DragonGrace: Announcement

[dragongrace]

This is just a quick message to let anyone interested know that DragonGrace is a new RPG by my design.  The Website is www.anycities.com/user/dragongrace

Premise: A monotheistic fantasy world in which the mighty have fallen and the current generations must work on surviving and discovering the mysteries of the world.  The end goal is a return to the mighty status of the ancients such as Dragons, Angels, Kraken, and more.

This is proposed as a relatively diceless system.  The randomness comes in the initial character generation for which I have provided an online tool, and will be developing a good Visual Basic tool to do more.

To me this is version 2, since it has changed a great deal since I started the project.  I do consider this still an Alpha version however.  I hope that my version 3 will be an actual Beta product that I can consider distributing in more formats than just web-based.

I welcome constructive criticism, but of course reserve the right to take it or leave it dependent upon how it fits with my overall game concept.

JOE--

[Mike Holmes]

Wow, I've got several comments to start off with.

It just so happens that I'm starting something not too dissmilar. I'm glad that you've arrived here, and hope you stay, because I think that the format that you're using is quite interesting. And we have few experts here (not forgetting you, Blake), and could use more.

That all said, what I think we can help you with most is in the area of mechanical design. The first thing I'd ask is why, given your very specific drive to create stories, did you go with a system so like D&D? Is it just what you're familiar with, or is there something about it that you see as particularly conducive to what you're doing?

Because it there's one thing I'd do with your game, looking at it as briefly as I have, is to totally revamp the system. This isn't a dig, I really like the direction that your idea goes off in. But I just think that the entire mechanics look wrong to me for what it is that I think you're doing.

So, any clarification there would be helpful.

Mike

[dragongrace]

>>mechanical design. The first thing I'd ask is why, given your very specific drive to create stories, did you go with a system so like D&D? Is it just what you're familiar with, or is there something about it that you see as particularly conducive to what you're doing? >>

hmm... well it was a very purposeful decision to keep the system when I was developing because of the stories.  In design I began thinking of all the people who start writing RPG fantasy freeform games and how quickly their characters become godlike beings.  Some do this out of sheer muchkinism, and some because they don't know any better.  The limitations provided by a somewhat D&D inspired mechanic to me was a simple framework that could be expanded upon.

Breaking the rules to go outside of the limitations of a characters 'stats' would be a sign of a more knowledgable player.  However I'd be interested in hearing alternatives, especially for the more story oriented approaches.

For myself having a slow solid build in story turns out to be like a soap opera that goes on over time, only the characters in a game grow because of their actions instead of going in the endless loops of daytime TV.  Accumulating experience which in turn crests levels which gives build points was my vehicle for visible tangible growth, especially to the freeformers who think in a computer role playing game fashion.

I hope this explains my decision somewhat, but like I said, I'd be interested in hearing alternatives.

[Mike Holmes]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about a good solid, even hefty, system (we're all about the system here). Most here would agree with your inclusion of such a system in general terms. But there are systems that support certain styles of play better than others.

Go to the articles page right now. Read "System Matters", "GNS and other Matters...", and "Fantasy Heartbreakers".

That'll get you up to speed on most of the current theory as it applies to what you're doing. Be warned that's a pretty hefty reading assignment I've just given you. But once you're finished we'll have a lot to talk about (assuming you're still interested).

Mike

[dragongrace]

>>That'll get you up to speed on most of the current theory as it applies to what you're doing. Be warned that's a pretty hefty reading assignment I've just given you. But once you're finished we'll have a lot to talk about (assuming you're still interested). >>

Still very interested, but since I'm under the weather and reading fast becasue I'm at work, I'll say I only got about 80% of it all.  Still I made sure to get the points.  The most hard hitting point however was at the end of "More Fantasy Heartbreakers" (outside of your recommendations) where Ron take sup your challenge to make a Heartbreaker on the fly.  Ironically enough, that is exactly what I did in this case, and on purpose without realizing it.  

I however took the extra step to continue developing my idea, which I still feel has potential to be a fun little game.  You would probably also thinking that I want to and should veer towards a more Narrative supportive system rather than the half-way I seemingly have.  Which if you suggested this, I would probably agree.  

A bit more background.  The principle idea started as a AD&D knockoff in an AD&D world approaching with an N point of view.  If you read the articles I had written while developing the game, It migrated into a system of quick development (Heartbreaking).  Now growing towards a version 3, I do want to emphasize story development and character development (whether or not the terminology makes Ron want to cringe :), sorry no offense, Ron).  

JOE--

[Mike Holmes]

So I guess the next question is, in the new version, are you interested in changing the system at all, and if so, by how much would you be willing to change it?

For an idea of just how far you could change your game, look at The Pool. I'm not suggesting this sort of thing, nor even that you'd want to go that far. I'm just putting it out there to give you an idea of what a system that's radically different than D&D can look like.

Then check out JAGS, for an entirely different kind of system from The Pool that supports an entirely different kind of play. This should give you an idea of the possible sorts of systems available. It's really diverse.

I agree that your goals are most likely Narrativist? I think that's a good assumption from all you've written. That is, I think that you want players to really address the character's issues in an empowered way (as opposed to having story created by participating in a plot of a GMs design, for instance). If that's the case, then maybe you'd want something more like Hero Wars. A game more structured than - say - The Pool, but better for promoting Narrativism than JAGS might be.

But what I'd really suggest is that you take from lots of innovative systems like these, and come up with something totally unique and tailored to the sort of play you want to see. For example none of these is diceless (fortuneless to be technical), which I assume is a prerequisite for your game. Have you seen Amber, BTW? I kinda was assuming that you had as most people who play online and use the term "diceless" have. It's not too difficult to drop fortune from a system, and you could easily add that feature to systems like the one's you find here.

One system that really ought to interest you is Nobilis. The site I've linked to is an online play of that game as well.

The idea is to get a feel for the range of possibilities so that you can start to think outside the D&D box, and create a system that does what you want it to do.

Mike

[dragongrace]

I like the existing system as it serves a purpose of limiting a character intentionally by forcing them through a gradual progression.  The progression is measured and tracked.  A GM can serve easily as a watchdog in a community of players in the existing system and other players can as well by quick character comparisons.  

However I am familiar with Amber.  I have come across Sorcerer before visiting the forge in my searches for existing games.  I know the Window system (I like the concept behind Children of Fire as well).  The Pool seemed to be a stripped out portion of White Wolf Wraith.  As if we just took the Passions and Fetters and played the character with only that knowledge.  JAGS seems somehow limited but I only glanced at it briefly.  It almost seems like another game I'm working on but in a more developed level.  Hero Wars seems interesting but again I only glanced at it.

Nobilis on the other hand appears to me like another game I can't quite put my finger on, maybe a stripped out version of Nephilim, but it has a concept that looks very attractive.

I hope it doesn't look this way, but I'm not new to the rpg world, I've scoured the interent looking at how people do things, experimented on my own and such.  I may not have 20+ years under my belt but over 15 ought to do me well.  I've seen some of what's out there.

Willing to change the system...   My original intentions was to make the attributes more meaningful with the magic/psionic system and skills system as my first move.  Picking up on my mistakes as I went along and working through them.

however, I'd be willing to move the setting into a whole new kind of redesign to hone my skills and try something new.  What did you have in mind?  Or perhaps I should ask >> It just so happens that I'm starting something not too dissmilar >> what ARE you working on?

JOE--

[Le Joueur]

...it serves a purpose of limiting a character intentionally by forcing them through a gradual progression.

And characters need to progress, why...?

I mean, aren't the stories few where the characters show much progression (except leaps and bounds)?

Just curious.

Fang Langford

[dragongrace]

Character progression...  A character that does not grow may have more of a tendency to be static.  It is more likely, in my opinion, that a character that has a definate growth will be dynamic.  

Those stories in which someone suddenly progresses by a burst of inspiration or all in one moment are out there.  However let's look at literature.  Of Human Bondage by Somerset.  Our principle character spends the entire book growing up.  He learns as he goes along, he must experience life little by little and each experience lends something to his character that he can draw upon, much like life.  

Perhaps I am flawed in my opinion but a character that does not grow in some way will eventually be stagnant.  Suppose for example you are writing a story of a soldier, a short story first.  It's about his first battle, will he learn something from it, if so then what.  This one battle may or may not (metagame) increase his stats, or teach him new skills.  Nevertheless it was entertaining and we could write he next few battles the same way.  So long as the enemy never grows or learns from their mistakes our soldier neither has to as well.  However the moment one enemy realized what our soldier does, our soldier dies.  Our soldier must progress as an individual at least in knowledge of fighting tactics in order to continually best the opponent.  

In a more fantasy oriented game even one that is narrative, our soldier who does not progress will never be able to get beyond fighting other low level infantry while those that grow meet the kings, fight the dragons, slay the evil wizard, to name a few cliches.  Perhaps our soldier doesn't want to do these things but how many times does the average person want to read about the same guy engaged in the same battle thinking the same things over and over again.

Characters over longer stories such as Of Human Bondage, Pride and Prejudice, and even West Wing show progression as individuals.

JOE--

[Drew Stevens]

A character that doesn't grow is static, by definition.

The question is, is character progression (changing what's on the sheet) the same thing as character growth?

If you want to tell stories about Beowulf fighting Grendal and grudge monsters and dragons, why not let people create characters capable of shaking heaven and earth power-wise, and create a seperate style of mechanic for modeling personality growth.

Unless the Entire Point of Dragongrace (I'll admit to vast ignorance- thread skimming and not following the link, damn being at work) is to model the classic Hero's Journey type story.  But don't think it's necessary or required- make a system that facilitates telling the type of stories you want to tell now, not the stories you want to tell some day.

As to Nobilis- here's the Basic Mechanic:

I have an Attribute.  It governs a certain range of abilities- at each level of the Attribute, a new broadening of that range opens up.  For example, Aspect governs anything that a human could do (although sometimes far, far better than a human can actually do).  Stuff like running, fighting, speaking and thinking.

I have some rank in that Attribute.  I can perform any action at that rank or lower for free, any time I want.  So, with Aspect 2, I can do anything that Aspect 0, 1 or 2 cover for free.

I also have a pool of temporary boosting points, which I can spend to increase my effective rank in the Attribute for a single action.  So, I spend five of these boosting points on Aspect and perform an Aspect 7 action- far above what I normally could, but also draining me of those five points.

That's the basic system.  MURPG (Marvel Universe RPG) (soon to be published) uses a variant where your rank defines your aboslute limit, and you spend your energy to activate some degree of that limit.  So, say I've got a Strength of 3- I can spend 1 point to perform a Strength 1 action, 2 for a Strength 2 or 3 for a Strength 3- but I can never spend more than three points on an act based purely off Strength.

Hope that helps  :)

[Mike Holmes]

Damn you're a quick study. Before I get started, the only link I found to the character generator was on the site map, and that didn't work (Yahoo returns 404). Same problem with the "Ideas on Combat". I really haven't been able to get how resolution works. Is it just a comparison of appropriate stats? Any metagame points or anything like that involved at all? Is there a link to resolution rules that I missed?

I like the existing system as it serves a purpose of limiting a character intentionally by forcing them through a gradual progression.  The progression is measured and tracked.  A GM can serve easily as a watchdog in a community of players in the existing system and other players can as well by quick character comparisons.

While Fang might be more against this than I am, I do have some concerns. The level style progression has advantages, certainly, but the biggest problem with it is that it tends to promote Gamism. Which would seem to be against what you're striving for. That is to say that the idea of such large leaps in power are very inviting. They really say to a player that this is the goal. The thing is that they often have little to do with most character stories. How does becoming more powerful relate to one character's quest to win the hand of the fair maiden? Power doesn't even have to be diametrically opposed to goals to become distracting. Haven't you encountered the phenomenon at all where lots of players decide that their characters' stories have to with accumulation of power? It's got to be tempting.

Now, you seem to have a really good fix for this if I read you correctly. If I understand your system, you only reward players for advancing their story. This is a very powerful way of promoting story. Reward systems are important and we talk about them a lot around here. One of the things that's been pointed out is that there are two parts to almost every reward system. There is the behavior that you decide to promote, and there is the reward given. What you're doing is to reward story creation. But you do it by giving character's power. This informs the players that - coincidental to whatever story they are pursuing - they are also after power. That, or it just happens accidentally that the character gets more powerful when the story advances.

And they do get more powerful, don't they. A starting character is nothing compared to even a moderate level character from what I can see. Again, this artifact of D&D just seems odd. I think that you've done a decent job of making it part of the world (the Advanced Beings notion and all). It's just not the sort of thing that you see in most stories. Further it means that starting characters just don't seem like protagonists much as the things they are rated in are not particularly good. Even the things that given their race/class you'd think would be good.

There is a disconnect here. Players expect that a reward for a character must come from some in-game source. So, how can I become a better fighter by pursuing my lady fair? No, the character should become a better lover, if anything. Or the character's attachment should be the reward. In Hero Wars, the character would get a relationship trait linking them to the NPC. Now that's powerful incentive to create story as it feeds back into itself. I love it when someone augments an attack in HW with a relationship stat because that person is in trouble or inspires them in some way.

See, the other problem with the D&D model is that it revolves around the character's combat effectiveness. You seem to have tacked on somewhat of a skill system, but even so, I'm guessing that the model is still combat heavy. Are the character's stories in your game supposed to be all about fighting? If so, fine. If not, particularly, then why the emphasis on combat? Even a little? You have six combat skills three of which can be specialized, and five non-combat skills that pretty much only relate to fighting (all the health stuff). And yet a single general skill to cover "Knowledges". How is Medicine not a "Knowledge"? By making these separate things, that tells the player that the game is about fighting, not knowing things, particularly.

However I am familiar with Amber.

I figured. But to what extent? Have you played? Are there things you like or dislike about it?

I have come across Sorcerer before visiting the forge in my searches for existing games.

Played or even read it?

I know the Window system.

Good? Bad? Do you employ something like their Scene Resolution, or do you do Task Resolution? I couldn't find any notes on that in the description.

(I like the concept behind Children of Fire as well).

The setting (angels and all that), or the mechanics or both? CoF is a good example of a system where the character enumeration system has really been tweaked to direct the appropriate sort of actions. I do think that their admonitions about when to roll are a bit weird. It seems to me that if you're playing correctly that you should never ever roll for anything. Which seems to be their goal; but they seem to think that abuse will occur, and hence they need the rules "just in case". How do you see the role of the rules?

The Pool seemed to be a stripped out portion of White Wolf Wraith. As if we just took the Passions and Fetters and played the character with only that knowledge.

Hmm. That's interesting. I see them as very different. Do you see stuff like Passions and Fetters to be the player's tools, or are they part of the character. In The Pool, the character has no stats. The Motifs are the player's tool to tell his character's story. That is, there is no association between motifs and in-game reality other than the player is obliged to make connections thematically. Thus a character with a Strong Motif can be narrated on a player success as failing to be able to lift something as that says something about strength. The Strong Motif does not make the character strong, neccessarily.

This is important. The distinction between simulating characters and telling stoies about them can be very important. Do you see the abilities in your game as being the character's or the players (I'm guessing the former)?

JAGS seems somehow limited but I only glanced at it briefly. It almost seems like another game I'm working on but in a more developed level.

That's a very interesting statement. I'm wondering if you didn't read enough of it; it is voluminous. OTOH, you tell me it's well developed. Hmmm. If you can tell me what's limiting about it, that would tell me a lot about your design goals. Limited, eh? Not a word I'd have chosen. Want to comment Marco?  ;-)

Hero Wars seems interesting but again I only glanced at it.

Glance closer. This one might be really important. Did you note how characters can have abilities that are relationships to other characters, or that represent the support of their communities. Even felt that your characters were islands too often? HW makes that silliness impossible. And does about a dozen things that I think could benefit the sort of game you're running. For example, how do you handle equipment?

Nobilis on the other hand appears to me like another game I can't quite put my finger on, maybe a stripped out version of Nephilim, but it has a concept that looks very attractive.

Well the overall premise is pretty different from what you're doing. But mechanically I think it has a lot to offer to designers in terms of it's resource management diceless system.

I hope it doesn't look this way, but I'm not new to the rpg world, I've scoured the interent looking at how people do things, experimented on my own and such.  I may not have 20+ years under my belt but over 15 ought to do me well.  I've seen some of what's out there.

You don't seem new, and you're obviously a sponge. But have you taken the time to understand what the strengths and weaknesses of all these systems really are? I get the feeling that you, like many people in this hobby, have a lot of experience in mostly one or four systems. Which isn't a bad thing. The problem when designing is that this causes players to see things always in terms of what they have played a lot. When, in fact that's a very small part of the full range of what RPGs can do for your. Hence the Heartbreaker phenomenon. D&D has been "fixed" a jillion times. To call that good design would be to say that designing a new car from the plans for the Ford Model T was the way to create a good car. Great Car for the time, and it'll get you around for sure, especially if you fix it up. But wouldn't you rather create a car starting with the plans for the Lamborghini Diablo? Or a Lexus?

Not that any of these systems will be a perfect fit for you. But I'd think that almost anything would make a better jumping off point than D&D.

Of course, that's just my opinion. This all said, I can understand how you might not want to disrupt a product in play with too many radical changes. But I could definitely see keeping the best elements that you currently have, dropping the ones that are contradictory to your goals, and adding a few new elements. I think there might be a good compromise to be had in there somewhere.

Willing to change the system...   My original intentions was to make the attributes more meaningful with the magic/psionic system and skills system as my first move.  Picking up on my mistakes as I went along and working through them.

That's not a terrible way to go. But I'd suggest that some changes up front might do a world of good.

Or perhaps I should ask >> It just so happens that I'm starting something not too dissmilar >> what ARE you working on?

Well, the project that I've started is a modification of the game Universalis (I contributed to the creation of the game with it's writer Ralph Mazza). You can find details about the particular game I'm working on at the Indie Netgaming yahoo group. Basically, Universalis is something slightly different than a RPG in that, more or less, all the players are GMs. There is no setting to start; this all gets created by the players in a shared manner using mechanics that meter out your ability to control things. There are no PCs, all players can control all the characters (though who has control at any given point is important). Essentially it's what we call a Consensual Storytelling Game.

Anyhow, I think it would probably be way too radical a departure for what you're doing, though there's every possibility that checking it out might give you some interesting ideas.

I was saying that I'm glad that you're here because I'm hoping that you might be able to point out where I'm going to fall into traps with the game being online. Are you familiar with Wiki?

Mike

[dragongrace]

To write the stories you want to write now...
It's easy enough in any system to tackle the big beasties but starting with large characters, Unless we have joe teenager who never knew he had superpowers wake up one day and save the world in an expert fashion (bourne identity?).

I'll admit my ignorance of nobilis, but can you increase your aspect or any other trait or are you stuck with them for life.  Dispite being able to pump bonus points into an attribute for skills, on paper they are static.  The dynamic hoped for in such a game comes from character growth through personality of the character and development of the character history through repeated stories.

Perhaps to look again at the GNS way of thinking I'm aiming for a mixture of N & S.  Simulation of the growth of a character in many aspects.  It's realistic to say that a man who works out everyday to better himself with the knowledge to do so will be probably be able to look back one day and say I only used to be able to lift a ten pound weight, now I can lift a 50 pound weight.  He does so on a regular basis, thus in nobilis terms, his aspect should have increased rather than pumping extra points into the attribute every time he lifts something over 10 pounds.

In Draogngrace it is a reward to be able to become a dryad, an elemental, or a dragon.  A long term goal.  There are those who want to make the journey and those who want to start out at the top with no where to go afterwards.

When I started thinking about growing the game into more than just a attempt to throw something down on paper, I wondered what I wanted to be able to do, what I would want to play, and how I would want to go about it.  I decided that I wanted to commit the time it took to have a long episodic journey that in the end I would have a character who had to work to get there, not necessarily an arch-mage to begin with and an arch-mage I'll always be.

[Mike Holmes]

Conan does not change. Not once. Sure, he becomes king. Only to abandon his throne an go off adventuring again. Because he doesn't like being king. He likes being Conan.

And nuthin's as cool as Conan.

There's something about the eternal hero that makes it so that you can write story after story about him and it never gets old.

That said, nothing wrong with allowing development. But Drew has a good point that development does not have to equal ability in all cases.

Have you considered rewarding the player directly instead of through the character? Or having it be an option? Sometimes it's cooler to give the player points he can spend to make the character look cooler than his stats would indicate. So Sam can kill Shelob.

Perhaps to look again at the GNS way of thinking I'm aiming for a mixture of N & S.

Thought so. Lot's of issues there. But I understand and support the goal to the extent that it's possible.

Mike

[dragongrace]

http://www.geocities.com/dragongrace2003/rcgFrames.html

This page only returns stats as I am only a mediocre programmer.

>>Haven't you encountered the phenomenon at all where lots of players decide that their characters' stories have to with accumulation of power?>>

It's a sad phenomenon, but yes.  Gamism however seems to come as a result of having the capability to take advantage of the system or use it to become the biggest baddest character to walk the world.  I can perceive that practically any game with measurable statistics would have this problem.  There's always going to be the guy who says I've got one more point than you.  Quashing munchkins is much easier to do with the delete account button.

>>And they do get more powerful, don't they. A starting character is nothing compared to even a moderate level character from what I can see>>

Character will gain power under the current system.  However a moderate character under this system will be one who has attained a level greater than 6 in my opinion.  But given their starting condition, potentially a 1st level character can come in and wipe the floor with them if we go by just statistics.  I would like to think in an actual story event however that any conflict whether physical or intellectual will not be resolved by, "gimme your stat and we'll compare".  I know I was toying roughly with the idea in my "ideas on combat" "ideas on magic..." links, but I put them up there as notes for myself.  I debated on whether or not to put them up there, but I decided to as I see the system as a fledgling anyway.  Those ideas were to either modify or scrap.  I haven't actually used those ideas in any of the stories.

Lady fair...  by pursuing lady fair I left that attachment up to the character to foster and work upon.  Being a fighter in the system will gain them physical power however they decide their stories should grow (with or without fighting), but they do get bonus points to distribute as they deem necessary, or rather appropriate.  There is not love attribute, or relationship attribute obviously as I did not put them in there.  In fact I didn't even think about them.  I took the point of relationships of any and all kinds to be a part of character history and the responsibility of the player.  

What focus I have placed on combat came as a result of thinking about how players interact in that sense.  In my daily job I don't often leap over the cube wall and bring my keyboard down upon my co-workers computer mesmerized head.  I, along with many others, have little experience with handling combat.  So thus when it does come up in a story line, I tried to give some kind of inspiration for handling the event in various ways other than I hit them and they fall down, I hit them repeatedly and they die.  Describing it using terms found through skills they can create their Monologue of Victory (to pull from another source), and thus score bonus experience from impressing co-writers and the GM.  Other skills like Social Interaction I left out because that's what many of us do everyday.  I don't need an idea from the game to tell me to work it out or get fired.  (Medicine probably would be a knowledge, but I was scrambling, I'm so ashamed. Actually for most of my skills I was scrambling, trying to think of ideas to help players form their characters.)

Amber: played it, loved, kept a diary for a insane amberite who only wanted to work in a clothing store in a reality that every single person had one blue eye and one green and only drank pepsi as their beverage of choice.  Much to the chagrine of my other power hungry compatriots.

Sorcerer: skimmed it, but it was probably about a year back, I only remember coming across it before.

Window: Good in my opinion, while only thinking about it.  No actual game play, however.  I'd have to refresh my memory.  Children of fire - the setting appealed to me as well as the idea behind the characters goals.  I would have liked to have played a game.  The role of the rules is for abusers of the system.  This kind of idea crossed my mind frequently when thinking about system.

Passions and Fetters: to me I would have to think about them as part of the character.  However a player might want to supercede a GM's gameplan and seek to fulfill passions and resolve fetters for the character's resolutions of death.  Abilities in dragongrace i would say are the characters.

JAGS I will take a much closer look at, as I didn't dig very deep, no offense intended to the game's creator, but no single game will cover everything to be fair.  Hero Wars also I will look closer at.  And you have obviousy noted that I have not included equipment or even economy in dragongrace.  In racial descriptions I've placed ideas on how raced trade amonst themselves and others but left out money in character creation.

Equipment and treasure are ambiguous for two reasons.  One is that I would like the creation of magical items to be a special thing that a character could work for or find, in either case discussing the purpose and ramifications with the GM is a necessary task for an OK.  Two: without ratings and listings of such things, I was interested in seeing what people would bring to the table.  If they think some sword is the most powerful weapon in another game they have no way of comparing in this one and thus hopefully (and I'm just spitting in the wind) they will chose items and wealth that make for a more interesting story for themselves.

I have good experience in about 6 or 7 systems.  Passing experience in maybe 3 more.  An active interest in game design that extends beyond RPGs into computer, dice, card, word, board, etc.

[Mike Holmes]

http://www.geocities.com/dragongrace2003/rcgFrames.html

This page only returns stats as I am only a mediocre programmer.

Neat. My Saurian Paladin looks to be a pretty tough cookie.

It's a sad phenomenon, but yes.  Gamism however seems to come as a result of having the capability to take advantage of the system or use it to become the biggest baddest character to walk the world.  I can perceive that practically any game with measurable statistics would have this problem.  There's always going to be the guy who says I've got one more point than you.  Quashing munchkins is much easier to do with the delete account button.

Why quash when you can convert? Yes there are abusive players out there who will abuse no matter what. But what System Matters is saying is that, in part, it's the system that's causing the players to behave this way. D&D begs for powergaming, for example. By altering your system you can promote a style of play that you prefer. The system becomes your ally, as opposed to hindering you.

That said, GM matters, too. If you are a good GM you can overcome the system (using the delete button when neccessary). The question is why swim upstream when you don't have to?

Character will gain power under the current system.  However a moderate character under this system will be one who has attained a level greater than 6 in my opinion.  But given their starting condition, potentially a 1st level character can come in and wipe the floor with them if we go by just statistics.  I would like to think in an actual story event however that any conflict whether physical or intellectual will not be resolved by, "gimme your stat and we'll compare".  I know I was toying roughly with the idea in my "ideas on combat" "ideas on magic..." links, but I put them up there as notes for myself.  I debated on whether or not to put them up there, but I decided to as I see the system as a fledgling anyway.  Those ideas were to either modify or scrap.  I haven't actually used those ideas in any of the stories.

Well, how does resolution work?

I took the point of relationships of any and all kinds to be a part of character history and the responsibility of the player.

Right. So your system does not promote this at all. It could, however. Just because you make something part of the system does not mean that it eliminates the role-playing or storytelling, does it? Because if it did then you'd be better off with no rules, woudn't you? So, if mechanics can handle fights well, they can handle other things in just as proper a fashion. HW does.

What focus I have placed on combat came as a result of thinking about how players interact in that sense.  In my daily job I don't often leap over the cube wall and bring my keyboard down upon my co-workers computer mesmerized head.  I, along with many others, have little experience with handling combat.  So thus when it does come up in a story line, I tried to give some kind of inspiration for handling the event in various ways other than I hit them and they fall down, I hit them repeatedly and they die.  Describing it using terms found through skills they can create their Monologue of Victory (to pull from another source), and thus score bonus experience from impressing co-writers and the GM.  Other skills like Social Interaction I left out because that's what many of us do everyday.  I don't need an idea from the game to tell me to work it out or get fired.

You've seen action movies. You don't need a system to tell you how to describe a fight. You use it because it adds interest to that portion of things. The idea of relationship mechanics is not to tell you how to do these things. It's to give you that exact same inspiration that the combat system mechanics do.

You get Mikes Standard Rant #3.

(Medicine probably would be a knowledge, but I was scrambling, I'm so ashamed. Actually for most of my skills I was scrambling, trying to think of ideas to help players form their characters.)

It's not a big deal. The point is not that this shouldn't be a separate skill. But to say that you are subtly telling players that the game is all about figthing. They look and see, ah, Someone better have Medicine and Lend Health, because they're separated out along with all the other combat skills meaning we're going to be getting into some fights.

It's traditional. But it's not neccessary.

Amber: played it, loved, kept a diary for a insane amberite who only wanted to work in a clothing store in a reality that every single person had one blue eye and one green and only drank pepsi as their beverage of choice.  Much to the chagrine of my other power hungry compatriots.

Cool. What about the system did you like or dislike? Did the powerhungry compatriots bug you? Or were you OK with just doing your own thing?

Sorcerer: skimmed it, but it was probably about a year back, I only remember coming across it before.

Hmm. Did you note that it has no advancement system? Characters change dramatically. In fact when you complete a story cycle, you are free to change your stats all you like. As long as they still add to the same total. And you can always summon more demons. So you can become as powerful as you want whenever you want. The game is not about getting more power, however. It's about the consequences of getting what you want. So summon away; all the more rope to hang your character with.

Power balance is only one way to balance a character in terms of protagonism.

Window: Good in my opinion, while only thinking about it.  No actual game play, however.  I'd have to refresh my memory.

What's interesting about The Window, is that it has all these "rules" in the text for how to make a good story. But then absolutely no mechanics to back that up. Many here agree that text without mechanical support is only so effective in play. People tend to forget such "suggestions" and focus on whatever the mechanics provide. The GM can remind them, but again, why not have the system automatically remind them?

Children of fire - the setting appealed to me as well as the idea behind the characters goals.  I would have liked to have played a game.  The role of the rules is for abusers of the system.  This kind of idea crossed my mind frequently when thinking about system.

And you'd not be different from many, many designers in those thoughts. The thing is, as you point out above, abuse is best handled with the delete button. System should not be designed to prevent players from abusing a system, but to give incentive to play in a manner conducive to the game. Reward, don't punish.

You're reward system rewards Narrativist play. Why not also hav it give out Narrativist rewards to remind them of what they should be doing?

Passions and Fetters: to me I would have to think about them as part of the character.  However a player might want to supercede a GM's gameplan and seek to fulfill passions and resolve fetters for the character's resolutions of death.  Abilities in dragongrace i would say are the characters.

And this is what makes The Pool unique from say WOD stuff. The Motifs are the player's tool, not the character's stats. This makes a huge difference. I'm not suggesting that you'd want to do this in your system. But there are other ways to reach the player than through their character.

JAGS I will take a much closer look at, as I didn't dig very deep, no offense intended to the game's creator, but no single game will cover everything to be fair.

True enough. I'm just wondering what you feel is the limited part? Because that says a lot about what you think is important in the game. Marco is well aware that his game isn't for absolutely everyone. He's made a system that does some very specific things very well. They may just not be your things. Knowing what you don't like in games is as important as knowing what you do like when designing.

OTOH, maybe JAGS will surprise you. Have you messed around with GURPS at all? How about FUDGE?

Hero Wars also I will look closer at.  And you have obviousy noted that I have not included equipment or even economy in dragongrace.  In racial descriptions I've placed ideas on how raced trade amonst themselves and others but left out money in character creation.

Hero Wars allows stuff like money and equipment to be included in a way that's conducive to creating stories around them only. They don't allow for players to noodle over managing resources, but only to consider how their use impacts the current conflicts. It's a bit counterintuitive for some at first, but in play it's very cool.

Equipment and treasure are ambiguous for two reasons.  One is that I would like the creation of magical items to be a special thing that a character could work for or find, in either case discussing the purpose and ramifications with the GM is a necessary task for an OK.  Two: without ratings and listings of such things, I was interested in seeing what people would bring to the table.  If they think some sword is the most powerful weapon in another game they have no way of comparing in this one and thus hopefully (and I'm just spitting in the wind) they will chose items and wealth that make for a more interesting story for themselves.

That's HW all over. To get equipment you have to spend points. Then the equipment is rated much like any other ability (actually there are exceptions to this, but..). The point is that you never have to "rate" anything in game terms, other than how important the thing is to the character. And that can be the same for a magic sword, or a non-magic pendant that the character's mother game him at birth (or your girlfriend, or anything). So players only rate things that are important to the character.

What having mechanics for this does do, however, is to remind the player why the item is so important to the character every time he uses it to do something better than he would have otherwise. For example, to use the pendant in the previous example to help him -oh, say - bargain on buying a horse, the player would have to tell the GM, "As the merchant tries to browbeat Bob into paying too much for the horse, I grab my pendant and remember what my motehr told me about standing up for myself." Then you roll, and see how much it helps. But the result isn't all that important. The fact is that you've just created interesting story by invoking the pendant to aid in your attempt.

You have to see it in play to really get how cool it is.

I really think you could, if nothing else, add something like this to your game. Just rate stuff as if it were a stat. Then if the player activates it by doing a proper story bit like I did above, that stat adds to the Bargaining skill. Or something appropriate to how your resolution system works.

Do you see where I'm going with any of this? Rules do not have to get in the way, they can be designed to produce the sort of play that you desire.

I have good experience in about 6 or 7 systems.  Passing experience in maybe 3 more.  An active interest in game design that extends beyond RPGs into computer, dice, card, word, board, etc.

What other RPG systems? What's your favorite? What was the worst? What was the "weirdest"?

Mike