Character Concept
The player should give a short (100 words or less) description of the PC concept. For example, “John McGowen is a Knight-Errant, hailing originally from the conquered nation of Avileson. He now sells his service to those with money and a good cause, and hopes some day to return to liberate his homeland. John is a master swordsman, but has little time for those who prefer talk to action.”

The concept must serve as a roadmap for assigning Abilities and Skills, and may well help determine the types of NPCs he is likely to be able to Define as Contacts (see below).

==============================================

Abilities
Assign the following Abilities a score. Each may be given a score of 0, 2, 3 and 4, but no two may start at the same score and all must have a score assigned. The score is the number of D10s to throw for resolution of appropriate tasks.

Abilities
· Fightin’
· Talkin’
· Sneakin’

==============================================

Skills
Each player begins with three skill packages, one each at score 9, 7 and 5. The score is the target number of d10s thrown. The skill packages encompass any activity that might be directly related to the skill. For Knight, for example, heraldry, riding, swordsmanship and courtly etiquette would all be viable tasks to apply Knight to (though the Ability to apply depends on the activity).

Part of the PC creation process is to define with the GM the character’s Skills and what activities each Skill might encompass.

Skill examples:
· Knight (i.e. Riding, Heraldry, Swordsmanship, etc)
· Scout (i.e. Hiding, Moving Silently, Archery, Spotting, Navigation, Wilderness Lore)
· Burglar (i.e. Hiding, Moving Silently, Listening, Spotting, Opening Locks, Appraisal)
· Noble (i.e. Courtly Etiquette, History, Leadership, Heraldry, Event Hosting)
· Carpenter (i.e. Crafting, Appraisal, Haggling)

==============================================

Contacts
Every character begins with a number of undefined Contacts equal to his Talkin’ score. Whenever the GM introduces a new NPC, the PC may make a straight Talkin’ ability test against a skill that would conceivably allow the PC to have met the NPC in question, in order to Define the contact. For example, Knight or Noble might indicate the PC knows the local Baron.

Contacts, if successfully defined, will pass on hints, information and minor aid (a term that is relevant – minor to a King is potentially much more useful than the minor aid a beggar could give a PC). They will not knowingly risk their lives (GMs should decide how likely the risk is – anything less than a 25% chance is probably alright, with assurances from the PC).

Occasionally this will cause the adventure to go off in a totally unexpected direction.

==============================================

Combat Resolution
There are three types of combat – Armed, Unarmed, and Ranged. The process for combat is simple, and the same for all types.

1) The attacker rolls his Fightin’ Attribute versus a relevant Skill (i.e. Knight for swordplay). The attacker’s target number is adjusted by half the difference between his combat Skill and his target’s melee-based Combat skill.

Armed/Unarmed Example
For example, if the PC has a Knight skill of 7 and the target has a Soldier skill of 9, the difference divided by two and rounded up is 1; the PC’s target number is adjusted down by 1 point to 6. Any dice he rolls equal to or greater than 6 would hit.

Ranged Example
The Attacker, a Scout using a bow, fires at the charging Soldier. The Soldier can use his melee-related Skill for purposes of adjusting the attacker’s target number. If the Scout were firing at a fleeing Rogue from castle walls, however, the Rogue could elect to use his agility-based skill instead. Melee combat and agility-based Skills are equally appropriate.

Note: If the Defender is unaware of the attack, as with a successful ambush, his relevant score is assumed to be 0, and thus half the Attacker’s skill rounded up is deducted from the target number. This is usually fatal for the poor target.

2) The Defender repeats this process, and each success of his counters one success of the Attacker from the attacker’s preceding roll. If the Defender gets more successes than the Attacker had, roles switch, with Attacker becoming Defender and Defender becoming Attacker. If he gets fewer successes, he is Hit.

3) The first combatant to take a number of hits equal to his Fightin’ Ability score is defeated, dropping unconscious and bleeding to the floor. An additional hit is immediately fatal. Prior to unconsciousness, each Hit gives a +1 cumulative penalty to combat Skill.

==============================================

Equipment
There are several types of equipment. Weapons, Armors, and Tools.


Weapons:
Light – Daggers, shortswords, etc. These impose a +1 penalty to the target for hitting in combat, but add +2 to the number of successes for purposes of keeping or seizing theAttacker status for the following round.

Medium – Arming swords, long swords, short spears, etc. These have no penalty and no benefit either way.

Long/Heavy – Spears, lances, pole arms in general. These grant a –1 to the target number when attacking, but a –2 penalty to the number of successes for purposes of keeping or seizing theAttacker status for the following round.

Ranged – As a general rule, the range on a bow is significant. Attackers gain a +1 penalty to the target number for attacks per 10 yards of distance to the target, but automatically become the Defender in the round after being engaged in melee combat.

Improvised – Bottles, rocks, bows in melee, etc. These have all the penalties of Light and Heavy weapons combined, with none of the benefits.


Armors
Light – No attack penalty, -1 to the number of successes an Attacker gets when striking you. Examples are chain shirt, leather armor.

Medium – Attack penalty of +1, but a -2 to the number of successes an Attacker gets when striking you. You also have a +1 penalty to the target number of any agility-based Skill and Swimming, etc. Examples include chainmail and some banded mails (such as Lorica Segmentata).

Heavy – Attack penalty of +2, but a –4 to the number of successes an Attacker gets when striking you. You also have a +2 penalty to the target number of any agility-based Skill, and if falling into water, will sink immediately. Examples include any full-body metal armor such as banded mail, medieval platemail, or even chainmail with greaves.


Tools
These range from boats, to hammers and forges for blacksmiths to lockpicks for rogues. At the GM’s discretion, a task may be impossible without tools. Tools grant anywhere from –0 to –3 on Skill checks, depending on quality and design. The GM is final arbiter of this number.

As the Ability names show, this is supposed to be taken fairly lightly. It is meant as just a framework to give people a tool to create a story together. With things so abstractly defined, the differentiation between characters will have to come from roleplaying and concept, mostly.

It takes its inspiration from a variety of sources including D20, Riddle of Steel, and Wod, but I haven't intentionally copied any one of them in particular.

Mostly... I was bored and wondering what sort of mechanics would allow me to play a highly narrative game that was both GM-driven and allowed a little bit of narrativist element to it, that would not focus on the mechanics much but still give a bit of structure. In that goal, I hope it succeeds :)

Have you considered how (if?) the characters will improve and gain experience during the course of a campaign?

It seems that there are so few stats/skills that maxing them all out would go pretty fast if a convetional scheme is employed. But perhaps the game is more suited for one-off adventures where each new adventure calls for a new set of characters.

If you want this to be a narrativist game, have you considered how your mechanics allow players to address premise? All I see so far is a way to define a character broadly and resolve combat.

-Ben

I was bored and wondering what sort of mechanics would allow me to play a highly narrative game that was both GM-driven and allowed a little bit of narrativist element to it, that would not focus on the mechanics much but still give a bit of structure.

I really like the character construction! I think you've managed to encapsulate in just three characteristics the basic interaction nodes of most non-magical "fantasy" or pseudo-medieval campaigns.

I think one could easily play both simulationist and narrativist campaigns with this character construction. I don't see enough mechanics options for gamist campaigning at this point in time.

I can also see a few character conceptions which wouldn't fit with your current system, either. There's no characteristic for intellectual or spiritual endeavors, so no playing sages, natural philosophers (i.e. scientists/scholars), wizards, mystics, or miracle-wielding clerics. Since I'm a great fan of magic, I might import a magical system as a house rule, with three different magical schools working off each of the three characteristics (holy mystics using Talkin', wily sorcerers using Sneakin', and fierce wizards using Fightin' to wrest the magic from reality's grip). However, you seem to be building your system for a non-magical campaign, so I don't perceive the above as a lack in your system.

I'm not as comfortable with your combat mechanics. I think a few examples using specific language would help a lot.

I'd definitely like to see more of this!

Doctor Xero

Wilper wrote: Have you considered how (if?) the characters will improve and gain experience during the course of a campaign?

It seems that there are so few stats/skills that maxing them all out would go pretty fast if a convetional scheme is employed. But perhaps the game is more suited for one-off adventures where each new adventure calls for a new set of characters.

Ravien wrote: If you want this to be a narrativist game, have you considered how your mechanics allow players to address premise? All I see so far is a way to define a character broadly and resolve combat.

-Ben

Mike Holmes wrote: What do you mean by "GM-driven"? Basically, I think that you're talking here about division of power, but I'm not sure where precisely you want to set the line.

Or is that what you're asking? Where to set the line between GM and player authority?

Mike

Doctor Xero wrote: I really like the character construction! I think you've managed to encapsulate in just three characteristics the basic interaction nodes of most non-magical "fantasy" or pseudo-medieval campaigns.

I think one could easily play both simulationist and narrativist campaigns with this character construction. I don't see enough mechanics options for gamist campaigning at this point in time.

I can also see a few character conceptions which wouldn't fit with your current system, either. There's no characteristic for intellectual or spiritual endeavors, so no playing sages, natural philosophers (i.e. scientists/scholars), wizards, mystics, or miracle-wielding clerics. Since I'm a great fan of magic, I might import a magical system as a house rule, with three different magical schools working off each of the three characteristics (holy mystics using Talkin', wily sorcerers using Sneakin', and fierce wizards using Fightin' to wrest the magic from reality's grip). However, you seem to be building your system for a non-magical campaign, so I don't perceive the above as a lack in your system.

I'm not as comfortable with your combat mechanics. I think a few examples using specific language would help a lot.

I'd definitely like to see more of this!

Doctor Xero

Hmmm. I'm not sure, but I you think you might be misunderstanding narrativism (like nearly everyone around here at one stage, and me until just recently).

Your Contacts idea sounds pretty good, but it doesn't do anything at all to help players address premise. Narrativism is not about narrative or narrating or Director stance. See Terminology: Narrativism for the thread that taught me what narrativism was about. Vincent's first post there was particularly helpful:

Vincent wrote: Ron's said this a lot: for "moral issue" you can substitute "ethical question" or "problematic human issue" if it makes more sense to you. I personally say "Narrativism is about saying something interesting about people" - where "saying something interesting about people" means just exactly the same thing as "addressing Premise," "taking on a moral problem," "confronting an ethical question," or Tim's "making meaningful choices relevent to the current issue/theme." Find the overlap between those phrases and you can express it in your own words.

Emiricol wrote: May I loot your idea? Not sure I will, or that it would remain unchanged, but you put up an interesting idea to consider.

Ravien wrote: Hmmm. I'm not sure, but I you think you might be misunderstanding narrativism (like nearly everyone around here at one stage, and me until just recently).