Finite RPGs

[tldenmark]

So I've been playing around with some ideas inspired by Universalis, and some of the stuff I learned from designing Dungeoneer. Basically an RPG with a specific win goal.

I think the unique character of RPGs is that they are infinite games, there is no "end" to the game. As opposed to any other kind of game - card, board, etc. that has a specific goal to win it. Of course RPG's do have win goals in the sense that there are objectives to complete, but they are only points in the development of the characters.

When designing Dungeoneer my idea was to create an rpg-like experience on cards. As development proceeded I came to realize the rpgs and card games are oil and water! You cannot create "general interpretive principles" in a card game and expect it to work. This is because card games motivate players to stress the rules to the point of breaking in their aim to win. Thus rules must be clear and finite. The more permutations of a mechanic you allow, the bigger design headache you have until the game becomes unmanageable - you simply cannot account for every interpretation a rule may have. So the more narrow you make a rule the better.

RPG's on the other hand work their best when rules have broad general principles that can be applied to a wide variety of circumstances. This works because you have a referee that has the power to render a final interpretation on a rule. And this leads me to Universalis - which has a clever mechanic that solves the need for general principles, through defining story traits that you purchase from your pool, and edges toward the finite requirement of other game types - you can practically "win" a game of Universalis through "strategic" use of the story traits.

So I want to make a Dungeoneer RPG. Literally. But it will have a clear win goal. If you haven't played Dungeoneer, the idea is you try to be first to complete 3 Quests to win the game (or you can just kill everyone else off). What I want is a situation where one player is the GM ("Dungeonlord" in Dungeoneer speak) who creates an adventure, his win goal is to kill off all the characters. The players each have a character ("Hero" in Dungeoneer speak) and their goal is to be first to complete 9 Quests (which makes their hero 10th level - each completed Quest gives your hero a level).

In many ways this would be more like the original idea I had for the game - a finite rpg.

[anonymouse]

The games that immediately spring to my mind as finite are Matchmaker, My Love for You is Way Out of Line, and My Life with Master. So it's not a super-new concept (I've tried taking the same goal into a couple of horribly unfinished designs) in RPGs, but certainly under-represented.

I'm sure there're more, but those are what I think of off the top of my head.

[Jasper]

I don't own it, but I know Rune is something much like this, so you might want to check it out.

If the GM's goal is to kill players, you'll need to very tightly control his powers.  Rune handles it in a nice way, in that the GM gets reward points for injuring the characters (bringing them close to death even), but loses a lot for actually killing any. So it's a balancing act on his part to decide how hard he can afford to make it.  He gets points to use in the creation of his dungeon, and the reward points translate into these, allowing him to throw in more interesting stuff.

[tldenmark]

If the GM's goal is to kill players, you'll need to very tightly control his powers.

The true goal of the GM is to insure everyone is entertained, and the bulk of the GM section as I'm writing it centers around creating a balanced game environment. But the stated win goal is to "defeat all the heroes".

Human nature being what it is though there needs to be a mechanic to insure balance, the basic mechanic is centered around 2 resources: Glory and Peril. Glory allows players to buy cool stuff for their hero, and Peril allows the gm to buy cool stuff for his monsters and the dungeon. But it is the players who generate the resources, and as they adventure they will accumulate both. So the better the players are doing, the more points the GM will have to bring nasty things into play.

td

[clehrich]

If the GM's goal is to kill players, you'll need to very tightly control his powers.

And you'll probably want to lock him up and keep him away from sharp implements.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Chris Lehrich

[Jasper]

Hmm, I don't know.  

The true goal of the GM is to insure everyone is entertained.... But the stated win goal is to "defeat all the heroes".

I've encountered plenty of games that say this, but seems to me that these are mutually exclusive as real goals for the GM, and in practice one or the other has to be chosen.  Either:

1. The GM really wants to defeat the heroes, and fun hopefully ensues.

2. He's really trying to make the game fun, and "trying to defeat the heroes" is just a ruese he keeps up as a means to that fun..  In other words, if defeating the heroes gets in the way of everyone enjoying themselves, he might forego it.  

You could say that the GM should switch between these two modes, but what's to prompt that, other than the other goal itself?

[chadu]

So I've been playing around with some ideas inspired by Universalis, and some of the stuff I learned from designing Dungeoneer. Basically an RPG with a specific win goal.
(snip)
In many ways this would be more like the original idea I had for the game - a finite rpg.

I tried to support the finite vs. infinite game idea in Dead Inside, except I called them closed and open games.

A good chunk of being able to say that with some chance of it actually working in a game is dependent, I think, on the game being structured to support an endpoint... not just hinted at in setting and adventure, but also in chargen and mechanics.

For example, in DI the starting state of the recommended character type is "You're missing your soul." The ending state therefore is "You've gotten your soul back." Progress is tracked by Type Ranks and Soul Points, and when you've accumulated enough of those, you can enter the endgame. At that point, you can stop playing -- goal achieved. That's the closed game.

The open game is when you decide to see just how far the rabbit hole goes, running DI as a more standardized RPG setting.

CU

[Lxndr]

The game I'm working on right now, Shangri-la has recently moved into a closed-game format.  Characters have "Quests", and by fulfilling individual steps in that quest they can open more doors...and by completing the ENTIRE quest, they've managed to fulfill their whole reason for being in the game, and get removed from it.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hey, Thomas.

In what way would your RPG be different from your card game? That is, Dungeoneer appears to work. What are you trying to do with an RPG version of the game?

[tldenmark]

Hey, Thomas.

In what way would your RPG be different from your card game? That is, Dungeoneer appears to work. What are you trying to do with an RPG version of the game?

The game works fine as a card game. What I'm working on now is a document that transforms the core mechanics into an "rpg-like" book. Basically here are the differences:

1. Character creation. You can create your own character with a point based system. OR you can just use a pre-made character (in other words an actual Dungeoneer hero card). This is the largest and most challenging section. All the Boons and Special Abilities will be broken down into crunchy bits. Characters will go up to 10th level in "grades" - Heroic, Epic and Legendary. Heroic will be levels 1-3, Epic levels 4-6, Legendary levels 7+. Each of these levels can only be achieved by the appropriate grade Quest. This way the Quest=Level system can be scaled to the general power level of the heroes.

2. Adventure creation. Players get to create characters, GM's get to create adventures. I will be treating this section the way most RPG's treat character creation - Adventure creation will also be point based and balanced against the character creation rules. It will have all the Encounters, Banes, Maps and Quests broken down into crunchy bits.

The one sticky wicked I'm having is handling Treasures. It makes sense for GM's to control the doling out of Treasures, but there is no incentive for them to put cool treasures in the adventure. I could allow it in the character creation system (then it would resemble other point-based superhero RPG System's item creation rules). But doesn't that "break" one of the classic canards of Fantasy RPG's? The one solution I can think of is to allow the GM to equip his monsters with Treasures - and then the heroes can take them when they defeat the monster. So in card game terms a Treasure can be treated as an Attachment to a Monster.

Here's the titty twister - it will be fully compatable with the cards (I just leaked an important bit of info about development plans for the expansions if you can read into where I'm going here). You can use the cards, or not, if you want.

My whole goal is to capture a classic fantasy campaign that usually takes months to play, in one enjoyable evening of gaming.

[Valamir]

Hmmm.  

Why not simply tie the Treasure to the monsters power level.

15 points worth of monsters, requires 15 points worth of treasure.  One could come up with all sorts of niggling rules about how much of this treasure is "on the body", "in the lair", or "just there for the taking"

I believe Rune had a system that worked along these lines.

[tldenmark]

Hmmm.  

Why not simply tie the Treasure to the monsters power level.

15 points worth of monsters, requires 15 points worth of treasure.  One could come up with all sorts of niggling rules about how much of this treasure is "on the body", "in the lair", or "just there for the taking"

I believe Rune had a system that worked along these lines.

Interesting and very simple solution. The problem is the GM could simply provide 15 points worth of Potions of Blandness rather than that great big 15 point Sword of Hiny Kicking. I sure would hate it to turn into a complicated requirement system with lots of exceptions and must-haves.

Possibly each Encounter/Bane must be accompanied by an exactly equivelant Treasure. 6 point Encounter? you gotta have a 6 point Treasure. (not 2 Treasures that total to 6).  - which your post could be interpreted as saying.  :o)

But that certainly reduces the flexibility the GM has in creating the adventure.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hmmm.

Well, IIUC the main differences you'd outlined are the ability to make your own cards.

My gut is telling me to advise you to consider carefully what you wish to do with this. I don't think I need to point you to the Fanatasy Heartbreaker essays in the Articles section. But all you've mentioned here is something that would add to the card game. And what's wrong with a card game?

[Valamir]

Interesting and very simple solution. The problem is the GM could simply provide 15 points worth of Potions of Blandness rather than that great big 15 point Sword of Hiny Kicking. I sure would hate it to turn into a complicated requirement system with lots of exceptions and must-haves.

Well, if thats a concern, make each seperate item -1.

So if the GM wants 15 points of monsters he has to provide 15 points of treasure + 1 point for each seperate item.

So 1 piece of treasure would be one 16 point item (16-1 = 15)

5 pieces of treasure would be five 4 point items (20-5 = 15)

If the GM wanted to get stingy and give out 15 tiny items, he'd have to do fifteen 2 point items (30-15 = 15).

So the last method may only be potions and blandness but its 30 points of potions and blandness instead of 16 points of coolness.


But there are alot of different ways you could do this without needing to get too niggly.  You could require at least 1 piece of treasure must be equal in points to the level of the highest level character in the party, or there must be 2 pieces of treasure equal in points to the level of the lowest level character in the party (as another example).

[tldenmark]

Hmmm.

Well, IIUC the main differences you'd outlined are the ability to make your own cards.

My gut is telling me to advise you to consider carefully what you wish to do with this. I don't think I need to point you to the Fanatasy Heartbreaker essays in the Articles section. But all you've mentioned here is something that would add to the card game. And what's wrong with a card game?

What, you mean the world doesn't need another fantasy RPG with classes, levels, elves and dwarves???

I love Ron's Heartbreaker essays, because they echo my own feelings so accurately. I LOVE those little fantasy RPG's that are labors of love, but at the same time they are so obviously a reaction AGAINST D&D. They can be summed up by saying "It's like D&D ... only better!".

There is a certain chunk of this RPG I've failed to mention, and won't mention for sometime until I'm much closer to publishing it. This chunk is, I believe, quite innovative and pushes the envelope in terms of design. I hope to have it at this next Gen Con.

But you are correct, so far it's only something that adds to the card game. And in fact it could be thought of as a sourcebook for the card game - something to allow you to create your own cards. But it's an idea I've had for quite some time, that's been on the back burner far too long. And is really just a fun way for me to vent a variety of cool ideas that are not likely to ever be published in the actual card game.

One key difference from the subjects of the Fantasy Heartbreakers essay I can guarantee, and at the risk of sounding egotistic, most of the art will be better than "frankly boring".  ;o)