I'm thinking of putting together what I think would qualify as a relentlessly gamist design. I don't even think it qualifies as an RPG, but we'll see. Here are a few of my design ideas:

Menu Driven Character Creation: Players choose traits from successive lists, working through a flowchart that in the end provides them with their character type. The last choice summarizes their character's background. Each choice grants the player a particular skill or ability. By strictly limiting and defining what characters can do, the game allows for the illusion of a multitude of character options while actually keeping everything defined. Furthermore, as this game is intended for quick, pick-up games, character creation involves only choices, not creativity.

The GM's Role:

Option 1: There is no GM. Monopoly and Warhammer 40k survive fine without a gamemaster.

Option 2: There is a GM, but he actively attempts to defeat the other players. While he has different play options in the game, his goal is the same. In this version, I see the GM acting somewhat like the banker in Monopoly. He handles administrative tasks.

Competition Uber Alles: There is one winner and many losers. The game has a points mechanism that allows players to keep track of who is winning at any point in time, just like most sporting events.

Campaigns: There are none. Once the game is over, play ceases. The players may play again, but the rules offer no options for continuity. The focus here is on winning and losing, not creating a narrative. The word "gamist" is in the subject line for a reason. =)

Overall Design Goal: Allow for the *illusion* of a full blown RPG in play, yet the underlying mechanics strictly control everything, a la Monopoly.

More to come. Feel free to comment on the basic validity of the design foundation. My main concern is veering too far into board game territory. I desparately want to preserve the open-ended feel of an RPG, yet cloak that within the precepts and foundation of a board/war game.

- Mearls

Well Hero Quest was a very popular game which spawned many expansions whose goals seem very much in kind with what you have above. The GM was actively trying to kill the players who were attempting to survive a prescripted dungeon. So I'd say there's probably an interest in such a game.

mearls wrote:
I'm thinking of putting together what I think would qualify as a relentlessly gamist design. I don't even think it qualifies as an RPG, but we'll see.

Valamir, Regarding HeroQuest: I played it and quite liked the game, but I want this design to be more of an RPG that moves towards being a boardgame, where as HeroQuest was more of a boardgame with RPG elements. I also want the game to be playable without miniatures and to support more user driven creativity.

Joe, Regarding Rune: I read it last night, and liked the basic idea but wasn't happy with some of the design decisions. It clings too tightly to a lot of narrativist concerns (continuing campaigns, character death as a no-no, detailed, lengthy, open character creation, etc) that I don't see as necessary in a truly competitive game. There is a lot of good stuff in there, but I get the feel that the game doesn't do enough to drop away narrativist concerns.

Flowcharts: I originally had this idea when putting together some ideas for a d20 science fiction game. I love designing systems used to generate game artifacts, like monsters, characters, and so on. The flowchart model is meant to ease the creative burden and cut down a player's work. Flowchart is a bad word for it, but it's the best one I can think of at the moment. For characters, the system works something like the old Lone Wolf or Choose Your Own Adventure series. You start with entry 1, and make decisions that guide you to different entries. Each entry is a short definition of a power or ability your character has. The final entry you read reveals your race and class.

The GM follows a similar system in building his play environment. Let's say the game is set in a dungeon. When building each encounter, the GM starts with a set spread of encounter difficulties. Each difficulty keys off a menu the GM uses to go through and select options for each room. For instance, the choice progression might work like this:

* Room Setting: Cavern, jail cell, guardroom, etc.
* Traps
* Monsters
* Treasure

Each successive choice molds what's available to the GM in the next menu. The key for GMs lies in finding optimal combinations to throw at the players. In addition, a GM can't just add a trap that instantly kills the characters or an incredibly powerful monster. The option charts dictate what he can choose to add to his dungeon.

After a game, the GM tabulates points. The winner, be it the player or GM, is whoever scores the most points. Scoring is in part determined by a character's race and class. GMs get points for killing characters, stopping them from gaining treasure, and keeping his villains alive.

The campaign rules I'm thinking of allow players to spend points to gain boosts to rolls, purchase new abilities, and so on. GMs can use their points to add more monsters and traps to the dungeon or inflict penalties to the players' die rolls.

- Mearls

mearls wrote:
The flowchart model is meant to ease the creative burden and cut down a player's work. Flowchart is a bad word for it, but it's the best one I can think of at the moment. For characters, the system works something like the old Lone Wolf or Choose Your Own Adventure series. You start with entry 1, and make decisions that guide you to different entries. Each entry is a short definition of a power or ability your character has. The final entry you read reveals your race and class.

Somewaht like Traveller CharGen? Do you go to school? Which School? What Profession do you go into after that? Etc. OK, now here's your character.

Amazing Kreskin wrote:
Except that this time, the possibility of your character dying before chargen (one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard of) is finished is neatly removed. :)