Finite RPGs

[Jack Spencer Jr]

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.

Hmmm... intriguing. I can respect your not wanting to tell us, but it does make constructive criticism difficult.

[talysman]

damn, is everybody doing stripped-down dungeoncrawl games these days?

I'm working on one that's more of a just-for-fun thing (I plan on playtesting it in a MOO.) I doubt I will be selling this one, just distributing it as a freebie, because I plan on concentrating on selling games with specific settings. this one is more generic. however, everyone else working on dungeoncrawl games might want to see one of the mechanics, since you might find a similar approach useful for your own work.

I was inspired mainly by Rune and Fungeon. Rune looks fine, but the pointbuild system for building dungeons seems too intensive for my tastes. Fungeon has a simpler approach, but I wanted something just a tad more elaborate... so it occurred to me to use the Donjon idea of allowing Find Trap rolls to invent a trap where none existed before, or Find Secret Door to find a secret door, and so on.

so what I settled on was a resource management system. character "stats" would be Level plus three spendable resources: Health, Stamina or Magic (this could be made more elaborate, or stripped down to just Health.)

the dungeon, in contrast, has a Depth stat and a Risk resource. there's one other resource, Gold, which starts at zero and would mainly be a score tracker, although it could be spendable in a town.

the idea is that players can choose to increase their dice pool for an action by adding points to Risk or spending points from Health/Stamina/Magic. Health and so on can only be regained in specific ways, while Risk can only drop by spending it on traps or monsters. if Risk stays high, it causes wandering monsters and a boost of a monster's effectiveness when found (monster effectiveness = Depth + (Risk/10)).

so: you are about to enter a room. you choose to listen at the door and roll a dice pool (starting with just 1 die in the pool,) trying to hit a fixed target number; since you listened for a monster, there *is* one -- with an effectiveness = Depth + Risk/10 + your successes on the dice pool. you can boost your dice pool by subtracting 1 from Risk for every die you add; taking more powerful monsters from time to time thus guarantees that Risk doesn't go too high.

you know there's a monster, but the door is closed. by saying "I pick the lock", the door is considered locked -- and you can increase your dice pool this time by increasing Risk (because you are taking longer) or decreasing Stamina (because you are doing something exhausting) or Magic (casting a spell) or Health (there was a minor trap). searching for a trap on the door first works like listening for a monster, increasing the value of a trap by decreasing Risk.

those extra successes that you are earning can be rolled into other dice pools, including the search for treasure. I don't have all the details worked out for my particular approach, but I'm sure you get the idea.  

of course, what we should be doing is offering help to Thomas, but without any idea about what his system is, the best we can really do is say "here's what I've beend doing" and leave it at that. if you find this helpful, Thomas, feel free to adapt it to your own approach.

[tldenmark]

of course, what we should be doing is offering help to Thomas, but without any idea about what his system is, the best we can really do is say "here's what I've beend doing" and leave it at that. if you find this helpful, Thomas, feel free to adapt it to your own approach.

Dungeoneer has already been published by Atlas Games www.atlas-games.com/dungeoneer/ but what I've been discussing is a derivitive RPG based on that system.

Here is the basic system:
There are 3 basic stats: Melee, Magic and Speed, which may be thought of as Strength, Intellect and Agility.

There are 2 resolution mechanics: Combat and Threat. Combat is roll 1 die + stat to beat your opponents roll + stat.  Threat is a target number - roll 1 die + stat to match or beat the Threat number to succeed. Pretty straight forward, and any roleplayer gets it immediately. Interestingly many, many non-roleplayers play Dungeoneer and have been baffled by this seemingly simple concept.

Each character (or "hero") starts at 1st level. Each time a character completes a Quest they gain a level, and their stats go up. In addition each character has a unique special ability.

The heart of the system is Glory and Peril. As you move through the Dungeon you collect Glory and Peril. You spend your Glory to buy stuff for your character. The GM (or "Dungeonlord") spends your Peril against you to buy nasty stuff like monsters and traps.

All the hard work of making the system has already been done, and it's been somewhat successful. So it's not like working from scratch, I have a ton of art to use as well. But, there are a few hurtles to overcome in adapting the game to an RPG.

I love D&D, and I am NOT trying to remake D&D in my image. This is more akin to the playability, strategy and speed of Magic the Gathering then it is to D&D. It is intended to capture much of the ambiance, but without the commitment of an extended campaign.

[tldenmark]

damn, is everybody doing stripped-down dungeoncrawl games these days?

I believe every game is a dungeoncrawl!

The core idea being: limited options, clear choices, simple problems to overcome, etc.

[tldenmark]

Hmmm... intriguing. I can respect your not wanting to tell us, but it does make constructive criticism difficult.

Don't mean to be vague, or act like I'm holding the secret to the next big thing in gaming! It's nothing so grand as that. It's just that I'm working on a preliminary playtest document with what I think are a variety of innovative ideas - not so much in the ideas themselves, but more so in the implementation. And I'm not ready to talk about that yet. :o)

What I'm trying to get at right now is the core idea of a finite RPG. A VERY competitive finite RPG. And a game like that really requires fine balancing to achieve that elusive fun factor. Anyway, I was wondering how the idea would resonate on this very active forum of independent game designers.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

What I'm trying to get at right now is the core idea of a finite RPG. A VERY competitive finite RPG. And a game like that really requires fine balancing to achieve that elusive fun factor.

So, what you're talking about is a gamist-supporting RPG with some very well-defined elements for Step On Up both with the system or GM and the other players especially.

The way you describe it, it sounds more like WarhammerQuest without the minis. That game is a board game which has many trappings in common with an RPG, but I hestitate to call it an roleplaying. In my thread, a perspective on roleplaying, I defined roleplaying thus:

[*]roleplaying is an activity that primarily takes place in the shared imagined space
[*]the in-game or imagined elements may be used in terms of what they are[/list:u]
The last bullet relates to WarhammerQuest thus:

Each of the characters have the normal trappings of their type, Barbarian, Elf, Wizard, Dwarf, etc. But they each have an aditional piece of equipment. The Barbarian, for example, has the lantren This has no bearing on gameplay. It merely serves as the rationality for why the characters are able to see in the dark (Elf and Dwarf notwithstanding) and marks the Barbarian as the party leader. There are no rules for what happens if the lantren is lost and the party is plunged into darkness. Likewise, the Dwarf has the rope. The rope is used for pulling someone out of a pit trap. That's it. No tying bundles or using it to trip the silly Orcs. Just pulling people out of pits. They even had a bit of flavor text fiction illustrating this. Because of this, WarhammerQuest does not fit my definition of a roleplaying game. It looks and smells like one, close, but no toboggen.

Dungeoneer stikes me as similar game, only with cards and now you're trying to expand it, we'll say, into something that doesn't need the cards.

So it sounds like it all about bullet 1 but no mention of bullet 2 yet. That is, WHQ is played with miniatures and dungeon geomorphs and other nifty props. The shared imagined space is literally laid out on the table. To take those props away would necessarily place the game deeper into the collective imagination, but would lack some of the strategy element that makes the game what it is. Part of the game is the position-based combat. It's difficult to do that in the collective imagination, hence the plastic pieces on the table.

So, what you need to consider is how "rpg-like," to use your word with quotes, is this going to be? Will elements be defined by their use, like the WHQ rope? Or will the object define the possibilities of use? It sounds like you're going towards the first option.

Nothing wrong with that. Heck, it sounds like a challenging approach to design. My instincts would be to go with the second otion but I wouldn't want to have to define everything, so the GM would have to decide all the time.

[tldenmark]

In my thread, a perspective on roleplaying, I defined roleplaying thus:

[*]roleplaying is an activity that primarily takes place in the shared imagined space
[*]the in-game or imagined elements may be used in terms of what they are[/list:u]

I can't fully agree with your points on what an RPG is.  I think the key element of an RPG is "closure". That is the action takes place in the participant's mind between each player describing what they are doing. For example:

GM- you enter a musty room, at the other end sits a vampire, he rises and says "velcome to my lair, prepare to die..."  from that moment the scene appears in the player's mind - they picture the room, the vampire, their characters. Then they respond to the gm "I pull out my sword. I prepare my spell." etc. then that scene plays out in the GM's mind and he reacts. And so on.

There has been a distinct trend towards enhancing closure in the player's minds with the use of visual aids. These aids have become more sophisticated, culminating in the current collectable, painted, plastic minis. As well as other popular dungeon props. Personally, I see this as a GOOD thing. It gives companies in the biz another product to sell, to keep this market we love so much alive, so these companies can keep putting out cool, creative products for us to enjoy. And to keep funding game conventions and so on. It keeps our hobby alive and vibrant.

I see the cards as purely a visual aid to enhance closure. In addition they have rules on them, to keep those rules readilly at hand without players having to refer to voluminous cyclopedias that stall the flow of the game. Also I believe player's attention spans are much shorter. Not that people aren't as smart, clever, and creative. There's a lot more games out there to enjoy, which means less time to play each game. Not to mention competition with video games. So condensing the enormously satisfying campaign experience into an evening of gaming seems to me a good endeavor.

There is a problem though. One other key element of RPG's is the infinite nature. A player may come up with an infinite number of solutions to a problem, and explore endlessly in a world that is created mostly on the spot by the GM. And this is all possible through a flexible game system that ultimately relies on the GM-as-referee. From a card or boardgame perspective RPG's are non-games. They are completely broken because one participant, the GM, gets the power to break the rules practically at-will. And this is why I consider RPG's and card/boardgames to be oil and water. I do not know if the two can be reconciled.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Your examples of "clusure" look to me like attempts to communicate information about the imaginative space, enhancing the portion of that whhich is shared among participants.

[tldenmark]

Your examples of "clusure" look to me like attempts to communicate information about the imaginative space, enhancing the portion of that whhich is shared among participants.

Closure, in the way I use it here, was well defined by Scott Mcloud in his famous "Understanding Comics" book. It's the space between panels that comics "happen" - when the reader's imagination is engaged and brings the comic to life.

I think in the same way, it is that period after receiving information from the GM that the player's provide closure - their imagination engages and fills in all the details and action that takes place. Then they respond and then it's the GM's time for closure as his imagination kicks in.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Sorry, Thomas. I agree with Shreyas that your Closure is just illustrating communication about the shared imagined space.

So condensing the enormously satisfying campaign experience into an evening of gaming seems to me a good endeavor.

This bit has me puzzled. I don't get how this goal is possible.

[tldenmark]

Sorry, Thomas. I agree with Shreyas that your Closure is just illustrating communication about the shared imagined space.

So condensing the enormously satisfying campaign experience into an evening of gaming seems to me a good endeavor.

This bit has me puzzled. I don't get how this goal is possible.

Campaign in the D&D sense - taking your character from level 1 to 20 and then retiring.

Campaign in the CoC sense - that time from character creation until your character is too insane to function anymore.

Campaign in the sense of the lifetime career of your character.

So what I'm talking about is dividing your character's career into 3 distinct eras beginning his heroic career, becoming an "epic" hero eventually becoming "legendary". Then retiring him or her. In the mechanics of this game taking your character from level 1 to level 10 within the span of a 6-8 hour gaming session.

I believe there is a market of 30+ year olds, who played D&D in high school, then life, career, marriage and all that replaced their hobby. They still want to relive those exploits, but simply don't have time for a regular weekly gaming session. But keep in touch with their friends. Talk about gaming, but never seem to find the time to do it. Then a few times out of the year they actually get together, make characters, run part of an adventure. Have a blast, but don't find time to finish the game, and are left unsatisfied.

I believe many of you reading this right now fit in that demographic. I'm making this game for you.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

So what I'm talking about is dividing your character's career into 3 distinct eras beginning his heroic career, becoming an "epic" hero eventually becoming "legendary". Then retiring him or her. In the mechanics of this game taking your character from level 1 to level 10 within the span of a 6-8 hour gaming session.

Okay, the marketability of this game aside, because hell is I know what sells, I have to say that's a pretty tall order. I also wonder bit about the logic of it.

Is reaching the top level really what is desirable? I have had fairly high-level characters that had to be retired and I was dissatisfied because i didn't accomplish all I had hoped for that character. My ex-roommate retired a fair low (well, median) level character because all he wished to do with the character was done.

My problem seems to be with what I perceive as irreconcilable goods. I can see a RPG designed to be played in a single session or I could see a game that is similar to an RPG, namely the dungeon crawl in this case, and I could see a game that condenses an entire campaign into a single session, but I just can't see a single-session RPG for the dungeon crawl paradigm, somehow condensing an entire campaign-worth of play into a single session.

[Shreyas Sampat]

(Parenthetically, I think your term "closure" is directly parallel to "shared imaginative space", and will use the latter if I feel any need to do so.)

Why the assumption that the entire "lifetime career of the character" has to be laid out in play?

How do you feel about "snapshot in time" games, that take characters (that may already be at a point where they are mid-to-high-level in D&D terms) and run a short, presumably satisfying story for them? It seems to me that your competitive, finite dungeon game would make a lot of sense run as a "lets see who can kick the most butt in this dungeon", and much less sense as a campaign game with overarching storyline.

IOW, I am not sure whether we are talking about a competitive card game or a roleplaying game at all.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

IOW, I am not sure whether we are talking about a competitive card game or a roleplaying game at all.

We're kind of talking about both.

Thomas designed the card game Dungeoneer from Atlas Games. There's a review here and here. Now here's thinking of making a suppliment that will work with the cards to make a more "full" roleplaying experience or function on its own as an RPG. However, even as a standalone, it will be a very closed or finite RPG. The exact nature of this is a little difficult to parse, partially because part of it he's not ready to share yet, but that's his perogative. So the conversation is currently about what, exactly would his game be like and your questions have merit and sort of mirror my own feelings.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Thanks for the clarification. Now I have to go and think.