Finite RPGs

[Doctor Xero]

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.

McCloud's book has moments of brilliance, doesn't it?  I have cited his book as a source in some of my
research work on perception and perspective.

I think his concept of closure really applies to ~all~ storytelling, not just RPGs, so I'm not sure if it's
specific enough a term for what you're trying to convey.

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've done this before, and I found it an interesting experiment but ultimately weak.

I ran such a game because I had noted that in folklore heroes seldom had more than one major supernatural
adventure.  Even Beowulf, whose life is played out, had only three major encounters -- Grendel, Grendel's mother,
and the dragon who kills him.

The problem is that running this well requires a degree of meta-plotting that becomes cumbersomely overt.  It
eliminates one of the major attractions of the fantasy RPG -- serendipity.  A gaming group seldom knows which
encounters are going to end up truly memorable and which are going to be merely fun.  But the sort of progression
you invoke requires each encounter to be memorable both in game master performance and in player reaction --
and player reaction varies greatly.  If the player reacts in epic fashion each and every time, it all works out, but if the
player doesn't, either the progression becomes derailed or the player's character is progressed artificially, which
usually ruins or at least diminishes the game for all involved.

Doctor Xero

[tldenmark]

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

I'm not holding anything back - there are just things I haven't figured out yet. Here's the jist of it:

A player gets X points to build his character.
A gm gets x points per player to build his adventure (so it scales up depending on the number of players).

The gm is running his adventure against the players. The players are running their characters against the adventure. The goal is to win.

So you can imagine the book may look like a cross between the Hero system by Hero games, and the Toolbox d20 supplement by AEG. Lots of charts. Now, with that in mind you can see how difficult that would be to explain on a forum - you'd have to see the system pretty much in it's entirety to fully get it.

We are talking about an RPG (and a purely hypothetical one - this may be FAR too much work and not worth the effort), but we are also talking about a boardgame. Well, more accurately a boardgame that plays out with cards.

Cards? That's right, the game comes with PDF's with card templates. You simply fill in the cards you want for your adventure, print them out and play. Keen players have noted that Dungeoneer really runs on an RPG engine, this would use the same engine.

This means the game requires a computer, printer and internet access (pre-made adventures would come in downloadable PDF format). How many gamers do you know don't have a computer? That's right, this requirement contrary to limiting the audience actually appeals to the demographic, I think.

I suppose I've pretty much let all the cats out of the bag I can think of. All the rest are details.

[quozl]

Are you sure you want a GM?

You could do something like the Lord of the Rings boardgame where everybody plays to beat the game.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Here's a question:

What is the role of the GM?

So far you've said that the GM will design the adventure, which, I think, means they design the adventure cards.

I could see this expanding the card game but with each player spending X number of points on their characters and then designing a quest with the same number of points. The quest cards are then shuffled and the players play that way.

So beyond designing the adventure (cards), what does the GM do?

[tldenmark]

Here's a question:

What is the role of the GM?

So beyond designing the adventure (cards), what does the GM do?

I see it much like the philosophy behind Hero system 5th. A toolbox for GM's.

There are, I think, 2 kinds of RPG gamers. Those that play, and those that buy the stuff.

I don't think most players buy RPG books. I think only GM's buy them. Those GM types are the ones who have a keen interest in RPG's and how they work. Most of them have designed their own RPG system. Or have modified their favorite RPG with home rules.

Dungeoneer RPG is a toolbox to modify and create the game within a core context. So beyond creating a Boss monster with X points from a static list of stats and abilities, there would have to be rules for creating abilities and tinkering with the stats. The Hero system does a beautiful job of balancing all of this, so I'm drawing inspiration from that.

The GM gets to design or put together 3 things before the game:
Maps: "gameboard"
Quests: things for players to do
Perils (Encounters and Banes): things for players to encounter

Players get to do 1 thing before the game: create and/or design their character.

During the game the GM gets to 'run' the game. Though the way it works this responsibility is spread across each player's turn. Since I think GM's have to work WAY too hard in an RPG.

I may be misnaming this calling it the Dungeoneer RPG, since it may be it's own thing. But, since so much work and playtesting has gone into Dungeoneer, and it's now a finely balanced system. And since the system is, in fact, an RPG system - adapted to play on cards - there's no reason not to take advantage of all that hard work and publish an RPG from it. Since RPG's are near and dear to my heart!

Besides, I think it is quite novel, and fun, to have your options drawn from a deck during play in this way. It's like the antitheses of narrativist play.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

During the game the GM gets to 'run' the game. Though the way it works this responsibility is spread across each player's turn. Since I think GM's have to work WAY too hard in an RPG.

I'd like to focus on this a minute. Before the game, you could easily have the players each make up four things there. So what, exactly, does the GM do to "run" the game? What responsibilities are being distributed and what are left? Could the ones that are left also be distributed?

[tldenmark]

Before the game, you could easily have the players each make up four things there. So what, exactly, does the GM do to "run" the game? What responsibilities are being distributed and what are left? Could the ones that are left also be distributed?

What 4 things could players make up?

The GM acts as referee (makes rules calls), performs the encounters, lays out the map. Role-plays the NPC's, etc.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

What 4 things could players make up?

Maps: "gameboard"
Quests: things for players to do
Perils (Encounters and Banes): things for players to encounter
create and/or design their character.

The GM acts as referee (makes rules calls), performs the encounters, lays out the map. Role-plays the NPC's, etc.

Ok, it's getting a bit heavy for our purposes here. Let me change tactics

Is there any reason to have a GM instead of in one way or another delegate this responsibility amoung the players?

[tldenmark]

What 4 things could players make up?

Maps: "gameboard"
Quests: things for players to do
Perils (Encounters and Banes): things for players to encounter
create and/or design their character.

The GM acts as referee (makes rules calls), performs the encounters, lays out the map. Role-plays the NPC's, etc.

Ok, it's getting a bit heavy for our purposes here. Let me change tactics

Is there any reason to have a GM instead of in one way or another delegate this responsibility amoung the players?

I've been using the terms GM: person running the game, and Player: person running a character exclusively. You're using the term Player in it's broader context - that threw me off.

No reason for delegating the responsibilities, in fact that's what Dungeoneer currently does, it's the 'standard' mode of play. What I'm talking about is taking a 'campaign' mode (1 gm, multiple players) and extending it into a full blown RPG.

[smc]

Thomas:

As a RPG consumer, I like the idea, and I've actually been working on something similiar (see this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9844). Basically, I was working on a home-brew system that uses cards partially for mechanics but mostly for atomosphere, as well as simplified and streamlined storytelling on the part of the GM.

I would like the GM to be able to create a plot by choosing/creating cards that relate to settings and challenges. My thinking was to emulate a movie rather than a book, if you get my drift. The typical RPG is heavy on character development and role-playing, but I wanted to encourage a session with a bit more momentum and action, without completely discarding the role-playing elements. Basically, a storyline could be resolved in 2-3 hours of playtime, and a characters "career" might last a few session. Characters would gain experience/levels by completing quests and by adhering to their motivations.

I do own Dungeoeer, and it was the partial inspiration for working on my own system (BTW, a request from my wife and daughter in terms of Dungeoneer .... we need more female characters).

Unlike dungeoneer, I wanted to avoid a dungeon crawl with distinct rooms, etc. A underground lair might be a location in the story, but it would consist of perhaps a couple of distinct areas and related challenges. In this way, again, it's like a movie ... For example, in LOTR: FOTR the journey through Moria has some distinct set pieces (Balin's tomb, the escape, the bridge, etc.) that could be defined as settings and challenges, while keeping much of the mundane travel and such compressed or "off screen".

I realize that these ideas are probably anathema to most role-players, but they appeal to me, which is why I was working on a home brew.

So, there is an interest in the sort of game you seem to be thinking about, at least from me. I think it would serve as a nice bridge from the "boardgame" feel of dungeoneer to more of a true RPG, and--as you said--you've got some built in resources in the form of the existing Dungeoneer cards (by the way, your art on the Dungeoneer cards is quite lovely--I am envious of the fact that you are a skilled game designer as well as an artist).

I'd be interested in hearing more about this system as you work on it. I may decide to give up my struggled on my own version in favor of yours ;)

[tldenmark]

As a RPG consumer, I like the idea

I'm confident in the built in audience for the product. I don't know if that audience is large enough for how much work this would be. It's on a similiar scale to the quite chunky Hero system "toolkit".

I would like the GM to be able to create a plot by choosing/creating cards that relate to settings and challenges.

This is excellent! Sort of the narrativist counterpart to what I'm thinking of with this. There was an interesting product someone was selling at Gen Con last year that had extensive card sets you could create D&D adventures with, it was specifically D&D. The idea was well thought out, and the product was cool - I bought a set. The only thing missing was the production values - art and card stock professional printing.

I do own Dungeoeer, and it was the partial inspiration for working on my own system (BTW, a request from my wife and daughter in terms of Dungeoneer .... we need more female characters).

The running joke in the old Gauntlet video game was "that cool dungeon crawl game, but someone had to play the chick". Their request will actually be satisfied with the expansions, there will be more female characters.

(by the way, your art on the Dungeoneer cards is quite lovely--I am envious of the fact that you are a skilled game designer as well as an artist).

Why thank you, but I don't think much of my game design skills. I look at what some of those CCG designers, and greats like Jonathon Tweet have accomplish and am humbled. I'm an artist, with a curious game design hobby. :)

I'd be interested in hearing more about this system as you work on it. I may decide to give up my struggled on my own version in favor of yours ;)

If this was available in a $15 softcover book you could order online (and pay the S&H on) could you see anyone purchasing it? What about if it required a computer, printer and Adobe Acrobat? And you had to fill out templates on the computer, and cut out cards?

[smc]

If this was available in a $15 softcover book you could order online (and pay the S&H on) could you see anyone purchasing it? What about if it required a computer, printer and Adobe Acrobat? And you had to fill out templates on the computer, and cut out cards?

Well, as a computer hobbyist none of these issues are daunting to me. I would like the idea, for example, of having a solid rules system and being able to create or customize my own cards. Anything under $20 for a softcover book and anything under $12 for a PDF version is in my price range for RPG accessories, depending on how much I am interested.

The challenge, I think, is your potential market. I think this would mainly fall into some categories such as:

* Casual gamers who have always been interested in RPG's, but have been intimiated by the cumbersome rules and the "geek factor" of doing dramatic voices and that sort of stuff.

* Former RPG'ers who just don't have the time to devote to preparing and running a typical game (i.e. a D20 game), but still want to enjoy some of the social aspects and atomosphere in a RPG-lite.

* RPG'ers who want to introduce friends, family etc. to the hobby.

* RPG'ers who want an alternative system that woulkd be good for last minute games, pick-up games, etc.

I manage to fit into the first 3 categories :) I've always had an appreciation and an interest in RPG's (ever since the late-70's), but I'm just not the kind of person who can "let loose" with the role-playing aspects and I've never had a circle of friends to play with. I've owned dozens of RPG's, and I've played a handful. I've participated in a few games, but I've had the most fun just exploring RPG's with my wife and kids. That said, I'm just too busy and most systems are too much work, and what I want is a game that's a bit more casual and "boardgame"-like but still has a lot of the flavor and fun of an RPG. Dungeoneer is a great game, but I also want to explore something that takes another step in the direction of a true RPG (hopefully without adding too much additional complexity).

So, for the past couple of weeks I've been working on the system I mentioned, and I am really pleased with some of the concepts. I'm looking for that balance of abstraction and realism that provides me with the right "feel", and I think it's working out so far. It won't be something that'll go beyond my dining room table, but that's okay ... it'll be worth the time I put into it.

So ... back to the question ... it's hard to gauge what your built-in market is like. I haven't been watching the Dungeoneer Yahoo group. Have you discussed it there? What has been the response? If the game is more suited to a casual audience, I'd be concerned that any "overhead" (i.e. work on the part of the player to print and cut the cards) might be a bad thing .... but, perhaps I am off-base and the game would have a wider appeal .... it just seems like the hard-core RPG hobbyists can be very elitist about these sort of systems.

I guess it depends on how it is pitched. You mentioned the idea of a competitive atmosphere where the GM is trying to kill the characters ... that's an interesting approach, though personally I'd want it to have an option to support the more cooperative atmosphere as well.

[smc]

Why thank you, but I don't think much of my game design skills. I look at what some of those CCG designers, and greats like Jonathon Tweet have accomplish and am humbled. I'm an artist, with a curious game design hobby. :)

Well, I don't want to come off as a fanboy, but don't sell yourself short. Dungeoneer is pretty darn ingenous, and if there's another game designer out there who is as talented with a paintbrush, I'd be surpised. I am a jack-of-all-trades (writer, artist, gamer) and master of none, so I'm envious (and frankly, it makes me hate you just a bit ;) )

I look forward to your future work.

[contracycle]

I don't have any problems with the proposition.  Just the other day I checked out how much it would cost to have 200 B&W cards printed at my local kinkos-equivalent and was quoted £37 and pennies.  Fair enough, thats a significant proportional expense, but a serious "build-your-own-game" model may be so strong that that this is a worthwhile expense.

[contracycle]

On the principle of the thing...

Heres what I'd like to do.  I'd like to have cards that are rather like the L5R cards for locations, like the Stronghold cards, so that the players and I can just sit there and hang out, checking out the cards, and sorting few out and saying cool, I want go here, cool, this is a good/bad looking critter, lets have a bit of that, etc etc, so that I have player buy-in from the get go.

The tricky part is building a theoretical model for how to take these things and use them in actual play.  For one thing, I'm also going to want a second set of cards with all the REALLY cool evil critters so I can keep them secret for the mean while.

What I'm looking at is a synthesis between player selection/creation and the GM's "interpretation" of that information.  Furthermore, I want as much of it as possible to occur on the tabeltop via props, and to be colour-heavy.  So cards and maps are the business.

the whole point of having these props is so that you can find a card and give it to the players and say "you see THIS".  And this means that from the metagame perspective, play must move from card to card to card in a systematic manner.  The "continuous real time" mode in conventional RPG is not necessary, just habit IMO.  A scene based system would accord more directly with the practical requirement to move from card to card.

Edit: all of which is to say, I don't think the dichotomy between Finite and Infinite necessarily applies; the intermediate case is a related sequence of Finite games, an episodic structure.

2nd Edit: One thought I've had in this direction is a mode of play that is explicitly centred on specific moments in the viewpoint characters lives.  this seeks to obviate both real time play and the conventional party mode as follows.  You could conceivably have a game in which the characters are, say, the counts of Blois, Berry and Anjou, and ALL actual play that happens at the table is explicitly presumed to occur during those occassions when the three characters are a) in the same place and b) working together.  They can have any kind of off-screen conflicted relationship they like; part of the point of the story would be to explore how people get along with hated enemies when they must.  So while we are in actual play, even though the characters are conflicted, the social contract explicitly requires they cannot bump each other off becuase the background hatreds are essentially there to provide colour and grist for the creative mill.  The actual play of the game will be functionally cooperative regardless of the characters personal agendas.  To do this you might effect say three occassion in the course of 40 years, for arguments sake, in which actual play will occur, and fill in the remainder of time as backstory prior to each new event; but each "scene" in this structure would constitute its own Finite game.  I even speculate this might produce a Sim/Nar congruent game.