Hi !

When developing Chaos & Order, I've stumbled onto meanings of generic rpgs. Usually generic rpgs means generic in a setting-wise, it can be played in different settings. What I'm after is something more: I try to create a game that is generic in setting-wise but also in playing style-wise. With playing style I mean the player power issues and game intention (gaming, drama and immersion).

I thought a while for the right approach to this, I don't want to put players to think about rpg theory, it is never going to happen for all players. However after few discussions of the subject I decided to approach the situation with questions, questions that relate to playing the game and not theory. The questions are divided into system and group questions. System questions handle game system stuff and group questions handle player agreements on subjects. Here are the questions I've come up so far:

System questions
1. Who controls the character creation (is the supervisor)?
2. Who controls character traits / can see them?
3. Who controls how character experience is handled?

4. When are the game mechanics invoked?
5. Who decides the character traits appropriate to the task?
6. Who decides / can see the difficulty levels?
7. Who decides / can see the luck die chosen?
8. What are the reasons for selecting a luck die (tactics/excitement/realistic feel)?
9. Who rolls the dice / can see the results?
10. Who decides the AP-levels for extended contests?
11. Who interprets the resolution mechanics' results and describes them?
12. Can the interpreter cheat and for what reason (excitement/story/realistic feel)?
13. Who decides what narrative struggle effects apply to a scene?

group questions
1. What are player's roles (one GM, no GM, ...)?
2. What is the player - character relationship (1 player / character, something else)?
3. How does player relate to his character(s)?
- must react as his character to things
- must react as the rules indicate
- must react so that interesting story unfolds
4. Who controls the character's inner feelings?
5. Who controls character's behaviour / actions?
6. Who controls npc actions / feelings ?
7. Who controls the world around characters and how the world reacts to their actions?
8. Who controls large-scale developments, backstories and 'fate' ?

Note that answers to these questions are mostly not like (yes/no) but they can be long and descriptive. For example you could answer to group question 7 that some dice is thrown and the one getting the highest die will control that scene, for next scene new roll is made and so on.

What do you think? Can I even pull this off? Is this possible?

The game rules:
overview: http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jphannil/co_overview.pdf
long version with examples: http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jphannil/chaos_order.pdf
(Note that the rules online haven't adapted to this approach yet)

Best regards

Because our conversation on the #ropeteoria discussion channel on IRCNet IRC (ropeteoria is roleplaying theory in Finnish) perhaps prompted you to formulate and ask these questions, I feel obligated to respond.

First of all, I think that it is cool that you will include these questions to C&O, because asking them will make people think. It does not matter that most will pick the traditional approach, thinking is good for you.

I will be able to analyse your question better after this week, because right now I'm pretty tied up with a math exam.

Now, I think that there is nothing wrong with generic systems in general if you acknowledge their limitations. C&O is quite versatile, but it too has its limitations. IMO it would be worthwhile to explore them, perhaps with these questions heling along the way. By doing that, you can then try to support those styles of playing. IMO ATM, C&O can't handle many of the possible answers to these questions. However, it could.

I think that what you are doing is good. I think that this direction you are taking C&O is a good one. It will be hard to pul off and I think that the way to success is to acknowledge your failures. For example, Universalis is much better in "a shared story, shared characters, no GM, characters as story elements, zero immersion game" than C&O can ever hope to be. No problem. These options can still bring a lot of good ideas to C&O gameplay.

Hey, I have an additional question to you. "Who decides which abilities are/can be used in success rolls?"

jphannil wrote:
What do you think? Can I even pull this off? Is this possible?

I hope so, since the formalized social contract in Formless is pretty much exactly what you're describing. I won't know until it's released if it will go over well or not, but I hope that it will ;)

Just a note, the online game rules now include the stuff mentioned in this thread, the questions have been clarified a bit and re-organized. There is also one example of gaming style (the classic style) and I'm writing more "game style templates".

Best regards

Great post! Not only do I think it would be useful to include these in a game, but every game designer should ask these questions of himself as well. This is some excellent design advice. I'm certainly bookmarking this thread. Depending on further response, maybe this could be a sticky?

Cheers
Jonathan

Hi !

Just wanted to pop in and tell that I have new version online that includes these game style questions, and 4 gaming style examples. These include:

1. Standard (strong gm) style
2. Poolish (gm, but players can narrate short bits) style
3. Rotating gm with a playing card mechanic to focus the type of scenes
4. Group storytelling with no real player characters at all.

Note that only the standard style is tested, these are just pre-test ramblings.
The new version is in http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jphannil/chaos_order.pdf

Best regards