Kyuseisha: Back to Formula (failures, reworking)

[Andy Kitkowski]

OK, so this is kinda against the "post when you need feedback" thing of this forum, but I figure there's a few morals of game design in this post.  Actually, it's clear as day:

playtest, Playtest, PLAYTEST.  No matter how cool you think a mechanic might be or how people will use it or react to it, you won't know for sure without playtesting it.  3 hours of loose playtesting is worth 10 hours of "thinking about the system".

Anyway, I've been playtesting for the past 3 months or so, with a few gaps here and there for holidays, being sick, etc.  As I've been playtesting, I've been "calculating" in the back of my head the changes that need to be made, the broken parts that need to be fixed, etc. I've been working on those bits in the background, hoping to come out with a "Kyuseisha 1.2" rules set to introduce to the players all at once (instead of adding a new rule here, there, etc).

Also, the other thing I've been doing is going "slow" with the adventures.  Making them mostly social-encounter based, with as little (mostly none) combat as possible.  Last night, I ran some combats, and noticed a lot of failures with the system there. Namely, rolling for one action takes a little more time than in many other RPGs: It takes a few more seconds to figure out what you rolled, etc.  Normally, this is all cool and all when you're making stealth rolls, charm rolls, etc, but when you're making several rolls in a short period of time (ala combat), things started to fall apart.

Anyway, just to air my dirty underwear, here's some design goals, failures, changes, and other notes:

ORIGINAL DESIGN GOAL: Attributes and "Roles", no skills.
DESCRIPTION: Taking a lot of initiative from games like Sorcerer and FUDGE FATE, I wanted to have the "Role" serve as what normal games call "skills".  Basically, a role, like "Kung Fu Master" or "Savage" would define what the player can do. Anything that doesn't easily fit into the role's description would be rolled using just Stats, which are considerably lower.
WHY I WANTED IT: I wanted an interplay of Attributes and Role to be the determinant of how good someone is at something. I didn't want skills cause, frankly, I hate skill lists. You almost always have the effect of people saying "Why should I take 'musical instrument' when I can take 2 more points of 'kill shit with my bare hands?' instead".
WHY IT 'FAILED': 2 things:
1) All my players love the concept of roles, and having roles have a definite effect in game terms. Character creation is very easy for them: Just choose two "ideas" about your character and go from there (savage and technologist; scout and diplomat; etc).

However, in play, there were some times when things didn't fit clearly under one role or the other. Sometimes it fell under the realm of both roles (in which case I said "role the higher score"). Whereas I thought that the ambiguity that roles create was cool... and it is cool, don't get me wrong... it just didn't work for this game, a post-apocalypse pulp game. It can work for modern, or Star Wars, or Matrix, where everyone knows clearly what a "lawyer" or "Cop" or "Jedi" should and shouldn't be able to do.  But in this game, where we have characters like "Member of the Hand of Fate" or "Technically oriented savage descendent of North Carolina indians", or "Field Medic who has biofeedback abilities"... well, the world isn't defined clearly enough to have such roles and still have all the members of the group, or the GM, understand exactly what they can and can't do.

Eventually, the ambiguity was stopping me us sometimes.  ambiguity in setting plus ambiguity in setting-reflected character abilities were playing off each other too much and creating too much confusion. I figured it was best to start writing down in clearer terms what these roles were good at and not good at.  In other words, skills.

2) Two of the players (of 4 players) just love skills. They don't like the idea of being able to make identical characters in stats and roles, without differentiating them on the character sheet with numbers.  Like Han Solo and Wedge are both "pilots", but obviously they have different focuses, sets of skills, etc.  For me and the other players, not having skills makes no difference, because the difference in the characters comes in their background, how they're played, etc.  Still, though, those two like that kind of differentiation. So I figure why not try to give it a little.  Sure, it will make the game more "conventional", but that's fine by me, if it helps out me GM and the players get into the game.

SOLUTION: This is the trickiest of my problems. It's gonna take a lot of thinking how I can still keep roles and take skills into consideration. This will undoubtably be tied into the die mechanics (see below). One potential solution I had was for the players to write "5 things that this role gives you the ability to do" (fight, sneak, heal people, fast talk, and play musical instruments). Another solution was to draw up a list of skills in 3 categories: Big (combat, stealth, influence, all the "cool" skills), Medium and Small (musical instrument, knowledge skills, etc), and tell them to choose three skills from each category for each role.

In the end, I think with the new die system I'm hammering out, it will end up looking like this: Roll X amount of dice depending on your stat, and "keep" an amount that's based on your role.


Oops, gotta go soon.  OK, one more for now:
ORIGINAL DESIGN GOAL: Dice Rolling: Use d6es, d8s. Roll a certain amount of d6es (usually 3-7), and count your doubles.  Each double grants +2 to that dice number (three fours = 4+2+2 = 8, for example), and find your highest number.
DESCRIPTION: See above.  Oh, and the d8s are for your Core Role. They work like normal d6es, but when you roll a 7 or 8, you just take your highest value among your d6es and add +2 to it.

Oh, and in the above you always roll against the GM, not a target number: Either against the score of an NPC or against "nature", where "nature" is 2-5 8-siders.
WHY I WANTED IT: It takes a few seconds to figure out your highest value. Usually about 3-5 seconds depending on the die pool, maybe more. It heightens the drama as you "read the bones" to find out your highest total laid out on the table.

And rolling against the GM is cool, beucase it emphasizes the fact that you won't always know how truly easy a task is.
WHY IT 'FAILED':
When you roll once every few minutes, it works like a charm.
When you roll several times a minute, which happens when a lot of "action" (combat, etc) is going on, it can be f-ing slow. It's slow for the player AND me. The players didn't say anything to that effect, but personally, things weren't flowing as fast as I hoped.

SOLUTION: I've got to go "back to formula" - to quote Spider Man :) - and come up with a new die mechanic from scratch. Luckily, I think I have one. It still involves d6es, and perhaps another die as well (d4 or d8). You gather successes just as you do in those new World of Darkness games.  To be honest, I'm ripping bits of the system out of some of those Japanese games that I have, namely Tenra Bansho: You have skills, areas of expertise, etc, rated from 1 (unexperienced) to 4 (master), with 5 in there under special situations.  You roll a number of six sided dice, and anything that matches your skill or under you keep as one success.  Get more successes than the GM, and you win.

Still, though, it's going to take more playtesting to see if this is going to work.

Anyway, that's that for now. I'll post some more thoughts later. Any questions as to how I'm dealing with these realizations that my system is flawed, or about how I came to various conclusions, etc are welcome.

BTW, this post fell kinda squarely between "Design" and "Actual Play". If it fits better there, please feel free to punt it over.

-Andy

[Ben Lehman]

However, in play, there were some times when things didn't fit clearly under one role or the other. Sometimes it fell under the realm of both roles (in which case I said "role the higher score"). Whereas I thought that the ambiguity that roles create was cool... and it is cool, don't get me wrong... it just didn't work for this game, a post-apocalypse pulp game. It can work for modern, or Star Wars, or Matrix, where everyone knows clearly what a "lawyer" or "Cop" or "Jedi" should and shouldn't be able to do.  But in this game, where we have characters like "Member of the Hand of Fate" or "Technically oriented savage descendent of North Carolina indians", or "Field Medic who has biofeedback abilities"... well, the world isn't defined clearly enough to have such roles and still have all the members of the group, or the GM, understand exactly what they can and can't do.

Eventually, the ambiguity was stopping me us sometimes.  ambiguity in setting plus ambiguity in setting-reflected character abilities were playing off each other too much and creating too much confusion. I figured it was best to start writing down in clearer terms what these roles were good at and not good at.  In other words, skills.

BL>  May I make a humble suggestion?

In my experience playing games with the Over the Edge system (which works very similarly, except with four descriptors instead of two) it is absolutely crucial to define what, exactly, you mean with your given "role" title.  An example might be:

Well Read:

Knows Many Academic Subjects:
 Astronomy/Cosmology
 Geology
 Biology
 Psychology / Therapy / Self-Help
 High School Level Sciences
 English and Foreign Literature
 History

Pedantic about Usage / Grammar

Knows Lots of Stories
 Fairy Tales
 Folk Stories
 Urban Legends

Knows Library Index Methods
Strong Knowledge of Local Library Layouts
Knows About Filing, Storage, and Keeping of Books

Familiar With Nearly All "Classic Books"
 Opinionated about those
 Doesn't like Herman Melville or Sigmund Freud

Reads Fast
Retains Knowledge Well

Or

Knight:
Fairy Tale Logic
Fairy Tale Magic
Battling Dark Powers
Being Tempted But Staying True to Goodness
Rescuing Princesses
Befriending and Recieving Help From Friendly Supernatural Creatures
Jousting
Equestrian Skills

This gives a good outline of exactly what you mean by "well-read" or "knight" which are pretty broad descriptions.  It is not, by any means, a canonical list -- it can even be expanded upon during play -- but it gives otherwise bland and quite vague descriptors a sense of direction, and really helps shape play and distinguish similar characters without overmuch Skill-listery.

Good luck on the game.

yrs--
--Ben

[apeiron]

You almost always have the effect of people saying "Why should I take 'musical instrument' when I can take 2 more points of 'kill shit with my bare hands?' instead".

@ Actually, this would depend on the players and the game.  If i was playing a Toreador vampire, taking another musical instrument would be better for my character.  Personally, i make the choice that i think my character would make, rather than what i want my character to have.  

@ When a player makes a choice like the one above, it might not be a role playing game, but a verbal video game, or at least that might be how the player is thinking.  If the game rewards "Kill shit" more than "develope a character", then naturally, that is what a player will choose.  If that is the goal of the game, so be it.  If that is the nature of the player, so be that.  If you want players to make creative choices that express the growth and interests of the character, the game must support that.  

@  i would bet it is not the list that bothers you, but min/maxing munchkins creating killing machines that make no sense.  You can have skills without having a list at all.  Common sense can be your list.  Any verb or job/hobby can be an ability.  i prefer the term ability (things you are able to do) over skills.  Some things described as skills (in some games) are actually natural talents or academic knowledges, but i am a grammar snob so don't mind my semantics games.  

However, in play, there were some times when things didn't fit clearly under one role or the other. Sometimes it fell under the realm of both roles (in which case I said "role the higher score").

@ Why two roles? (as opposed to one or more)  Instead of using the higher, could take the higher +1.  Not knowing the mx of your game i couldn't say.

It can work for modern, or Star Wars, or Matrix, where everyone knows clearly what a "lawyer" or "Cop" or "Jedi" should and shouldn't be able to do.  

@ Everyone knows what a stereotypical lawyer can do.  But not all lawyers are equally skilled, or trained in the same areas, a tort lawyer might flounder in criminal law.  Some lawyers minored in botany and others in music, a few of them might have been JAGs and know how to shoot an M9.

But in this game, where we have characters like "Member of the Hand of Fate" or "Technically oriented savage descendent of North Carolina indians", or "Field Medic who has biofeedback abilities"... well, the world isn't defined clearly enough to have such roles and still have all the members of the group, or the GM, understand exactly what they can and can't do.

@ The three examples you give here sound like Character Concepts, rather than specific roles/jobs/classes.  Hand of Fate might translate to Martial Artist.  Perhaps you'll have variants of these roles.  For instance: MA Student, MA Practitioner and MA Master.  Hand of Fate might not be a role, but an add on that comes with *explicit* abilities.  Maybe some things a role can do will have to be spelled out in detail.  These add ons would be setting specific, whereas Martial Artist can be basically the same across genres and times.

Like Han Solo and Wedge are both "pilots", but obviously they have different focuses, sets of skills, etc.  For me and the other players, not having skills makes no difference, because the difference in the characters comes in their background, how they're played, etc.  

@ But HOW are they different?  If Solo and Wedge were racing in a your game, who has the edge?  Who has the edge in a dog fight?  Skill would make that explicit rather than what may feel to some as "narrative caprice".  The GM might think tha Han is better at racing through the asteroid field, but the player might disagree.  If Han has Manuevering X and Wedge has Manuevering Y, we know that one is better.  Perhaps if you are going with background as the determining factor, Han's player has to tell you a story about making the Kessel run in record time.  If Wedge's player can't top that, Han gets the edge.

@ If you want a narrativist game, you need a narrativist system that gives your gamist players something familiar, something they can predict and 'control/know'.  If i (being a gamist player) know that you will give me a cookie for coming up with some background event relating to the task at hand, i am going to be less worried about my skill list, and more about my story.  Instead of spending 30 minutes rifling books to find the "Kill Shit" combo that will make me bad ass, i will spend a few hours telling you about what my character has done in cool prose (that will make me a bad ass).

Sure, it will make the game more "conventional", but that's fine by me, if it helps out me GM and the players get into the game.

@ Conventions exist for a reason.  Ever notice that in virtually every windows program Crtl+N gives you a New item? They don't have to make them like that, but most do because it makes things easier for the user.  

SOLUTION: This is the trickiest of my problems. It's gonna take a lot of thinking how I can still keep roles and take skills into consideration.

@ There is a game that does everything you seem to want.  It is called QuickDraw.  It has roles (jobs) and has skills.  But there is no skill list, you just name it.  So for matrix, your job is cybernaut and you take basketry as a skill to show how you are different.  If you are a better cybernaut you are upgraded to Captain (like Morpheus).  i think you will find it inspiring.  

http://digital_imp.tripod.com/down.htm

[Andy Kitkowski]

Hey, thanks for the feedback, all. Apeiron: Interesting system.  I definitely see that we're influenced by some of the same sources. I'll have to look it over carefully later.

You almost always have the effect of people saying "Why should I take 'musical instrument' when I can take 2 more points of 'kill shit with my bare hands?' instead".

@  i would bet it is not the list that bothers you, but min/maxing munchkins creating killing machines that make no sense.  You can have skills without having a list at all.  Common sense can be your list.  Any verb or job/hobby can be an ability.  i prefer the term ability (things you are able to do) over skills.  Some things described as skills (in some games) are actually natural talents or academic knowledges, but i am a grammar snob so don't mind my semantics games.

That's true, and that's pretty much what I have right now: Say, for "sneaking". A character with a Role of "Ninja" would add that score to their "Technique" (think Dex) score, and roll that.  They might have a +1 attribute of "Expert at Stealth", which would give them an extra die.

In the end, though, since I allow more than one role (Normal is 2 Roles, a Core Role and Secondary Role), it makes things a little confusing.  Sometimes the roles overlap. Sometimes it's hard to define exactly what one of the roles does.  In my group, there's no problem, but I know that if I printed the rules as-is, there would be groups that would fall apart from infighting over what roles can and can't do.

But in this game, where we have characters like "Member of the Hand of Fate" or "Technically oriented savage descendent of North Carolina indians", or "Field Medic who has biofeedback abilities"... well, the world isn't defined clearly enough to have such roles and still have all the members of the group, or the GM, understand exactly what they can and can't do.

@ The three examples you give here sound like Character Concepts, rather than specific roles/jobs/classes.  Hand of Fate might translate to Martial Artist.  Perhaps you'll have variants of these roles.  For instance: MA Student, MA Practitioner and MA Master.  Hand of Fate might not be a role, but an add on that comes with *explicit* abilities.  Maybe some things a role can do will have to be spelled out in detail.  These add ons would be setting specific, whereas Martial Artist can be basically the same across genres and times.

Yeah, those are character concepts that were pulled from two Core Roles: The Hand of Fate is a Core Role Martial Artist and a Secondary Role Diplomat/Judge, the Techno savage is, of course, Core Role Savage Secondary Role Technologist. Still, though, laying out various abilities, and showing how Roles impact those, is sounding like the way to go for me.  Currently, we just have roles and assume how they affect abilities.

If i (being a gamist player) know that you will give me a cookie for coming up with some background event relating to the task at hand, i am going to be less worried about my skill list, and more about my story.  Instead of spending 30 minutes rifling books to find the "Kill Shit" combo that will make me bad ass, i will spend a few hours telling you about what my character has done in cool prose (that will make me a bad ass).

Good point, there.

More later.  Rolling dice now. :-)