Hey all,

So I'm working on Mage Blade again. Coming at it from a whole other direction from last time. What I have below is a very basic write-up on how the reward meta-mechanic works. It's light on examples and explanations, but fairly clear, I think. What I'd like is for you to look it over, give me a general opinion, and tell me if you can spot any break points. There are a couple I'm aware of, but I'm going to refrain from mentioning them upfront for two reasons:

1. My idea of what's broken may be based on faulty assumptions.
2. I don't want to predispose you toward the write-up. I'd like your observations before you take into account mine.

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to look this over.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Goal Meta-System

Choose Endgame Goal: Discuss as a group what Endgame is interesting to everyone. It’s advisable to keep it simple and straightforward, yet difficult to accomplish; One simple phrase without a lot of sub-clauses works best. The sub-clauses are perfectly doable, but they should not be included in the Endgame description. When trying to gauge difficulty, consider that it will have to be something that takes several sessions, even months of game-time, to address, though this period will depend almost entirely on how eagerly the players push toward Endgame. Still, it shouldn’t be something that the characters can do on a weekend jaunt within the first couple of sessions.

Determine End Count: End Count is the number which tracks progress toward Endgame. What you’re determining here is the maximum value; When the End Count meets or exceeds the number, the campaign is effectively over, as you’ve entered Endgame. It’s advisable to make this number easily divisible by the number of people who will be playing characters in the game, as you will be dividing this number between them later on, to determine how many points they’ll each have for creating foundational goals.

Character Generation: Speaking of characters, that’s what comes next. Create characters, preferably as a group. This is to encourage kibitzing and discussion of your characters while you’re creating them. Form attachments where appropriate, suggest goals, and try to get a good feel for what everyone wants out of the game, and what sort of character they’re bringing to the table. This can help to form a more cohesive group, with complementing strengths and goals.

Foundational Goals: Now is the time to choose personal goals for your character. Remember what I said earlier about dividing up your End Count? That’s what you’re going to do now. Divide the End Count as evenly as possible among all the PCs. If there are any points left over, they’re either lost, or granted to individual PCs, at the group’s discretion. Now, each player has a number of points equal to their share of the End Count to divide up among their chosen goals. Assign less points to things you think should be easy to accomplish, and more points to more difficult things. When you’ve exhausted your point total, you’re finished with this step, unless you’d like to redistribute points, or change any of your goals. The specific nature of Foundational Goals are up to the individual players, but there are a couple things to keep in mind. First, these goals should not lead directly toward the Endgame, as they are not Rising Actions. Also, in general Foundational Goals are an extension of the character creation process, as are the first few sessions when you begin to play them out. The point of Foundational Goals is to help finalize who the character is, and they should set them on the path toward who they eventually will become. It is also a good idea for each player to choose a goal that involves bringing the characters together, or at least into interaction. The level of this will depend on the group’s preferences, as well as the individual backgrounds of the PCs.

Completing Goals: When a goal is created, both the GM and the player should note it down, along with it’s numerical value. This value is the amount of XP the player will get for completing the goal. For the GM, the value also acts as a guideline to how difficult to make the goal. A good rule of thumb is to throw one complication at the player for every 10 points in the value of the goal, and to grant 5 points upon overcoming the complication, up to half the total value. Remember that this is only a guideline, and larger complications may count for 15-20 points of the goal value, or even less. However, it is strongly recommended that you never grant more than half the total value of the goal for progressing toward it. The half that remains should be saved for completion of the goal.

Failing Goals: If the PC fails a goal, or abandons it (mechanically the same thing) then all is not lost. Half of the total value of the goal (or the remaining portion of half, if some XP has been granted for progress) is returned to the player, and the other half is lost. Note that XP gained through failure or abandonment of Rising and Falling Actions still increment or de-increment the End Count as Normal.

Using XP: When you are granted XP from your goals, there are two possible uses for it. One of these uses is Character Advancement, which is covered later. The use that we’re concerned with here is that of purchasing new goals. At any time that is appropriate, you may purchase a new goal with your XP. There are two types of goals that can be chosen after Character Creation. They are Rising Actions, and Falling Actions.

~Rising Actions: Rising Actions are goals that contribute toward the Endgame. They do this in two different ways; The first, by far the more important, is by advancing the narrative toward a point the point of Endgame. Some action which, if successful, makes the Endgame conflict more likely, or makes your character more ready for it. Secondly, it increments the End Count by an amount equal to the XP gained by it’s completion or failure. Remember that when End Count is met or exceeded, the campaign is over, except for the Endgame Conflict itself. When you purchase a Rising Action, you get a point value equal to twice the number of XP expended.

~Falling Actions: Falling Actions are goals that distract or detract from the push toward Endgame. Essentially, they are either side plots which don’t contribute toward Endgame, and help to lessen the tension of the approach of Endgame, or setbacks which actually push the narrative imminence of Endgame back. When you gain XP from a Falling Action, de-increment the End Count by an equal amount. When you purchase a Falling Action, you get a point value equal to the number of XP expended.

Reaching Endgame: When you’ve met or exceeded the End Count, then you’ve entered Endgame, as has been stated a few times before. What this means is that all uncompleted goals are no longer worth any points. While it may be possible to complete them as part of the initial part of Endgame, or during the Endgame Conflict itself, but they no longer grant XP for doing so. Endgame is broken up into two parts. The initial part of Endgame can be described kind of like the montages seen in movies, where the heroes are gearing up, honing their training, and otherwise preparing for the final conflict. During this part, an amount of time can be dedicated to training and other preparation, and any leftover XP can be spent on character improvement during this phase. The second part of Endgame is the actual set up and resolution of the Conflict, and the final falling out and fates of the characters.

Running out of Goals: If at any point before Endgame you run out of goals, then your character must soon retire. You may play them through the current conflict, then you have to set up a scene where they retire, die, or otherwise leave play. This should not be considered optional, but if your group tends to get attached to their characters, or it’s too late in the game to make a new character you may continue to play them through to Endgame, but you may not spend any XP on character advancement after your last goal is gone.

I'm not sure I see the personal (i.e. greedy and selfish) motivation toward pushing hard on all your goals. Doesn't it risk forcing you to retire the character?

Honestly? I could really use a rough example. This is involved enough that I'm sure I'm missing how some rules connect with other rules.

I think you're missing the fact that one of the big things you do with your XP is create new goals. The only time you really have to worry about being forced to retire the character is if you complete all of your goals without setting new ones.

Okay, rough example.

Created my character, time to set foundational goals. I have, say, 50 points. My character is a paladin sort of character, with healing and light magic, and martial skill. He's just finished his training period with his Order, so he's not really rounded out yet. Foundational goals should help round out the character. (I don't mean well-rounded, btw) So, okay. My foundational goals are:

-Gain an apprenticeship with Swordmaster Geren: 20pts
-Pilgrimage to the Temple of Lux: 20pts
-Find a companion with which to share the road: 10pts

The third goal is what I'll call a set-up goal. It's something to help me get involved with the other PCs. So we'll say that happens within the first session, no problem. I now have 10 XP. I can spend all or some of this toward character improvement, or toward setting another goal. I decide to hold off for now, and figure out what I want to use it for a bit later.

Next session, my new buddy and I are headed toward the Temple of Lux. He happens to have business in a nearby town, so it's not out of his way. On the way there, we camp on the road, and the next morning, my horse, a gift from my father, is missing, the rope cut cleanly. I decide that I want to spend my 10XP on a 20pt Rising Action of "get my horse back!"

When I complete that one, I'll have 20XP.. Continue as needed.

Does that clarify it any?

Yep! That's the feedback cycle I was missing.

Now, would players be allowed to create a Rising Action of "Get my horse back!" before the GM stole it, and if so would that have game-mechanic impact forcing the GM to take said horse away?

::blinks:: I.. suppose so. Can't say as I ever considered it, nor would most players, but I don't see why the player couldn't.

The main power divide I'm looking for, I think, is that the players decide WHAT happens, and the GM decides HOW (as in the specifics)

Is this a breaking point you see, or are you just playing with it to make sure you understand what's going on?

Oh, it's definitely one I see. That's why I asked the question. It's really only the most restrained in a vast arsenal of such tricks... once a GM gives me a little foot in the door in terms of letting me define some section of the game, I'll leverage it into masses of control, lickety-split.

For instance: "Goal: Convince Princess Lucresha of the Mountain River People that our love was not meant to be."

Lucresha? Mountain River? People? All defined by me, and why not? Is the GM not the happy, giving servant of my wishes for story-goals? Why shouldn't I be specific?

I really don't know whether I agree that most players won't think of this. I suspect that once they get a taste of power, some creative subsection are going to surprise the heck out of you. And that's a very good thing, as long as the rules can handle it.

A'right, let me rephrase. Most gamers I know wouldn't think of it that way.

But if I'm reading you right, you don't consider this a "breaking" point at all.. and neither do I, really. I see it as a feature.

The only problem I see is where the player pulls something like that, and the GM has either preconceptions which make it a clash, or just doesn't realize the game is meant for that kind of stuff. All I can do is make it clear with game text that such inventiveness is totally cool. If there's still a problem.. Well, that's social contract stuff, I think.

Any other break points?

You could get some big differences among players as to whether the group as a whole is driving headlong toward Endgame. Suppose three players:

• Puts his first 50XP back into Goals, then folds them back in again. Now has 200XP worth of goals, and is a force for Endgame all on his own, but a complete wimp (hereafter "Frodo").• Puts half his XP consistently back into Goals, invests the rest in advancement. Reasonably competent, with a reasonably evolving character arc (hereafter "Aragorn").• Puts all his XP into advancement, until he suddenly realizes that he's one Goal away from being retired. At which point he can no longer achieve anything with that character, and is forced into a hyper-competent supporting role. (hereafter "Gandalf")

It can be very hard to hold a party together when both power and narrative levels are diverging into such disparate camps.

Again, not a breaking point if it's intentional. Certainly the examples I chose point toward a story-structure that this would support nicely.

Hm. I see these as being possible, if you were really, really driving for it. But not problematic at all. My reasons are, unfortunately, non-apparent because there's a few things missing, and I think that the phrasing of the write up might encourage you to believe something that's not true.

First off, let me clarify where the phrasing may be confusing: Your points are not reinvested in either character advancement or goal setting immediately upon getting them (as a default; It is possible to do so, but somewhat pointless). While you can reinvest your points immediately into Rising Actions or Falling Actions, as part of a group, you may not be able to pursue the new goals right away. Therefore, it's best to save the points until it's convenient, appropriate and interesting to set a goal. Sometimes this means you'll immediately reinvest, but I don't see this happening more often than not.

Secondly, there is information not included in the text about character advancement which makes it somewhat pointless to immediately invest all points in character advancement. There is a time/effort mechanic attached to improvement of traits. Investing more points can cut this time by as much as half, but no more than half.

Finally, another thing I have forgotten twice now to stick in there: There is a certain amount of built-in power balancing. While there's nothing restricting the beginning power level of NPCs, the GM gets a number of advancement points for NPCs equal to the amount spent by the Players improving their characters. This allows the GM to change and advance the adversaries and allies to mirror the PCs.

I've also done a small amount of playtesting (as much as I can when much of the resolution system is in flux) of this reward mechanic, and I've seen some of the extremes that it can go to.. This is another thing I'm seeing as a feature, rather than a bug.

By the way, Tony.. I really appreciate you picking at this. You've brought up a couple things I'd not thought of, and highlighted one that I had. Please continue to pick as long as you're willing to.

TonyLB wrote: Yep! That's the feedback cycle I was missing.

Now, would players be allowed to create a Rising Action of "Get my horse back!" before the GM stole it, and if so would that have game-mechanic impact forcing the GM to take said horse away?

Hey Lance,

You're still going to maintain a solid "my character's in-game abilities" approach to resolution, right? If so, I want to support you in that - just because HeroQuest or Dogs permits abilities like "sun in my foes' eyes," doesn't mean you have to have such things.

Mage Blade always struck me very much as a rugged individualist kind of game vision. I do like the idea of a metagame reward system like you're talking about here, but I also like the idea of the actual meaty "what my guy does" part of the sheet being extremely descriptive, concrete, and localized to the character's actual stuff and muscles.

Is there a current draft available?

Best,
Ron

Kenjib,

Great examples. But I don't see either one of them as game-breaking.

We're going to go with your state of the goals, and I'll demonstrate.

My guy has become an apprentice to Swordmaster Geren. He creates a new goal, Get my new bud (who?) to be apprenticed too.

GM: Who's your new bud?
Me: (point at other player) His character!
GM: (to other player) You cool with that?
Player2: Uh, sure!
GM: Cool. You still have to meet him first, though.

I haven't forced anything on the GM, nor have I circumvented any of my goals.

So, second scenario, assumes I've met my new bud, and we're dealing with the complication of Hrond's jackassery.

Me: GM, I set a goal "Avenge Hrond's death by bandits!"
GM: So what you're saying is, you want Hrond to die, through no fault of your own?
Me: Yup. Kill that bastard.

First scenario:

GM: Okay. So (stuff happens, Hrond dies, the only remaining stumbling block to my friend's apprenticeship is gone, and he becomes an apprentice) Swordmaster Geren is beside himself with grief and rage, and you both volunteer to go avenge Swordmaster Hrond. Go.

Second scenario, if the GM feels like it:

GM: So (stuff happens, Hrond dies) Swordmaster Geren is beside himself with grief and rage. He orders you both to go avenge Swordmaster Hrond before he will accept Player2's character as an apprentice. Go.

Ron,

Yes, the in-game approach to resolution will be fairly solidly based on your character's in-game abilities. It will be a task-resolution (which I've been calling action-resolution, oops) system, with the basic mechanic still being what it has always been:

Roll 1d20 attempting to roll equal to or less than the total of the appropriate attribute and skill, plus or minus any applicable modifiers.

There will be specific rulesets for combat (currently both social and physical, the reason for my Conflicts post in RPG Theory) spellcasting, and a few other things I want to emphasize, but this will be the overall resolution mechanic.

And unfortunately, no there's not a current draft available. The above system is what I refer to as an insomnia system: I came up with it because I couldn't sleep. I'm currently going through and reevaluating and re-writing everything else to match the vision. As soon as a playable draft is done, Be assured that I'll post it here for everyone to tear into.

Hm. Alright, well I let this sit for a bit, to see if anyone else had anything to say. Tony and kenjib brought up some important things to be aware of, but no one hit upon the possible problems I see in the system. I don't know if these will be real issues, but I see possibly them coming up.. I'm also not sure if they're *really* problems, either.

Hole #1: The only real mechanical benefit of Falling Actions is to reduce the End Count. In non-mechanical terms, it gives the game more time, and allows the players to explore things which are important to the character, but not necessarily important to the main plot. Time is important because the character improvement system will be a combination of point expenditure and time expenditure. ie, you have to spend X points and y hours of practice to improve a given trait. It can also be important because, if players are enjoying a given set of characters or a particular subplot or situation, they may be disgruntled to be forced to go into End Game.

My concern is that these reasons, while I consider them important, are not enough to give Falling Actions much use. As is, you get back the same amount of points you spent on it, and failing the action means you lose points. What I'm asking for is whether or not you feel Falling Actions are sufficient as-is, or if I'm going to need to sweeten the pot, so to speak.


Hole #2: This is something I'm going to call clumping. If someone sets a goal, and the group, for whatever reason, chooses to pursue that, there is no inherent benefit to anyone other than the goal setter. The obvious (to me) solution is to have the other players create related goals (or unrelated goals that can be achieved in the course of assisting the first player) for their characters.

The problem I see is when everyone clumps a bunch of goals together. The potential for sudden and massive incrementation or deincrementation of the End Count is very real.

Example: Ron has a 30pt Falling Action to discover the fate of his character's parents, and the rest of the PCs decide to help his character achieve it. Tony decides he wants a piece of the action, and sets up a 20pt Falling Action to protect Ron's character from harm (which proactively determines that harm will be coming Ron's way) Kenjib decides that his character knows a merchant in that town who can acquire some object he wants, so he sets a 10pt Falling Action for that purpose. At the end of the day, if everyone succeeds, that's 60pts of deincrementation, which can be a serious chunk, depending on how high the End Count is.

What I'm not certain of is if this is actually a problem. I can see it being so, but until I can play test, I can't be sure. What I'd like here is basically speculation; Do you think this would be a problem? And if so, how might I fix it?


Please take a moment to look over these. (I thought I had a third, but in writing it, I decided that I don't really see a problem at all) If you see anything to suggest, or can otherwise put my doubts to rest, I'd really appreciate it.

Hmm, all this is very interesting. It reminds me somewhat of the quests mechanic in World of Warcraft, which is a good thing, as that's a fantastic mechanic.

As regards the problem of players wandering off away from the Plot (TM), why couldn't the GM also give the characters goals, individually or as a group, without an XP cost to them? That extends the game (by extending the End Count, as I understand it), deals with the problem of, well, Gandalf, and gives the GM increased control over play direction, which as he's the poor guy who has to write the mad plots the players come up with, is probably a good thing.

For example, Gandalf's completed all of his personal goals except "Kick Saruman's Ass WWE-style" and "Ultimately Defeat Evil", but that's cool, because he just got a whopping 50-point goal of "Help Frodo drop the Ring in Mount Doom" from visiting this Rivendell place, no XP down.

Wolfen,

I like your resolution system for rising actions. It gives the players story control without taking away the GMs power to add twists and turns to the plot. I like how it paces your story.

I am not sure how well the falling actions work. Here is why.
1. Players like power. Investing in falling actions won’t give them any.
2. Players like end game. Its fast, its exciting and its something they usualy work towards, not way from.
3. Players expect that they will be powerful enough to deal with end game when it arrives.

These three reasons are all from my own experience and not all of them are always applicable. However, I have not played in any group where none of them wouldn’t be applicable. I would recommend dealing with at least one of these two problems. Here are some suggestions.

You could give the player 3x xp invested for rising and 2x xp invested in falling. That way players will still get xp for their falling plots, just not as much as they would by advancing the plots. The downside of this is they can build their characters forever without having to worry about endgame. (I honestly don’t think this is a very big problem though, because, at least in my experience, players enjoy endgame.)

You could let the players know how difficult the end game will be, so know how powerful they need to be to face it. The downside of this is they will be easy for them to simply overpower the challenges of endgame.

Good work so far, your game is looking fun. Tell us when you get the PDF up!

Best,
Bill

First off, Thanks for the replies!

Second off.. It's typically Forge policy not to resurrect threads that have fallen off the front page and/or are more than a month old. Generally you're supposed to start a new thread and refer to the previous one with hyperlinks. (though that does seem a bit odd to do in IGD..)

Third off.. Thanks again. Now that it's resurrected anyhow, I definitely appreciate the feedback.

The_Nomad wrote: As regards the problem of players wandering off away from the Plot (TM), why couldn't the GM also give the characters goals, individually or as a group, without an XP cost to them? That extends the game (by extending the End Count, as I understand it), deals with the problem of, well, Gandalf, and gives the GM increased control over play direction, which as he's the poor guy who has to write the mad plots the players come up with, is probably a good thing.

Wolfen,

As your system stands right now Wolfen, yes, unfortunatly. I think Falling Actions are a really cool idea, I just don’t see them getting any play. After all, the PCs could just as easily invest those points into their powers/abilities and have more effective PCs. I can’t see that many players tying their XP up in goals which won’t generate anything for them.

What if Falling Actions gave you just as much XP as a Rising Action, but you had to spend it (or half of it) on a specific subset of options. Such options would be focused on story control rather then powers/abilities. It could include cosmetic effects (my character has energy crackling out of her eyes!), relationships (or creation of new NPCs possibly with PC control), some kind of mechanic which temperarily makes your character more effective (such as burning a point ot reroll a dice) or new Falling Actions.

This would give players reasons to purchase Falling Actions without simply making them less effective Rising Actions. Plus the Falling Actions will eventualy become self sustaining so there won’t be an XP gap at the end of the game.

Best,
Bill

Having other benefits to Falling Actions than simply XP is a definite idea. I'll kick it around and see what I come up with.

This would give players reasons to purchase Falling Actions without simply making them less effective Rising Actions. Plus the Falling Actions will eventualy become self sustaining so there won’t be an XP gap at the end of the game.

Wolfen,

By XP gap I mean a situation where a certian amount of XP is ‘lost’ by investing it. Lets say that player A invests 30xp into a falling action (with the modifications you posted). Odds are 66.6% that he will complete this action before end game. Thus, by investing in the Falling Action he would effectively loose 10xp.

By making your Falling Actions generate limited XP (of which one of the actions is to purchasae more Falling Actions) as well as returning the original XP spent to the player they will only risk their initial investment. Since your chances of sucess are near 100% at completing your first Falling Action there is a very low chance you will loose any XP on it. Then the extra XP generated can be used to purchase more falling actions and you have a self-sustaining cycle.

All this is assuming you can’t just say “Yeah, I fail this Falling Action.” without any reason and get the XP back at any time. Based on your previous posts it seemed like something had to happen to make the PC fail the Goal she invested in. I personaly agree with that take. If you allow your players to simply abandon a Falling Action at anytime without reason they will be a lot less invested in them, and thus Falling Actions will be a lot less interesting.

Best,
Bill