First of all, let me say that this "system" (if you can call it that), is highly customizable and flexible, and I will try to convey that in this post.


This system is based off the general assumption that the GM controls and sets up all parameters for basic ideas, setting, and character creation. The system is based off of the idea that the GM either Approves ("Passes"), or Dissaproves ("Vetoes") any Player Characters' actions. This may be discussed beforehand between the Players and the GM. For example, you could have a game where players allways succeed UNLESS the GM vetoes, or you could have a game where the players fail all actions unless a GM approves the action. Second of all, you may discuss what happens when one of these things take place within the game, for example questions..

Who narrates when a character fails/succeeds?

How do you narrate the success/failure of NPC actions?
(Do they fail unless the GM approves, or do they succeed unless the GM vetoes? WHO narrates an NPCs' success/failure?)


Questions, Comments, Suggestions? I welcome them, please post if you have something to say.


PS: This is my first post, after having watched the Forums for a long time.

Hi Jack, welcome to the forge!

Now, I think the focus on success can be a bit of a red herring. Success isn't a vital mechanical part to have in a RPG's, though it is very favourable to build into a gamist game. In other words, how or when someone succeeds doesn't need to be built into the games design, its something you can have rather than must have. That's my opinion, anyway.

What's really important is what your trying to achieve with the system when a game session is run. For example, if you want to to explore a premise, like how much a man would fight for his woman, a system where your character drove off a cliff by accident even before he knew his woman was in danger, isn't supporting your design intent. Yes, people have car accidents in real life...but what are you trying to pursue in terms of design, simulating car accidents or finding out how much he'll fight for his woman?

Yes, most users don't have the hero make checks before its interesting, just as much as they don't let the PC's fall down stairs and die while taking out some rubbish. But as a designer if your system essentially suggests you should be making these checks, then people have to fight away from the systems inadvertant mechanics to get to the woman saving stuff, for example.

So, the overall idea of success can include the idea of possibly failing to get down the stairs with a garbage bag in your arms. The idea of success/failure carries with it some baggage which possibly wont support what you want your game to do.

In a small design I did awhile ago (sadly the only fully written up one I've got), I focused on getting effort out of players, in terms of colorful descriptions and cool extra bits they could describe. The intent, though, was to resolve the scene in a really cool way, as described by the player. Success was assured and couldn't be vetoed. This allowed the really cool descriptions to get to the front, as was my design intent.

I had an idea similar to this once, that I couldn't make work, so I put it on the back-burner.

The idea was to emulate the 'Mystery Men' where you play the role of a rubbish superhero.

The point was to build on failure in several staged scenes, until you finally get to the supervillain's lair and defeat him.

The way you do this is to narrate how you fail in the staged build-up scenes. Between the scenes you get to do some role-play, to reach the next staged scene.

For every time you successfully 'fail' i.e. by narrating the failure in a cool or amusing way, you get a point or a dice or something to use in the final scene, where you finally catch up with the villain.

The more points or dice or whatever you have built up, the better your superheroes chance of beating up or capturing the villain.

Simon W
http://www.geocities.com/dogs_life2003/
http://www.geocities.com/lashingsofgingerbeer2004/

Jack,

I'm new here too. Welcome!

As to your idea... I think most diceless games I have played already kind of work on that principle. They lean to "any action succeeds unless vetoed by the GM," but that's basically how it seems to work. So, for me, the new idea is the idea of turning that on its head and making all actions fail unless the GM approves them.

I'm not sure how fun I think that system would be. It could be very, very frustrating for the player, who might end up virtually begging for success like a dog begging for a milk-bone. While both scenarios presented don't really change the GM's powers that much, in my opinion, making it explicit might really change the atmosphere of the game.

I don't have enough Forge terminology to put that any better.

But I could be wrong. Success or failure might be a red herring, as noted above. But that's just how it seems to me.

Jack, welcome!

I think I agree that the success/failure question is a red herring. What's really at stake is story control. Is what you say happens going to happen, or is the GM going to nix it and say something else happens? Success or failure is incidental.

Jack, I suggest doing a search on the Lumpley Principle. I think your idea is basically stripping the game mechanics down to the bare principle, which is pretty cool.

captain_bateson wrote: As to your idea... I think most diceless games I have played already kind of work on that principle. They lean to "any action succeeds unless vetoed by the GM," but that's basically how it seems to work. So, for me, the new idea is the idea of turning that on its head and making all actions fail unless the GM approves them.

But I could be wrong. Success or failure might be a red herring, as noted above. But that's just how it seems to me.

I once ran a 4- or 5- session game with minimalist system and all resolutions by Fiat. I found it affected these issues in a number of ways.

Of the principles you describe, this was the option in which the GM's explicit assent is required to a player proposal, although it was not as formally organised as your idea.

This kind of system monkeys around with who says what when. In effect, the GM narrated all character failures (and a lot of character successes). Unlike a diced game where you might discuss modifiers and so forth before rolling, here there was no discussion, only a ruling.

That I found to tbe the most significant differenbces. It had it's upsides, in a more 'real' feeling challenge, but its downsides in that I had to make more decisions faster than with diced games.

In a diced game, you might set up a conflict, then determine initiative; without any such structure, such systematic breakpoints in the action, movement flowed into movement very fluidly, but somewhat confusingly.

I stress this was not a thought out system; I just replaced dice with fiat. A more designed system could address these issues up front.

I like Simon W's example, as it illustrates the character loosing, but the player winning (their winning dice to use latter). It shows how PC success or failure isn't important in design, but encouraging players toward some design goal is (check ouut the system does matter article here at the forge (link at the top to articles)).

Thank you for the input so far. I have to agree with the concept that sometimes what matters is not success or failure, but how you succeed or fail (ie. who gets to narrate) So I was thinking that an interesting cooperative game could involve a player narrating their action under a certain circumstance, and then a GM may "Veto" that specific narrative, and then have the GM narrate in what he thinks is best (This could be controlled through a system of "limited Vetoes", where the GM only gets so many vetoes in a session/mission/what have you.) Or, the GM could force the player to re-narrate in a different way, or even pass on the narrative rights to the current players' character to another player, and have them narrate.

Thanks, Ethan, I will look up that "Lumpley Principle"


Basically, the aim of anything I design or use, whether it be story, settings, plot, or systems, is to enjoy a good story, which involves a fairly even mix of suspense, drama, and action. I also enjoy exploring moral/spiritual/metaphysical themes as well, but so far, no system which claims to provide that kind of experience has grabbed me.

I also like the idea of Setting/World continuity, where, for some reason or another, you discover a long way down the line how your actions have changed history. Plus, actually having control over how your actions change history, either by what you do or how you do them, is the most exciting part of it, so, character control is also a big issue for me. This is probably why I allways liked the "Fallout" line of Computer RPGs (possibly the only true, quality RPGs on computer) because at the ending sequence, the game would basically tell you how your actions affected each location/town/situation, and endings could vary wildly, depending on what you did in each place. One idea to implement this in a story concept is to, after your first Campaign is over, have another one set in the exact same area several years, if not decades or centuries after the first campaign ended. This would allow the players who've done things here before to observe the consequences/benefits of their actions on the game world.


For me, at least, writing a good system is akin to writing a balanced Constitution for a new nation, to both allow the GM enough power to hold the game together, and to allow the Players to have the freedom to persue their ideas to the fullest extent possible.

Hi Jack,
I think you need to revisit some of your assumptions.

JackBauer wrote: ...I was thinking that an interesting cooperative game could involve a player narrating their action under a certain circumstance, and then a GM may "Veto" that specific narrative, and then have the GM narrate in what he thinks is best (This could be controlled through a system of "limited Vetoes", where the GM only gets so many vetoes in a session/mission/what have you.) Or, the GM could force the player to re-narrate in a different way, or even pass on the narrative rights to the current players' character to another player, and have them narrate.

For me, at least, writing a good system is akin to writing a balanced Constitution for a new nation, to both allow the GM enough power to hold the game together, and to allow the Players to have the freedom to persue their ideas to the fullest extent possible.

Thanks for your comments Ethan, I'm thinking about what you said...

So, Ethan, what happens when you start a game, what preparations are involved, and what themes/genres does the game usually take on? Are there any formal rules?

Born of the Blood is a diceless game I've been working on for a while. It uses a combination of karma and ordinary playing cards for resolution.

Karma is used in a similar way to Amber (ADRPG), with each player also recieving a hand of cards. Cards can be used to boost an ability by one 'rank' temporarily, or if another card opposes it the cards add their values to the opposing attributes. Cards can also be used a votes or vetoes in narration by the GM or players, with their values resolving cases where two players (or a player and the GM) oppose each other in this way.

Conceptualy the cards are narative vetoes, and their use in contests is just a special case of that. In playtest cards were used by players to state that their character had a certain piece of equipment not noted on their character sheet, for example.

I think pure fiat can work - I've seen it done successfuly - but that a very simple resolution sstem such as playing cards or even rock-paper-scissors is generaly superior. They're simple enough mechanisms that they don't overly break the flow of the game, but can make the game seem more 'democratic'. This is good, because it menas there's more chance the game will go in unforseen directions. In my experience people are at their most creative when there is genuine uncertainty for everyone - players and GMs - about how things are going to work out.


Simon Hibbs

My search fu is weak. I've picked up what I think is the Lumpley Principle from various post, but if anyone could provide a link to it, I think its time I read it proper.

The original posting of the Lumpley Principle:
Vincent's Standard Rant: Power, Credibility and Assent

Also check out this thread:
The Lumpley Principle Goes Wading

And much goodness can be found in this thread as well:
Adventures in Improvised System

Jack: In respsonse to your questions, I must sheepishly shuffle my feet a bit, because I don't have a lot of experience with the type of play we're discussing. I'll do my best to answer your questions anyway, of course. So how do I see a game startup? I picture a group of people, all of whom are on friendly terms, and all of whom are enthusiastic about creating a story. They decide what the story will be about, where it will take place, and a general "flavor" for the story. (Sample flavors could be comedy, tragedy, romantic comedy, pulp, noir, horror, drama, etc.) The players make characters for the story in a collaborative, group creation process. Once they're ready, you go around the room and each player gets to frame a scene. Any player that wants to can insert their character into the scene and help to shape the events. Follow the rules of polite conversation - no shouting matches, no interrupting, etc. Players can dictate what their character does, but no player can disempower another player's character through narration. The player who framed the scene acts as a sort of group facilitator for that scene. Once the scene is played out, you go to the next player and they get to frame a scene, and so on.

However. It occurs to me, based on reading your initial post and then reading my own brain dump above, that we may be talking about two entirely different styles of play. So my ideas may or may not be appropriate to what you're wanting to discuss. If that's the case, let me know - I want this conversation to be as useful as possible to you.

I usually play online in AOL chatrooms, I've actually never played face-to-face. I usually GM, and I play in very small groups (1-3 players). We usually start by discussing a genre/setting, and then creating the players' characters according to the genre (I usually never reject a character, though). I've never done anything like your describing. So, if I'm seeing this right, the players, and not the GM, creates scenes? So, are the scenes chronologically ordered or do you allow it to skip around? What does the GM do, exactly, besides asking the players to frame scenes? The games I play are usually pretty continuous and not chopped up into "scenes", plus, the players almost are never aware of the story before the game starts, it rather unfolds after the game starts. We don't have "scenes" persay, I provide them with loose "objectives" through ingame cues and clues, and provide challenges on their way towards meeting them.

First off, I highly, highly recommend picking up a copy of Universalis. It's 18 bucks shipped, and worth its weight in gold for the kind of shared authorship play I'm talking about. Check it out here. Again, I highly recommend it. Even if you never play it, it's got useful information about what "scenes" are, what framing a scene entails, and stuff like that.

Now, when you say you don't have "scenes" in your game, I suspect you actually have them but just aren't calling them that. For example, when all the characters are asleep, I'm betting you don't play that out in game. So, when a player says, "my character is going to sleep," and you say, "okay, the next morning you get up and..." That's basically scene framing in practice. Scene framing is a technique used to skip to the "good bits." Does that make sense?

Regarding that illustration of play I gave in that last post, all that I'm doing is giving each player an equal opportunity to decide what "good bits" get to happen when. The GM/Player distinction pretty much dissolves. Or, you could say that the GM duties get passed around among the players.

The scenes don't necessarilly have to be in chronological order (although I suspect they will be a lot of the time). Just as you can have flashbacks in movies, you can use them in this type of play.

So what responsibilities and power does the acting GM have? Well, it's their scene, so they get to set it up, specifying location, who all is there (including NPCs and PCs and random extras), and the events that take place that warrant the scene. What warrants a scene? Well, it has to be a "good bit." For example, you wouldn't frame a scene and say, "Okay, we're all sitting in the bar. What do you do?" Instead, you might say, "Okay, we're all sitting in the bar, when suddenly the sound of motorcycles starts getting louder and louder. People start looking around, and pow! A biker drives his motorcycle right through the front window! Glass and splinters of wood from the broken framework go flying everywhere, and people start running and screaming. The bike crashes into the tables, and the biker leaps off, lands on the bar, and pulls out a grenade. What do you do?" From that point on, it's shared authorship all the way. The scene framer shouldn't have a planned outcome for the scene.

The rules of behavior are pretty simple: Don't be a jerk, don't screw anyone else over, and stay true to the previously agreed-upon story framework. When you've got a group that's dedicated to the story and the flavor, it's not a problem to have the rules be that loose. If everyone's on the same team, it's going to be fun. Now if, for example, the above scene was framed in the middle of a Pirates-of-the-Carribean-themed game, that's obviously a problem, since pirates didn't have motorcycles. But how likely is something like that to happen, unless there's an underlying problem with the social contract of the group?

JackBauer wrote: ...plus, the players almost are never aware of the story before the game starts, it rather unfolds after the game starts. We don't have "scenes" persay, I provide them with loose "objectives" through ingame cues and clues, and provide challenges on their way towards meeting them.

Tho I think the discussion has moved on, I'd like to note that the proposed system greatly resembles my game Success.

That sounds like a neat way to play. I'd like to try it sometime. So, if you do'nt have practical experience with the type of play you're talking about, what type of play do you have experience with?

I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to my actual play habits. Beyond some dabbling here and there with things like Universalis, I usually play "standard" (for lack of a better term) games. Games like D&D, Savage Worlds, GURPS, Vampire, FUDGE. They have a strong GM who is considered to be in the driver's seat for the game.

On the other hand, I'm real interested in a lot of the theoretical mumbo jumbo that gets discussed around here, and I like to get my hands on and devour cool games that attempt to (and sometimes succeed in) pushing the boundaries of the hobby. So what if I never get a chance to play them! Sigh. :)

Also, I want to point out that I don't think that GM-authorship is a bad thing. After all, I'd be a pretty disgruntled gamer if I did think that. Shared authorship is just different. Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses.