I created The World, the Flesh, and the Devil...

[Paul Czege]

...from a profane interbreeding of The Pool, Sigil, Sorcerer, Everway, Story Engine, and illuminated manuscripts.

It features Fortune-based conflict resolution, player narration of successes and failures, and dice fabrication as part of character creation.

http://www.123.net/~czege/WFD.html">The World, the Flesh, and the Devil

Please let me know what you think.

Paul

[GB Steve]

It was a little unclear at the start but I'm assuming that the GM writes the Trial.

Otherwise, that's a pretty interesting mechanic. It has the advantages of brevity and narration which are both big plus points in my book. It is also clear to all concerned what the chances of success for each action are.

On the minus side, it is never made explicit what a character's actual skill is, unless the GM uses some interpretation of the Annotation. Interpretation by the GM of a PC's level of ability is something that can quite often be fraught with difficulties.

It is also not very clear what to do in the case of contests between PCs. If some measure of ability were assigned then PCs could even do contests between themselves without GM intervention, much in the way of Dying Earth.

That said, assigning levels, or whatever, would go against the narrative purity.

Steve


[ This Message was edited by: GB Steve on 2001-09-04 08:27 ]

[Paul Czege]

Hey Steve,

It was a little unclear at the start but I'm assuming that the GM writes the Trial.

In the game I'm currently running, I combined Sorcerer-style Kickers with the mechanics of The Pool. And it's turned out to be totally an awesome combination. So with the Trial and Annotations in The World, the Flesh, and the Devil, I was trying to create an integration of a Pool/Sigil style character description and Sorcerer-style Kicker. And I intended for the player to write both the Trial and the Annotations. I envision a group character creation session where the players talk with the GM about the setting and the situation, and negotiate what they want to write for their Trials. I might need to change the Nottingham example in the rules. In retrospect, it makes it seem like the Trial is a universal situation, and every player would be working with that exact same text. That's not what I intended. Just like with Kickers, each player should have a different Trial.

I also kind of like the way the Trial and Annotations are a reversal of character creation and Kicker in Sorcerer. In Sorcerer, you create an interesting character and then write a Kicker that gives him very personal problems. In W/F/D, you create an interesting problem, and then write a character who's very personally hooked to it. I know how well the Sorcerer method works. I'm excited about seeing how well the reversal works.  

Otherwise, that's a pretty interesting mechanic.

Thank you.

...it is never made explicit what a character's actual skill is, unless the GM uses some interpretation of the Annotation. Interpretation by the GM of a PC's level of ability is something that can quite often be fraught with difficulties.

Once I have a chance to playtest the game, I'm intending on providing guidance in the rules about which of the five plus/minus dice represents a "normal" level of difficulty. It's almost certain to to be either the 3+/3- die or the 4+/2- die. I'm leaning toward the 3+/3- die, which gives a 50% chance of success on the first roll, and an overall 75% chance of success when you factor in the player's possible re-roll. What do you think?

I do think that because it's the player who determines the details of character success, and the consequences of failure, and because if you've ever seen a Rocky movie you know how protagonizing failure can be, that the margin for perceived error by the GM in assigning plus/minus dice to conflict resolution is fairly well compensated for.

It is also not very clear what to do in the case of contests between PCs.

This is an interesting issue that Lon just raised in relation to The Pool in another thread. And I've been meaning to write a post to that discussion, weighing in on the side of not adding opposed rolls. I think the cardinal rule of the MoV, and of Directorial power in general, is that a player is absolutely prohibited from de-protagonizing another player character. That means a player can't use his power to kill another player's Foils, or to kill or shaft the other player's character. And when you think about it, once you rule the dramatic de-protagonizing stuff out, it makes other potential circumstances for opposed rolls seem awfully insignificant. You just don't need opposed rolls to manage what's left. Little kids are capable of negotiating who dies in a game of cops and robbers. Sometimes you have to play dead. Next time someone else plays dead. If the situation isn't de-protagonizing, the players negotiatate the outcome.

Remember Ron's band metaphor? The band members aren't in competition. They elaborate and riff on what each other is doing. Narrativist players negotiate how they elaborate and contribute to each other's narratives. I've never understood the fascination players have with putting the shaft to each other, with killing each other. In my mind, that stuff only comes up when a character's protagonism isn't presumed, or when it's pre-scripted and the players are bored with that, and neither of those things are Narrativism.

Thanks very much for your comments Steve.

Paul

[ This Message was edited by: Paul Czege on 2001-09-04 11:01 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Paul,

I may be a little too hyped on Premise arising from something, but with all the creativity going on in the prep for your game, I think I need something a little more solid in the setting.

(Any number of Forge denizens cough and spew soda upon reading this. Come on guys, you know I'm just as happy with Premise rooted in setting as with Premise rooted in character.)

No, really. TWTFATD ... - fuck THAT, no initials for this game, I'm calling it "World" for short - The World needs a prompt of some kind to get those Trials rolling.

Any thoughts on what might work?

Best,
Ron

[Paul Czege]

Hey Ron,

For the scenario that got me thinking about ways of integrating Sorcerer-style Kickers with Pool-style character Descriptions and Traits, I'm using the dark fantasy setting from the Sun & Storm game. The Pool is a system without a setting, so I added one from another game. I was thinking I'd do the same thing for my playtest of The World, the Flesh, and the Devil. The current frontrunners are Birthright, Mage: The Sorcerer's Crusade, and Fading Suns. Wouldn't other people do the same thing?

I do think I see where you're coming from though. The Window is fairly boring in the absence of both setting and Premise-based mechanics. It's just a light system, really, with no other selling features. So I'm not particularly compelled to use it, even though I could have done my Sun & Storm scenario with it instead of The Pool. I guess the question is whether The World, the Flesh, and the Devil falls into that same category. And without having playtested it yet, I don't actually know.

But in general, I'm kind of setting averse. I like how Sorcerer provides guidelines to the GM on how to customize Humanity and the nature of sorcery. There's no setting. The game gives you the tools to make your own sorcerous flavor. When I look at Over the Edge, it's obvious to me that all the setting was created through play. It seems like the outgrowth of a sketchy internalized concept for a genre that must have been inhabiting Tweet's brain.

If I was going to do something setting-related with The World, the Flesh, and the Devil, I'd want to do something like that. I'd want to give it a custom genre, rather than a setting, and maybe some guidelines on how to develop it. What do you think?

Paul

[GB Steve]

I don't know what Kickers are so I'll have to go and find out before I comment on that. I'm also not familiar with the Pool nor Sigil so any discussion will have to revolve around what you have presented rather than roping in those external references.

I also don't know what "deprotagonise" nor "protagonising" means, I'm new here, but not to games.

I envision a group character creation session where the players talk with the GM about the setting and the situation, and negotiate what they want to write for their Trials.

So if it get this right, the GM thinks up the initial premise for the game, Robin Hood in your case. Creates some protagonists and has some general idea about what might happen.

On top of this each player writes, with the GM and possibly the other players, a Trial* that creates a hook on which their PC will be based. This is then Annotated by the player to create the PC. I thought there was just one Trial which would be differently Annotated by the players. I'm not sure why they need one each.

I see a central Trial mostly written by the GM and used by the players to each create a PC as a much stronger mechanic that creates some kind of bond and situates things better. It also gives the GM a modicum of control over CharGen, to at least insure that no PC is unsuitable.

I'd see it as a Contract between the GM and Players as to the style and content of the game, hence the need for some control over chargen. Or if the word 'control' is too unsettling, placing limits is what I mean.

I'm leaning toward the 3+/3- die, which gives a 50% chance of success on the first roll, and an overall 75% chance of success when you factor in the player's possible re-roll.

That sounds OK. I guess the base dice could depend on how cinematic or gritty the GM and players want the game to be. Shifts up or down would then depend on situational modifiers.

Remember Ron's band metaphor? The band members aren't in competition. They elaborate and riff on what each other is doing. Narrativist players negotiate how they elaborate and contribute to each other's narratives.

Band members aren't in competition? Of course they are! They want the same goal perhaps but the also want the larger part of the glory that is attached to that goal.

I agree it's like a roleplaying group but unless you really are an ultimate narrativist, detached from the PC motivations and personal goals in favour of the Story above all else, then personal glory is important.

I'd rate myself as a narrativist but I'd do in other PCs if the story demanded it. Hell I tried to do it in a LARP on Saturday!

Steve

[Ron Edwards]

Paul,

Regarding setting, take another look at the Sorcerer rules. Once you've answered the key questions in Chapter 4 about preparing to play, you do have setting. (As originally written, that was a GM task; now, it's more of a group task, but SOMEONE has to offer "the thing" that everyone is happy to play in.)

I agree with you about being setting-averse, since I know we have similar painful histories of believing that setting (including published metaplot) is all anyone ever needs, besides a combat and experience system.

However, setting IS a crucial part of a play equation. If you can't stand the idea of an official setting for your game (like me, with Sorcerer), at least provide what a setting WOULD look like, as a model for others' creativity.

Actually - and we knew this - what you need is to play, and for various others to play. Which necessary elements of setting must be there to start, and which arise from the Trial and so forth, and which develop nicely during play - THEN we'll have a better idea.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Steve,

Welcome to the Forge! Don't let Paul boggle you with our local jargon. Let me try to break it down.

1) In his game (or proto-game), the player writes the Trial. Paul is very big on player-driven story creation, as many people at the Forge are (not all), and so that means his game design is totally different from the usual GM-world, Player-character division.

The talk about "protagonizing" is pretty deeply embedded in some hairy theory about stuff like Premise and Author power and lots more. No need to go into that; the point is that the player writes the Trial.

2) Your point about band members competing is well taken. However, they cannot be ALL about competition, or the band fragments - and note, I'm not talking about motivation, I'm talking about behavior. Even if two band members hate each other and really want to eclipse one another's star, IF the band is to succeed, those motives must be expressed in terms of the band's good music - as a whole.

In RPG terms, this means two things. (1) It is perfectly OK for an RPG group to be ALL about competition. The technical term is "Gamism" and it works very well, although really up-front Gamism is pretty rare in RPG design. My only claim is that "story" isn't going to emerge especially coherently from such a group, and if they're happy with that, then no problem.

(2) If the RPG group is instead taking "make a good story" as their main goal, then my points above about the potential role of competition apply, I think.

OK, those were just two of several terms we throw around at the Forge a lot. If you want to get your feet wet in the morass of jargon, take a look at my essay, "System Does Matter," in the Articles section. You COULD also check out the "GNS faq," but please realize it's a rough draft and terrible misunderstandings may appear.

Another good avenue might be to go the Author Library and check out a lot of the free games - I suggest InSpectres, Wyrd, and The Pool as real mind-blowers.

Best,
Ron

[GB Steve]

Oh, I know about GNS, it's just the making of the noun protagonist into a verb that I was unsure about (and worse still the non-noun "deprotagonist" :smile: ). Still no harm done I'm sure.

When I say I know about games, I've designed a few myself and was involved in the creation of Dying Earth (although I must stress that the system is 99.5% Robin Laws' work).

But back to the point.

Your point about band members competing is well taken. However, they cannot be ALL about competition, or the band fragments - and note, I'm not talking about motivation, I'm talking about behavior. Even if two band members hate each other and really want to eclipse one another's star, IF the band is to succeed, those motives must be expressed in terms of the band's good music - as a whole

Bad bands can make good music although they don't tend to last very long. But enough about the analogy, they only go so far, let's talk about games.

In RPG terms, this means two things. (1) It is perfectly OK for an RPG group to be ALL about competition. The technical term is "Gamism" and it works very well, although really up-front Gamism is pretty rare in RPG design. My only claim is that "story" isn't going to emerge especially coherently from such a group, and if they're happy with that, then no problem.

Rune being the only game I know that is so overtly, and deliberatly gamist. I guess Synnibarr might qualify but I prefer not to talk about such things.

(2) If the RPG group is instead taking "make a good story" as their main goal, then my points above about the potential role of competition apply, I think.

I think the term Story needs some clarification. It is possible to be interested in telling a story and still be competitive. Once Upon A Time is a case in point, although not an RPG as usually understood. Other New Style games such as Baron Munchausen and Pantheon blur the boundary even more. Obviously in those games it is actually meta-competition based on what happens between the players rather than the characters but it can spill over into the game itself in the case of the duel in BM.

Ultimately, of course, a purely competitive story will end up with some PCs being defeated by other PCs which can mean their demise, but not necessarily. Dying Earth is a kind of heavily narrative game, or it can be, where the players may spend the whole game trying to out do each other.

I ran such a game on Sunday at GenCon UK. It took about 3 hours play to actually get to the scenario and was massive fun whilst also producing a fairly inventive narrative in pretty arch Vancian style.

I guess the upshot is that I'm unconvinced as to the ability of the GNS model to classify games. Perhaps it can in theory but often the application is very different.

I am however firmly of the belief that System, Setting and Players all combine to create what I call the Game. All three are vital and influence the style of the game and set out what actions are, or are not, possible for PCs.

In applying this to WFD, I tend to agree that a setting is needed to truely appreciate what Paul is attempting to do.
However he has mentioned some settings which share the similarities of complex back-stories, political machinations and powerful magics. Things which to my mind are suitable for a narrativist (for want of a better word) system. WFD has the potential for quick resolution leaving more time for description.

Steve

Steve

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Steve,

Well, by identifying as a Dying Earth Dude, you just made about eighty friends at the Forge. Thanks for joining up!

As currently conceived, Once Upon a Time, Pantheon, Ninja Burger, the "win" variant of Soap, and related games are considered functional G-N hybrids, with a slight bias toward G. GNS has always been about function, and the only necessarily NON-functional design, in my opinion, is trying to satisfy ALL role-playing goals through one system design. We've been talking a lot about functional hybrids lately, mainly G-N, less so about S-N and S-G (until everyone heals from the LAST dustup about Simulationism).

I think I agree with you about the competition issue, although I also think there is a very strong distinction between "characters strive outdo one another in the context of players creating story" and "players strive to outdo one another with story allegedly emerging as an independent property."  I'd put The Dying Earth in the former category, at least as written, and any amount of rhetoric associated with early D&D - and today, maybe even certain LARPs - in the latter category. In practice, this category tends to slough its story-making property very rapidly, unless, as in the G-N games I mentioned above, that property is integral to the competition.

Welcome again!

Best,
Ron

[hardcoremoose]

Paul should be happy about this thread; it's attracted a fair amount of attention from a couple of heavy weights!  I'll need to tread cautiously from here on in.

Steve, I'm one of the eighty or so Forgers who love Dying Earth (I have yet to play it though, so perhaps love is too strong a term - let's just say that I wine and dine it, and occasionally even remember to call it the day after).

I'm going to quickly comment on Protagonism, and the crazy verbs protagonize and de-protagonize.  I'm actually doing this by proxy for Paul, who is currently preparing to head out to California, where the bum will most likely get to play InSpectres with Jared and Uncle Dark.  Hopefully I don't screw this up too badly, but if I do, it will at least illuminate some of my own shortcomings when it comes to understanding narrativism.

The short version of protagonism, as it relates to narrativism, is all about a player's ability to make a thematic statement on the game and it's premise.  That's a whole bunch of jargon right there, but the important thing is theme - a relevant statement or commentary to be developed through discussion, writing, or in this case, game play.  Premise can come from the GM (or from the game itself), but theme is developed cooperatively.

That's why Trials are the province of the player.  The GM can have the Premise of Robin Hood and the Trial has to tie into that, but it is still the player's to create.  It is essentially the player saying this is how I am going to establish my protagonism.

A short word about deprotagonism and inter-character competition (and I think Paul makes this statement very well several posts above): One player's character should never have to sacrifice his protagonism in order to illuminate another's (unless that player wants to do so - say if they have activated the "dickweed character" - as I've been known to do).  Conflict is dramatic, and inter-character conflict can be very dramatic, but it should never come at the expense of another player's ability to thematically comment on the story.  This means, in a narrativist game, no killing other PCs, or their significant NPCs.  For more on this topic, I would suggest looking into the "talkin' 'bout degeneration" thread in the GNS forum (or was it the Theory forum?), as I'm starting to feel out of my depth.

Take care,
Scott



[ This Message was edited by: hardcoremoose on 2001-09-05 14:58 ]

[James V. West]

Paul

I remember you mentioning TWTFATD (hehe, sorry Ron) a while back. After reading it, I now comprehend what you were saying then. It rocks.

Simple, and cool. I'd love to try this, so I'll add it to my list (let's see...Sorcerer, WYRD, Dying Earth, Elfs, InSpectres, Little Fears, and now the World...all I need now is A PLAYING GROUP!).

What really caught my attention about it was the way the GM controls difficulty, but the player controls detail. I was thinking along these lines with The Pool, but I also wanted player's to control difficulty. Your system *read* well to me. I like.

James "not as intellectual as he looks" V. West

P.S. for those who haven't read The Pool:
http://www.geocities.com/randomordercreations/thepoolrpg.html

[lumpley]

Hey, Paul.  

Since you asked, when I run the World, I'll set it in Germany during the Hundred Years' War.  In fact I'll probably do some research and choose a year and a date and a specific town or battle or something.  Really ground that puppy deep in the real-live medieval world, I mean.  I just love the idea of resolving gritty ugly battlefield conflicts and their aftermaths entirely in terms of the World, the Flesh, and the Devil.

I don't know for sure that I'd go with that for an official setting, though.  Heh.  You'd be selling the game to Ars Magica geeks, and they've pretty much already got a game.

Or how about The Messenger the rpg?  Playing Joan of Arc and the officers, or maybe just the officers.  I wanna be Tcheky Karyo!

-lumpley

[lumpley]

Hey, I have an actual serious suggestion for a setting: Before The Flood.

You could spiff up a nice Fantasy / Ancient Near East setting, with winged bulls and giants in the Earth and a sense (even if it's out of character) of the end coming soon.  Because we all know how it turned out and who lived, the players wouldn't be under any particular pressure to be Good, so it'd maybe add robustness to your descriptions when you roll minuses.  You could revel in succumbing, I mean.  You'd have decadence and urbanity and interesting cults, and you'd get to do a good mix of research and making stuff up.

Heck, I think I'm selling myself on it.  If it doesn't grab you, maybe I'll ...

Bad game designer!  Down!  How many unfinished projects do I think I need?

-lumpley

[Ben Morgan]

Or how about The Messenger the rpg? Playing Joan of Arc and the officers, or maybe just the officers. I wanna be Tcheky Karyo!

I want to be La Hire! (big dude, with the spikes on his blackened armor)