modifier . . . Outcome

2. . . . . . . .     -3   . . . . . . . .  Extremely poor performance. You consider this a horrible failure.

3   . . . . . . . .   -2   . . . . . . . .  Poor performance. You consider this a failure.

4   . . . . . . . .   -1   . . . . . . . .     Sub-par performance.

5-9 . . . . . . . .      0   . . . . . . . .     Average performance.

10. . . . . . . .  +1. . . . . . . .        Above-average performance.

11   . . . . . . . .   +2   . . . . . . . .     Good performance.

12   . . . . . . . .   +3   . . . . . . . .  Excellent performance. You consider this a personal success.



Note that the outcomes are not rated in terms of success or outright failure. Whether a particular task succeeds depends upon your skill rating as well as your roll. Before a roll is made, the guide must determine what would be needed for success.

Example:
Three archers line up at a standard range. One is a Beginner, one is Competent, and one is a Master. A Beginner is unlikely to hit the bulls-eye. Average performance from her might be hitting the target. Excellent performance might be required to hit the bulls-eye. A Competent archer, however, should be able to hit the bulls-eye regularly (at least under target-range conditions) with an Average performance . A Master should hit the bulls-eye every time. Extremely poor performance on her part might be hitting the edge of the bulls-eye instead of the center.

Rating Bonuses
Within each rating, there are sublevels (+1 and +2). Someone at Competent +2 is significantly better than someone at Competent. This is not reflected, however, in the interpretation of Outcomes from their skill roll. An Average performance from each of them is similar. The difference is that the individual at Competent +2 is close to becoming an Expert, and is more likely to perform at a level above Average (and less likely to perform at a level below Average) than someone who is simply Competent. This is reflected by awarding bonus die. Someone at Competent +1 will roll 3d6 and take the two highest dice to interpret on the Skill Outcome table. At Competent +2, the individual would roll 4d6 and take the two highest.

Environmental Modifiers (semi-optional)
Good or bad conditions act much like rating bonuses. Excellent conditions may add an additional die. Poor conditions may subtract one (or more). If this would cause a die pool to fall below 2d6, an additional die is added to the pool and the lowest two dice are counted.

Example:
Our Master archer (whose skill rating is Master +1) is trying to hit the bulls-eye again. Normally, she would roll 3d6 and take the two highest dice. However, it is raining horribly (-2 dice) and she is suffering from a severe headache (-1 die). Now she would roll 4d6 and use the two lowest dice.

The environmental modifier rule is semi-optional because many conditions can be incorporated into the evaluation of the Outcome necessary. In the example above, the Guide might simply determine that a Master archer would need at least a Good performance under the conditions listed to hit the bulls-eye.

Competitions
The above rules are for general task-performance. Often, characters perform actions that are directly opposed to the skill of another. The typical example is combat. Such competitions between individuals can be readily resolved through the above system with a few additional rules.

Note that not all such competitions even need additional rules. If the Master swordsman needs to fight his way through a room of castle guards, this may be an Average task. With a sub-par performance, he might have gotten nicked or not left the room in precisely the way he wished. Optional Rule: If you use this method and the character does not meet the needed Outcome goal, shift to the more detailed method below in order to determine what, precisely, happens.

How this works:
The individual with the lower skill rating rolls 2d6. The individual with the higher skill rating rolls 2d6+1d6 per level their skill rating exceeds their opponent (look at the Numerical Ratings for skills). Environmental modifiers may, of course, alter these die pools.

Example: Simon and Charlene are playing chess. Simon is a chess Master +1 (14). Charlene is an Expert (10) at chess. Simon would roll 6d6 (14-10+2) and take the top two dice. He rolls a 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5: for a 9. Charlene would roll 2d6. She rolls a 5 and 6: 11.

The results are then taken from the Modifier column of the Skill Outcome table.

Example: Simon played an Average game – for a Master – and gets no modifier. Charlene played a Good game for an Expert and gets a +2 modifier.

The modifiers are then added to the Numerical Ratings. The individual with the highest end result wins the competition.

Example: Simon gets no modifier, so his effective Skill Rating for the game stays at his normal level of 14. Charlene played a Good game for an Expert and gets a +2 modifier to her normal rating of 10, resulting in her playing at a level of 12. Simon, who is an accomplished Master, unsurprisingly wins without having broken a sweat, but he commends his opponent for a good game.

These are rules for a clear cut skill vs. skill competition. I am still working on modelling other sorts of competitions (like one-on-one combat).

I may also add a Determination/Willpower type attribute which can effect the effort put into a roll, possibly adding dice.

For those who have read the other post about this game, Story Points may be used to add or subtract dice through dramatically appropriate (and role-appropriate) environmental complications or even (depending upon role and circumstances) sheer luck.

Please let me know what you think. I am much in need of feedback.

~szilard

[Mike Holmes]

This often (not always) ignores two things: (1) some tasks that may be extremely difficult for someone with little or no training are trivial for someone accomplished in the field and (2) some tasks are really only possible for someone who has received a certain amount of training.

It's my experience that most games do handle these concerns in some fashion. Some use very simple methods, and some very complex. But they almost all say something. The least of them will say something like, "Some tasks are just not possible for the untrained" which implies that there are simply two gross levels of "Skilledness", Unskilled, and skilled. Other systems, particularly those with defaults, tend to just penalize a set amount for a lack of skill in these cases.

Then you have games like JAGS, and Orbit that look closely at the sorts of things you're trying to address. JAGS takes an alternate view, that attributes do matter, but skill level affects the quality of the outcome. Orbit is similar, and even includes metagame effects resulting from high skill levels.

Also, consider that by using bell curves some games achive some of the same effect that you describe. So, to say it's unaddressed is, I think overstating the case. Usually it is addressed, but just in less detail then you have here.

Which leads me to my next comment. Which is that such a system is fairly dense and says alot about skill use and development. What does that have to do with Faeries?

Mike

[Andrew Martin]

Which leads me to my next comment. Which is that such a system is fairly dense and says alot about skill use and development. What does that have to do with Faeries?

I'm also puzzled, particularly when in the game description, I think it's here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3928 , there's what seems to be a level of skill all ready in the game:

Hero, Mentor, Apprentice, Sidekick, Love Interest...

Surely a Hero would succeed at most tasks at the end of scenario, the Apprentice would fail at most tasks, the Sidekick would be competent, but definitely not as skilled as the Hero, the Mentor would be far better than the Hero at the start of the scenario, then get unexpectededly struck down by the Villain's Henchmen (who cheat). :)

That would seem to be sufficient to match the level of detail the players seem to have.

[szilard]

Which leads me to my next comment. Which is that such a system is fairly dense and says alot about skill use and development. What does that have to do with Faeries?

Nothing. It isn't a game about Faeries. I need a system that is fairly open for a wide variety of skills. I said it was a working title... apparently it isn't working very well.

[
I'm also puzzled, particularly when in the game description, I think it's here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3928 , there's what seems to be a level of skill all ready in the game:

Hero, Mentor, Apprentice, Sidekick, Love Interest...

Surely a Hero would succeed at most tasks at the end of scenario, the Apprentice would fail at most tasks, the Sidekick would be competent, but definitely not as skilled as the Hero, the Mentor would be far better than the Hero at the start of the scenario, then get unexpectededly struck down by the Villain's Henchmen (who cheat). :)

Those are roles, not necessarily skill levels. On occaision, the Sidekick can be more skillful than the Hero (see Green Hornet). Very often, the Sidekick is more skillful at some things than the Hero.

Roles will almost certainly have an effect on starting skill levels and such, but they aren't the skills themselves. Sometimes heroes aren't that competent.

That would seem to be sufficient to match the level of detail the players seem to have.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I realize that the ties between the system presented here and the archetype-role stuff I have elsewhere isn't terribly apparent. I'm filling in the explanatory gaps as I can.

Right now, I'm really looking for feedback on the system itself. I don't know that I like the way competition works... it may be too complicated for my purposes (which are Narrativist with a hint of Simulationism, I think).

~szilard

[greyorm]

Query: with such a heavy focus on mechanical accuracy for skill ranks, how is this game "Narrativist"? Or how do you see these mechanics in particular facillitating/contributing to Narrative goals?

[szilard]

Query: with such a heavy focus on mechanical accuracy for skill ranks, how is this game "Narrativist"? Or how do you see these mechanics in particular facillitating/contributing to Narrative goals?

Maybe I am being naive, but I don't know that rules preclude meeting narrative goals.

What I'm trying to go for here is a game that will not be utterly foriegn to players of traditional RPGs.

I want the rules to be straightforward, easy to understand, and intrude as little as possible on game play. When they do intrude, I want it to be for the betterment of the story or to assist in the suspension of disbelief (which may be a Simulationist goal that I see as compatible with Narrativism. Or something). On the other hand, I don't want someone who is only familiar with, say, D20 and Storyteller games to look at the rules and throw their arms up because they are oversimplified to the point that they are utterly unrealistic.

Call it a transition game from Simulationism to Narrativism, perhaps?

I'm going for elegance and a regular-language sensibility while retaining a certain level of detail. From everyone's responses, it appears that maybe I erred on the side of detail.

~szilard

[Andrew Martin]

On the other hand, I don't want someone who is only familiar with, say, D20 and Storyteller games to look at the rules and throw their arms up because they are oversimplified to the point that they are utterly unrealistic.

But D20 and Storyteller games are utterly unrealistic! Our play group made up it's own RPGs to avoid the problems that these games had. These problems include levels & hit dice for D20, and strange probabilities & simplistic Skill + Attribute in Storyteller.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there slizard,

I think you're misreading Raven slightly. I think he is saying, and I agree that it's a good point, that how your stated system facilitates Narrativist goals isn't clear. No one's saying they don't, and certainly no one is saying "detailed? Ha! Not Narrativist," which would be absurd.

If you could give a hypothetical example of four people playing the game, using these rules, in such a way that a Narrativist instance of play is crystal-clear, that would be very helpful.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Hey slizard,

I read through this--and wanted to take a hand at clarifying if it isn't clear (and sorry if it is--it wasn't at all clear to me when I came here what Narrativist design entailed).

Narrativist design deals with (as I understand it) the players exercising "directoral power" through the game engine. An example is: "The result of the attempt is, according to the game rules, a success--now I as the player gets to describe what happens in the game world--possibly adding major plot twists if that's the way the system works."

Narrativist play only tangentially deals with things like, say, exploration of a theme in a campaign, character development, social interaction, etc. Those elements can be equally existent in other types of gaming.

Simulation, additionally, doesn't deal with "simulating" or realism. It deals with the players purpose in gaming to be exploring either the GM's story (where the GM is tasked as the 'story teller'), the game world, the presented situation, etc. The rules could be utterly unrealistic and still be simulationism.

This caused me a good deal of confusion originally--and who knows, someone my post right after me and tell me I'm wrong about something.

Your mechanics look okay to me--I find them a bit complicated and, correct me if I'm wrong but the highest variance is 6 pts meaning that if one is a master, a compotent character can possibly beat you (about 1 in 1300 times).

I'd want to see how the "successes" table will work. Is there a table for archery, kung fu punches, basket weaving, etc.? Or is there a standard score (say 8 for a difficult task?)

I think I'd like to know how that works.

-Marco
A nod to Mike for pointing out that JAGS did in fact address some of these issues. :)

[szilard]

Okay... I think I understand some of the concerns here better. Let me see if I can address them.

On d20 and Storyteller... I've never played d20, actually (I've been studiously avoiding it for various reasons). I just listed those two because they struck me as the most common mainstream systems. I suppose "realism" wasn't what I was going for in describing them. What these systems do have are (as I understand them) are rules for an incredibly wide variety of situations. The goal (as I see it) is so that players and GM-types don't get 'lost' in a situation for which they don't have rules.

Now, I don't necessarily want to mimic the sheer number of rules in these games. What I do want to do is have a system that can be robust enough to create them if necessary (with some hints as to how to do that). I want this game to be playable by those who want those rules.

On the other hand, I want to make a large number of rules optional for those who want more Narrativist play. In terms of skills, the basic rating will be the descriptor (Competent, Expert, Master, etc.). I am considering developing this so that there is a mode of play in which that is all that is used.

The basic idea is that the extra rules will be there if needed or if the players want to play a crunchier game. What I expect is that, in many cases, the crunchy rules might be used primarily for tense events like single combat that traditional gaming groups might not be as comfortable handling without dice dictating everything, while the more narrative rules are used in-between such events.

There will be a hand-out on building trust and each players' responsibility to the story as a whole. The latter section might vary according to character role. The basic idea of these will be to attempt to introduce more Narrative concepts (and responsibilities) to those who aren't necessarily used to them.

Oh... another thing that I keep forgetting to mention. The skill list will be very free-form. There will be an option for characters to start with professions (rather than and/or in addition to single skills). So, if someone is say a Competent police officer, that individual will have a host of skills (investigation, firearm proficiency, driving, intimidation, legal knowledge, etc.) at the Competent level. These individual skills wouldn't necessarily be listed on the character sheet, and it does - I think - provide a bit more freedom to players to define their characters more fully. It also avoids the problem that can crop up in some systems of players not taking a skill that their character really ought to have (I see this in Storyteller a lot due to the lack of standardization of skill sets)

Your mechanics look okay to me--I find them a bit complicated and, correct me if I'm wrong but the highest variance is 6 pts meaning that if one is a master, a compotent character can possibly beat you (about 1 in 1300 times).

I think that sounds fairly reasonable in terms of odds. I am frustrated by systems in which people with low abilities can engage in a contest with those of high abilities and semi-regularly win (Storyteller comes to mind). On the other hand, I didn't want a system based on pure Karma in which the Master always wins (just the vast majority of the time).

If the mechanics are complicated, though, that is a problem.

The basic idea (which may not be new, but which I haven't seen done explicitly before) is that the roll doesn't determine 'how well you do' on an objective scale. It determines how well you do relative to your skill level. It is an idea I like, and one I would like to stick with. I think it has a more character-centered feel to it. So... there isn't strictly speaking a "success table" and tasks don't have standard difficulty. If someone is a Competent basket-weaver and weaves a basket, the first thing to do is say, "Well, what does a typical basket from a Competent basket weaver look like?" That's what you get on a 5-9 on a roll of 2d6. With higher rolls, you do an increasingly better job. With lower rolls you don't do so hot (though you may still get a serviceable - if not necessarily attractive - basket). In general, the options for what is better (or messed up) on non-standard rolls fall to the player (which might be another Narrativist element to the system).

It might need some tinkering if the current results from it are overly complex, though. That certainly wasn't what I was going for.

I hope this clears some things up.

~szilard

[greyorm]

Narrativist design deals with (as I understand it) the players exercising "directoral power" through the game engine. An example is: "The result of the attempt is, according to the game rules, a success--now I as the player gets to describe what happens in the game world--possibly adding major plot twists if that's the way the system works."

Narrativism is about focusing play priority on what creates the best story, that is, examining the theme through play. It is not about the exercise of directoral power through the game engine, that is, such does not define Narrativism.

There is a confusion here between Style (Narrative) and Stance (Director), when such exist as seperate entities. Yes, Narrative play has a larger share of games which utilize Director stance, but this is confusing part for the whole.

By the above definition, Donjon would be Narrativist because of the heavy use of Director-stance, when I believe Donjon is definitely Gamist, as it does not attempt to address an Egri-style Premise through play.

Narrativist play only tangentially deals with things like, say, exploration of a theme in a campaign, character development, social interaction, etc. Those elements can be equally existent in other types of gaming.

All the above are required, to some extent, for good Narrativist play.  Character development is, after all, a cornerstone of good fiction, and thus good Narrative play.  Unless, of course, you're talking solely about character development currency-wise, ie: "My Strength atrribute increased two points this session!" in which case we're discussing a seperate issue.

However, exploration of a theme is what Narrativism is about, the addressing of a Narrativist Premise ("focus on producing Theme via events during play. Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events." - Ron's GNS Essay)

"Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis)."

"Facilitating Narrativism relies on bringing specific Premise and the ability to have an impact on it into the foreground, over and above any descriptive or explanatory elements."

As I've found it, Narrativism is "Story Now," meaning the actions of the characters are direct and meaningful, of human interest to the players involved in the game, as players.

On the other hand, I want to make a large number of rules optional for those who want more Narrativist play. In terms of skills, the basic rating will be the descriptor (Competent, Expert, Master, etc.). I am considering developing this so that there is a mode of play in which that is all that is used.

From what I see of your response, your stand is that because you can make it "lite" it does so...which is untrue. Narrativism does not mean rules-lite, LARPy hand-waving and purple prose; it is not based on Drama methods of resolution. Hence my earlier question as to how the above proposed system helped facilitate Narrative play?

I think you're committing one of the standard untrue assumptions about Narrativism: that such play is inherently "rules light" or "non-crunchy."

Case-in-point: I am running a Narrativist D&D game right now -- or so I learned after posting about it to Actual Play -- but I am using the standard D20 rules to run the game (that thread is here).

[szilard]

On the other hand, I want to make a large number of rules optional for those who want more Narrativist play. In terms of skills, the basic rating will be the descriptor (Competent, Expert, Master, etc.). I am considering developing this so that there is a mode of play in which that is all that is used.

From what I see of your response, your stand is that because you can make it "lite" it does so...which is untrue. Narrativism does not mean rules-lite, LARPy hand-waving and purple prose; it is not based on Drama methods of resolution. Hence my earlier question as to how the above proposed system helped facilitate Narrative play?

I don't think that fewer rules=Narrativist. What I was trying to say was that rules can dictate things that in a more narrative game could simply be (for lack of a better word) narrated. That doesn't mean that being rules-heavy is necessarily anathema to narrativist play. What it does mean is that - under some systems - extremely exhaustive rules may not be needed (or at least not as frequently needed) in narrative game play.

If I am mistaken as to the use of the term Narrativism, I am sorry. I am really less concerned about making this game Narrativist according to the GNS model than I am about encouraging a certain type of game play that focuses upon the personal development of characters, classic themes, epic plots and player collaboration in the above. If that fits your definition of Narrativism, great. If not, please excuse my use of the term (and feel free to suggest a less confusing one).

I think you're committing one of the standard untrue assumptions about Narrativism: that such play is inherently "rules light" or "non-crunchy."

Again, I don't think I was making this as a general statement. I was trying to say that by making rules optional (and accounting for how to do that), those involved in the game might gain a bit of freedom. It wouldn't necessarily be required for 'Narrativist' play, but it might be a useful tool.

~szilard

[greyorm]

What I was trying to say was that rules can dictate things that in a more narrative game could simply be (for lack of a better word) narrated.

However, that was my point: "Narration" does not equal "Narrative." That is, "story-telling" or Drama-based methods of resolution are not inherently Narrativist (ie: "Oh, well, you can just describe that").

Anyways, this is really beside the point, and if you're interested in figuring out the differences in styles, there are plenty of other threads that deal with such, or you can start a new one.

I am really less concerned about making this game Narrativist according to the GNS model than I am about encouraging a certain type of game play that focuses upon the personal development of characters, classic themes, epic plots and player collaboration in the above.

Ok. The initial reason I asked was because of your statement about the game being Narrativist, and I couldn't see what WAS Narrativist facillitating about the rules.

As it stands, the above could be described as Simulationism with focus on Character Exploration or Setting Exploration, or it could be Narrativist, with the same sorts of focuses.

As Ron asked, could you post an excerpt of how you see a game running, using the above rules. That way we can see what, exactly, you mean these rules to DO or encourage in play, so we can provide you some feedback on if they're going to work along the lines you envision (as outside observers).

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

This thread might do better to put aside the Narrativism-issue entirely. Slizard is clearly interested in feedback on his task resolution system, with a strong emphasis on individual differences in effects. Let's take a look at the proposal in those terms and see what comes up, and if anyone wants clarification about the GNS side of things, we can take it to that forum.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

As Ron says, and I agree, so to-wit:

So, you know what you're capable of before you roll, just not how well you actually do it (ie: a master *knows he can hit the bullseye, he just doesn't know how close to center he'll actually get...an expert knows he can hit the target, just not where).

The only thing I'm seeing as providing difficulty to a gamemaster are the "call-it-as-you-see-it" of results. That the GM needs to make up, on-the-fly, the results for particular tasks seems problematic in that this is a great deal of responsibility and work for them in addition to the task of actually running the game.

So, does cohesiveness matter?
That is, if I say the Archery task is about hitting the bullseye one time, and then I say its about hitting the target at all another time, will this matter? Or will it be a problem for players?

This leads into the next problem: When are the task results discussed (ie: what its all about, as above)?  Is it before the players roll, and is it discussed with them? (frex: "The task is Archery, and you'll be aiming for the bullseye.")

And will the GM have to list the options each time?
"Ok, novice, you'll be lucky to hit the target; expert, you can hit the target, probably the bullseye; master, you can hit the bullseye with no difficulty."

If so, this would bog the game down considerably IMO, not to mention coming up with the task and the standard results of the task for each level of skill on the fly.