The Forge Archives

I've been trying to think of a game that would be a good introduction to RPGs for my girlfriend (she's 25).  She wouldn't like the combat of most RPGs, or even the political backstabbing of most "dramatic" RPGs.  Rules-lite is definitely the way to go.

I've looked at the "typical" answers – Sailor Moon RPG, Prince Valiant, Toon, Castle Falkenstein, Buffy, etc – but none of them seem to fit, either.

I got to thinking about the old Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books.  They had lots of adventure, even though combat wasn't a central element (or even an element at all, in most of the books).  And everyone thought they were fun (except for the random death).

And then I remembered all the books my sister used to read – Nancy Drew, Trixie Belden, etc. – and realized that I don't really know of any games that would model the adventures of books like this.  "Lashings of Ginger Beer" sounds like it might do something related, but for younger (and more British) characters.  So, I started brainstorming some ideas.  Here's what I have so far:

Stephanie Morgan, Girl of Adventure!

Introduction:  Stephanie Morgan is an intelligent, charming, well-bred young lady.  She is also inquisitive, adventurous, and has a knack for getting into trouble.  She travels with her father, Benjamin Morgan, a rich philanthropist, as he travels the world, visiting prospective recipients of Morgan Foundation funds and helping them out.  She is joined by her tutor, the resourceful and ever-proper Ms. Watkins, as well as Taylor, Mr. Morgan's guide, trip planner, and right-hand man.

Benjamin Morgan:  combination of Daddy Warbucks (Annie) and the adoptive father from The Boxcar Children

Ms. Watkins:  combination of Mary Poppins and Miss Trask (from Trixie Belden)

Taylor:  a toned down version of Race Bannon (Johnny Quest), Regan (the groom from Trixie Belden), and Jack Palance (as that cowboy guy from City Slickers).

The Game:  The game is played with one person and the Game Master.  The player takes the role of Stephanie Morgan, a teenage girl, as she goes on adventures around the world, making friends, helping people, solving mysteries, and stopping crooks. ("Having adventure!" Stephanies says spiritedly.  "Getting into trouble!" Taylor grumbles.)

The Mechanics:  Characters have no stats.  The action-resolution mechanic is a standard deck of 52 playing cards; the player draws a hand of 5 cards at the beginning of the game. The cards are worth their face value, with Jacks worth 11, Queens 12, Kings 13, Aces 14.  Each suit corresponds to a different type of action.  Diamonds = Wits, Hearts = Charm, Spades = Athletics, and Clubs = Wild (i.e., any of the other three suits).  When Stephanie attempts to resolve a problem a certain way, the GM secretly sets the Target Number (ranging from 1-15, with 7 being "average") for her task.  She then tries to beat it by playing a card of a suit corresponding to the way she is attempting to resolve the problem.  As she plays a card, she puts it in the discard pile and draws a new card.  When the draw pile is empty, the discard pile is shuffled and becomes the new draw pile.  Only one card can be played for any one action.

Character Advancement:  There is none.  Is Nancy Drew really that different in Volume 45 than Volume 1 of her adventures?  No.  And Stephanie Morgan never grows up, either.

Adventures:  If anyone has read the Nancy Drew or Trixie Belden books (my sister had the whole set of Trixie Belden, and I read 'em all . . . 30+ of 'em!), you'll know what the adventures will look like.  Here's a sample:

Adventure #1:  Secret of the Indian Burial Mounds
In a southwest Arizona archaeological dig, certain Native American treasures are disappearing from the work site!  Could it be Tony, the angry townsman, who's stealing them?  Or Brenda, the graduate student with a secret to hide?  And what about the mysterious Curse of the Ghost Walker . . .?  Stephanie Morgan's going to find out!  And along the way, she'll rescue a young boy from a flash flood in a canyon, learn about Native American rituals, reconcile a mean grandmother with her middle-aged son, and solve the Secret of the Indian Burial Mounds!


So, I guess what I'm looking for is:
1.  Any comments or criticism on the game mechanic?
2.  Any comments or criticism on the genre I've chosen and how I've gone about representing it?
3.  Any RPGs I should look at that might apply to what I'm doing?

Oh, and I'm working on a multiplayer version called "Danger Club!" It sort of looks like Scooby-Doo, except without the campiness.  Some of the mechanics will have to change, though (characters will probably have stats of some sort).

If anyone gets a chance to playtest this, let me know.  My girlfriend is visiting her folks for the next few weeks, so it'll be a bit before I can try to sell her on it.

Thanks,

Ragnar

For "Danger Club", check out the Alfred Hitchock series "The Three Investigators".  They were along the same lines as Hardy Boys et.al. but the mysteries were better.

The resolution seems pretty straightforward, but the system lacks anything to particularly associate it with the genre, other than the three skills. And they're pretty generic as well; are you sure athletics is even appropriate (do they ever actually solve problems this way in the source material)?

What sort of signatures do you see to the genre? What would you like to see occur? If you could give us some info there, maybe we can help with adding mechanics. I dunno, maybe mechanics for having some of the NPCs show up at just the right time?

To be clear, what you have will work. It's just not particularly flavorful as is. I could use GURPS and get as much feel.

Mike

I like the card mechanic.  I also had this idea:

Don't differentiate the suits.  If you get a red card, something "good" happens, black means something "bad" happens.  I would also make difficulties 1-10 with aces being ones and face cards tied to special events.

I agree with Mike about Athletics too.  My recollection of the genre is it being all about outsmarting the villian.

Although you kind of dismiss it, I am sure Lashings of Ginger Beer would work fine for your Nancy Drew-type game. But then I would say that, I wrote it!

You could also look at It's a dog's life, for beginning female players. I have been told many times that this appeals to girls more than boys.

You can download the free test version from RPGNow

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=1935&

or from my site

http://www.geocities.com/simonwashbourne/itsadogslife.html

I am working on a new version, with lots more good stuff.

Simon

I like the genre a lot. It has loads of gaming potential.

Here's a mechanic off the top of my head:
The system scale is scene resolution. When Stephanie tries to do something, the Player and GM play Rock-Paper-Scissors. The winner gets to state the outcome of the scene. "Stephanie finds the hidden entrance to the Spirit Caves." The loser then narrates the events of the scene leading up to the outcome, pretty much any way they want.

If the player loses the RPS, she has a choice: accept the outcome, or call for a do-over. To call for a do-over, the player must narrate how Stephanie fails at her goal, but then gets a second chance due to help from Daddy, Ms. Watkins, Taylor, a Special Friend, or Coincedence. Whichever form of help she choses, the player checks it off on the character sheet (each can be called on once per game). The player and GM then do RPS again. Further do-overs can be used, as needed.

Stephanie can collect new "do-over" resources as the game progresses. By meeting new people, making new friends (and enemies), finding special objects, etc. her pool of do-over power grows bigger.

This is pretty much how Trollbabe works. Trollbabe's emphasis on relationships, set-backs and re-rolls seems to fit the genre perfectly. And trading narration rights is just plain fun.

Quote from: Ragnar Deerslayer
Oh, and I'm working on a multiplayer version called "Danger Club!" It sort of looks like Scooby-Doo, except without the campiness.  Some of the mechanics will have to change, though (characters will probably have stats of some sort).

No need for stats. In a multiplayer game each character has one specialty be it Wits, Charm or Athletics. Rather than clubs being wild, they can be used as though they were cards of the appropriate suit. For example, a character with a specialty of Wits could use Clubs cards as though they were Diamonds.

This makes each character slightly less all-round competent, but as there are more of them that gives them a big edge over a solo player anyway.


Simon Hibbs

Wow. I'm like Daddy Warbucks. Cool. I'm not gonna shave my head though.

Seriously, looks really neat so far.

-- Ben

QuoteThe Mechanics:  Characters have no stats.  The action-resolution mechanic is a standard deck of 52 playing cards; the player draws a hand of 5 cards at the beginning of the game. The cards are worth their face value, with Jacks worth 11, Queens 12, Kings 13, Aces 14.  Each suit corresponds to a different type of action.  Diamonds = Wits, Hearts = Charm, Spades = Athletics, and Clubs = Wild (i.e., any of the other three suits).  When Stephanie attempts to resolve a problem a certain way, the GM secretly sets the Target Number (ranging from 1-15, with 7 being “average”) for her task.  She then tries to beat it by playing a card of a suit corresponding to the way she is attempting to resolve the problem.  As she plays a card, she puts it in the discard pile and draws a new card.  When the draw pile is empty, the discard pile is shuffled and becomes the new draw pile.  Only one card can be played for any one action.

Often card mechanics can have a problem with people stacking their hands. They purposely push their characters into conflicts where the outcome isn't really significant to them so they can offload their low cards and (hopefully) draw some high ones.

The other thing I wondered about is that playing a single card against a secret TN means that pure luck seems like a big part of the equation. Add to that the fact that the cards you have available to play are pretty much down to the luck of the draw. Do you feel that this dependance on luck to actually do anything worthwhile, might clash with your goal of making your girl-friend (or any other player) feel like an intelligent and charming globe-trotting amateur sleuth with powerful and resourceful friends. It would make me feel like a clutz ;-)

QuoteShe travels with her father, Benjamin Morgan, a rich philanthropist, as he travels the world, visiting prospective recipients of Morgan Foundation funds and helping them out.  She is joined by her tutor, the resourceful and ever-proper Ms. Watkins, as well as Taylor, Mr. Morgan’s guide, trip planner, and right-hand man.

Benjamin Morgan:  combination of Daddy Warbucks (Annie) and the adoptive father from The Boxcar Children

Ms. Watkins:  combination of Mary Poppins and Miss Trask (from Trixie Belden)

Taylor:  a toned down version of Race Bannon (Johnny Quest), Regan (the groom from Trixie Belden), and Jack Palance (as that cowboy guy from City Slickers).

See this looks cool, you've set up these relationships for your player to get involved in. They're powerful and instantly recognisable, they'll reinforce the genre helping the player to understand what kind of things are meant to be happening and feel like they're in a world they're comfortable and familiar with. I suspect it will be these characters that actually pull the game together - if your girlfriend loves the game is she going to say "Hey, remember the time you set the TN at 5 and I played a 7?" or is she more likely to say "Do you remember the time Ben Morgan sent me to bed without any supper but I sneaked out the window and solved the case anyway. I didn't know if he was going to be furious or proud of me!".

Thing is I'm wondering why you haven't chosen to make these relationships part of your system. When I read this:

QuoteCharacter Advancement:  There is none.  Is Nancy Drew really that different in Volume 45 than Volume 1 of her adventures?  No.  And Stephanie Morgan never grows up, either.

I thought, cool! This is bold and it makes a lot of sense. Your system should mimic the genre, not other RPGs. I'd encourage you to think differently about resolving tasks in your game. If you want to make the players feel like the creative, intelligent, resourceful Stephanie Morgan then why don't you try saying that the player always succeeds in doing what she wants to do, the question is how it gets accomplished.

Here's just an example I thought up when I noticed that you've got three suits as well as three main relationships in the game.

A) The player announces what they want to happen.

B) If the player successfully bids high, over the GM's secret TN then the player narrates how Stephanie was succesful at the task using the skill appropriate to the suit (Diamonds = Wits, Hearts = Charm, Spades = Athletics, and Clubs = Wild).

C) If the player unfortunately bids low, under the GM's secret TN then the player narrates how Stephanie was successful at the task but was dependant on one of the people in her life to make it happen (Diamonds = Benjamin Morgan, Hearts = Ms Watkins, Spades = Taylor, and Clubs = Wild).

There's still a sense of failure, because brave little Stephanie has to run to her Daddy when she's out of her depth, but that increases the sense pay-off when Stephanie gets things done on her own.

Anyway that's just an example of how you could tie the relationships into the system. I think the way you've characterised these people is great and will really hold the game together.

On behalf of every roleplayer who's ever had a girlfriend, good luck! ;-)

Quote from: Tony Irwin
There's still a sense of failure, because brave little Stephanie has to run to her Daddy when she's out of her depth, but that increases the sense pay-off when Stephanie gets things done on her own.

Anyway that's just an example of how you could tie the relationships into the system. I think the way you've characterised these people is great and will really hold the game together.

That's realy very good, one of the best narativist mechanics I've seen.


Simon Hibbs

Agreed Simon, that's pretty neat.

In any case, I think that failure in these cases has to follow the "yes, but", "no, and" etc. model. Can anyone reiterate that principle here?

Mike

Wow, thanks, everybody!  You gave me a lot to think about.  These are some great ideas!

On the appropriateness of Athletics:  While it is true that violence never (or almost never) solves the problems in this genre, there are lots of uses for general athletics.  "Charlie's broken his leg.  You'll have to take the horse and get help.  Ride hard!"

The Game Mechanic:  As it stands, the game mechanic is a simple, rules-light system that doesn't involve counting or calculations – only comparing one number (on the card) with the number the GM has chosen for the difficulty.  I'm trying to avoid any sort of counting or arithmetic.  Counting and arithmetic are slow and boring.  

Really, now that I think about it, I have been unconsciously modelling the mechanic on the Star Wars Epic Duels board game (which I love).  In Epic Duels, characters don't have stats, but have their own personalized deck of cards with attack numbers, defense numbers, and Jedi powers on them.  Your character can do whatever is on the cards you have in your hand at the moment.  Furthermore, when attacking, you place an "attack" card face-down on the table.  The defender places a "defend" card face-up.  The attacker then turns his attack card over, and the numbers on the two cards are compared, and the defender takes damage if the number on the attack card is higher than the number on his defend card.  I like this, and I think I'll have the GM use a separate deck of cards, and pick the TN and place it face-down before the player.  This would lend the threat an immediacy and concreteness that would keep out ideas like, "Does he really have a TN picked out, or has he already decided whether I'll succeed or fail regardless of what card I play?"

Tony Irwin:  To keep the player from feeling like a klutz, I've been calculating at which point I should set "average" difficulty.  For a  range of numbers 2-14, each number ups the percentage about 7.7%.  Eight would be the middle number, giving about a 50% chance of success, assuming the player has a card of the appropriate suit.  I was thinking of dropping the "average" difficulty to 5 or 6, which would give a greater range of success, and/or increasing the size of the hand to 7 or 8.  I'm thinking a larger hand would be a better first choice, then, if there are too many failures, drop the number for an "average" difficulty.

Your narrativist mechanic is brilliant.  Of course everything turns out all right for Stephanie.  This isn't D&D; she's not going to die.  And nobody around her is going to die/get fired/ break up because she fails an attempted action.  And, for any teenager, having to fall back on the adults around you because you couldn't "handle it yourself" is enough to make you die of embarrassment.  The basic conflict of the game changes from, "Will Stephanie Morgan save the day?" to "Will Stephanie Morgan save the day?"  I'll combine your ideas with John Harper's:

Actions:  Whenever the player attempts to resolve an action, the GM selects a card from his deck and places it face-down on the table.  The player then chooses a card of a suit appropriate to how she is attempting to resolve the action, and plays it face-up.  The GM then turns his card over.  If the player's card is equal to or higher than the GM's card, she succeeds.  If not, before she draws a replacement card, she can choose to play an additional card while describing how she almost fails but doesn't.  The second card replaces the first (although both cards now go in the discard pile and replacements for each are drawn into the hand).

This gives a slightly broader use for low-end cards.  If you have several cards of a single suit, you can play a low-end card to see what the Target Number is – thus allowing you to use the appropriate high-end card without overshooting or barely missing.  You can also throw in a 2 or a 3 just for the sake of a "close call" that would add tension and drama to the story, without having to "force" minor catastrophes to get rid of your low-end cards.  (Stephanie Morgan may be a disaster waiting to happen, but she's not a drama queen.)

Deus Ex Machina:  If the player fails to resolve an important action, the situation usually worsens, and she'll have to think harder and/or attempt a more difficult action to solve the problem.  If the situation progresses to a point where the player can't think of any way out, she can request a Deus Ex Machina.  Mr. Morgan, Taylor, and Ms. Watkins can each intervene once per game and resolve a situation in the nick of time.  Once these three have been used, Stephanie has no recourse but to solve her problems herself.

I'm mulling over a Special Friend rule:  in each adventure, Stephanie has an opportunity to make a Special Friend (shy pretty girl, grizzled old miner, etc.) by reaching out and befriending them.  This Special Friend can also be used once as a Deus Ex Machina, but only for that adventure, and only after she has befriended them in-game.

Simon Hibbs:  I love that idea!  My original idea for Danger Club was to use "clubs" as a social modifier – by placing a "club" down, you are requesting aid from another available character (i.e., another member of Danger Club).  Anyone else in a position to help can then put down a card of the appropriate suit, and add it to the value on the "club" card already on the table, describing how their character aids the original character.  This rewards teamwork and sharing the spotlight.  It would take out the "wild" element, though, so I'm not sure how well it would work.  At any rate, I'd started to get annoyed with the ideas of stats as well.  As peers in the Danger Club, the coolest semi-secret club on campus, all the members would be athletic, intelligent, and charming.

Thanks,

Ragnar

QuoteActions:  Whenever the player attempts to resolve an action, the GM selects a card from his deck and places it face-down on the table.  The player then chooses a card of a suit appropriate to how she is attempting to resolve the action, and plays it face-up.  The GM then turns his card over.  If the player’s card is equal to or higher than the GM’s card, she succeeds.  If not, before she draws a replacement card, she can choose to play an additional card while describing how she almost fails but doesn’t.  The second card replaces the first (although both cards now go in the discard pile and replacements for each are drawn into the hand).

This gives a slightly broader use for low-end cards.  If you have several cards of a single suit, you can play a low-end card to see what the Target Number is – thus allowing you to use the appropriate high-end card without overshooting or barely missing.  You can also throw in a 2 or a 3 just for the sake of a “close call” that would add tension and drama to the story, without having to “force” minor catastrophes to get rid of your low-end cards.  (Stephanie Morgan may be a disaster waiting to happen, but she’s not a drama queen.)

That's really interesting - my next question was actually going to be had you thought about "scaling" conflict but it looks like that would do it. For example Trollbabe has a mechanic where say if the character was in an enourmous battle the player can decide how many rolls and actions are needed to resolve it. Some people will want to resolve every hack and swing, others will just want to get it over with a single roll. The important thing is the players get to decide.

Your close call mechanic looks good in that respect, if things are getting interesting for the player, they can "stretch it out" by throwing in a close call. So its not just task resolution any more but goal, or conflict resolution which I think gels with your subject matter really well. You're really giving the player power to build up an exciting adventure story for girls.

I'd look for more ideas for how you could give the player even more power for stretching out conflicts that are interesting to them. For example you could let the player decide how many "plays" they want this conflict to have, either 1, 2, or 3. The GM only reveals their card's TN once the player has played a number of cards equal to the play (if the player beats the TN before reaching the number of plays then its resolved without any more plays being needed).

eg. Player decides for 2 plays. Plays a card and describes Stephanie's action. Gm says "Nope, doesn't cut it". Player plays a new (higher) card and describes Stephanie's new approach to the problem. If Stephanie missed it again then the GM reveals the card TN (because Steph has had two plays by now).

QuoteDeus Ex Machina:  If the player fails to resolve an important action, the situation usually worsens, and she’ll have to think harder and/or attempt a more difficult action to solve the problem.  If the situation progresses to a point where the player can’t think of any way out, she can request a Deus Ex Machina.  Mr. Morgan, Taylor, and Ms. Watkins can each intervene once per game and resolve a situation in the nick of time.  Once these three have been used, Stephanie has no recourse but to solve her problems herself.

Cool, with your (very smart) close call mechanic there will be less fails in a session so just calling on the oldies once per session should be enough. I like this - see when I look at your game I don't think "This is about kewl adventures" I think "This is about a young girl trying to adult things" and that looks like a nice way of bringing it home.

QuoteI’m mulling over a Special Friend rule:  in each adventure, Stephanie has an opportunity to make a Special Friend (shy pretty girl, grizzled old miner, etc.) by reaching out and befriending them.  This Special Friend can also be used once as a Deus Ex Machina, but only for that adventure, and only after she has befriended them in-game.

That's a nice idea, any thoughts on how you'll do mechanics for it?

QuoteSimon Hibbs:  I love that idea!  My original idea for Danger Club was to use “clubs” as a social modifier – by placing a “club” down, you are requesting aid from another available character (i.e., another member of Danger Club).  Anyone else in a position to help can then put down a card of the appropriate suit, and add it to the value on the “club” card already on the table, describing how their character aids the original character.  This rewards teamwork and sharing the spotlight.  It would take out the “wild” element, though, so I’m not sure how well it would work.  At any rate, I’d started to get annoyed with the ideas of stats as well.  As peers in the Danger Club, the coolest semi-secret club on campus, all the members would be athletic, intelligent, and charming.

Looks great Ragnar :-)

A thought: It seems like this game will be played in reltively short sessions, because of the speed of resolution: maybe 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 hours each. And in that short time, Stephanie can call on FOUR Dues Ex Machinas! That's quite a lot of 'divine intervention,' if you think about it. Maybe it would be best to have a mechanic where her DEMs for each character don't automatically reset each session, but only when Stephanie has proved herself in some way to the character called upon. This can be anything from setting up Ben with the archaeologist that showed Stephanie around the aztec ruins, doing all her chores for Mrs. Watkins, staying out of trouble for a while with Taylor, or making a new Special Friend. I think that this would play up these relationships, and make the main character a bit more self-reliant (because even when she has to call on others, she needs to make it up herself before she can do so again).

Quote from: JephA thought: It seems like this game will be played in reltively short sessions, because of the speed of resolution: maybe 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 hours each. And in that short time, Stephanie can call on FOUR Dues Ex Machinas! That's quite a lot of 'divine intervention,' if you think about it. Maybe it would be best to have a mechanic where her DEMs for each character don't automatically reset each session, but only when Stephanie has proved herself in some way to the character called upon. This can be anything from setting up Ben with the archaeologist that showed Stephanie around the aztec ruins, doing all her chores for Mrs. Watkins, staying out of trouble for a while with Taylor, or making a new Special Friend. I think that this would play up these relationships, and make the main character a bit more self-reliant (because even when she has to call on others, she needs to make it up herself before she can do so again).

I agree. Perhaps the resetting of the Deus Ex Machina (DEM) can also be an action, based on the size of the challenge overcome by the DEM? For example, Stephanie called on the services of Taylor to overcome a challenge. The cards played the GM for that challenge are placed over Taylor's picture on Stephanie's character sheet. To get the services of Taylor back again, Stephanie's player has to play cards to win against the cards on Taylor's picture (and describe some appropriate character action).

For the "special friend" DEM, perhaps this could be done by playing cards from the player's hand onto the special friend's picture/place holder as well as narrating appropriate character action? Later, the special friend can come into play and the player can play it's cards against the GM challenge. Basically, expanding the character's hand size.

These DEM actions better simulate the withdrawal and depositing of trust in a relationship.