A thread over in the Random Order Creations forum ("When Heroes Fail", http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1451) triggered me to write up a quick and rough summary of what I'm working on at the moment. It seemed wrong to post it there . . . I see it becoming a "framework" system, supporting or even requiring (in its' raw form) hands-on work by the play group to become a "useable" system. Well, I also see specific pre-created incarnations, a "create your own RPG" computer program, and a way to use it in making super-cool licensed-property card-using roleplaying board games (the last 2 bypassing the apparently somewhat-dysfunctional RPG distribution world for the doubtless also dysfunctional-but-in-different-ways toy and computer game world) . . . but those are big (pipe?) dreams . . .

Anyway, here goes - the GM frames a scene (and ain't there a load of fish in THAT kettle?). Each "side" (1 to n, though typically 2) states (perhaps some of them - the GM? - "privately"?) a Goal. Depending on how difficult the goal is, a number is assigned (by the GM? With some established criteria?) - that becomes (to use psuedo-Hero Wars terms) the Action Point target to acheive that goal in the scene. This is the primary means of establishing "difficulty" - if your goal is difficult, the target is higher. There could be some "bidding" here, where folks can voluntarily increase the taget to get extra results from the scene, or spend Currency to decrease the target, etc.

Everyone roll 2d10, different colors. You add them together to determine who "wins" - who gets to describe what happens next (there's an opportunity to tweak here by establishing an Advantage - one side, or multiple, may get a bonus to this addition based on situation, inherent superiority, roleplay bonus, and etc. It depends on how much back-and-forth or predictability to each "piece" of a scene you want). One die is the Effect die - it determines how much progress you make towards your goal. So, if you roll 6-7, your total is 13, and (we'll say) the 7 is your effect number. If your 13 "wins", you get 7 points, indicated by markers (poker chips, cardboard chits, little glass beads, whatever) towards your target. Take those 7 markers and put 'em in front of you - and narrate what happens that brings you 7 closer to your goal. If your target was 47 (a BIG number), your progress for 7 won't be much. If it was 8 . . . bring yourself to the very verge of accomplishing your goal. But you'll be rolling again . . . until someone reaches their target and acheives their goal. Note that by setting the target to 1 and "fixing" (with modifiers?) the "win" number, you can get a single yes/no task resolution roll - or allow the effect die to influence the *degree* of yes/no, and it's a single roll *graduated* yes/no.

Another option (as the scene progresses) - use your effect number to take markers AWAY from someone who's making progress towards their goal. This might have the potential to really lengthen scenes, so it may need special treatment - or playtesting might just kill/remove it.

Important complications - characters will have various Abilities, rated 1-10 (or perhaps with a range, like 3-7,2-5, and etc.). These can be very specific (oh, individual fencing moves, for e.g.), or general qualities (like Story Engine Descriptors, "Quick Wits", "Devilishly Handsome", "In Love with Rhonda", whatever) - there may be further complications based on that, I'm working through the details. If your roll results in doubles (and you win), you can use one of these Abilities to enhance your effect - essentially, *what* you say in your description now includes/is restricted to include the Ability, and you gain a bonus equal to the rating of the Ability to your effect. If an Ability is rated "1", it can be activated by any double. If it's a "10", then you must roll double-0 to activate it (thus the range concept - for some types of game, only rarely being able to use your SUPER COOL ability is OK, but for others, it should be more common).

Rolling doubles and losing can have a significance, if desired - yield back previously-accumulated markers? Bonus to the winners' narration that must negatively impace your goal? - but there needs to be ability or ability-equivalent to activate, and I'm not sure how to work that yet.

I also think rolling doubles and NOT using the bonus to effect will be a way to replensh your Currency . . . though I'm a little worried about anything that DIScourages the use of abilities, as I see that as the prime "crutch" to encourage interesting, colorful, non-"wiff", what-I-want-my-character-to-be-like (and maybe, if I can tie abilities into Premise like I hope to, Narrativist Story supporting) narration.

I said characters have abilities - I'm also considering that the Scene, the Story, or other elements might have Ability-equivalents, perhaps publically displayed, that can be used by the GM - or maybe players as well. This might even be where the loss-activated elements come from.

There will be a Currency that lets you change the dice to create doubles - fairly easy to move the high die down to the low die (thus possibly moving from winning to losing), harder to move the low die higher, and really hard to move both dice (higher, presumably).

And lots of other thoughts. When I get 'em into a semi-clean doc, I'll probably be talking to folks about somewhere to post it . . .

Acknowledgements - I began thinking about this system as the bastard child of Story Engine and Hero Wars, with heavy influence from all the folks here on the Forge. As I've said before, I have a bit of an irrational prejudice against Dice Pools, so I've never played The Pool - but I did read it with some concentration, and some recent threads have made me realize the almost-unconcious influence that its' "who says what, when" approach has had.

Wherever the "open/shared" abilities concept goes from here, it is undoubtedly influenced by InSpectres. The "doubles are special, and you can tweak to get 'em" somehow springs from Unknown Armies' flip-flops - I can't tell you how, but that's where I started when I got to there. And Fang's Scattershot contains way too much good stuff to go without mention, even if I can't pin down a specific influence.

I'm sure there's more, and there WILL be more as I continue working this (I suspect Sorceror will teach me much about how to take this and make it Nar-supporting). Like I said, quick and dirty, but (hopefully) enough to get some comments on.

Gordon

Gordon,

Man, I've been working through almost exactly the same thing. I too have been influenced by Story Engine and Hero Wars, and I've been working on a number of mechanics to achieve this ebb and flow feeling. One of them is alot like what you described, without the crunchy bits like tweaking for doubles and whatnot. Here's another, with all sorts of glaring problems evident:

All conflicts are measured on a sliding scale of, let's say, 0-20 Points. Difficulty is measured on this scale by how close you are to one end or the other - starting out near 20 points is good for the players, while starting out near 0 is to the GM's benefit. When a player states Intent, the GM will award him some Points to put him somewhere on that scale - the more Points he awards, the easier it's going to be to achieve his Intent. So anyway, players roll 3d6, and will be looking for numbers that come up less than their relevant ability score (ability scores will probably we rated at around 3,4, and 5). All such dice that come up less than that ability score are added together and applied towards the Point Total. All dice that do not come up less than the relevant ability are subtracted from the running Point Total. If you hit 20, you succeed. If you hit 0, you fail.

Now here's the cool part. It's going to take you two or three (or more) die rolls to hit either 0 or 20. It's not just a series of die rolls though - each roll represents something happening in the conflict, and who decides what that is is determined by whether the players gained ground (added points to their running total) or lost ground (lost some points). The former means the players have narrative control and the latter throws it back in the GM's court.

This system more or less assumes Authorial Power. Directorial Power might be achieved through some other means, like voluntarily sacrificing Points during a conflict resolution.

Don't know if this helps or not, but I felt like getting this idea out there for IP purposes. :)

Hasta,
Moose

For anyone interested in the multiple rolls/extended contest narrative action stuff, check out my thread on Persona, in the Indie Design Forum, it's the focus of my resolution system. Also, Dying Earth is a great game to look at as well.

On the note of the adding/subtracting point totals, there was this game one of my friends from Ethiopia taught me:

Everybody starts with 20 points. You flip an old school matchbox. If you can get it to land on the biggest side, you get 1 point. If you can get it to land sideways, you get 3 points, if you can get it to land on the end, you get 10 points. You can add these points to your total, or subtract it from anyone else's. You can also give them to your friends to add to their totals. If you hit 0, you're out. The goal is to be the last person in the game.

While this game is pretty simple, the political scheming of getting alliances, and protecting the group gets pretty nasty. Awesome strategies going around from a game that someone with nothing to do came up with.

On the note of your game using doubles: I like it a lot. If the ability bonus is based on your ability alone, you have a 10% chance(outside of the difficulty) of getting it to boost you(great, same odds of "critical", better payoff with skill).

If instead you choose to use doubles like cherries out of UA, you might want to make each cherry cost any extra point/rank to create. Frex- My martial arts ability is 6, I have the special boosts at 1, 3, and 6, known as Feint, Fireball, and Kamehameha Super blast. It cost me 9 points(6 for skill, 1 for each cherry). Or perhaps the cost rises with each special, 19 points, 6 for skill +1,+3,+6 for cherries.

The first option is easier to keep track of, the second one gives more options, but more bookwork as well.

I think you're starting to go in the direction I've been thinking of in terms of two axises: Conflict Resolution, and Narrative Control as different but important means of success.

Chris

For anyone interested in the multiple rolls/extended contest narrative action stuff, check out my thread on Persona, in the Indie Design Forum, it's the focus of my resolution system. Also, Dying Earth is a great game to look at as well.

On the note of the adding/subtracting point totals, there was this game one of my friends from Ethiopia taught me:

Everybody starts with 20 points. You flip an old school matchbox. If you can get it to land on the biggest side, you get 1 point. If you can get it to land sideways, you get 3 points, if you can get it to land on the end, you get 10 points. You can add these points to your total, or subtract it from anyone else's. You can also give them to your friends to add to their totals. If you hit 0, you're out. The goal is to be the last person in the game.

While this game is pretty simple, the political scheming of getting alliances, and protecting the group gets pretty nasty. Awesome strategies going around from a game that someone with nothing to do came up with.

On the note of your game using doubles: I like it a lot. If the ability bonus is based on your ability alone, you have a 10% chance(outside of the difficulty) of getting it to boost you(great, same odds of "critical", better payoff with skill).

If instead you choose to use doubles like cherries out of UA, you might want to make each cherry cost any extra point/rank to create. Frex- My martial arts ability is 6, I have the special boosts at 1, 3, and 6, known as Feint, Fireball, and Kamehameha Super blast. It cost me 9 points(6 for skill, 1 for each cherry). Or perhaps the cost rises with each special, 19 points, 6 for skill +1,+3,+6 for cherries.

The first option is easier to keep track of, the second one gives more options, but more bookwork as well.

I think you're starting to go in the direction I've been thinking of in terms of two axises: Conflict Resolution, and Narrative Control as different but important means of success.

Chris

Ooh.

I also started work on a system something like this, for a TransFormers system of all things. I hadn't gotten as far as any of the systems presented so far, but...

The players initially specify a theme, and then pick a specific PC with which to explore that theme. Shows like Star Trek and TransFormers have a large cast, but individual episodes tend to focus on a character or two, yup?

They would then 'purchase' the scenario, and I had some vague ideas about the group having to buy, say, a +5 combat, a +2 emotional revelation, and a +1 denouement. Each character would have a small pool of dice they could contribute to the chosen protagonist's rolls (or any roll relating to them), to push the theme along. You add a bunch of dice to an enemy's seduction roll, for example. There's obviously some kind of tension there coz you'd want to make life as interesting as possible for the 'protagonist', without actually destroying them. Presumably.

Now I was initially hanging this on a fairly straightforward game, but perhaps I should be thinking more 'avant garde'... and I guess I should look into Story Engine and Hero Wars.

Joe.

Moose,

Sounds like you've got a perfectly good start with that system - I'd be a little worried about the "fixed" 0-20 (or whatever) range if you wanted a generic system, but for any particular game, you could probably make it work.

And your "cool part" is definitely something I'm going for - each roll is "something that happened in the conflict." I want my Abilities to represent things you want your character to do/be capable of doing in particular scenes - the GM would provide some scene types (oh, "hide & seek", combat, romance, and courtly intrigue for a Musketeers game), players would create and rate Abilities they'd like to exhibit in those scenes ("what you do"). There'd be other, less specific Abilities ("what you are" - a tie-in to Premise for Nar purposes) that could be used in any scene, if you can narrate them in successfully. The idea is that players now have a "crutch" for their narration . . . in a way that is tied to their *character*. Thus I hope to avoid the worst of the Immersion-violation some folks see in Directorial (or even Authorial) control.

As far as IP . . . ack, that's too much like the day job, even with a smilie. These ideas are just "out there" right now, I'm sure many folks are somewhere on this trail, and (other than "indie cred" for having been there at the cutting edge), any IP-value will come to folks that put in the hard work to have more than just an Idea. Now, my patent-attorney bosses (well, as of a few weeks ago - I'm not sure I *have* a boss at the moment) might disagree, but that's my thought.

Chris,

That's a *cool* matchbook game, there - and *cherries* from UA, not flip-flops - doh! Your "power progression" example is one way I saw the ability rankings being used, but *not* with a "martial arts" at 6 and then abilities - just abilities. I'm not too worried about a costing system for it all, but I'll have to provide some guidelines about how many "points" are "allowed".

Doubles - yes, I want these abilities coming into play at *least* 1 "time" out of 10, probably more (and, importantly for me, more when it really counts) via not-infrequently available use of currency.

Conflict resolution and Narrative Control as two axes - again, yup, though the way they interact seems quite important.

Joe,

Yeah, my ideas for the way theme/scenario bits can plug in here aren't fully formed yet, but that general notion is definitely a cool idea and a place I'm going to try and go. "Hanging" that onto a more straitforward game might also work, and is certainly worthy of pursuit (I've never been able to find the "StoryPath" cards - Lion Rampant? - that, by description, seem to be in this ballpark, but - again, by description - something a little more precise might be better anyway). Looking into Story Engine and Hero Wars is just an all-around good idea, IMO. Good stuff.

Thanks, all, for your thoughts,

Gordon