One of the things that has always left me a little dissatisfied with RPGs is that the random element of rolling dice, flipping coins, using random number tables (thank you, Lone Wolf books), and drawing cards is - well - random.

When I'm working on my my house, or backpacking for a weekend, or travelling to another city, my life is not ruled by random events and rolls of a number. The kinds of things I can do are not determined by, to ape Einstein, God rolling some dice.

So why is it in the RPG world we force our characters to exist in a world where they are affected by random events, or are limited in their own actions by the roll of a die or the draw of a card? That is a deterministic world, not a world of free will. I wanted to make a game that is pure free will.

That was the spirit in which I approached Crescent City.

The mechanic uses a 78-card Tarot deck, one per player and one for the GM. Rather than drawing cards, the characters choose which ones to use and when - they decide if overcoming a challenge is important, and play cards of their choice accordingly. The cards are then discarded, not to be used again until the end of the cycle. If you use all of your cards, your character is exhausted to the point of dropping/dies/goes insane.

The setting is a romanticized New Orleans in the 1920s - (Hollywood) voodoo, the jazz age, prohibition, gangsters, creepy undead. I describe it as magical realism meets Southern gothic - perfect for a game whose mechanic uses the Tarot deck. But I'm less concerned with the setting than the actual game mechanics.

http://www.jasonmical.com/tarot/tarot_RPG_040805.pdf

Feel free to download, it's a nice safe 160k. It's not pretty, and there's some pretty awful stylistic errors and a couple of grammatical mistakes here and there, but I wanted to read some opines on the system before I go back through and do the first major re-edit.

I really like the way you've tightly integrated the tarot deck and its interpretation, and the conflict resolution without randomness seems workable and fun.

Would it be possible to present or respond to challenges from multiple suits? Something that is simultaneously physical and social (like dancing) maybe?

I also wondered, reading this, whether the traditional GM/player model is the best for this mechanic. Something to consider. What if in addition to resolving tasks, cards could be used to create or modify story elements?

As it happens I have been playing around with a similar notion to Crescent City, but in my version all the players are fed from a common deck. This makes cooperation and resource management a component of play, but it breaks down a little when it comes to damage and injury.

A draft of my idea, if you are interested: http://www.meekmok.com/sassy/projects/the_group_deck_v1.txt

jasonm wrote: I really like the way you've tightly integrated the tarot deck and its interpretation, and the conflict resolution without randomness seems workable and fun.

Would it be possible to present or respond to challenges from multiple suits? Something that is simultaneously physical and social (like dancing) maybe?

I also wondered, reading this, whether the traditional GM/player model is the best for this mechanic. Something to consider. What if in addition to resolving tasks, cards could be used to create or modify story elements?

As it happens I have been playing around with a similar notion to Crescent City, but in my version all the players are fed from a common deck. This makes cooperation and resource management a component of play, but it breaks down a little when it comes to damage and injury.

A draft of my idea, if you are interested: http://www.meekmok.com/sassy/projects/the_group_deck_v1.txt

I think I should have been more specific about the kinds of comments I'm looking for. :) Basically, I wanted to know if I succeeded in my goal, of removing deterministic elements from role-playing. I'd also like to hear comments on whether deterministic, random elements have their place in an RPG, and I'm simply missing something important.

The actual fiddly-bits of the mechanics I plan to iron out later, in playtesting and here.

Don't feel bad if you don't get much feedback - that's been my experience as well. People have to pick their battles and there is a lot to read.

I'd suggest that your design has removed randomness from resolution but you still have a traditonal player/GM dichotomy, for example, with the GM setting challenge levels and arbitrating outcomes. And to address your latter question, I personally think there is a place for randomness, because randomness is fun, but there's no reason it has to be a default characteristic in RPGs.

Jason,

I really like your setting. It fits perfectly with your system's resolution system. Your character growth mechanics are intriguing and I like the way you use the Tarot deck. I like how a character can do anything if they REALY want to but each character is still different, with different strengths and weaknesses. All of this stuff is really nice.

My major problem with the game is that the GM has total power. If she wants to she can easily defeat all the players by throwing conflict after conflict at them. With the GM having infinite resources and the players having finite resources it becomes a game of the players trying to guess how many conflicts the GM will want to go before the end. This does not strike me as very fun.

One way to get around this would be to give each session a resource point total. The GM would use these points to create conflicts for the PCs. As the game progresses the point total fluctuate (perhaps increases as the stakes get higher and the world gets darker). This would get around the player guessing GMs point total problem and it would provide more tools to control the flow and feel of the game.

Best,
Bill

Bill Masek wrote: Jason,

I really like your setting. It fits perfectly with your system's resolution system. Your character growth mechanics are intriguing and I like the way you use the Tarot deck. I like how a character can do anything if they REALY want to but each character is still different, with different strengths and weaknesses. All of this stuff is really nice.

My major problem with the game is that the GM has total power. If she wants to she can easily defeat all the players by throwing conflict after conflict at them. With the GM having infinite resources and the players having finite resources it becomes a game of the players trying to guess how many conflicts the GM will want to go before the end. This does not strike me as very fun.

One way to get around this would be to give each session a resource point total. The GM would use these points to create conflicts for the PCs. As the game progresses the point total fluctuate (perhaps increases as the stakes get higher and the world gets darker). This would get around the player guessing GMs point total problem and it would provide more tools to control the flow and feel of the game.

Best,
Bill

Jason,

You are welcome. I'm glad to be of assistance. I'd love to see the revised copy. :)

Best,
Bill

Hey Jason,

Very cool. Comments/questions:


• I love your setting concept. There's an organic bigness to it that I really like...if that makes sense. It's coherent, without being entirely determined. Over the Edge's Al Amarja, as much as I love it, comes off as kitchen-sinky in comparison. The level of textual detail you've got now is right in the zone of giving me all I need to know to own the setting (to know what's on genre and what's not), and make it my own. I think you should be very careful of not over delineating the setting. Maybe just a bit more, but that's it. What you have right now is creatively inspiring to a prospective play group. Too much and it'll be constraining. Suggest your setting, like you've done so far; don't catalogue it. Very cool.
• I know there's dispute in an among tarot enthusiasts about whether Swords are mental and Wands are physical or Swords are physical and Wands are mental. My own preference is that Swords are mental and Wands are physical. The arguments that made up my mind are:

• If Swords are physical, the force they represent is too often characterized as destructive. Wands (as quarterstaves) are more readily understood as both offensive and defensive. And the tarot demands the dual interpretation.
• The presence of the salamander on the King of Wands suggests an alignment with fire, and fire is physical.

In any case, you have fire associated with Wands. There's never any dispute that fire is physical and air is mental. So if you're set on Swords as Physical and Wands as Mental, you have to also switch their associations with Air and Fire. (And depending on your tarot deck, expect that switch to probably create some symbolism issues.)
• The mission-based concept you have for your example of play, with characters as a party of Secret Service agents, doesn't do justice to the other ambitious aspects of your design. I think you should avoid suggesting via your examples that the approved play dynamic is party-based mission scenarios.
• Love the advancement system. Major Arcana above your level are only worth one point in conflict resolution, because you haven't yet mastered them. Very nice.
• Are you really going to call for conflict resolution for opening a window, climbing a couple of flights of stairs, finger painting, or using basic manners? I think you need to be careful to not imply the GM can call for the resolution system being consulted for such things. Why not make the lowest level of difficulty something a GM might actually call as a challenge?
• I really like how the deck cycles as well. Essentially, it's collective player choice to have an interlude. Story Engine, and other games have struggled with the recycling of spent player resources. At the end of a game session doesn't work, because some groups play longer than others. The Crescent City method is great. If it were me, I'd go so far as to specify that the players can have an interlude and recycle their decks, as long as they all agree to do so. No one recycles unless everyone recycles. And the passage of time associated with recycling needs to be described for each character.
• So, magic lets a player use cards twice in a Cycle? Have you playtested it? I have this gut feeling that the way it works will mean characters generally use magic early in a Cycle, and then natural abilities later. If this is how it plays out, would that be undesirable to you?
• I don't get what you mean by magic "provides" cards. I mean, I understand how the rules work. You perform a ritual to raise a dead guy as a zombie and you bank some Cups, or maybe some Swords if he's a bruiser. But then how does using the cards play out in SIS? If the player later finds himself in a foot race, he can pull a Sword from the bank and use it. But how do we interpret what that means? The zombie stumbles unexpectedly from an alley and blocks the pursuer? Or is there no mandated connection between what a bank represents and spending its cards?• What's up with the requirement that the GM control when the characters increase in level, maintaining it so they're all within one or two levels of each other? Is this really that big of a deal? It's literally the difference of one or two cards of effectiveness?

My biggest concern is closely tied to Bill's point about how much power the GM has in Crescent City. Because with that power comes responsibility, and stress. I think the game puts way too much responsibility for story progress and consequent stress on the shoulders of the GM. The GM can instruct players to add cards back into their decks. Do you see that because he can, then he must? He must worry about the effectiveness of the characters. And Complications. There's nothing constraining how often the GM uses them. He can unrestrictedly force players to burn cards. The only thing holding him back is his sense of fairness. And so he must worry about whether he's being fair. And because he never discards the cards used by an NPC in challenges, he has infinite ability to help and hinder. And so he must worry about whether he's using that power fairly. He must be ever vigilant and restrained in his use of the power he has. And you have also instructed him to worry that the characters all pretty much advance together in experience levels. It will be wearying. I think you should allow the GM to sometimes be on the ropes, and depleted. The players should be able to sometimes have gained the upper hand.

In all, a very cool and interesting game. With lots of potential. Thanks for posting it.

Paul

Paul Czege wrote: Hey Jason,

Very cool. Comments/questions:


• I love your setting concept. There's an organic bigness to it that I really like...if that makes sense. It's coherent, without being entirely determined. Over the Edge's Al Amarja, as much as I love it, comes off as kitchen-sinky in comparison. The level of textual detail you've got now is right in the zone of giving me all I need to know to own the setting (to know what's on genre and what's not), and make it my own. I think you should be very careful of not over delineating the setting. Maybe just a bit more, but that's it. What you have right now is creatively inspiring to a prospective play group. Too much and it'll be constraining. Suggest your setting, like you've done so far; don't catalogue it. Very cool.
• I know there's dispute in an among tarot enthusiasts about whether Swords are mental and Wands are physical or Swords are physical and Wands are mental. My own preference is that Swords are mental and Wands are physical. The arguments that made up my mind are:

• If Swords are physical, the force they represent is too often characterized as destructive. Wands (as quarterstaves) are more readily understood as both offensive and defensive. And the tarot demands the dual interpretation.
• The presence of the salamander on the King of Wands suggests an alignment with fire, and fire is physical.

In any case, you have fire associated with Wands. There's never any dispute that fire is physical and air is mental. So if you're set on Swords as Physical and Wands as Mental, you have to also switch their associations with Air and Fire. (And depending on your tarot deck, expect that switch to probably create some symbolism issues.)
• The mission-based concept you have for your example of play, with characters as a party of Secret Service agents, doesn't do justice to the other ambitious aspects of your design. I think you should avoid suggesting via your examples that the approved play dynamic is party-based mission scenarios.
• Love the advancement system. Major Arcana above your level are only worth one point in conflict resolution, because you haven't yet mastered them. Very nice.
• Are you really going to call for conflict resolution for opening a window, climbing a couple of flights of stairs, finger painting, or using basic manners? I think you need to be careful to not imply the GM can call for the resolution system being consulted for such things. Why not make the lowest level of difficulty something a GM might actually call as a challenge?
• I really like how the deck cycles as well. Essentially, it's collective player choice to have an interlude. Story Engine, and other games have struggled with the recycling of spent player resources. At the end of a game session doesn't work, because some groups play longer than others. The Crescent City method is great. If it were me, I'd go so far as to specify that the players can have an interlude and recycle their decks, as long as they all agree to do so. No one recycles unless everyone recycles. And the passage of time associated with recycling needs to be described for each character.
• So, magic lets a player use cards twice in a Cycle? Have you playtested it? I have this gut feeling that the way it works will mean characters generally use magic early in a Cycle, and then natural abilities later. If this is how it plays out, would that be undesirable to you?
• I don't get what you mean by magic "provides" cards. I mean, I understand how the rules work. You perform a ritual to raise a dead guy as a zombie and you bank some Cups, or maybe some Swords if he's a bruiser. But then how does using the cards play out in SIS? If the player later finds himself in a foot race, he can pull a Sword from the bank and use it. But how do we interpret what that means? The zombie stumbles unexpectedly from an alley and blocks the pursuer? Or is there no mandated connection between what a bank represents and spending its cards?• What's up with the requirement that the GM control when the characters increase in level, maintaining it so they're all within one or two levels of each other? Is this really that big of a deal? It's literally the difference of one or two cards of effectiveness?

My biggest concern is closely tied to Bill's point about how much power the GM has in Crescent City. Because with that power comes responsibility, and stress. I think the game puts way too much responsibility for story progress and consequent stress on the shoulders of the GM. The GM can instruct players to add cards back into their decks. Do you see that because he can, then he must? He must worry about the effectiveness of the characters. And Complications. There's nothing constraining how often the GM uses them. He can unrestrictedly force players to burn cards. The only thing holding him back is his sense of fairness. And so he must worry about whether he's being fair. And because he never discards the cards used by an NPC in challenges, he has infinite ability to help and hinder. And so he must worry about whether he's using that power fairly. He must be ever vigilant and restrained in his use of the power he has. And you have also instructed him to worry that the characters all pretty much advance together in experience levels. It will be wearying. I think you should allow the GM to sometimes be on the ropes, and depleted. The players should be able to sometimes have gained the upper hand.

In all, a very cool and interesting game. With lots of potential. Thanks for posting it.

Paul