Hey all. I'm new here. I've got a game system concept, and coming up with any way to flesh it out.
Basic Mechanic: D100, roll low. Percentile system style.
You'd have a series (7, 10, 15) of Base Attributes.
Special Abilities would modify the Base Attributes, and have other abilities.
That's it.
See, I want it to be simple, but I don't know whether this is Gamist, Simulationist, Narativist, Marxist, Sexist, or anything else. I'd like to work this idea out into a good system, but I don't want to start adding skills, etc. I want to keep it simple.
I also don't know if I should make this a generic system, or wax heavily upon a certain setting. Like I said, I'm new...

In another thread, Technocrat13 told me

Naw... Don't flesh out any rules yet. We wanna hear what your game's about. Are you making it for you & your group? Are you making it to publish? What would someone pick your game over, say... GURPS, or FUDGE, or any of the other functional 'generic' games out there?

What game systems have you been exposed to? Which ones have you had satisfying play experiences in? I'm trying to get a bead on what ideas are old hat to you, and what might be new or inspiring.

So far, I've heard nothing at all to help me understand your game. Why would I play this as opposed to...well, anything else -- GURPS or FUDGE, for example?

What makes your game unique?

Without knowing that, I can't really comment. If you're looking for feedback on the mechanic, it's pretty standard; I've seen it, or something like it several times.

What game systems have you been exposed to? Which ones have you had satisfying play experiences in? I'm trying to get a bead on what ideas are old hat to you, and what might be new or inspiring.

So far, I've heard nothing at all to help me understand your game. Why would I play this as opposed to...well, anything else -- GURPS or FUDGE, for example?
What makes your game unique?

Mark wrote: I'm not trying to innovate the industry here. I'm trying to make a freakin' game.

Try not to let Forge-speak get under your skin. We're totally not trying to agitate you here.

"If you're game's not unique, innovative, and cutting edge, then butt out."

In D&D players create characters to kill monsters and take their stuff.

Well, from a certain point of view both Star Wars and LOTR are "Heroes kill bad guys, and blow up their stuff."

From another point of view, of course, they're both "Heroes wrestle with their own doubts about embracing a greater destiny, and are both held back and inspired by the failures of the past (their own and those of others). When they learn to have faith that not only their own strength but their own weaknesses are what is needed for their destiny, that moment is victory, and all else follows."

You can make perfectly fun, workable, thrilling games around either of those premises. They're very different games, of course. And one guy will say "Game A is exactly Star Wars, while Game B totally misses the point"... and then another guy will say "Game A totally misses the point, but Game B is exactly Star Wars."

So, basically, the great stories have a lot of stuff going on, all at once, with individual themes supporting and structuring each other in tremendously involved ways. Nobody's going to mimic all that, except by exactly reproducing the story itself. What people are trying to get at is "What's the bit that makes Star Wars what it is, to you?" The bit that says that (for instance) the Millenium Falcon dodging through asteroids is key, but Luke sneaking through the corridors of Bespin is just filler. Or vice versa.

There's no globally right answer. But there's a true answer for you, and that's where I'd advise you to begin.

TonyLB wrote: "Heroes wrestle with their own doubts about embracing a greater destiny, and are both held back and inspired by the failures of the past (their own and those of others). When they learn to have faith that not only their own strength but their own weaknesses are what is needed for their destiny, that moment is victory, and all else follows."

Eric, thanks for taking the time to soften my words. I have no tact.

Mark, I still don't know what I need to know about your game to offer any useful feedback, and I assume that's what you're looking for.

"Epicly Heroic" says very little. That could mean we play warring gods. It could mean we play action movie-type heroes. It could mean we take on the roles of the characters from Beowulf. It could mean a nearly infinite range of things.

Look at it this way. Percentile systems have been around for a while. I can take any percentile system from another game and use it to play in any world. I can't imagine that anyone is going to see a percentile-based system and get all fired up about it. If you've got a cool setting, people will play it for that, and if you can tie the mechanics to that, so much the better. Sure, there are games with amazing, innovative mechanics -- Universalis, Dogs in the Vineyard, Capes -- but I don't play them because of the mechanics, I play them because something about the game as a whole captures my imagination, and I say to myself, "Self, you can't do this with any other system." For Universalis, I play it for GM-less, collaborative storytelling. For Dogs in the Vineyard, I play it to take on the role of a totally cool, morally judgemental soldier of god. For Capes, I play it because I can sit down with any number of friends and be involved in the characters and story within five minutes, with no preparation at all.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

* Clean, unified mechanics, with few exceptions and special rules
* Simple rules, complex play
* Modular rules (core with customized expansions)

Two things. First, I can't take credit for Schrodinger's War; that's an open group effort, and everyone's welcome to participate. Second, design goals aren't why people play games. For all I know, Tony set out to make Capes a super-crunchy, rules-intense combat game, requiring tons of setting knowledge in order to play, but failed. It doesn't change why I play the game, or why anyone else would want to play.

Now, knowing your goals is important, too. Then you can ask if specific components seem to support your goals. That's an entirely different ball of wax. It's also much easier to deal with than a general, "Here's my game. What do you think?"

So, taking the goals of clean mechanics and simple rules, let's look at what you've stated so far.

Percentile system: Sure, they're simple and easy. If everything's on the same scale, then it seems nice and unified.

Basic attributes: Same as above.

Special abilities: I'd need to know more about these. Perhaps an example or two would help?

Other abilities: Again, what are they like, and how do they work?

Special Ability Examples:

Plain Dumb Luck: Your character is incredibly lucky. Once per game, a single roll that fails succeeds. It has to be at a dramatically appropriate moment, and the GM has to agree to it.

First Aid Training: Your character has learned basic First Aid. Gain +10% to your (Blahblahblah) Attribute when performing basic medical procedures.

Things like that. These are simply examples. Different Special Abilities would be worth different points, and there would be a point Buy system.

Also, I'd have something like the Beliefs in Burning Wheel, and other "Non-Game-Mechanic" add ins as well that you would have to answer. I like the idea in Burning Wheel of it asking you questions to decide where your character is with his stats (have you ever had a cold? Add 1 to your Steel). I'd like to incorporate some of that as well, without stealing full chunks of ideas. Anything else that I should come up with? I think mixing these different elements together is beginning to make my game unique and different, and worthy of notice.

Also, in my town, we've got a pretty big RPG presence,and the way this town is, people will just buy a game if they know it was made locally. People still brag that MYST was invented here...

Anyway, any more help would be appreciated. It seems like we got off on the wrong foot, Andrew, (probably my fault for not knowing how things work around here) but I'm really appreciating your help. Thank you.

Questions, comments, burns?

Hey Mark, Welcome

No "wrong foot" dude, you're doing fine. We just love to talk about games in the single worst communcation medium ever invented. :) Sometimes it bites us in the ass. Just assume that everyone has a big smile on their face when they write you, or at least a grin.

I know Inquisitor pretty well. I've always liked 40K, pastiche though it may be.

What I'd like to hear is what your game is about. I'm a player playing your game...what do the characters do? I mean, inquisitor is pretty specific, you're either an Inqisitor or part of an Inquisitors retinue and you travel the galaxy investigating and eliminating threats to the Imperium.

Burning Wheel is a little more vague, but its not a generic or 'universal' system. Its about playing epic medieval fantasy, like in the works of LeGuin or Tolkien. Your characters are heros out to do great deeds. (Sure I know it can be about other things but, y'know, in ten words or less.)

Look at what Schrodenger's War is about too

Archivists, non-corporeal entities who seek the answers to arcane questions throughout space and time by “borrowing” human bodies.

Andrew,

No problem, man. I was pleased to have the chance to do it. Kinda like some karmic balance for myself after asking so many frustrating-the-establishment questions myself when I first got here.

Mark,

Man, when you picked out those design goals for Shrodinger's War, you totally picked out the tertiary stuff. The important stuff comes under the headers of Just what the hell is this all about? and What's already been decided?/Core concepts. The design goals are important, yeah, but they don't say a dang thing about what the game is there for.

Heh. I know we're really badgering you on this point but that's just because we find it that important to know what your game is about before we can help.

On to another bit of an issue. d20, Inquisitor, and Burning Wheel. Are those the only RPGs you've been exposed to? 'Cause if that's so,... well... To me, that's like saying you've driven two cars, poked your head into a third and decided that you're gonna be better off designing your own car as you haven't found the one that you really liked yet.

So, I've really gotta suggest that you keep reading other games as your working on your own. Steal everything that looks good. Read even the games that don't sound like they're even close to what you're trying to do because they might have some little hidden bit in them that you really like, and might want to incorporate into your game. Check out the Forge's Resource Library for a bunch-o-links to free and nearly free games.

Oh, and there's a link in my signature to Mike's Rants. Yeah, they're rants, but really good rants that are really all about the common and collective errors that new game designers tend to fall into. Good reading.

And, if some of the other Forgites out there could, can we get some talk about other functional percentile systems? The only only one that I know of is Call of Cthulhu, and that's pretty far from generic. There's gotta be a percentile-based generic system out there already that Mark could take a peek at, see what's already been done.

-Eric

Like Trevis said, there's no "wrong foot" issue here. People don't post just to put someone down or anything like that. If you ask for feedback, the only people who are going to respond are ones that want to help provide that feedback in some way. It might be positive or negative, but it's all there to help you.

Eric, I wouldn't call the Schrodinger's War design goals tertiary, but they certainly have changed, both in form and importance, over the course of the project. For example, one of the original goals was to not use dice, but that went out the window at some point. That goes back to my earlier statement that, while design goals are important and should be looked at regularly, the core concepts and themes for your game are a different matter entirely.

Mark, Eric makes a good point about trying other games. Also, Mike's rants really are a great source of information, especially #1. So, check out Alacrity, because it sounds like it might suit most or at least some of your needs. If not, it should give you a starting point. Oh, and it's a free game, too.

Well, take a peek at Rolemaster, but don't look too long, because you could be swallowed whole. :) Seriously though, when you say percentile system, I think RM. Warning: it is long and detailed and expensive, so I suggest either finding someone who already owns it or perusing it while at a game store.

Another interesting one that I haven't had a chance to play is Exiles. Go to www.mimgames.com for that one. It's even free!

Edit: Click on "The Madness" link to take you to the games...

Oh yeah! I forgot Cthulhu. Okay, here's the games I've been exposed to, just to show that I'm not completely sheltered.

D&D (D20)
Star Wars (D6 & D20)
Generic D6 by WEG
Inquisitor (% system)
GURPS (D666)
In Nomine (D666)
RISUS (The simplest RPG ever!)
Burning Wheel
Call of Cthulhu (% system)
Mutants & Masterminds (D20)
Everyone is Bob (I saw it on the internet somewhere)
World of Darkness/Vampire

And... I think that's it.
I'll try to figure out the theme. Thanks.

I just got Orbit from my FLGS last week and it has an interesting little percentile based system that I rather like.

You have your attributes number and your skills provide a multiplier to get your final percentile target number (roll under)

For example (I don't have the book with me so I'm making this up) You have an agility of say 30. You have an actobatics skill of one of four levels, something like Familiar (x1), Competent (x1.5), Expert (x2) and Master (x3)
You multiply your stat by your skill level and there is your TN. So if you are a master acrobat in this case you would have a roll under target of 90%

(Now I can't remember what stat numbers really look like but its somewhere around there.)

There is a breif lite rules version on the website in the downloads section.

The added stuff in the results is what makes it really fun thugh, Gonzo success and Gonzo failure have several options, one of which is to give narration to the player.

best,

Trevis

I like that! I'll have to consider a system like that...

Here are my Design Goals:
1) To create a generic fun game system that can be bought on the cheap and is simple enough to be staplebound.
2) Multiple supplements for different Genres.
3) Questions asked of the player to determine the main character's starting Attributes
4) A percentile system (Roll low) that is easy to grasp
5) A Belief-like system that aids in the GM's scenario-making process ("Oh, you believe that? Well do you still, when THIS happens?")
6) A mechanic that allows Players to influence the track of the game (Fate)
7) A Mechanic for Destiny (I have no idea how this would work)

Okay, it looks like for me to really pull off what I want (a truly generic fun system that can be picked up for a fistfull of dollars at your local Game Shop) I'll need to come up with multiple Concepts to have in other supplemental books that support the main text (I may also have one of these at the end of the Core Book so that you can get started right away).
Here's some concepts for play.

Fantasy World: All mages are blind psychics, and have been driven into hiding. Human only world, but with creatures that watch over them (I'm talking non-incorporeal creatures that can do things like walk on leaves while still attached to trees, the most graceful creatures in the world)

Sci-Fi Setting: Humanity has built false wormholes to reach out into the stars. They have just made first contact. Corporations run everything, and the government is a sham, run by various companies that control them. Weapons are ballistics wrapped in energy.

Horror: No Rest For The Wicked. A sort of "Route 666" rpg with things not being as they seem. Half the government and corporations are ancient creatures that have been biding their time.

MIB: The aliens are among us. Based on the stories of the Men In Black (not the movie, the guys who actually show up at your door), you discover the truth about everything that's always seemed a little off...

These are just samples. They have a lot of kinks that have to be worked out. The game system as a whole would be about exploring what is real and what isn't. Knowing who you can trust, and exploring the struggles and doubts your characters have. Anything else? I could use help going from here.

Mark, I know your pain. I was working on a game design on and off for years, thought it was almost finished, stumbled on the Forge looking for ideas, and -- BOOM -- my idea exploded. I ended up throwing everything out and starting over.

I'm not familiar with everything on your list of games, but despite their variety, I think all of them, with the partial exception of Burning Wheel depending on which edition it is, share the following four characteristics -- as did my defunct game idea, for that matter:

1. A single, powerful Game Master.

2. Lots of detailed, strict rules for combat and magic/superpowers, a few loose rules for everything else.

3. Dice. There are games that use cards, and games that use straight numerical comparisons with no chance, and games with no numbers at all.

4. "Task resolution" instead of "conflict resolution." This is really tricky to explain, but in oversimplified essence:
- Task resolution is "I want to hit him with my sword. I roll - I hit - he's hurt! Okay, so am I winning or losing? Let's figure out how all these specific actions add up to the overall result I really care about."
- Conflict resolution is "I want to win the fight - I roll - I win! Okay, so did I hit him with my sword or scare him away or what? Let's figure out how the overall result I really care about is expressed in specific actions."

Ron Edwards' Trollbabe is a good example of how to do (2) and (4) differently, and it's got a sneaky way of subverting (1). It's ten lousy bucks for the PDF, so I'd start here.
Tony Lower-Basch's Capes and Ralph Mazza's & Mike Holmes's Universalis blow away (1) -- everybody's a GM at once -- and (2), plus they do a job on (4).
Vincent Baker's Dogs in the Vineyard looks like a traditional RPG on all counts, complete with four-sided dice and blow-by-blow descriptions and a strong GM, but.... well, it screws with (1), (2) and (4) in a very cool way.

(3), the dice thing? Eh. No really cool examples off the top of my head. But it's actually not that important compared to the others, actually.

Yes, whether you use die or don't is not really important. You did read that right.

I'm just gonna pop in on your examples for Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution Sydney. Not that I wanna get into that conversation here, but it does seem that your example implies that Conflict Resolution does the same thing as Task Resolution, but narrows it down to one roll of the dice.

Forgive us if we get into some debate over the defination of Conflict Resolution vs. Task resolution around you, Mark, as it's kind of a hot topic right now.

If I were to sum up the difference, I'd say that a Conflict Resolution system allows for the player to state pretty much any goal they'd like before the dice hit the table, and if the dice go in the player's favor then they've reached their goal without needing any GM interpretation. Whereas a Task Resolution system tells the player just what kinds of tasks his character can achieve and leaves it up to the GM to decide if Success In Task = Success In Goal.

But that's just my interpretation, others will certainly vary. Like I said, it's a hot topic right now.

-Eric

(3) Nobilis and Everway.

By the way, of the Design Goals you mentioned, these....

MarkMeredith wrote: Here are my Design Goals:
[snip]
3) Questions asked of the player to determine the main character's starting Attributes
[snip]
5) A Belief-like system that aids in the GM's scenario-making process ("Oh, you believe that? Well do you still, when THIS happens?")
6) A mechanic that allows Players to influence the track of the game (Fate)
7) A Mechanic for Destiny (I have no idea how this would work)
[snip]

You think so? Thanks! That's great because I really like those additions to the game plan. I'm carrying a notepad around with me, jotting ideas down. I kinda like the idea about all players being the GM (Inquisitor can be played this way sometimes). But I also love GMing when I've got a good group around me. As far as no-dice... I'm a big fan of the "clickety-clack". I play Warhammer (case in point). Anyway, anyone have any additional Design goals that may be a good idea that would match my current ones?
With each genre, I'd have a bunch of new Special Abilities that would match the genre. Anyway...

Hey Mark,

Mark Meredith wrote: The game system as a whole would be about exploring what is real and what isn't. Knowing who you can trust, and exploring the struggles and doubts your characters have.

Okay, here's the the Base Attributes that everything else draws off of:
Might (Your general brute strength)
Fortitude (Your physical toughness)
Vitality (Your general health and well-being. Fort and Vit will be averaged off to make your actual Hit Points, if I decide to go with the HP system)
Acuity (Your knowledge about the world around you)
Perception (Your Awareness of the world around you)
Resolve (Your mental strength, or willpower)
Intuition(This aids in everyone's "Sixth Sense")

Some people will say that Fortitude and Vitality are the same thing, and should be condensed. But I've seen plenty of beefy football players who always have colds. Also, Intuition and Perception may seem the same, but I know that I can be sort of tunnel-visioned, but I'm usually right when I have a "bad feeling" about things. What do you think?

If you game is about:

The game system as a whole would be about exploring what is real and what isn't. Knowing who you can trust, and exploring the struggles and doubts your characters have.

The problem is, that the game isn't supposed to be about how left is right and up is down. I want a realistic setting, but with things like the Horror setting or the MIB setting, you don't know who to trust. When I said "what is real and what isn't" I didn't mean physics, I meant relationships, government, etc.
What happens to characters when they realize that the government is run by the Appendix-Eating Robidash of Galaxon VI? How does that mess with their beliefs, and add to their doubts? By saying "Your character has a Body Attribute and a Mental Attribute", that is simply unrealistic, IMO.

Ok, so trust is still a big issue. Perhaps some mechanical way to tell when people are lying as well as to lie.

So I'm taking it from your discussion that you are looking for the game to emulate the physics of the game world. I'm thinking that this is what you mean when you refer to 'realistic' and 'unrealistic.' Consider that what you are doing when you have skills and stats and whatever forms the core of your character is that you are defining the character's effectivness in the game. Now there are many that games that slice a character's effectiveness up into little bits that corrospond to different physical, mental and social qualities and skills. And there certainly is a long tradition of this in rpgs.

But there are a lot of ways to slice that pie. None of them are really better than others so much as more or less appropriate for the game concept at hand. A lot of people around here have made great, hard hitting games that slice that pie much differently from what might be considered the standard.

Sorcerer, one of the best games I've ever played or experienced only gives you Stamina (a general body stat), Will (a general mental stat), Lore (your level of sorcerous ability), Cover (a rating in your 'day job'), Humanity (how close you are to being unredeamably corrupted)

Along with these scores you choose descriptors which justify the rating you gave the score. But more importantly a high Stamina in sorcerer, though it can be interpreted as a body builder or a wiry survivor, isn't really about the character's physicality. It is about how effective you as a player want your character to be in the realm of physical conflict.

Other games, like Trollbabe, derives all its stats (which aren't many) from only one number between one and ten, chosen by the player. The scale below the number is the character's physical effectiveness, the scale above the number is the character's magical effectiveness and the scale below and including the characters number is the characters social effectiveness. ( I think that is right) All three stats from one number!

Primetime Adventures your primary attribute is your Screen presence for that episode. You have some advantages and relationships to call on for other dice but Screen presence is really your central attribute.

The advantage of many stats/skills is that you can get a high variance of ability between characters. If that's something that pleases you and works for your concept than cool. The advantage of fewer stats, IMO, is the ability for the player to make a clear statement about where they want their character's primary effectiveness to be.

In art they always told us to carefully examine our default assumptions and make sure that when we choose something its really because we want that rather than being the only way we've ever done it.

best

Trevis

Ok, so trust is still a big issue. Perhaps some mechanical way to tell when people are lying as well as to lie.

So I'm taking it from your discussion that you are looking for the game to emulate the physics of the game world. I'm thinking that this is what you mean when you refer to 'realistic' and 'unrealistic.'

From what you've written so far, it looks like all of your settings have conspiracies and secrets in common. Ferreting out and/or stumbling upon them would seem to be a big part of the game. That and the effects these discoveries have on character's beliefs.

I think an interesting experiment for you would be to take each of the attributes you currently have and ask the following question: How could a character use this attribute alone to succeed in discovering secrets. You've already started down this road with the Intuition attribute. I think it would help with determining whether or not some of the other attributes should be kept, discarded, merged or split. When you start adding in genre specific feats this same task will help you determine where to focus your effort.

Obviously most players won't make characters that rely on only one of the options provided. But if you want a game about intrigue, then everything you give your players should support that. If it doesn't, then either the game won't be about intrigue or those players that make the wrong choices won't have much fun. (Or some options will never actually be used. But in that case, why bother to include them in the first place?)

(Of course, if you don't really want a game about intrigue substitute in whatever it is that you do want.)

Mark, I just want to reinforce what Trevis said about realism. You might want to check out the Plausibility, Realism and game design goals [an essay] thread.

Here's a thought too. The real central thing to how your game works is not really the stats or anything it's two things, your resolution system and your reward systems.

the trick of any of these games is to get players to do and say the cool things you envision them doing and saying. Then they can say "How cool! I'm playing this game and its rewarding me for doing the type of play it wants."

reward systems aren't only things like XP. Take a close look at the way Artha works in Burning Wheel. (Do you have the new edition or the old one? It works differently a little bit in the newer one.)

The other part of reward systems are the parts that punish.

Here's what I'm thinking, perhaps, since trust and sincerity are big factors in the game, perhaps a character in your game would have a trust rating for every other character and major NPC that he meets or knows. That rating might add in whenever he is dealing with that person trying to persuade them or manipulate them or just find out information. A very high trust rating for an npc might give the player a large bonus to persuade them to do what he says or tell him what he wants to know.

Maybe when a character is exposed in violating the trust of another, then the player makes a roll to see if the trust rating is reduced, giving him less influence over that person.

Something like that anyway.

best,

Trevis

I like the Trust Rating.
However, I don't want to limit the game to just exploring doubt and trust. I want more than that.

Okay, thinking about Doubt and Fears: Really, every great epic is about Doubts and Fears. par exaple:
Star Wars is about Luke's doubts and fears in himself, and his overcoming of them, to bring his father back from the Dark Side. ("I'm not afraid!" "You will be... You will be..."
Lord of the Rings is about Frodo's doubts of success. His best moments are when he doesn't beleive that he can go on. To a smaller degree, it's about the rest of the fellowship's doubts of Frodo's success. ("Is there any hope, Gandalf?" "There never was very much hope. Only a fool's hope.")
Odyessy is about the fears of Ullysee's(*sp) crew, as they struggle for SEVEN YEARS to make it home.
The Belgariad is about Garion's doubts that he can actually slay a god.
So that's what I want to focus on. I would love to have a game where you had DOUBTS, FEARS, BELIEFS and DESTINY all in a mechanical concept that you could play on.

I just thought up a new mechanic, too. "Despair". How would that factor in.

"I can't go on Sam." "Sure you can, Mr. Frodo!"

MarkMeredith wrote: So that's what I want to focus on. I would love to have a game where you had DOUBTS, FEARS, BELIEFS and DESTINY all in a mechanical concept that you could play on.

Yeah!

Would it be too much of a brain-bender to suggest that you totally toss-out any idea of physical attributes/mental attributes in favor of making "DOUBTS, FEARS, BELIEFS and DESTINY" your core attributes?

After all, do you really care how much these characters will be able to lift, or how much their IQ is? If a character in this game wants to... say... lift a city bus over his head to rescue someone, instead of looking at a STR stat you could compare his Doubt in himself, his Fear that he'd be killed in the attempt, his Belief that it's the right thing to do, and his Destiny to be heroic.

How's that fit?

-Eric

Technocrat13 wrote: Would it be too much of a brain-bender to suggest that you totally toss-out any idea of physical attributes/mental attributes in favor of making "DOUBTS, FEARS, BELIEFS and DESTINY" your core attributes?

Would it be too much of a brain-bender to suggest that you totally toss-out any idea of physical attributes/mental attributes in favor of making "DOUBTS, FEARS, BELIEFS and DESTINY" your core attributes?

Hey, Syd, you said this in thread "Emotions Mechanics II: Emotion as Power":

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Pain that makes you angry gives you power -- power to strike back. (Look at the climax of Return of the Jedi, or real-world soldiers going beserk at the death of a comrade). Horrifying sights that make you afraid gives you power -- power to run like hell, or to fight like a cornered rat if you can't run. A kind word that inspires hope gives you power -- power to carry on. (Look at the Sam-Frodo relationship throughout Lord of the Rings).
*SNIP*
If emotional reactions are a source of power at least as important as a character's skills or strength or equipment, they need to have an equal impact in terms of game mechanics.
*SNIP*
What I'm talking about, in essence, is making emotional reactions a "power-up": not something which dictates specific behavior, but which makes certain courses of action much easier -- which presents players with the interesting dilemma of surfing the waves of their characters' emotions or swimming against the current.

I'm impressed.

No, not with your game. With your progress. You've come across with some leaps and bounds already. Hell, I'm jealous. Took me months to get what you seem to have gleaned in three days.

What I'm going to try to do now is to hide a bunch of Forge jargon in a simple, yet complex question. If the three goals of playing a role playing game can be described as overcoming obstacles, simulating a situation, and telling a story, then which one do you think is most important for your game to support? I mean, of course it'll probably do all three, but which one will be the focus of the game? The challenges to overcome, the simulation, or the story?

And I'm going to ask you to really think about that. To think about what it is you really like to come out of your games. A year ago, I would have answered wrong out of habit.

-Eric

Crap...

I knew I had to decide on the GSN model sooner or later... I guess now's the best time... I know for a fact that it's not Gamist. But as far as S&N go... That's one to think on... Thanks for your support, Techno. No, I'm not being smart assed. Thank you for your encouragement. I've gotta think good and hard now...

Well, I hope that you don't think too hard about any "model". I'm hoping more that you can find the right answer in your own self about what you want from your game.

That's the tricky part.

-Eric

I've got it!

I really am a Narativist at heart. I'm constantly Fudging rolls when I'm playing with my friends to keep the game more cinematic (they haven't caught on yet) and I really like "complications" like in Burning Wheel, which is very Nar in its approach.

Yay!

Another huge step forward. Now you know that you don't need to follow the pattern of the games you've seen before and you know what you want out of your game.

Now the fun part;

Making your game do what you want it to do for you.

And now we can really really really help you get from here to there, because we know that you know what your goals really are.

-Eric

Mark,

Eric's right about your game and making it do what you would love to play.

Now, there's no need to get too hung up on the GNS thing. You know you want cinematic, dramatic play, with an emphasis on emotional intensity; that's good enough to work with.

Here's what I would suggest as your next step, which has helped me immensely in the past:

Write out a rawking transcript of play using your game as you would like it to be.

And I don't mean writing in-game events or stories. I mean, write out what the players say and do. What the GM says and does. What's the group interaction? How do people bring in their attributes, call on their conflicts, etc.?

Now, if you don't have your system nailed down, you can write placeholders in there, such as [player rolls dice and adds Anger level] or even [quick resolution roll here].

Overall, it would look like the Example of Play in a finished RPG (like the one in DnD). That should give you a good idea on where to take your game next, and where you want it to end up.

Oh, and good luck with the Navy. Hope you like it better than my friend who joined a year ago. (Though he did build a relationship with a nice Icelandic girl in the meantime.)

MarkMeredith wrote: There are only 3 Base Attributes
Physical
Mental
Emotional
....Emotion plays just an important part as the other two.

MarkMeredith wrote: Now, each one of these has 4-5 SUB Attributes...Your Emotional Attributes are: Resolve (I can't go on!), Intuition (I have a Bad Feeling about this!), Finesse (Who's scruffy-lookin'?) and Nerve (Hide!)

MarkMeredith wrote: You may be fancy with a gun, but nobody cares, if you're wetting yourself behind a crate.

MarkMeredith wrote: I really am a Narativist at heart. I'm constantly Fudging rolls when I'm playing with my friends to keep the game more cinematic (they haven't caught on yet) ...

Or is it more like "darn it, there would've been a really vicious dilemma there between saving the love interest and catching the bad guy, but the stupid die roll closed down one option, so I'm going to ignore it and force the players to make the hard choice?"

By the way, I'm going to put this thread in my "favorites" to point people towards as an example of someone picking up on nontraditional RPG design principles really, really, really fast.

Okay, so, how does doubt, fear, destiny and despair work mechanically in the game? Should I combine doubt and fear? Do I call those two despair, and just have Despair, Destiny and Hope? Hmm...

MarkMeredith wrote: Okay, so, how does doubt, fear, destiny and despair work mechanically in the game? Should I combine doubt and fear?

I like Ralph's example. I think I'd like it more if there were explicitly some reason why overcoming your Doubt and Fear can be bad things. That way you encuorage people both to give in to their doubt sometimes, and to overcome it at other times.

To use the Empire Strikes Back example: Luke overcomes his Doubt in himself when he left his training early and faced Vader before Yoda pronounced him a true Jedi. Was that a success? Uhhhhhhh.... that's unclear. Certainly it didn't do a great job at making him either happier or more confident.

Wow! I'm liking this! So, Doubts and Fears are your only TRUE enemy. Everything else is just the pawns of Doubt and Fear... I like...
I also really like the idea of Doubt being a good thing... Hmmm... Mechanics... I'll have to think about that... Wow, good ideas, guys!

I like Ralph's example. I think I'd like it more if there were explicitly some reason why overcoming your Doubt and Fear can be bad things.

I like that idea... Hmm... Another example would be Faramir, heading off to retake Osgiliath. It's not a good idea, but it sure is brave. He overcame his doubt, and nearly got killed for it (Twice!). That would be very cool. The rule seems complicated, but simple enough to fit onto only a couple of pages... I like. Later tonight, perhaps I'll post up questions to establish your Base Attributes. It's a clever system that I think will work well. Anything else that might aid in Doubts and Fears? What about dispair?

MarkMeredith wrote:
Okay, so, how does doubt, fear, destiny and despair work mechanically in the game? Should I combine doubt and fear? Do I call those two despair, and just have Despair, Destiny and Hope? Hmm...

I'm really liking that. I like the constant of Doubt + Hope. Maybe once Doubt is at 75% the character Falls, and doesn't go on, giving up. I can also write a bunch of questions (was your character raised believing that the gods were good?) to determine your starting Hope at the beginning of the game. I'm liking this!

Just as a caution on the mechanical side, watch out for positive feedback loops. If failing a roll increases Doubt, and higher Doubt makes it more likely to fail a roll, then ultimately you have a problem in the design.

There are lots of ways to repair a feedback loop. Break the loop (failing a roll increases Bad Destiny points instead, which don't feed into further failure); insert negative feedback (failing a roll might increase doubt, with a roll that's less likely the higher Doubt goes); provide a countermechanic at right angles (your fellow players have resource X which they can spend in approval of your RP, to decrease your Doubt or increase your odds of success); acknowledge the loop and make it a pressure (going too far into Doubt forces you to change your character's goals completely, at which point it resets. Can you succeed before giving up?).

I'll echo the positive things people have said about how quickly you're picking up on the core concepts here, though.

There is also a slightly different approach to things like emotions, doubt, and priorities... this is trickier to pull off, but is IMO even stronger if you can do it. Rather than explicitly recognizing emotional qualities in the mechanics, they can (in a really good design) be made to emerge from the interplay of other mechanics instead. Emergent phenomena are very powerful. The best example I can think of offhand is Dogs in the Vineyard (which is well worth owning for anyone interested in the process of design, in how solidly it embodies the principles of theory). Dogs is all about helping the worthy and killin' the sinners. But there is no "compassion" value. Nor is there a "judgmental" trait (though one could introduce it explicitly if desired). Instead, it's the way players use the mechanics, the way characters opt to respond to pressured situations, that makes compassion and judgment part of the game. It's like Vincent asked, "So, what behaviours express or create compassion and judgment?" and left those key terms themselves out of the system. This way every group gets to discover what compassion and judgment (and faith and a host of other things) mean in their terms, to their characters.

In your design, one way to reflect this might be through a gambling mechanic. Both Doubt and Fear would feature into risky mechanical choices not as traits but as factors in the players' choices. Say you have a setup where the GM's dice pool (or whatever) is clearly visible up-front; where your own payoff is based on what you're willing to risk. Failure costs you big money in a currency you value - let's say it's also your advancement currency. Success pays off only minimally in the same currency... but it's the way you really affect the game world (narrative control would be an example payoff). Balanced just right, the game could gradually "teach" players that even though the GM's dice look huge, and even though they themselves are struggling with meager abilities, if they're willing to lay it on the line then more often than not it'll actually end up paying off in success.

[Imagine a D&D3E game where you faced frightful foes with a CR about three to five higher than normal, but could "purchase" a certain kind of rerolls for a steep cost in XP. Those XP would be refunded if you won. Do or do not, there is no try...]

Anyway. I'm not telling you, or even advising you, to switch to this method of covering emotions/goals/feelings in a system. Just describing it as an alternate to what you've covered so far...

- Eric

I'm kinda stuck on fleshing out the mechanics of it. I really liked Thespian's idea, but I also agree with Harlequin, and don't want to get in a trap. What do I do?

Try out one way that appeals to you, and playtest :)

Yeah. In some ways it's easier to detect a feedback loop in playtest, then come up with a brilliant way to fix it, than it is to avoid them entirely in the original design. Sometimes this sort of thing - the necessity of repair - can help spur better inventions than what they supersede. So build a system, keeping these things in the corner of your mind, and set up a one-shot.

- Eric

xenopulse wrote: Try out one way that appeals to you, and playtest :)

Another thing you could do is create a playtest document and ask some folks over here (either by putting in a link in your sig, or by posting it here) to playtest it. I know there are enough people willing to playtest.