DragonGrace: Announcement

[dragongrace]

Mike's rant #3. hmmm... i see your point.  At least for a narrativist game.  Resolution as a general term being applied across a wide field of activities and possibilities.  That if the inclusion of combat related skill sets/attributes/etc is felt to be necessary then a wider variety of other possibilites needs to be present, say with relationships or politics for example, which lends itself to a different style of game anyway, quite possibly.

amber: I liked the alternative rewards oddly enough, that I would get rewarded for keeping a diary outside of the game seemed odd at first mention but I took it readily.  What annoyed me mot about my compatriots was that they were not happy that I was able to do something else other than persue power and fight.  

>>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?
>>

I'll keep this in mind as I sit and stew over it.

I have for some reason avoided GURPS like the plague.  I think from what I'm skimmed and heard form other that it is very far away from my style of play (which equals little enjoyment for me).  FUDGE is a system I would very much like to try.  I've read the documents on it but that's about it.

>>Do you see where I'm going with any of this?>>  I do.  And it gives me ideas of a direction that would more satisfy a narrative style game.

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

AD&D(ed1, ed2), WhiteWolf, RIFTs, Amber, Star Wars, Marvel, NERO(WAR), ShadowRun, GammaWorld(ed1, ed2), there's probably a couple I'm forgetting.  The worst for me comes down to a tie between GammaWorld(1ed) and Shadowrun, but I think the feeling was due to poor GMing, Favorite is a tie between RIFTs and StarWars due to good GMing/Players.  No system ever really stood out much to me, probably due to some similarities.  Weirdest goes to Amber and NERO(WAR) due to the way that I chose to play my characters.

[Mike Holmes]

Mike's rant #3. hmmm... i see your point.  At least for a narrativist game.  Resolution as a general term being applied across a wide field of activities and possibilities.  That if the inclusion of combat related skill sets/attributes/etc is felt to be necessary then a wider variety of other possibilites needs to be present, say with relationships or politics for example, which lends itself to a different style of game anyway, quite possibly.

True independent of GNS mode. If I have a Gamist RPG that's all about who can make the most money climbing the corporate ladder, then it makes no sense to include a specialized combat system (unless the corporation is SLA Industries, which actually sorta proves my point). In a sim game about politics a specialized combat system would also be inappropriate.

amber: I liked the alternative rewards oddly enough, that I would get rewarded for keeping a diary outside of the game seemed odd at first mention but I took it readily.  What annoyed me mot about my compatriots was that they were not happy that I was able to do something else other than persue power and fight.  

Heh. But see, ironically, Amber doesn't tend to produce the sort of Sim/Narrativist play that you were after as often as the text would indicate it should. The powergaming comes not only from the fact that Amber is all about power, but also from the fact that the system is all about PC to PC comparison. Ah, you have a higher strenght and warcraft? Well, that's only because I have more Psyche than you! So, I'll use that to thwart you.

What else do the rules suggest to the player? You are the oddity in this case. Sure there are whole bunches of sites that do very Narrativist Amber. But they're swimming upstream again. Less so than if they were playing D&D, but upstream nonetheless.

I have for some reason avoided GURPS like the plague.  I think from what I'm skimmed and heard form other that it is very far away from my style of play (which equals little enjoyment for me).

Well, JAGS and GURPS have very similar goals, FWIW. Realism and general use across settings.

FUDGE is a system I would very much like to try.  I've read the documents on it but that's about it.

If it ends up that you like FUDGE, but hate GURPS, then that says a lot about what sort of level of detail interests you. They have the same goals of general play. But they do it in nearly opposed ways in terms of detail.

I do.  And it gives me ideas of a direction that would more satisfy a narrative style game.

Cool. Where do you want to go from here? Want to hack it out yourself, or work with it here? What more info do you think you need, if any?

AD&D(ed1, ed2), WhiteWolf, RIFTs, Amber, Star Wars, Marvel, NERO(WAR), ShadowRun, GammaWorld(ed1, ed2), there's probably a couple I'm forgetting.  The worst for me comes down to a tie between GammaWorld(1ed) and Shadowrun, but I think the feeling was due to poor GMing, Favorite is a tie between RIFTs and StarWars due to good GMing/Players.  No system ever really stood out much to me, probably due to some similarities.  Weirdest goes to Amber and NERO(WAR) due to the way that I chose to play my characters.

Yep. Hmmm. Did you like the mechanics for The Force in Star Wars (did you play a Jedi)? If so, why, if not, why?

Have you heard of De Profundis? If so, I'm interested in your thoughts on it, as a more freeform game.

Mike

[dragongrace]

>>Yep. Hmmm. Did you like the mechanics for The Force in Star Wars (did you play a Jedi)? If so, why, if not, why? >>

Actually played an alien race that shunned the force but viewed life in terms of traditional samurai.  Helped that I was a 7+ ft tall lizard.  After lengthy play and avoiding the force I had to go Ronin and began to learn force powers as a means to an end.  Favorite pastime however was working on a cultral art using colored stones in a small wooden box.  Amusing.  This has been about 5 yrs ago so I don't remember the force mechanics all that much, and the old rules are being replaced by the d20 phenomenon.

>>Have you heard of De Profundis? If so, I'm interested in your thoughts on it, as a more freeform game. >>  

Hadn't heard about it, Went to the link, read the review, sounds interesting.

>>Cool. Where do you want to go from here? Want to hack it out yourself, or work with it here? What more info do you think you need, if any? >>

I'll hash something together in a few days as a prospectus, I need to do some online research for some of it, however, your brain seems to be a ready search engine for games, so perhaps you could tell me what games are pure Narrtive style that promotes/rewards story development through the use of literary devices.

(don't normally get online on weekends & evenings, so I'm slow to respond.  )

JOE--

[Mike Holmes]

I'll hash something together in a few days as a prospectus, I need to do some online research for some of it, however, your brain seems to be a ready search engine for games, so perhaps you could tell me what games are pure Narrtive style that promotes/rewards story development through the use of literary devices.

Sounds cool Joe.

Games that are really very Narrativist are quite rare. Other than the aformentioned Hero Wars, you probably want to look at the Riddle of Steel (see the forum on the Independents page), Prince Valiant, perhaps, Maybe a closer look at Sorcerer, and Trollbabe (also from Adept Press). Everway, Over the Edge, Unknown Armies, are all sorta "nearly" Narrativist, and are worth a look as well.

Help me out people. What else could Joe be looking at?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mike,

Orkworld, InSpectres, Legends of Alyria, Dust Devils, The Dying Earth, The Questing Beast, The Whispering Vault.

Best,
Ron

[Grex]

Joe,

if you like FUDGE, you should also check out this FUDGE-offshoot called FATE: http://www.evilhat.com/projects/fudge/fate/

There is also an interesting thread about FATE and narrativism right here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4944&highlight=rpg+fate

Best regards,
Grex a.k.a. Chris

[dragongrace]

Well I've been reading, reading, and reading some more.  Hashed once in my head to come down to creating Universalis's degenerate twin sister 'Whatthehellisthis'.  Hashed a second time through different ideas and found the lost red headed step-child of Window, FUDGE, and Pool called 'the TAFFY'.  

Still however was missing something but riding down the merry road of Narrative driven game creation, I keep coming back to elements covered in several different games already.  Finally this afternoon I came up with a single short page of notes that I will happily share. :)

DragonGrace as a game is directed more towards a 1 to 1 and a 1 to more, player:character relationship.  That is One player for One character or One player to Many Characters.  However to avoid Gamism and Simulationism to some degree I am borrowing (promise to give them back) ideas from these systems(games).  

Pool, Window, FUDGE, Universalis, Exquisite Corpse, and Infinity (my own shaky attempt).  From each:

Infinity -> Setting, Psionics/Magics ideas, limitless growth
Pool -> MOV, dice pools, Character Description initialization (ties directly into infinity character generation and output)
Window -> Skills Definitions and cascading aptitude, {x is...}
FUDGE -> bleeding/nonconventional/mixed attributes
Universalis -> Group Effort Game Building using...
...Exquisite Corpse -> as the driving engine of that building process.

To either borrow or think of someqhat unique concepts for earning 'assignments' (does not equate quests per se) and giving 'assignments via an exquisite corpse model.

Points earned based off of successful Storytelling techniques that move in either a character or a worldly direction.  Character directed points improve and or change a character for a player.  World directed points change the world surrounding one's own character or another's.  This can go towards (loosely) environment/setting/scene.  (a form of plot control).

The function of a GM in the above case seems to run the equivilent of a mediator.  Or perhaps follow Universalis model of shared mediation.

I hope I haven't reinvented someone else's wheel in this case.  

JOE--

[Mike Holmes]

I hope I haven't reinvented someone else's wheel in this case.

Holy cow, no.

That's really ambitious, and with all that mixing and matching added to the online element will only produce something completely original. Can anyone else think of a cognate? There's Aria, where you alternate between moving the world forward, and inserting character stories, but that doesn't sound quite like what your doing. Rob's COTEC: Million Worlds project has some similarities, and some distnct differences. That and Storypunk are two games being developed partially here in this forum that you might want to look at for inspiration. But overall, you've definitely got your own direction cut out for you, I think.

Assuming you can get it all to hang together well, it sounds like something I'd be really interested. I see how you're allowing players to drive on two axes, one for world development, and another for character development. That's very cool, and ought to satisfy lots of players, I'd think.

Questions. Does "That is One player for One character or One player to Many Characters." mean that players at the start have to choose one of these options? Or that they can change at will? That's a bit confusing.

As far as "FUDGE -> bleeding/nonconventional/mixed attributes " does that mean that you're going to come up with a slick new set of abilities yourself, or that you're going to allow some sort of customization on the player level ala Story Engine or Hero Wars.

Your reference to Exquisite Corpse...is there a set of rules that I'm missing? Because the traditional rules are the classic "pass the page to a friend with only the last paragraph available to see, and then he writes the next." Has sombody done something more with this idea? I'll probably be embarrassed to find that it's something here on The Forge. I think you've stumped me, because the thing that has me really intrigued is the "assignment" thing. And I don' see how that relates to classic Exquisite Corpse. Can you describe what you mean here?

I'm looking forward to seeing this develop. I'd really thought that you might only make some small adjustments. But you've really gone whole hog into redesign. I hope that the results are satisfying. :-)

Mike

[dragongrace]

>>Questions. Does "That is One player for One character or One player to Many Characters." mean that players at the start have to choose one of these options? Or that they can change at will? That's a bit confusing. >>

In my mind it means that players start out with one character to interact within the world.  As the stories develop and other players stories develop, they add characters to their stash.  I think DarkSun of all settings had something along these lines in which you made several characters and adventured them separately.  Kind of a tree progression in that case.

>>As far as "FUDGE -> bleeding/nonconventional/mixed attributes " does that mean that you're going to come up with a slick new set of abilities yourself, or that you're going to allow some sort of customization on the player level ala Story Engine or Hero Wars. >>

Player Level customization is what I was thinking.  While slicing through pages of text and so many different ways to get attribtues across, I began to wonder exactly why I had each element in place and the purpose it served.  Most likely my excuse was systematic comparison, but in a sotrytelling sense I began to wonder truly what purpose there was to having a combat attribute and not having it.  The player who obviously enjoys that sort of thing will ultimately place a great deal of points in that attribute and the other player who doesn't will not.  In a field of combat the one character will almost always win given straight comparison.

That being said, if the second player continues to outsmart his opponent who is all "Grok charge!  Grok pummel!" then there's no need to compare combat stats and the second places combat stat is irrelevent as it will not likely be used.  So I suppose like Hero Wars, (which I still have to get around to looking more in depth at), or storypunk.  Somewhat like any system that uses aspects, or traits, defined at creation about a particular character.

>>Your reference to Exquisite Corpse...is there a set of rules that I'm missing? Because the traditional rules are the classic "pass the page to a friend with only the last paragraph available to see, and then he writes the next." >>Can you describe what you mean here? >>

When reading one background page for the EC, it referred to frenchmen assigning phrases to one another in small poetic blurb, ex. The Flaming Elephant bit down on the succulent pygmy grinning happily.  At any rate this reminded me another another exercise I did with a college English professor called Broken Pits.  In which you pull a Adjective and a Noun out of a pair of hats and put them together then write a story.  

In my case.  I would like a simple mechanic in which a player foils another by 'assigning' them a Broken Pit (or Exquisite Corpse, which seems to be the predecessor) to work into their character's story.  The EC however need not be pivital.  Flaming Elephant (one of my favorite examples) might simply be the name of an exotic NPC, a small wooden statue caught aflame in a bizaar, or a huge actual flaming elephant.  Other examples can be inserted here.  Regardless it is a challenge that can then be awarded with some points.  And its fun storytelling, Pickled Eyeball, Ficitious Grape, Young Terror, etc.

It seems as though it could be a fun Universalis Add-on, but I'm speculating.

JOE--

[Mike Holmes]

In my mind it means that players start out with one character to interact within the world.  As the stories develop and other players stories develop, they add characters to their stash.  I think DarkSun of all settings had something along these lines in which you made several characters and adventured them separately.  Kind of a tree progression in that case.

Ah, very cool. Are extra characters a "reward", then? What prevents me from registering for your game twice with different names and getting more characters that way? Would that be a bad thing? My answer would be to empower each *player* sparately such that being two players with two characters is less effective than being one player with two characters. I can think of a couple of ways to do this.

Player Level customization is what I was thinking.  While slicing through pages of text and so many different ways to get attribtues across, I began to wonder exactly why I had each element in place and the purpose it served.  Most likely my excuse was systematic comparison, but in a sotrytelling sense I began to wonder truly what purpose there was to having a combat attribute and not having it.  The player who obviously enjoys that sort of thing will ultimately place a great deal of points in that attribute and the other player who doesn't will not.  In a field of combat the one character will almost always win given straight comparison.

That being said, if the second player continues to outsmart his opponent who is all "Grok charge!  Grok pummel!" then there's no need to compare combat stats and the second places combat stat is irrelevent as it will not likely be used.  So I suppose like Hero Wars, (which I still have to get around to looking more in depth at), or storypunk.  Somewhat like any system that uses aspects, or traits, defined at creation about a particular character.

Interesting insight. I'd agree that, yes, if your game is not specifically designed to be about certain sorts of action or issues that freeform traits are best. But assuming you do want to drive certain issues, then I think that stats to enable adressing those issues are definitely a good thing. Thus, in Sorcerer a character gets a Lore stat. This is key to making the mechanics adress the central concept of play, sorcery.

So, if you want to look at psionics closely, or if you want to consider ascension to a higher level of being (like your current game has), then I think you may want to keep some stats about stuff like that.

Or consider boxes. That is, allow freedom within structured areas. For example, in Hero Wars, the player has lattitude, but only in certain directions. For example, he has to choose a culture Ability. His choice how to name it, and what level it represents. But he has to have one, as it's central to the conflicts present in the setting (everyone is fighting for religio/cultural ascendancy). They also must take an occupation which must entail so many mental and physical Traits associated with it. All defined by the player, but all in those boxes.

Boxes are a great compromise between complete freedom, and the sort of structure that makes creatinga character easier, and more effective.

When reading one background page for the EC, it referred to frenchmen assigning phrases to one another in small poetic blurb, ex. The Flaming Elephant bit down on the succulent pygmy grinning happily.  At any rate this reminded me another another exercise I did with a college English professor called Broken Pits.  In which you pull a Adjective and a Noun out of a pair of hats and put them together then write a story.  

In my case.  I would like a simple mechanic in which a player foils another by 'assigning' them a Broken Pit (or Exquisite Corpse, which seems to be the predecessor) to work into their character's story.

Huh, that does sound interesting. Inspirational bits provided as challenges by other players. What stops the players from getting really silly with these, however? Or would that be OK for the tone of the game you want?

Sounds a bit like the "Cut-Ups" technique that can be found in the RPG Over the Edge.

It seems as though it could be a fun Universalis Add-on, but I'm speculating.

Could be indeed. Somebody already posted the idea of the random from the hat elements. But it would be cool to be able to pay to have someone forced to use some idea of yours. Hmm.

Cool stuff.

Mike

[Marco]

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.

Great thread--I'm always happy to see JAGS come up :) It's no surprise to me that it's not everyone's cup of tea (I'm very interested in talking to people who love GURPS and don't like JAGS though--that's a dichotomy that I'd be interested in exploring).

As far as being limited? Well sure, it's not transitional or hybrid so certain modes get left out. It isn't *especially* good at cosmic-power-scale (although the nacent JAGS Kiaju should allow nuclear-blast eating monsters ... as PC's, possibly if we can work out a role for them). In JAGS Have-Not (a post-apocalyptic game we're working on) it's possible to play an intelligent mouse (but PC's will likely be more like mutant telepatic mice with tiny, beady death-ray eyes ...) I'd be interested to know what, within the limits of Sim-gaming was found to be really limiting ... and we'll fix it :)

-Marco

[dragongrace]

At the risk of going off thread.

>>As far as being limited? >>
 a hasty generalizatino on my part.  Which you already realize the possible limitations on the upper end of the scale.  The power cap doesn't seem to allow for overloading, but I could have missed that.

>>it's possible to play an intelligent mouse >>
 very fun stuff.  A party of mice with psionic powers overthrowing criminal organizations.  I truly digress.

>>I'd be interested to know what, within the limits of Sim-gaming was found to be really limiting ... and we'll fix it :) >>
There is a great deal of ground covered through all the supplements and it would probably take a good decade to get everything down, but there are a couple of things that are missing, and since so much is included I don't think it is intentional to leave something out, but rather that someone hasn't yet brought it up.  Under Psionics however, one of my favorite disciplines is biomanipulation.  Even in a real world context this is a very real mental ability that is often writetn off as a super power of the mind.  However I remember seeing one case on TV in which someone had lost the ability to move their limbs but through biofeedback of electrodes attached to their head, they were able to move a mouse on a screen.  Also bodily biofeedback in which one thinks they are on fire and consequently develop welts and so forth.  That might make an good addition to the Psionics section.

Also, under what classification of rules might you reproduce Akira?  There is some psionics of immense levels there, as well as Akira itself.  I'll admit I haven't read a whole lot of the docu available.  Mike is right however, Limited is not a word I would use, but missing a few things that will more than likely be filled in over time is a more apt description from me.

Keeping in thread however, as a modest update, I'll be working on writing down some notes this weekend concerning dragongrace.  Things I plan on keeping in mind are the idea of Currency as it pertains to point spending and the value of a point in [meta]game.  Character creation along side world affecting player mods.

JOE--