I have posted a working draft of my RPG, Seven Leagues, here:

http://www.malcontentgames.com/7leagues.pdf

Please feel free to download the file (1.7 MB, 20 pages, includes most of the first third of the game--mechanics and character creation), read it, and comment here. Any and all constructive criticism eagerly sought.

I hope to sell the entire game as a PDF eventually, but I don't have any particular deadline, so fire away.

Thanks in advance!

Here's a (very) brief outline of some key features of Seven Leagues:

Premise: you play a character in a fairy-tale setting (and I have a rather broad notion of that, including everything from classic Perrault-like tales to Sandmanishness)

There are no "classes" or "races". Each character is a unique creation, though they may conform (more or less) to archetypes of the genre.

Characters are primarily text based; there are only three "stats" (Virtues) for example, everything else is grammar. For example, The first thing you chose is your character's Aspect, a three-word (not two or four; five is right out) descriptor. Three stats add up to 13; your LOWEST stat determines how many powers you have (called Charms). There is no preset list of Charms to choose from, you just make up your own according to a grammatical rule. Buy extra charms by taking on Taboos.

The action resolution system is Roll 13; roll an adjusted 13 or higher on a d12 (the game uses the d12 exclusivel). You get bonuses and penalties for your narration of your action, circumstances, etc.

Characters in general do not die (no "hit points" etc.), but you can lose Virtues, gain new Taboos, lose Charms, get Cursed, etc.

Characters grow by gaining Virtues, new Charms, etc. all resolved rather fluidly (ie by concensus). There is an "experience" rule for rewarding the "best" player of the session with an opportunity to gain a point in one of the Virtues.

I'm primarily interested in having people play-test the conflict system, but would welcome any comments on character creation, character growth, etc. I recognize that there is little "game balance" built into the rules. Since you can make up any Charm you want (with the Narrator's approval), you could be God. Except you'd still need to Roll 13 ...

Hi,

I just wanted to say that I'm looking it over now, and it looks very promising. At first I was skeptical of someone properly doing actual fairy-tale like stories, but it looks like you may have a good one. I grew up reading Russian Fairy Tales, so I was glad to see illustrations from some of those too. I might be concerned about the copyright on those though, unless they're public domain?

Anyway, I'll get back when I've read over it more, but I wanted to commit to doing that.

Thanks for having a look. As far as I know, all the illustrations used are public domain--I may add some artwork myself later as time allows. If you see anything you believe is not PD, please let me know.

Hello,


First Point:
There seem to be many potentially de-protagonizing aspects to the rules:

1. Page 4: "The Narrator should review the Player character’s Virtues and make sure they are consistent with the character’s Aspect."
2. Page 5: "Once the Player has invented his Charms, the Narrator should review them and may adjust or veto them."
3. Page 6: "Of course, the Narrator will set the tone of the Tales to be told."
4. Page 8: "Even more than the Virtue score, the Embellishment’s Narrative Bonus is potentially the single greatest determinant of success in a conflict." (Note: The point here being that the narrator has the power to arbitrarily decide whether or not the player's stated action will fail)
5. Page 9: "The Narrator should note whether the characters’ stated Victory Conditions are consistent with their respective Aspects and Legends; those that aren’t simply won’t come to pass even if the character “wins” the conflict, or may turn out very differently than the Player intended."
6. Page 11: "Usually the Narrator’s scripted Tale should have Victory Conditions listed for each confrontation." (Note: What does this imply about who gets to determine what conflicts are happening and what are the point of a player's victory conditions again?)
7. Page 12: "First, the killing of another character should only be allowed as part of stated Victory Condition if so doing is consistent with the killing character’s Aspect, Legend, or a Charm or Taboo. In other words, it is the exception, not the norm. Characters may also may meet their demise out of combat, but only when the narration of the Tale is served."
8. Page 13: "If, however, the child were a Protagonist or an important character, then the Narrator should choose an appropriate Defeat. Perhaps he escaped after having had a hand eaten, or the witch forgot to feed him instead of fattening him up, and he got so thin (-1 Hand) that he slipped through the bars of his cage." (Note: If a character can not fail, why have a contest at all and what meaning do his choices have?)
9. Page 15: "If these were Player characters (Protagonists) who acted out of character and attempted to violate their Taboos, the Narrator could flatly disallow such actions.
10. Page 16: "Optionally, the Narrator may also give other Players an opportunity to check for an Virtue increase, if she feels the Player(s) is (are) especially deserving."

What I am concerned with here is that the game is explicitly declared as narrative in design, yet with the occasional exception of story influence control over pretty much all story elements seems to be firmly in the hands of the narrator. The narrator not only has full control over all non-player characters and the theme and genre of the story, but even has control over the design and actions of the players' own characters as well as the ability to arbitrarily ignore or change the stated victory conditions of a player in a conflict. This might perhaps make it difficult for characters to be empowered enough to make decisions which are meaningful from a narrative perspective in addition to being placed in a setting which may be meaningful to the narrator, but not the characters. This seems especially risky in a genre heavily infused with the principles of poetic justice and endings with a moral. It seems like this could lead the narrator to attempt to force an outcome determined before play even begins in order to stay within genre.

Breaking one's taboo, acting contrary to a defined trait, dying, or deciding to take someone's life, seem like some of the most narratively meaningful events in a story, and yet the narrator has the right by fiat to say "no I do not allow you to make that decision". This seems like a very definitive boundary between narrativist and simulationist play, and here you are siding strongly with a sim approach by forcing players via rules to always "stay in character".


Second Point:
The reward system rewards characters for being creative and skilled with their narrations. I really like how this encourages characters to use language, which is in keeping with your discussion in the introduction. However, at the same time this mechanic seems to reward primarily sim-behavior (exploring genre) in a game that claims to be unabashedly narrativist. Also, while it encourages players to tell stories, they have a somewhat limited playground within which to play, being limited to talking only about the actions of their own characters, and even then subject to narrator veto.

Also, I wonder what the goal of this clause in character advancement is: "If the Tale involves only one Player character, then no Virtue points are gained or lost — you can’t gain much Renown if you’re by yourself." What kind of behavior are you trying to reinforce with this rule?


Third Point:
A somewhat small quibble is the use of "antagonist" to refer to all narrator-controlled characters even when they could be, for example, an ally of the protagonist. This struck me as odd.


This is all just from reading and without seeing it in action, where it counts, so I could very well be wrong about all of this. I think that there is some really cool stuff in here and am definitely interested. Furthermore, some of my critiques do not necessarily point out problems with the game, but rather point to areas where the rules might not strongly reinforce your introductory statement that is game is intended to be of a very purist narrative sort. In fact, some of the rules I critique are actually pretty cool, absent this declared focus on narrativism. How much does it even matter to you? In the end if the game is fun, it is fun, no matter what labels you put on it.

Kenji,

First and foremost please accept my heartfelt thanks for your taking the time to download, read, and comment on Seven Leagues. I very much appreciate your efforts.

I do not argue the particulars of your points; however, I think there are some presuppositions (on both our parts) that should be brought to light. I do want to design the game in such a way that dialogue (narration if you will) be the prime mechanic for describing and resolving situations, within a loose framework of arithmetical rules. In that sense I take the thrust of the game to be Narrativist. It is not particularly Gamist (the Character Growth options are not particularly prominent, and I expect that ne could happily play a character for quite some time with nary an increase in Virtue or a new Charm). It is even less Simulationist; the Roll 13 conflict resolution system with its Overture, embellished Crescendo, and Finale is a very abstrct way of dealing with combat, for example.

However, in my mind "Narrativist" does not necessarily mean "the players run the show". I hope I'm not commiting a grave GNS heresy. (If so, I must insist "but it still moves" ;-) ). So I will simultaneously claim a Narrativist game style, and leave conrtrol of plot and NPCs in the hands of the Narrator.

I do take slight issue with your claim that the Narrator has control over Protagonist design. The Narrator has veto power, but I felt that was a necessary move in a system without a predetermined list of Charms and Taboos. It's true that the Narrator is encouraged to work collaboratively with the Player in devising new Charms for existing characters. Yes, I give the Narrator lots of power, but IMHO any GM has a lot of power anyway. But maybe I'm being myopic on this last point.

Second point:
Is exploring a genre sim? I disagree but I don't think it's worth arguing semantics in this case. However, with respect to Taboos: my intention was to allow the breaking of a psychological Taboo (and pay the price in the form of a curse); but not a physical limitation:

"The Vampire, who “Craves human blood”, won't pass idly by an opportunity to feed (even if he's already fed moments before), and so on. If these were Player characters (Protagonists) who acted out of character and attempted to violate their Taboos, the Narrator could flatly disallow such actions. At the very least, breaking a Taboo, even inadvertently, should result in an appropriate Curse, as determined by the Narrator."

You're right though in that I should rewrite the "flatly disallow" bit. Whoops.

Third point:
Yeah maybe Antagonist is odd since it might refer to an ally; it seemed natural since the player characetrs are Protagonists. Maybe I should drop that conceit altogether.

I do agree that maybe I should re-examine my claims and introductory labels; I'll be sure and look at that carefully.

Thanks again for your generously sharing your time and thoughts, and the kind words.

kenjib wrote:
Also, I wonder what the goal of this clause in character advancement is: "If the Tale involves only one Player character, then no Virtue points are gained or lost — you can’t gain much Renown if you’re by yourself." What kind of behavior are you trying to reinforce with this rule?

To start off, I love the idea of a game about fairy tales and similar stories. I also like the color you've set up with the names of stats and what they mean. I do have a couple of points and questions.

As a quick note, you may want to read [URL=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13818#147069'M.J. Young's summary of Creative Agendas[/URL] (i.e. GNS). I found it helpful in getting a handle on the concepts of Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism. Or you might want to just drop the jargon altogether -- sometimes that's easier and leads to less confusion.

Another note is that your game seems very GM heavy. As Kenji pointed out, several of your rules give the GM a lot of power over the players. The problem is that this also puts a big burden on the GM to manage things so that the game is fun for everybody.

I'm of the opinion that, given the genre, the game would benefit from conflict resolution instead of task resolution. Fairy tales tend to be strongly deterministic -- things happen because they were meant to happen. This is not to say that the GM should determine all outcomes without consulting the players, but that it should be clear what the outcomes mean in terms of the story. You can look at [URL=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14588#155046]Tony's summary of the differences between task and conflict resolution[/URL], or look up [URL=http://random.average-bear.com/TheoryTopics/ConflictResolution]Conflict Resolution[/URL] in the RPG Theory Wiki.

I don't know, Selene, it looks to me like the system is already conflict resolution. After all, the protagonists are battling for the overall stakes (i.e., the conflict) rather than for each individual action (task). As was recently pointed out to me in this thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14871

there is no definitive link between simulationism/task resolution and narrativism/conflict resolution.

Heironymous, I know you've already said you disagree with this claim, but I've got to agree with kenjib that your game seems awful Simulationist to me. If you read Ron's Sim article ("Right to Dream"), exploring genre is specifically used as an example of one type of Sim play.

What does all of this mean? Not a damn thing, as far as I'm concerned. Task resolution and Conflict resolution are just tools to use for any part of GNS, and as Ron pointed out to me in the above thread, sometimes going into game design with a creative agenda in mind just gets in the way. The most important thing is simply to make sure that your rules don't undermine whatever it is that you as a designer want to accomplish.

Nick

I'm coming to the conclusion that the GSN construct, while extremely useful as context for a game designer's inquiry at the onset of devising a game, may in this case have outlived that usefulness. So I'll probably drop the terms in the game altogether. I'll bow to the wisdom that there's a Sim element here, and move on.

I'll also echo Nick in that the the game is heavily vested in conflict resolution (though basic Roll 13 is of course task resolution).

Of perhaps greater import is the significance of the Narrator. Most significantly the Narrator assigns Narrative Modifiers and is therefore literally the "judge" (to use an old RPG term perhaps now fallen out of favor). It seems that some object that a prominent GM is undesirable; that could be. Personally, I have no problem with having a strong GM (obviously) and believe it is mete for the Narrator to fulfill that role.

Is indeed the general concensus (if there is such a thing) that players should be given greater plot control? Do I fulfill that expectation with my Keyword rules?

It would seem that if I were to try eliminate the Narrator as arbiter of Narrative Mods I would need to go to dice pools or an auction system. Other options?

Hi there,

To interject another approach to this discussion, here's a reference you might like to check out.

Deliria, by Phil Brucato, published through his Laughing Pan Productions.

I think the "How to run a saga" section of the site would be interesting reading for you.

Best,
Ron

I may have been led astray by the long description of when and when not to roll for climbing a ladder.

heironymous wrote:
Of perhaps greater import is the significance of the Narrator. Most significantly the Narrator assigns Narrative Modifiers and is therefore literally the "judge" (to use an old RPG term perhaps now fallen out of favor). It seems that some object that a prominent GM is undesirable; that could be. Personally, I have no problem with having a strong GM (obviously) and believe it is mete for the Narrator to fulfill that role.

Is indeed the general concensus (if there is such a thing) that players should be given greater plot control? Do I fulfill that expectation with my Keyword rules?

It would seem that if I were to try eliminate the Narrator as arbiter of Narrative Mods I would need to go to dice pools or an auction system. Other options?

heironymous,

I love the look and feel of the pdf. Your art is excellent the look and feel of the text itself really helps draw you in. Very well done.

I like the Embellishment stage of your conflict rules. It is a clever way to allow players to partake in some of the nitty gritty elements of the conflict without adding a lot mechanical overhead while at the same time strongly motivating the players to be creative instead of simply tactical.

However, it seems strange for the GM to assign herself bonuses for a good description. I know very few people who are capable of honestly judging their own descriptions to the degree which the game requires. However, since so much of the resolution system is based on narrative bonuses it would be a hard problem to get around.

Here is one suggestion. Instead of giving the NPCs bonuses for the GM's narration simply raise their virtues. The GM will still partake in the Embellishment stage with the players, but with the goal of giving the players more material to work with then to increase her probability of success.

I believe that this would also help you maintain the fairy tale feel of your story. Think of it this way, in Fairy Tales villains are always effective. The giant in Jack and the Bean Stalk is a bone grinding horror no matter what he is doing. The hero's effectiveness is like a yoyo. They always start out fairly weak and attain success through trickery, cleverness or something cool.

I don't think that your difficulty modifiers work with what you are trying to do. In Fairy Tales, characters successes and failures rest on who and what they are, not the conditions of the world around them. A giant can lift a rock, a tree or a mountain simply because he is a giant. A nymph can stun mortals with her beauty even if it is cold and dizzily. And, in the Fairy Tale, they are both equally effective under each situation.

I like the way you do Charms and I believe that it is self limiting. That is to say that I don't think any power can actually be more effective then another when it comes to actual conflict resolution if it is used properly. The broader a Charm is the less interesting its use is. It is very hard to make something like "Power Cosmic" all that compelling. Limitations help generate creativity and since the only advantage charms give players is more potential to do cool and interesting things I don't feel that you have to worry about a charm being to powerful.

Over all I think that you have a very interesting game with a lot of potential. It looks like it will deliver a lot of substance without the heavy over head it usually involves.

Best,
Bill

Latest draft updated here:

http://www.malcontentgames.com/7leagues.pdf

kenjib wrote:
<snip> I was speaking mostly from the perspective of your stated goal that the game would strongly encourage narrative styles of play. However, it is hard to do so when characters are not fully empowered to pursue a premise of their own chosing (usually through some control over the direction of the game at both the setup phase and during play) and they are not allowed to make meaningful choices in which they understand the consequences and see those consequences played out.

kenjib wrote: Now that we have moved on from that context, which I agree is a good idea (I only brought it up because of the introductory text in your game), I think we can look at the issue from a different perspective. What are the benefits of granting a lot of control over the rules to the GM? It seems like, in examining the examples I pulled out above, the different goals that you are trying to achieve are all there to meet one or more of three basic functions in some combination or another (please ammend if you think that there are others):

1. To make sure that players both stay true to the fairy tale setting and create internally consistent characters - i.e. if a player puts "likes to hack computers" but the setting is medieval fairy tale, or if they create an aspect of "Hulking Brute of a Man" and then give themself a 1 in Hand, then the Narrator can step in and require changes.

kenjib wrote: 2. To enforce game balance - i.e. if a player puts "can do anything and everything that anyone else can do" the Narrator can veto or limit that power so that other players are not overshadowed.

kenjib wrote: 3. To enforce a feedback mechanism for determining the quality of input from a given player and by so doing give incentive for players to "tell good stories," so to speak

<snip>

I'll try and toss out some random ideas that might make you either think about some alternate ways of handling these issues or decide that you have already made the right choice and like how it is handled already - I'm not trying to say that you have made any wrong decisions.

#1
It is everyone's game, right? A potential problem here is that the Narrator creates a game that he enjoys, and nobody else enjoys, but everyone goes along with it anyway because that's what the rules tell them to expect. What if, instead of the GM setting everything up for everyone, all of the players had some kind of mechanism for providing input into the underlying setting of the game? <snip> I suspect that if you achieve that kind of consensus then everyone is more likely to stay true to the setting. You might look to Universalis for one example of how this can be done.

kenjib wrote: As regards a character having inconsistencies, I would like to question whether it matters or not. In this thread about characters vs. character sheets there is some discussion about whether the character exists on paper or in the game. What matters more, the sheet that a player creates or how the character actually unfolds in play? When do and do not the words on the page ("Hulking Brute of a Man") become credible statements in play ("Just got his butt handed to him in a wrestling match with a little girl") and can the words on the page be pre-empted by actual experience ("Thinks he's a hulking brute, but is tragically full of hubris and delusion")?

Bill Masek wrote: However, it seems strange for the GM to assign herself bonuses for a good description. I know very few people who are capable of honestly judging their own descriptions to the degree which the game requires. However, since so much of the resolution system is based on narrative bonuses it would be a hard problem to get around.

Here is one suggestion. Instead of giving the NPCs bonuses for the GM's narration simply raise their virtues. The GM will still partake in the Embellishment stage with the players, but with the goal of giving the players more material to work with then to increase her probability of success.

heironymous,

I could see that working. If you decide to go with the static NPC bonus then I recommend that you allow the players (perhaps the one with the highest heart roll) to decide when the Embellishment stage should end. After all, once their statements are no longer interesting they are no longer gaining points and their opponents are.

If you do this then I would also recommend you make a rule to say who gets the last word in. Probably the player with the lowest Heart roll would make the most sense.

Best,
Bill

What I like about the static bonus, as you have rightly pointed out, is that it gives the players incentive to quit while they are ahead. That's very nice, because it evens the Player/Narrator power dynamic a bit and gives the player more control, which seems to be a Good Idea.

I had originally designed the Courage roll in Overture to determine both the opener and ender, and had tried it both ways (ie, winner of Courage gets first and last word, as well as winner gets first word and loser gets last).

In the end I thought it better to let the Embellishments end on their own when they had run out of steam.

But now I think a good rule might be that either the Protagonist can end the Embellishments, in which case the Antagonist gets a final retort, or the Narrator can end it, in which case the Player gets the retort. In other words, anyone can end it at any time, but the other guy gets the last word.

What do you think?

Thanks for your help on this.

:h:

I think that your game is wonderfully engaging; character creation is a wonderful exercise in Being There!

I think that it might be in your interests to focus more purely on Sim than Narrative, since you've chosen a wonderfully evocative setting for your game. I think this works in that fairy tales aren't really about complex motivations and dialogue; they're about cultural conflicts and taking lessons from stories.

This is not to say that Conflict Resolution won't or doesn't work here; it really captures the symbolic-universe aspect of storytelling that's particularly prominent in myth.

I think that if players really want to author a story, then this isn't the game for that. I think that Seven Leagues doesn't so much let its players construct a story as it does let them shine within one. I think that "narrative" here translates to "conflict-resolution"; the game's evasion of nitty-gritty details doesn't inherently land it in storytelling-land. (I'm picturing the Beeeg Horseshoe Theory here.)

But this IS definitely a really immersive piece that captures a number of themes really well. Good stuff, good focus on getting the GM to tell a story, and awesome premise in character creation!

heironymous,

Since the players are the ones who either benefit or suffer for their narration it seems to me that they should be the ones who choose when the narration ends. However, this does not necessarily mean they get either the first or last retort.

Perhaps you should give the looser of the heart roll last retort. If an NPC gets last word then, at the end of every NPC Embellishment, the player may choose to make another Embellishment. If she does then the GM gets another Embellishment and the process repeats.

If a player looses the heart roll that player will simply declare any Embellishment she wants the last one.

Also consider giving he victor of the heart roll choice of either first or last Embellishment.

Best,
Bill

Bob the Fighter wrote: <snip>I think this works in that fairy tales aren't really about complex motivations and dialogue; they're about cultural conflicts and taking lessons from stories.

I think that if players really want to author a story, then this isn't the game for that... I think that "narrative" here translates to "conflict-resolution"; the game's evasion of nitty-gritty details doesn't inherently land it in storytelling-land. (I'm picturing the Beeeg Horseshoe Theory here.)

Bill Masek wrote: Since the players are the ones who either benefit or suffer for their narration it seems to me that they should be the ones who choose when the narration ends. However, this does not necessarily mean they get either the first or last retort.

heironymous wrote: Conversely, if the Player is on a roll and making brilliant Embellishments, a defensive Narrator will call an end and allow the Player one last big bonus. On the other hand, a Narrator who is enjoying the Player's clever narration may let the conflict go a few more cycles, even if that's not good for the NPC.

Allowing either adversary to cry "Uncle" is a built-in way to insure that conflicts aren't prolonged needlessly or painfully.

heironymous wrote: Suffice it to say that personally I like a game with a cohesive story (hence "strong" GM)

I think that hurt feelings could be avoided if you're positive in general.

For example:
"Sounds good. I don't think that merits a bonus, though."
"Hey, nice. I'd give that a +1."
"Wow, awesome! I'd give that a [higher than +1]."

James Holloway wrote: My one, possibly idiosyncratic, worry is that a mechanic that centers around artistic criticism will likely lead to hurt feelings or arguments -- what has your experience of this been like in playtest?

My friends and I have really become attached to this system of late after we found it. Originally we came up with a similar idea ourselves, then I remembered this game and we looked it up. What we were going for was slightly different; instead of a "fairty tale" style of setting we want more of a "mythic hero" setting, which required some changes in the system.

So far our adaptation is going well and include a few of our own ideas, including a slightly different luck system, a semi hit point system called mortal points, and changing a few rules to fit our purposes, such as keywords and rules on death.

I felt that since this system is invariably yours we should share our ideas with you in order to have some kind of mutual understanding of ownership as well as some possible feedback from your. The ideas we have so far include:

1. Luck Points- The Narrator would determine a number, preferable between one and ten, or perhaps seven or thirteen, based on a character's description, aspect, and legend, which would be kept hidden from the player. If a player wishes to have a bonus on an action of significant importance he could use a luck point to gain a moderate bonus in this action. If a player attempts to use a luck point when they have none, this would act as a penalty instead and the character would be beset by a karma quest, which would constitute an entire or perhapes several tales, once the quest is completed they would recieve a small number of these points back.

2. Mortal Points- Again the narrator would determine a number based on a characters description that would be kept from the players between one and ten or perhaps sever or thirteen. These however would be more modestly given becuase they determine the number of "lives" a character has. If a conflict would normally result in death a character would instead burn a mortal point, therefore surviving the conflict. Completely human heros would most likely have only one or two mortal points, but a more powerful and supernatural character would have more. This makes death possibly immenent in any conflict but is not your run-of-the-mill hit point system.

3. Seven leagues = 38.89200 kilometers... yeah.

4. We also felt that the keyword system doesn't really fit the "mythic hero" setting as well as the "fairy tale creature" setting and were considering disposing of it altogether, however if you have input which might allow us to change it to fit our setting it would be most welcome.

see post below (double-posted by mistake).

Thanks for your interest. I'm glad you are finding ways of repurposing the system to suit your needs.

berginyon wrote:
1. Luck Points- The Narrator would determine a number, preferable between one and ten, or perhaps seven or thirteen, based on a character's description, aspect, and legend, which would be kept hidden from the player. If a player wishes to have a bonus on an action of significant importance he could use a luck point to gain a moderate bonus in this action. If a player attempts to use a luck point when they have none, this would act as a penalty instead and the character would be beset by a karma quest, which would constitute an entire or perhapes several tales, once the quest is completed they would recieve a small number of these points back.

berginyon wrote:
2. Mortal Points- Again the narrator would determine a number based on a characters description that would be kept from the players between one and ten or perhaps sever or thirteen. These however would be more modestly given becuase they determine the number of "lives" a character has. If a conflict would normally result in death a character would instead burn a mortal point, therefore surviving the conflict. Completely human heros would most likely have only one or two mortal points, but a more powerful and supernatural character would have more. This makes death possibly immenent in any conflict but is not your run-of-the-mill hit point system.

berginyon wrote:
4. We also felt that the keyword system doesn't really fit the "mythic hero" setting as well as the "fairy tale creature" setting and were considering disposing of it altogether, however if you have input which might allow us to change it to fit our setting it would be most welcome.

Berginyon,

now that a few weeks have elapsed i was wondering if you've gotten any further in you adaptation, and how the Conflict system is playing out for you. in my latest draft:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/7leagues/files/

i've set the Embellishment range from -1 to +3 (rather than -3 to +5) to make Conflict end in ties more frequently (and maybe that's not very "mythic heroic"), as well as the default Narrator bonus to +1 from +2. (btw i tend to update more frequently over at the Yahoo group files area). so:

--have you tried the Embellishment system or have you devised your own Conflict system?
--do Embellishments feel natural, or forced?
--are you having problems assigning Narrative Bonuses that seem fair to everyone? do people balk at the Narrator's assessments? do you often vote to use the default Narrative Bonus for Antagonists, or let the Narrator rate him/herself?
--do your Conflicts go on and on or do you stop in the 2-4 Embellishment (each) range?
--do you have any other feedback on the Embellishment/Narrative Bonus feature of Roll 13?

i've been tempted to try a dice pool version (say you get 1d6 per Embellishment), but dang it i just can't let go of that d12. the other problem i have with pools is that they reward you for any Embellishments, not just good ones, which i think is essential.

any comments most welcome. thanks again for takin' 'er fer a spin.

i've tested 7L a few times now, with the Narrative Mod range of -1 to +3 (rather than -3 to +5). so far, here's what i have to report:

--the conflicts tended to be well-narrated and fairly creative. most Player bonuses were +1. in once case i awarded a +3 bonus to someone for an uncreative action because logically the Player could not be defended against, based on the Charms in play.

--in that same situation, the Player lost Roll 13 even though he became immaterial and got past his Antagonist (a toll troll). i determined that even though narratively he had gotten past the troll ("won"), according to the dice he was Defeated. i resolved that by declaring that his getting past the troll without paying the toll broke a "law" of Faerie and trolldom; he is currently therefore stuck in his gaseous state and not sure how to reform. a good example of how Defeat can be applied.

--in the playtests, players voted to allow the Narrator to self-assign bonuses rather than accept the universal +1. this turned out to be in their favor; on average this Narrator awarded less than +1 to his own narrations (most were 0 or +1).

--dice are still important. a great narration doesn't guarantee success (either in Conflict or just unopposed Roll 13). ties are quite possible.

anyone else have some playtest notes to share?