Okay, I'm going to post my current Game Text in segments. As the Subject says, this is my first attempt at game design so be gentle with the virgin, please. On the other hand, all constructive critism will be well recieved.

Oh yeah... I really don't have a name for this ruleset and am drawing a complete blank. Suggestions would be appreciated, if you have them.

Truthfully, “Just because I felt like it.” would probably be reason enough but it isn’t a very interesting answer to the question. While reading the many interesting threads over at The Forge, I ran across a suggestion by one of the posters (I think it was Ron Edwards but don’t hold me to that.) that many neophyte game designers tended to take on projects that were just too damn big for their experience level. These designers had this desire to create this perfect and innovative system that incorporated all these wonderful features but the design ultimately failed when the work ended up being far more complex and difficult than expected. The suggestion was that all new designers would benefit from designing a few journeyman projects before trying their defining creation. The lessons learned in putting together a simpler but workable system would pay off when trying to put together the larger project.

This is my journeyman project. It probably isn’t hugely innovative. It’s probably not the next big thing in role-playing circles. It’s probably not going to supplant Wizards of the Coast or White Wolf as the big boys of gaming. What it is, I hope, is a workable, playable and fun system. Only time will tell if I succeed or not.

I didn’t design this game in a vacuum. I had some goals that I wanted the system to accomplish and I’ve worked to achieve those goals. Playtesting and critique by more experienced designers will tell me if I’ve achieved those goals. Here’s a short list.

1. I’m looking to create a game that supports Narrativist play with some Gamist underpinnings with regards to resource management.

2. I want it to be generic and customizable in regards to setting.

3. The system should be simple enough to learn in a single session and then be able to play essentially without reference to the written rules. I guess this would make it a part of the Rules-Lite or Minimalist camp.

4. I like the traditional role divisions of player and GM. However, I do want to clearly define the GM’s role, limit his power, and avoid the old “Rule Zero” punt put into many rules texts.

5. I like dice. I like different sizes and shapes of dice. I like tossing a whole handful of them onto the table and listening to the gentle music of the clatter they make rolling across the wooden surface. This game will use dice. Many of them. For no other reason than I like them.

I committed many acts of theft in the process of making this game. I admit it. Mostly I did this because many of the talented game designers that I’ve read have much better ideas than I seem to have. I’m going to try to list all the games that influenced this design. I’ll probably fail. Hopefully, the designers of these games will feel that imitation is the highest and most sincere form of flattery and won’t send hit squads out to my house to beat me to death with hard-bound editions of their game texts.

• The Pool by James West. Character creation and Traits are lifted almost whole cloth from this game.

• The Shadow of Yesterday by Clinton Nixon. I loved Bringing Down the Pain. Hell I love this whole game. The conflict resolution I use is highly influenced by TSoY.

• Universalis by Frank Mazza and Mike Holmes. Power as a resource came from Universalis tokens.

• Capes by Tony Lower-Bausch. It’s hard to say how this system influenced the design directly but it’s affects are felt all over the place.


If you see more games that this design reminds you of, let me know. I probably just forgot to include them. I’ll remedy the situation.

Power: Pool of points used to buy dice and activate Traits. Power starts as the sum of all the character’s Attributes each session. The GM has Power also. His starts as the sum of all the Players’ Power scores each session. Power is represented by some small item like pennies, glass beads, or poker chips.

Attributes: Characters have 3 Attributes that describe how proficient the Character is in a general area of Conflict. Attribute values range from 1 to 10 and put a limit on the number of dice that a Player may roll in a Conflict governed by that Attribute. The Attributes are customizable to reflect whatever setting the Players choose. As an example, this text uses the following 3 Attributes throughout: Physical, Spiritual and Mental. These are by no means the only Attributes that can be use. Consider them more like default values that will work generically.

Traits: Short descriptive phrases about the character. These phrases should highlight the things that make that character unique, indicate what is important to the character, or add color to the character. Traits may be positive or negative. Positive Traits can be activated during Conflicts to slide the dice up the Difficulty Scale. Negative Traits can be activated during Conflicts by a Player’s opponent to slide the dice down the Difficulty Scale.

Experience: This currency is used to increase a Character’s Attributes or to add/remove Traits. It costs CV * 10 to increase an Attribute. It costs 10 Experience to add or remove a Trait. Experience is gained at the end of each session. At the end of the session each Player adds Experience equal to his remaining Power to his Experience score. Experience may be spent at any time the Player chooses.

Character creation is very simple. Each player should write a couple of short paragraphs about their Character. This should not be long and shouldn’t be incredibly detailed. It should contain the most important aspects of what makes the Character interesting or unique. From this story, the Player then picks 6 Traits that he feels are the most important parts of the story and notes them on the Character Sheet. Finally, the Player divides 12 points between the Characters Physical, Spiritual and Mental Attributes. No Attribute may be higher than a 6 or lower than a 1.

Example: Bob decides to make a roguish, swashbuckler type character for a fantasy style game. He comes up with the following story:

“Brogan lives a life of freewheeling travel and adventure but always seems to come back to his hometown of Stormport. He loves the privateer town for its raucous and chaotic nature. He generally makes his living as a sellsword as it allows him to indulge his itching feet when they get the urge to travel but it is short term enough to allow him to come home when he feels like it.

Brogan has a weakness for wine, women and gambling. He’s quick with a sword but much prefers to rely on his keen wits. He’s got a charming smile and rugged good looks. His penchant for travel has made him a jack-of-all-trades as he has had to rely on his own skills often enough to develop a knack for odd jobs.

Brogan’s father was a sailor that was lost at sea to pirates and that event has left Brogan with a distinct hatred for the breed. His mother is a tavern owner near the docks in Stormport. He has one sibling, a little sister, who helps his mother out around the tavern. He’s very protective of her.”

Looking at this story, Bob settles on the following six Traits.

• Well-traveled wanderer.
• Good with a sword.
• Lady’s Man.
• Jack of all Trades.
• Hates Pirates.
• Protective of Sister.

After this, Bob divides his 12 points up between his Attributes.

Physical 5
Spiritual 2
Mental 5

Bob now has Brogan ready to play.

The core of gameplay is the Conflict Resolution dice mechanic. This mechanic revolves around Conflicts. What is a Conflict? Conflicts occur when a Player’s goal for his Character is opposed by another Player or the GM. When this happens, a Conflict is created and resolved in the following steps:

1. Setting Stakes: Every Player involved states their overall goal for the Conflict.

2. Spending: Each Player involved goes in turn, spending Power to add and modify dice.

3. Roll Them Bones: The dice hit the table and the winner is the Player with the most successes.

4. Resolution: Narrate the results and reward Power.

Setting Stakes:

Each Player who wants to be involved in the Conflict takes a turn to state their overall goal for the Conflict. While each Player has the final say in what their goal will be, everyone is generally welcome to offer suggestions and comments. Every Player must have a goal in the Conflict and every goal should be in opposition to at least 1 other goal involved. If a goal isn’t in opposition to any of the other goals then there really isn’t a “conflict” there to resolve. The goal then automatically succeeds. If a goal is identical (or nearly so) to 1 or more others, then Players have the option of Grouping which is discussed further below. Grouping is highly encouraged, if possible, in Conflicts involving a large number of Characters.

Example:

Bob (Brogan) is playing with Jenny (Flynn) and Harry (the GM). Bob and Jenny’s characters are in a bar and run into their nemesis, Franco. Bob calls for a Conflict and the Resolution Mechanic begins.

Bob: Brogan wants to humiliate Franco in a duel.
Jenny: Flynn wants to slip out of the bar without Franco noticing.
Harry: Franco wants to get out of the bar without losing face and I want him to spot Flynn leaving..

Note that Harry actually has 2 goals. He declared one to oppose each of the other Players. This is not only allowable but sometimes desirable. If Harry doesn’t oppose Jenny then she succeeds by default (doesn’t even have to roll) and he doesn’t gain any Power out of it as will be explained later.

Now that the goals are declared, the GM sets the governing Attribute for each of the opposing goals to be Physical, except for Franco to spot Flynn is Mental. Resolution then moves on to the Spending phase. If Jenny’s goal had be “Flynn helps Brogan in the duel.” or something similar, then she could have Grouped with Bob against Harry.

Spending:

Once Player goals have been set, it’s time to start spending Power to purchase dice and activate Traits. The Player who called for the Conflict begins this process and is given the title the Calling Player. Each Player, starting with the Calling Player and then proceeding to his left, gets to make one Conflict Action as long as they have Power to spend for the Action and wish to take it. Each Player narrates the Action into the game as they take them. Then play proceeds to the next Player to the left. This rotation continues until a Player opts to pass on his turn and not take an Action. At that point, play proceeds until it gets back to the Calling Player and then it stops.

Conflict Actions
Action Cost
Purchase additional dice. 1 Power / die
Activate your own Trait. 1 Power
Activate another Player’s Negative Trait. 3 Power

The following rules govern Conflict Actions.

• Power goes to the “pot” for whichever goal it is spent on.

• Only 1 Action may be taken during a Player’s turn.

• A Trait may only be activated once per Conflict.

• Power spent on activating Negative Traits goes immediately to the affected Player.

• Players may gift a Power to another Player once per Conflict.

• On the first turn of a Conflict, each Player must purchase at least 1 die for each of their goals

• The maximum number of dice that may be purchased per goal is the value of the governing Attribute for that Character.

• Activating a Positive Trait moves the dice pool up the size ladder.

• Activating a Negative Trait moves the dice pool down the size ladder.

Groups:

Grouped Players are different enough to merit their own mini-section here in the rules. Grouped Players pick 1 Player to be the leader of the Group. That Player’s Character then becomes the baseline for determining the maximum dice that can be purchased. The number of dice is still limited by the governing Attribute but for a Group the maximum is the value of the Attribute of the Group Leader plus ½ (rounded up) the value of the value of each of the other Character’s in the Group.

Example:

Tom, Dick and Harry are all grouped in a Conflict with Spiritual as the governing Attribute. Dick is the Group Leader and has a Spiritual of 5. Tom and Harry have a Spiritual of 2 and 3 respectively. The maximum size of their dice pool is 5 + 1 + 2 = 8 dice.

Any Player in the Group may spend Power to gain dice up to the maximum during their turn. Any Player in the Group may also use his own Power to augment the dice pool.

Dice Pools:

Up until this point we have talked about dice pools but haven’t discussed what type of dice we are using. This game uses 4 types of dice; 4 sided, 6 sided, 8 sided and 12 sided. The default size is the d6. Moving up the size ladder means to go up to the next larger dice size; like from a d6 to a d8. Moving down the size ladder means to go down to the next smaller size; like from a d6 to a d4.

Example:

Continuing with our example with Bob, Jenny and Harry, Bob called for the Conflict so he becomes the Calling Player and starts the Spending phase.

Bob: *Power at 5 / Physical at 5* I’ll spend 4 Power to get 4 dice. Brogan whips out his rapier and advances on Franco, flourishing the blade in an impressive pattern.

Jenny (to Bob’s left): *Power 10 / Physical 4* I’m spending 4 Power for 4 dice. Flynn slips around the edge of the bar crowd, keeping his head down as he heads for the back door.

Harry (to Jenny’s left, GM): *Power 34 / Physical 3 / Mental 5* I’m spending 3 Power against Brogan and 3 against Flynn. Franco draws his own sword to defend himself and edges towards the front door. He’s looking around for hidden threats in the crowd.

At this point the Brogan/Franco Pot has 7 Power and the Flynn/Franco Pot has 7 Power.

Bob: *Power 1* I activate my “Good with a sword.” Trait for 1 Power. My dice are now d8’s, woot! Brogan closes with Franco for a quick clash of blades. He hammers blows at the pirate scum, pushing his opponent’s blade out of good defensive position.

Jenny: *Power 6* I activate my “Sneaky Bastard* Trait and raise my dice to d8’s too. Flynn dodges behind a support beam and slinks into the shadows. He continues towards the rear exit.

Harry: *Power 28* I’m going to activate Brogan’s “Hates Pirates” Trait to lower Brogan’s dice back down to d6’s. Here’s your 3 Power, dude. Brogan’s hatred for Franco’s profession causes him to get careless and he allows Franco to put some space between them.

At this point the Brogan/Franco Pot has 8 Power and the Flynn/Franco Pot has 8 Power.

Bob: *Power 3* I’ll pass. Let’s do this thing!

Jenny: *Power 6* I’m activating Franco’s “Single Minded” Trait. He’s concentrating too much on Brogan to spend a lot of effort on noticing Flynn. Here’s your Power, Harry.

Harry: *Power 31* I’m activating Franco’s “Gets out of sticky situations.” Trait. My dice are now d8’s. Franco kicks a barstool into Brogan’s path, putting another obstacle between the two of them.

At this point the Brogan/Franco Pot has 9 Power and the Flynn/Franco Pot has 8 Power. Bob, Jenny and Harry have Power scores of 3, 3, and 30 respectively.

Bob will be rolling 4d6 against Harry’s 3d8.
Jenny will be rolling 4d8 against Harry’s 3d4.

Roll Them Bones:

Once the Spending phase is complete and all the dice pools have been finalized, each player rolls the dice pools of the determined number and type for each goal that they have. Each die that comes up a 4 or greater counts as 1 success. For each goal, the Player or Group that scores the most successes wins the Conflict and accomplishes their goal. They have final narration rights over the resolution of the Conflict.

Example:

In our continuing example, the rolls end up like such.

Bob vs Harry rolls: 2,2,3,6 for 1 success.
Jenny vs Harry rolls: 1,4,7,7 for 3 successes.
Harry vs Bob rolls: 3,6,7 for 2 successes.
Harry vs Jenny rolls: 1,3,3 for 0 successes.


Resolution:

Once the winners of each goal have been determined, play moves to the resolution phase. The winners then narrate the outcome of each goal, staying within the stated scope of the Conflict. Players are not allowed to narrate blowing up the world when their Conflict goal was to hide from Dr. Doom. Narration should be reasonable short and stay within the scope of the Conflict but other than that can be pretty much whatever the Player wants.

Remember all the Power that was spent during the Spending phase on each Goal? That Power was put into the “pot” for each goal until the Resolution phase. Once the winners have narrated their results, that Power is divided up equally between all the losing Players involved in that goal. If the Power doesn’t divide out equally, have each of the losing players roll 1d12. The highest die/dice get the leftover Power points.


Example:

From the rolls above, it is clear that Harry beats Bob, 2 successes to 1, and that Jenny beats Harry, 2 successes to 0. The winners now narrate the results.

Harry: Franco waits for Brogan to try leaping the stool in his way and then shoves a nearby patron into his enemy’s path. This tangles Brogan up long enough for Franco to slip out the door where he leaps on his waiting horse and gallops towards the docks.

Jenny: Flynn slips out the back door while the others are still fighting and runs around to the alleyway in time to see Franco riding off towards the waterfront.

The Pots are then awarded to the losers of each Conflict. Bob will get 9 Power, bringing his total up to 12 while Harry will get 8 to bring him to 38.

Sometimes you aren’t going to want to go through the full-blown Conflict Resolution system in order to adjudicate an action or goal. Let’s say that Bob wants Brogan to break through a stout door or seduce a barmaid. The GM probably isn’t going to want to come up with Attributes and Traits for these items when they aren’t horribly important. In this case, he has two options.

1. If it is really, really unimportant and you (as the GM) aren’t invested in the outcome, just say “yes” and go on. Ooooooh… that’s difficult.

2. If you feel (as the GM) feel like it is important enough that the Player needs to be challenged in it but not enough to go through the full Conflict Resolution system, then use the Simple Resolution system below.

In the Simple Resolution system, the player simply states his goal and puts 1 Power for it into the pot. The GM can let it go at that (and collect the Power)or can put a Power of his own into the pot to negate the Player’s goal. At that point, the Player can either accept failure (and collect the Power) or pay another Power to activate an applicable Trait. If he does this, the Player succeeds and the GM garners the Power. The GM cannot block the action past this point. At any point during this process, the Player or the GM may call for the Full Conflict Resolution system. If this happens, the Power in the pot is returned to the people who put them there and the Conflict is resolved normally.


Example:

Bob wants Brogan to seduce a pretty barmaid after a hard day of adventuring. Harry (the GM) doesn’t feel this merits the full-blown Conflict Resolution system but thinks Bob should have to work for it at least a little.

Harry: The barmaid doesn’t seem interested. Sorry, Bob, but you’re going to have to win a simple Conflict for this.

Bob: Okay, I want to seduce the barmaid well enough for her to welcome me back should I pass this way again. *He slides 1 Power into the pot.*

Harry: She’s having none of it! Too many traveling ne’er-do-wells have loved her and left her in the past. *He slides 1 Power into the pot.*

Bob: Brogan’s not like all the rest. He’s charming and sauve… and he lies better than they do. I activate my Lady’s Man Trait. *He slides a second Power into the Pot.*

Harry: *Collects the Power* Very well, you weasel your way into her bed and work your roguish magic on her. She sends you off the next morning with a smile and a kiss.

That's what I have for now. I know this isn't close to a finished product but I think it has enough for folks to comment on. So... comment away!

Thanks!

Cool stuff, Andrew!

What do the players do in the game? Secondarily, what are they likely to have their characters do in pursuit of their player goals?

Tony,

Thanks for the response. Let me see if I can answer your questions.

1.) I don't see the player role much different than the player role in most traditional games or games like TSoY or Sorcerer. Actually, the closest game in terms of GM vs Player roles to this one is Pace (can't believe I forgot to mention it) where the GM is in sort of a cooperative, yet competitive, role versus the Players. It's why I limit the GM's game power by giving him a Power Pool too. Sometimes he will be driving the story and sometimes the Players will be. If you can visualize how a session of Pace would go, you've come very close to what I have in mind... just with more of an element of chance.

2.) I'm not sure how to answer this as it seems dependent somewhat on the setting and I've purposefully left the setting undefined at this point. However, I really have only tried to limit Character actions in the game indirectly through the few details on the Character Sheet. The Story gives a basic outline of what the Character might be able to do. The Attributes narrow that focus down a little by determining how much power (how big a dice pool) the Player will be able to purchase for his Character in broad categories. The Traits further refine by inidcating what kinds of actions the Player will be able to further augment his dice.

Not sure if this answers what you are asking. I'll try again if I missed the mark.

Ah, you're fielding the general question. I was asking the specific.

Players do different things in Sorceror than in TSoY. I'm not an expert in either, so indulge me... TSoY players do not typically think about how their characters are tempted by the opportunity to transgress fundamental principles of humanity. Sorceror players do not often think about how their character actions interweave the various communities that they travel between, or what sort of world-destiny that is leading toward.

So, for instance, you have your example characters getting into duels and seducing barmaids. Is there a particular reason players will be interested in those activities?

Tony,

Ah, I see what you are asking now. Let me see if I can answser it coherently. It's something that I've always had in the back of my mind but never really thought to bring it out and examine it in detail. So, excuse me if my answer turns into a bit of a ramble.

In my role-playing career, I've always wanted to have a game that would actually let me do the things that my favorite characters do in novels, movies and TV. Mostly I've been unsuccessful in finding a game that does this very well. There are a variety of reasons this is so but that's probably a topic for another thread. In any event, I see the Players having their Characters behaving like the main characters in their favorite TV serial or their favorite book. *I* happen to like fantasy and adventure stories. Thus my examples include those types of things. I could easily see a group playing Vampire-style game or Sci-Fi (Star Trek or Andromeda) or anything else in that vein. Other games that would have similar Character activities would be TSoY, The Pool and Pace.

Player activity, I really think I'm looking to revolve around the gaining and spending of Power. I see the ebb and flow of Power between Players and GM as the central activity in the game. In that respect it is a very Gamist-style resource manangement kind of system. The closest games to it in these terms are Pace, Capes (haven't played) and Universalis.

Is that a clearer / better answer?

Well, that doesn't really narrow it down all that much. Maybe if you gave some examples of particular works that you liked a lot, we might see a pattern. For instance, somebody who wants players to emulate Firefly, Alias, ER and Lost is looking to make a very different game than someone who wants players to emulate Quantum Leap, Kung Fu, the Saint and Maverick.

In terms of what the system (as stated) will probably do: I think it will encourage people to gather Power by losing inconsequential conflicts. The bar-wench thing, for instance: would that have any mechanical impact after it had occurred, except for the flow of Power to the GM?

If it wouldn't, if all it does is say you had a one-night stand, then I think players would be well advised to be miserable failures in places where the stakes are low, in order to have enough power to kick ass when the stakes are high.

Which could be really fun, actually, because people differ on what stakes are high and low. Some players will say "Obviously you want to screw up while trying to manage your love life, so that you can kick ass when enemy ninjas come calling." And others will say "Obviously you want to get captured when enemy ninjas come calling, so that you can kick ass when it comes to your love life."

But if both sides think that the stakes of a certain conflict are low then it is in the best interests of both to drive the bidding up as high as they can without actually winning. Right?

Okay... once more into the breach dear friends. Works I like a lot. Tolkien, Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, George Martin, CJ Cheryth (sp?), Melanie Rawn and other similar authors. Movies - Lord of the Rings (duh), The Bourne Identity / Supremacy, The 13th Warrior, Braveheart, X-men, Spiderman, Tombstone. TV - Smallville, CSI, and House are pretty much all I watch. I don't know how much that narrows it down.

I think I know what it is that you're really after but I'm not sure I have an answer for you. In Sorcerer, DitV, and some other games, the system dictates to some extent or other what the "adventures" will be about which in turn determines what kinds of activities the Characters will be involved with. In Sorcerer, you're going to be dealing with demons and the supernatural. In DitV, you're going to get into religious debates and gunfights. The thing is that I don't really envision those kinds of constraints (not that they're bad) on this particular game. I see it more like The Pool or Pace, where what the Characters are up to is completely wide open depending on the setting and Situation that the Players come up with.

However, I DO know what I see the Players doing in my mind's eye. I see them hoarding and spending Power. I see them trying to find Conflicts that are insignificant enough that they don't mind losing to collect points but are significant enough that someone wants to at least put up some resistance, because no resistance equates to no points garnered. I see Players trying to decide whether to lose some significant Conflicts at the end of a session (allowing the GM to tighten the Situation around them) in order to convert all that unspent Power into Experience or whether to spend all that Power in order to resolve some important Situations in their favor but have little Power at the end to convert to Experience.

Is that better? I'm really not trying to be obtuse... I promise.

This system seems like it would be best at simulating movie-like stories.

By which, of course, I mean a relatively short story with a definitive beginning and end, with a plot that is the sort of thing you'd find in a movie.

Movies especially like this:

1) Heist Movies: You know, a group of guys wants to steal something, but each and every one of them wants it for himself. Usually one, or more, undergo many minor setbacks during the course of the movie. Then, at the end, they use all the power they've accumulated and reveal, in probably a big flashback sequence, the grand plan which led them to victory despite seeming to be weak. Spy Movies would even work the same way, just with different motivations and goals.


2) Action Movies: This one's the epitome of "try, try again". Fight against insurmountable odds, get into worse situations for it, then fight your way out.

You could even do Romantic Comedies, though it seems you don't like that kind of movie.



Basically, it seems to me like the system you have could be great for one-shots. To maintain the movie feel, you might even do something like set up a real world time limit and, with reference to that, constantly increase the stakes of your conflicts until the time limit is up, at which point the whole thing is on the line, success or failure at the entire enterprise, wrapping up your "movie" plot.

I'm not sure how well it would do in a multi-session type of game. Though my opinion shouldn't stop you. Try it. If you like it, go for it.

I've got a website up for the game.

Andrew's Little Game

I'll do my editing of game text there so everyone can see the current version. I've also thought a good bit about Tony's questions and read some of the other threads dealing with Core Plot and have become fairly convinced that I need to add mechanisms in the game to focus play in that manner. So, thanks Tony for asking things (even if I was clueless at the time).