[Seven Leagues (a fantasy RPG of Faerie)] Please comment

[hieronymous]

I have posted a working draft of my RPG, Seven Leagues, here:

http://www.malcontentgames.com/7leagues.pdf

Please feel free to download the file (1.7 MB, 20 pages, includes most of the first third of the game--mechanics and character creation), read it, and comment here. Any and all constructive criticism eagerly sought.

I hope to sell the entire game as a PDF eventually, but I don't have any particular deadline, so fire away.

Thanks in advance!

[hieronymous]

Here's a (very) brief outline of some key features of Seven Leagues:

Premise: you play a character in a fairy-tale setting (and I have a rather broad notion of that, including everything from classic Perrault-like tales to Sandmanishness)

There are no "classes" or "races". Each character is a unique creation, though they may conform (more or less) to archetypes of the genre.

Characters are primarily text based; there are only three "stats" (Virtues) for example, everything else is grammar. For example, The first thing you chose is your character's Aspect, a three-word (not two or four; five is right out) descriptor. Three stats add up to 13; your LOWEST stat determines how many powers you have (called Charms). There is no preset list of Charms to choose from, you just make up your own according to a grammatical rule. Buy extra charms by taking on Taboos.

The action resolution system is Roll 13; roll an adjusted 13 or higher on a d12 (the game uses the d12 exclusivel). You get bonuses and penalties for your narration of your action, circumstances, etc.

Characters in general do not die (no "hit points" etc.), but you can lose  Virtues, gain new Taboos, lose Charms, get Cursed, etc.

Characters grow by gaining Virtues, new Charms, etc. all resolved rather fluidly (ie by concensus). There is an "experience" rule for rewarding the "best" player of the session with an opportunity to gain a point in one of the Virtues.

I'm primarily interested in having people play-test the conflict system, but would welcome any comments on character creation, character growth, etc. I recognize that there is little "game balance" built into the rules. Since you can make up any Charm you want (with the Narrator's approval), you could be God. Except you'd still need to Roll 13 ...

[Jasper]

Hi,

I just wanted to say that I'm looking it over now, and it looks very promising.  At first I was skeptical of someone properly doing actual fairy-tale like stories, but it looks like you may have a good one.  I grew up reading Russian Fairy Tales, so I was glad to see illustrations from some of those too.   I might be concerned about the copyright on those though, unless they're public domain?

Anyway, I'll get back when I've read over it more, but I wanted to commit to doing that.

[hieronymous]

Thanks for having a look. As far as I know, all the illustrations used are public domain--I may add some artwork myself later as time allows. If you see anything you believe is not PD, please let me know.

[kenjib]

Hello,


First Point:
There seem to be many potentially de-protagonizing aspects to the rules:

1.  Page 4:  "The Narrator should review the Player character's Virtues and make sure they are consistent with the character's Aspect."
2.  Page 5:  "Once the Player has invented his Charms, the Narrator should review them and may adjust or veto them."
3.  Page 6:  "Of course, the Narrator will set the tone of the Tales to be told."
4.  Page 8:  "Even more than the Virtue score, the Embellishment's Narrative Bonus is potentially the single greatest determinant of success in a conflict."  (Note:  The point here being that the narrator has the power to arbitrarily decide whether or not the player's stated action will fail)
5.  Page 9:  "The Narrator should note whether the characters' stated Victory Conditions are consistent with their respective Aspects and Legends; those that aren't simply won't come to pass even if the character "wins" the conflict, or may turn out very differently than the Player intended."
6.  Page 11:  "Usually the Narrator's scripted Tale should have Victory Conditions listed for each confrontation."  (Note:  What does this imply about who gets to determine what conflicts are happening and what are the point of a player's victory conditions again?)
7.  Page 12:  "First, the killing of another character should only be allowed as part of stated Victory Condition if so doing is consistent with the killing character's Aspect, Legend, or a Charm or Taboo. In other words, it is the exception, not the norm. Characters may also may meet their demise out of combat, but only when the narration of the Tale is served."
8.  Page 13:  "If, however, the child were a Protagonist or an important character, then the Narrator should choose an appropriate Defeat. Perhaps he escaped after having had a hand eaten, or the witch forgot to feed him instead of fattening him up, and he got so thin (-1 Hand) that he slipped through the bars of his cage."  (Note:  If a character can not fail, why have a contest at all and what meaning do his choices have?)
9.  Page 15:  "If these were Player characters (Protagonists) who acted out of character and attempted to violate their Taboos, the Narrator could flatly disallow such actions.
10.  Page 16:  "Optionally, the Narrator may also give other Players an opportunity to check for an Virtue increase, if she feels the Player(s) is (are) especially deserving."

What I am concerned with here is that the game is explicitly declared as narrative in design, yet with the occasional exception of story influence control over pretty much all story elements seems to be firmly in the hands of the narrator.  The narrator not only has full control over all non-player characters and the theme and genre of the story, but even has control over the design and actions of the players' own characters as well as the ability to arbitrarily ignore or change the stated victory conditions of a player in a conflict.  This might perhaps make it difficult for characters to be empowered enough to make decisions which are meaningful from a narrative perspective in addition to being placed in a setting which may be meaningful to the narrator, but not the characters.  This seems especially risky in a genre heavily infused with the principles of poetic justice and endings with a moral.  It seems like this could lead the narrator to attempt to force an outcome determined before play even begins in order to stay within genre.

Breaking one's taboo, acting contrary to a defined trait, dying, or deciding to take someone's life, seem like some of the most narratively meaningful events in a story, and yet the narrator has the right by fiat to say "no I do not allow you to make that decision".  This seems like a very definitive boundary between narrativist and simulationist play, and here you are siding strongly with a sim approach by forcing players via rules to always "stay in character".


Second Point:
The reward system rewards characters for being creative and skilled with their narrations.  I really like how this encourages characters to use language, which is in keeping with your discussion in the introduction.  However, at the same time this mechanic seems to reward primarily sim-behavior (exploring genre) in a game that claims to be unabashedly narrativist.  Also, while it encourages players to tell stories, they have a somewhat limited playground within which to play, being limited to talking only about the actions of their own characters, and even then subject to narrator veto.

Also, I wonder what the goal of this clause in character advancement is:  "If the Tale involves only one Player character, then no Virtue points are gained or lost — you can't gain much Renown if you're by yourself."  What kind of behavior are you trying to reinforce with this rule?


Third Point:
A somewhat small quibble is the use of "antagonist" to refer to all narrator-controlled characters even when they could be, for example, an ally of the protagonist.  This struck me as odd.


This is all just from reading and without seeing it in action, where it counts, so I could very well be wrong about all of this.  I think that there is some really cool stuff in here and am definitely interested.  Furthermore, some of my critiques do not necessarily point out problems with the game, but rather point to areas where the rules might not strongly reinforce your introductory statement that is game is intended to be of a very purist narrative sort.  In fact, some of the rules I critique are actually pretty cool, absent this declared focus on narrativism.  How much does it even matter to you?  In the end if the game is fun, it is fun, no matter what labels you put on it.

[hieronymous]

Kenji,

First and foremost please accept my heartfelt thanks for your taking the time to download, read, and comment on Seven Leagues. I very much appreciate your efforts.

I do not argue the particulars of your points; however, I think there are some presuppositions (on both our parts) that should be brought to light. I do want to design the game in such a way that dialogue (narration if you will) be the prime mechanic for describing and resolving situations, within a loose framework of arithmetical rules. In that sense I take the thrust of the game to be Narrativist.  It is not particularly Gamist (the Character Growth options are not particularly prominent, and I expect that ne could happily play a character for quite some time with nary an increase in Virtue or a new Charm). It is even less Simulationist; the Roll 13 conflict resolution system with its Overture, embellished Crescendo, and Finale is a very abstrct way of dealing with combat, for example.

However, in my mind "Narrativist" does not necessarily mean "the players run the show". I hope I'm not commiting a grave GNS heresy. (If so, I must insist "but it still moves" ;-) ). So I will simultaneously claim a Narrativist game style, and leave conrtrol of plot and NPCs in the hands of the Narrator.

I do take slight issue with your claim that the Narrator has control over Protagonist design. The Narrator has veto power, but I felt that was a necessary move in a system without a predetermined list of Charms and Taboos. It's true that the Narrator is encouraged to work collaboratively with the Player in devising new Charms for existing characters. Yes, I give the Narrator lots of power, but IMHO any GM has a lot of power anyway. But maybe I'm being myopic on this last point.

Second point:
Is exploring a genre sim? I disagree but I don't think it's worth arguing semantics in this case. However, with respect to Taboos: my intention was to allow the breaking of a psychological Taboo (and pay the price in the form of a curse); but not a physical limitation:

"The Vampire, who "Craves human blood", won't pass idly by an opportunity to feed (even if he's already fed moments before), and so on. If these were Player characters (Protagonists) who acted out of character and attempted to violate their Taboos, the Narrator could flatly disallow such actions. At the very least, breaking a Taboo, even inadvertently, should result in an appropriate Curse, as determined by the Narrator."

You're right though in that I should rewrite the "flatly disallow" bit. Whoops.

Third point:
Yeah maybe Antagonist is odd since it might refer to an ally; it seemed natural since the player characetrs are Protagonists. Maybe I should drop that conceit altogether.

I do agree that maybe I should re-examine my claims and introductory labels; I'll be sure and look at that carefully.

Thanks again for your generously sharing your time and thoughts, and the kind words.

[hieronymous]

Also, I wonder what the goal of this clause in character advancement is:  "If the Tale involves only one Player character, then no Virtue points are gained or lost — you can't gain much Renown if you're by yourself."  What kind of behavior are you trying to reinforce with this rule?

Sorry I forgot to respond to this question. The point of having ONE player get an automatic Roll 13 (failed Roll 13 really) to improve a Virtue is to allow for gradual but assured progression in the game (nod to Gamism). Such progression assumes that in a troupe different players will get a chance for a Virtue improvement. I felt it best to (a) encourage group play and (b) discourage stat-building solo games.

But even in a solo game there's opportunity for Virtue progression, if the roleplaying was outstanding:

"In addition, any Player who was awarded at least +13 in cumulative Narrative Modifiers in a single conflict or action may make the above roll for the specific Virtue most used in the action (Narrator's decision which Virtue in cases where it might not be clear). No Player may roll to increase any Virtue more more than once per Tale."

[Selene Tan]

To start off, I love the idea of a game about fairy tales and similar stories. I also like the color you've set up with the names of stats and what they mean. I do have a couple of points and questions.

As a quick note, you may want to read (i.e. GNS). I found it helpful in getting a handle on the concepts of Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism. Or you might want to just drop the jargon altogether -- sometimes that's easier and leads to less confusion.

Another note is that your game seems very GM heavy. As Kenji pointed out, several of your rules give the GM a lot of power over the players. The problem is that this also puts a big burden on the GM to manage things so that the game is fun for everybody.

I'm of the opinion that, given the genre, the game would benefit from conflict resolution instead of task resolution. Fairy tales tend to be strongly deterministic -- things happen because they were meant to happen. This is not to say that the GM should determine all outcomes without consulting the players, but that it should be clear what the outcomes mean in terms of the story. You can look at [URL=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14588#155046]Tony's summary of the differences between task and conflict resolution, or look up Conflict Resolution in the RPG Theory Wiki.

[ironick]

I don't know, Selene, it looks to me like the system is already conflict resolution.  After all, the protagonists are battling for the overall stakes (i.e., the conflict) rather than for each individual action (task).  As was recently pointed out to me in this thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14871

there is no definitive link between simulationism/task resolution and narrativism/conflict resolution.

Heironymous, I know you've already said you disagree with this claim, but I've got to agree with kenjib that your game seems awful Simulationist to me.  If you read Ron's Sim article ("Right to Dream"), exploring genre is specifically used as an example of one type of Sim play.

What does all of this mean?  Not a damn thing, as far as I'm concerned.  Task resolution and Conflict resolution are just tools to use for any part of GNS, and as Ron pointed out to me in the above thread, sometimes going into game design with a creative agenda in mind just gets in the way.  The most important thing is simply to make sure that your rules don't undermine whatever it is that you as a designer want to accomplish.

Nick

[hieronymous]

I'm coming to the conclusion that the GSN construct, while extremely useful as context for a game designer's inquiry at the onset of devising a game, may in this case have outlived that usefulness. So I'll probably drop the terms in the game altogether. I'll bow to the wisdom that there's a Sim element here, and move on.

I'll also echo Nick in that the the game is heavily vested in conflict resolution (though basic Roll 13 is of course task resolution).

Of perhaps greater import is the significance of the Narrator. Most significantly the Narrator assigns Narrative Modifiers and is therefore literally the "judge" (to use an old RPG term perhaps now fallen out of favor). It seems that some object that a prominent GM is undesirable; that could be. Personally, I have no problem with having a strong GM (obviously) and believe it is mete for the Narrator to fulfill that role.

Is indeed the general concensus (if there is such a thing) that players should be given greater plot control? Do I fulfill that expectation with my Keyword rules?

It would seem that if I were to try eliminate the Narrator as arbiter of Narrative Mods I would need to go to dice pools or an auction system. Other options?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

To interject another approach to this discussion, here's a reference you might like to check out.

Deliria, by Phil Brucato, published through his Laughing Pan Productions.

I think the "How to run a saga" section of the site would be interesting reading for you.

Best,
Ron

[Selene Tan]

I may have been led astray by the long description of when and when not to roll for climbing a ladder.

[kenjib]

Of perhaps greater import is the significance of the Narrator. Most significantly the Narrator assigns Narrative Modifiers and is therefore literally the "judge" (to use an old RPG term perhaps now fallen out of favor). It seems that some object that a prominent GM is undesirable; that could be. Personally, I have no problem with having a strong GM (obviously) and believe it is mete for the Narrator to fulfill that role.

Is indeed the general concensus (if there is such a thing) that players should be given greater plot control? Do I fulfill that expectation with my Keyword rules?

It would seem that if I were to try eliminate the Narrator as arbiter of Narrative Mods I would need to go to dice pools or an auction system. Other options?

Hello again Heironymous,

When I brought up the issue of strong Narrator control, I was speaking mostly from the perspective of your stated goal that the game would strongly encourage narrative styles of play.  However, it is hard to do so when characters are not fully empowered to pursue a premise of their own chosing (usually through some control over the direction of the game at both the setup phase and during play) and they are not allowed to make meaningful choices in which they understand the consequences and see those consequences played out.

Now that we have moved on from that context, which I agree is a good idea (I only brought it up because of the introductory text in your game), I think we can look at the issue from a different perspective.  What are the benefits of granting a lot of control over the rules to the GM?  It seems like, in examining the examples I pulled out above, the different goals that you are trying to achieve are all there to meet one or more of three basic functions in some combination or another (please ammend if you think that there are others):

1.  To make sure that players both stay true to the fairy tale setting and create internally consistent characters - i.e. if a player puts "likes to hack computers" but the setting is medieval fairy tale, or if they create an aspect of "Hulking Brute of a Man" and then give themself a 1 in Hand, then the Narrator can step in and require changes.

2.  To enforce game balance - i.e. if a player puts "can do anything and everything that anyone else can do" the Narrator can veto or limit that power so that other players are not overshadowed.

3.  To enforce a feedback mechanism for determining the quality of input from a given player and by so doing give incentive for players to "tell good stories," so to speak - i.e. if a player does something really cool but does not meet the formal requirement for reward the Narrator can give him reward anyway, or if a player describes an action without any creativity or inspiration he can penalize the action as a nudge reminding them to try harder next time.

Addressing these issues by assigning power over them exclusively to Narrator fiat is certainly a way to handle these issues, and has in fact traditionally been very common in RPG design (refer to Storyteller and AD&D for classic examples).  However, I think that there are also other ways to handle these issues that provide a much more productive play experience.

I'll try and toss out some random ideas that might make you either think about some alternate ways of handling these issues or decide that you have already made the right choice and like how it is handled already - I'm not trying to say that you have made any wrong decisions.

#1
It is everyone's game, right?  A potential problem here is that the Narrator creates a game that he enjoys, and nobody else enjoys, but everyone goes along with it anyway because that's what the rules tell them to expect.  What if, instead of the GM setting everything up for everyone, all of the players had some kind of mechanism for providing input into the underlying setting of the game?  It is already stated in the game that there is some flexibility regarding modern fairy tale versus traditional style, for example, and there is no pre-written setting.  Why not set the group's creativity lose and see if they can all collectively come up with something that everyone is excited about?  I suspect that if you achieve that kind of consensus then everyone is more likely to stay true to the setting.  You might look to Universalis for one example of how this can be done.

As regards a character having inconsistencies, I would like to question whether it matters or not.  In http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14913">this thread about characters vs. character sheets there is some discussion about whether the character exists on paper or in the game.  What matters more, the sheet that a player creates or how the character actually unfolds in play?  When do and do not the words on the page ("Hulking Brute of a Man") become credible statements in play ("Just got his butt handed to him in a wrestling match with a little girl") and can the words on the page be pre-empted by actual experience ("Thinks he's a hulking brute, but is tragically full of hubris and delusion")?

#2
Ideally, you want to let players fulfill whatever their vision is without distrupting the play of other people, right?  Heroquest has a rule whereby if a trait is too broadly defined, it takes a penalty in play.  This handles the problem from the other direction.  Instead of limiting what someone can put, you instead handle whatever they put in such a way that it is not disruptive.  So someone with a charm of "can do anything and everything that anyone else can do" is actually kind of cool and may provide for some interesting moments (refer to Rogue from the X-Men comics) when he has, say a -4 penalty applied whenever he uses that charm.

#3
Feedback mechanism have been a big topic here lately.  If affirmation is the reward for good play, then where do we, as players, really seek affirmation from?  Is it the narrator?  Is it some kind of audience?  If so, who is the audience?  Some recent games like Primetime Adventures and Capes have some really cool mechanics that meet this need.  It is the input of other players that ultimately reinforce or discourge various contributions to the game.


Conclusion
The rules of a game are all about helping to create a certain social dynamic at the table.  That's what they are there for.  What kind of dynamic are your rules encouraging and is that the social dynamic you want?

[Bill Masek]

heironymous,

I love the look and feel of the pdf.  Your art is excellent the look and feel of the text itself really helps draw you in.  Very well done.

I like the Embellishment stage of your conflict rules.  It is a clever way to allow players to partake in some of the nitty gritty elements of the conflict without adding a lot mechanical overhead while at the same time strongly motivating the players to be creative instead of simply tactical.

However, it seems strange for the GM to assign herself bonuses for a good description.  I know very few people who are capable of honestly judging their own descriptions to the degree which the game requires.  However, since so much of the resolution system is based on narrative bonuses it would be a hard problem to get around.

Here is one suggestion.  Instead of giving the NPCs bonuses for the GM's narration simply raise their virtues.  The GM will still partake in the Embellishment stage with the players, but with the goal of giving the players more material to work with then to increase her probability of success.

I believe that this would also help you maintain the fairy tale feel of your story.  Think of it this way, in Fairy Tales villains are always effective.  The giant in Jack and the Bean Stalk is a bone grinding horror no matter what he is doing.  The hero's effectiveness is like a yoyo.  They always start out fairly weak and attain success through trickery, cleverness or something cool.

I don't think that your difficulty modifiers work with what you are trying to do.  In Fairy Tales, characters successes and failures rest on who and what they are, not the conditions of the world around them.  A giant can lift a rock, a tree or a mountain simply because he is a giant.  A nymph can stun mortals with her beauty even if it is cold and dizzily.  And, in the Fairy Tale, they are both equally effective under each situation.

I like the way you do Charms and I believe that it is self limiting.  That is to say that I don't think any power can actually be more effective then another when it comes to actual conflict resolution if it is used properly.  The broader a Charm is the less interesting its use is.  It is very hard to make something like "Power Cosmic" all that compelling.  Limitations help generate creativity and since the only advantage charms give players is more potential to do cool and interesting things I don't feel that you have to worry about a charm being to powerful.

Over all I think that you have a very interesting game with a lot of potential.  It looks like it will deliver a lot of substance without the heavy over head it usually involves.

Best,
       Bill

[hieronymous]

Latest draft updated here:

http://www.malcontentgames.com/7leagues.pdf