Topic: Random Rule Game: loose initial concept (split)
Started by: Brendan
Started on: 2/5/2005
Board: Indie Game Design
On 2/5/2005 at 5:16pm, Brendan wrote:
Random Rule Game: loose initial concept (split)
This is not my idea; it rightly belongs to Callan and Robert, and if they want to take it and go home that's cool. I just thought that the discussion in Intentional Vagueness was firming up enough that it needed an IGD post.
komradebob wrote: One thought presents itself to me, and that is the idea of a game that starts off with a setting, as opposed to system. Think of it as the rpgame equivalent of the Thieves World or Wild Cards anthology series. I don't know that this would be the perfect answer to your question, but it might be a starting point...
Noon wrote: What I was thinking was simulating the bombardment of strange rules you would have gotten as a young player, and how you were forced to figure it out.
What I was thinking was to have a table of rule fragments, something like this but longer:
1. Find the characters correct attribute and roll under it on the attribute test die.
2. Apply damage to the both armour and target struck, the armour deflecting it's usual ammount.
3. Etc, etc.
You'd have perhaps three charts...one for the first part of a rule, one for the middle and one for the end. You just roll on each to generate a completely arbitrary, yet intriguing sounding rule!
Then you roll to see who is the 'buck stopper' in the group. This isn't the person who decides exactly what the generated rule means, but who collates all the arguements and declares how it 'really' works. This random system would be designed so everyone get's an even number of turns at 'buck stopping'.
As to when this happens? You just freeform along until someone (anyone!) challenges something you do with 'Nah, there's a rule for that!".
Sort of the mad brother of Universalis!
komradebob wrote: I would recommend that idea as a card game rather than a chart based game.
I think these ideas were meant for each other. Completely arbitrary rules sans setting could be fun, but that sounds more like a Blank White Card Game than a light RPG to me. But what if you mixed setting cards with rule charts?
For example, I might shuffle the Setting deck and deal out three cards for the game: say Dawn Of History, Aliens and Big City. Now everybody can come out with their own impressions of what that would mean, and we end up with a collective image of a sprawling Babylon where blood-sorcerers do battle with the gray men from the skies--or maybe make deals with them instead.
This in turn gives us a little focus on which charts to check. For example, Big City might suggest (right on the card) charts 1, 10 and 13--which have rules that lean toward social interaction, commerce and fortification, respectively. Aliens might push rules that cover sci-fi weapons, biology and mystery. Et cetera. If you want wild-card (literally) rules, role d20 or d100 or whatever and use that to pick a new chart. And when the buck stopper decides that a rule is ready, it gets written down on an index card and added to the table.
I think this would have potentially huge toy quality, both in terms of Props and Mechanics--in fact, the Props would be halfway generating the Mechanics (hmm, like reverse Nomic). Not only do you have the semiotic and tactile value of Setting and rule cards being dealt and created in play, you could pack up the cards you created for that particular session and have a new RPG when you're done. Stick them in a baggie and Sharpie the date and three initial Setting cards on the side. Maybe write down the name of that session on the back of each card, and then shuffle them with cards from other sessions.
Callan, Robert, is this anything like what you guys had in mind? Does anybody else have a way to refine or enhance the tactile-rules feeling I think is interesting here?
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 14131
On 2/7/2005 at 9:55am, Noon wrote:
RE: Random Rule Game: loose initial concept (split)
Callan, Robert, is this anything like what you guys had in mind?
Not really. Does that matter? :)
I was thinking the invention should revolve around wisps of system. Rather than creating from whole cloth, your sort of looking at a mixed bag and having to work out something from that. It's sort of a challenge to work from that.
In terms of setting I'd probably have some vanilla, standard setting and then plop the cards on it. The cards might have something like "Random monster X are clearly evil, but wear the symbols of good gods on their armour". So your like, WTF? Why is that going on? Jesus, that's so glaring I'd better invent a reason for it.
It's sort of that 'Jeez, what's already here is compelling but just doesn't make sense...unless I just add this little bit here...and here...etc'. Actually I guess this means each card should suggest some sort of conflict, but not in the least explain why that conflict exists.
Just idea's, don't let me sway you unduely.
On 2/7/2005 at 6:25pm, Brendan wrote:
RE: Random Rule Game: loose initial concept (split)
Ah, interesting. Your example there makes me think more of a "rules of the world" idea more than rules in a mechanical sense.
Maybe we should each design a game that fits our individual concepts, then put them in a jar and make them fight!
On 2/8/2005 at 12:11am, Noon wrote:
RE: Random Rule Game: loose initial concept (split)
My original idea did just resolve around the mechanics. As I noted here, I'd do the same for setting (which I hadn't thought about until you mentioned doing the same for setting)...have wisps of it and then add conflicts which you've gotta figure out why they then exist in it.
Don't forget to put holes in the lid of the jar! :)
On 2/8/2005 at 2:51pm, gains wrote:
RE: Random Rule Game: loose initial concept (split)
What you're suggesting is remarkably like the "Oblique Strategies" of RPGs!
Brain Eno and a friend made up a deck of cards for when they were feeling uninspired. Each card has a suggestion for how to think about the music you're making differently. If you hit writer's block, draw a card and try it. Even if it's a bad idea, at least you aren't sitting there doing nothing!
In it's most generalized sense, you could make up a deck of "plot twists" or background events for when a GM wants a new direction to move in. More specific decks could relate to settings, etc.
I still like the concept of rules sets drawn by deck though. Maybe that's a way to include variant rules if a rule set is already agreed on.
On 2/8/2005 at 9:01pm, Brendan wrote:
RE: Random Rule Game: loose initial concept (split)
Hmm. Has anybody else seen Lee Short's Lego of the Gods, or am I just way behind the curve?
On 2/8/2005 at 9:24pm, Kesher wrote:
RE: Random Rule Game: loose initial concept (split)
I have, Brendan. I'm about halfway through it. I don't think you're behind the curve (if you're talking about the mechanics); LotG, as he points out, isn't exactly an rpg on its own at the moment, whereas you've been talking about a full-fledged game. What connections do you see, specifically?
Your (and Callan's) ideas, btw, I've been thinking about, and will post here as soon as I have some freeeeeking time...
On 2/8/2005 at 11:32pm, Brendan wrote:
RE: Random Rule Game: loose initial concept (split)
Kesher, I just saw LotG via a friend's del.icio.us feed today and read the intro--I saw world-building based on solving the problems suggested by a deck of cards, which is why I posted it. I'll post more connections as I see them (or fail to do so).