Hello all, this is my first post on the Forge. From reading Ron's article, seems like he's got a good bead on the industry. I had some ideas for a post-apocalyptic rpg, similar to the Fallout PC Game. I even had a couple of ideas for a mechanic, I thought that the System Mechanic would be the best place to start developing the game, but after reading that article, I'm not so sure. It was both intriguing, and a bit confusing for me as well. From his article I came to the conclusion that I am in the Simulationism mode of thought, and I like the ideas presented in that mode.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone here has some tips for a newbie designer.

Thanks,

LordCarter

**edit** Also, if anyone is interested I will post my mechanic...

Hello, and welcome.

This thread has links to some threads with excellent advice.

In your perusal, please note that its against Forge ettiquette to post to a thread that's not been posted to for longer than a month or so.

And here is a thread that you may find helpful also.

Heya,

I'll give you two questions that are pretty much standard around here:

1. What is your game about?

2. What do the characters do?

If you can answer both those questions, you're off to a good start! :)

Peace,

-Troy

Well here's my ideas...

This game will be based somewhat off the Fallout PC Game. In other words, it's a post-appocalyptic universe. Everything is Bombed Out, Some creatures and humans have been mutated. Characters will explore the lanscape of post-bomb America (and maybe other areas), discover interesting clues that lead to earlier humans leaving Earh into space to avoid the radiation, and rediscover awesome technologies that existed just prior to the bomb. IE, cloning, anti-gravity, teleportation, and maybe some others. Also, weapons, armor, items, and customization of them.

Of Course, I realize that these ideas need to be fleshed out way more, but these are ideas out of the top of my head.

This is my advice:

Forget everything that you know, and start instead from what you want. Too many roleplaying game designers (myself frequently included) start from what existing roleplaying tropes and cliches and try to think about how they could be altered to make a better game. I think a much better way is to begin by thinking about the kind of game you want and then start building rules that will produce that game.

I agree however, I am only using the basic concept of Fallout. In other words, the only similarities would be the fact that a nuclear holocaust has occured XX amount of years ago, and people are slowly coming out the shelters, or vaults, or whatever to explore the new world. That in a nutshell is the game I want to create.

This is completly different subject, but Im trying to save space I suppose.
I have the concept of creating a system, whereby skill levels are increased by having specific experience in each skill. I know other systems have utilized this system, but IMO I think it gives a more realistic feeling even at the expense of space on a character sheet. In addition, using this sytem makes abilties irrelevant for skills, so I'm considering getting rid of them, or at least severly reducing their importance. But at the same time, why do I feel like I am committing an act of blasphemy by doing this? What do you think.

To be clear, my advice was aimed in general not as a response to any particular aspect of what you had posted.

These may be of value to you as well:

Mike's Standard Rant #4: Stat/Skill systems

Mike's Standard Rant #1: Designers! Know your hobby!

As to my response to your specific questions, ask yourself this:

What are abilities adding to your game? Do you need that? Could you acheive it in a different or better way?

What in-game effect will linking skill advancement to use acheive? Does this match the style of play you want?

Other games have used a by-use system of skill advancement, they are notorious for a style of play in which players take turns at a task to build up their skills rather than sending the best character forward - sort of "The doors locked! Send for the fighter!". Do you want this style of play? If you don't how will you avoid it? Another problem is that you are inherently tying skill advancement to the kind of action that occurs in game, making it very difficult for me to play an expert in Ancient Gulrithian ruins (say) unless that features prominently in play.

Hello, LordCarter! Welcome to the Forge. Do you have a real name by which we can call you?

The ideas you posted sound like they'd make for an interesting story. I don't see the game part yet. Can you tell us what kind of play experience you'd like players to have? What do characters do? More importantly, what do the players do?

Oops! My apologies! I totally missed your post about skills and abilities.

The game design world could use a little more blasphemy. That said, I don't think many regulars here consider anything you said to be that unusual.

What are your goals as a game designer? What do you want the rules to do for the players? How do you want the rules to shape play?

So far, you've mentioned 'realism,' which is a bit of a demon in itself. I think if you search for the word in topics on the Forge, you'll find a lot of threads about it. It's a holy grail that a lot of designers chase and never catch to their satisfaction. Why do you want your skill system to feel realistic? How does that make play better?

The very best tip is of course to look at and play as many of the cutting edge games that have been developed here over the past few years as you can. This will give you a better idea of what has already been achieved, as well as probably generating a lot of cool ideas of your own.

For all those who wish to call me by give name, it's Kyle. My last name is obvious, lol.

Anyway, my goals as a designer are simple. I just want to create games, that are fun to play, have depth, but at the same time remain simple. And if it be possible, create a new successful and innovate game system thats as different as possible from current systems. Ya, I know, lmao, Dream On.

Im my concept of this game, I would try to limit the limitations of the players on designing and developing their characters, although I'll admit this is a difficult task, and may be over my head. Additionaly, since I'm fond of Exploration, and the Simulationism school of thought, Narativism would be limited. I feel that solving problems in an RPG through dramatic dialouge isn't a fun aspect of an RPG to me, that reminds me of theatre. The play situations of my youth come to mind. "Haha, I shot you. Your dead! No, you missed me, see no blood!" Without some sort of third party arbitration (ie. dice) the idea seems pointless to me. Plus, you can't have a GM step in and say, ok he wins. Just doesn't work.

I would like for the rules, specifically to help the players enjoy the role-playing experience, and not be a hinderance, or overwhelming (D&D, Star Wars RPG), and as Mike states it, Have one System for all actions. Of course, you should I think, have simple play, and then add more advanced concepts that both of those games present for those who wish to add to the game experience.

I will admit these questions do cause a bit of confusion in my direction, I suppose I am not sure how to answer them. I have a clear perception of the story of the game, and what would constitute the bulk of the character experience. However, since I am new to RPG Games (I've only been playing for about a year, and my experience is limited to the majority of D20 systems), and more familiar with PC Games, I find myself looking for a linear-single-player-storyline kind of play. Although, I know that doesn't fufill any of my game design goals. In orther words, I'm having a difficult time thinking out of the box. I'm a graphic designer by profession, not a writer, lol.

As for the realistic skill system. I think, just leveling up to recieve some kind of currency (ie. points) to use to buy skills unapealing, and stagnant. In my logic, I see a person perfoming a task many times becoming very skilled in that task. So, in essence by using a skill you would gain proficiency in that skil, instead of simply leveling up and gaining points to spend. Although the other stats, strength, dexterity for example, I see very difficult to "level up" without some kind of currency.

Sorry for the long rant, lol.

**edit**

Also, In my development of a mechanic I find myself contiuning to return to the old "Ability + Skill + Die Roll => or <= Target Number. I can't find a way to get around that, and all the other systems that I've looked at seem not to appeal to very much. I guess I just like the D20 System, but I don't want to make a game that uses that system or a system derived from it either.

Kyle: it would seem to me that you're in desperate need of experience in different kinds of roleplaying games. This is clearly your current bottle-neck. You could well design a game, but it seems to me that you'd just end up with something you'll want to revise anyway, when you have a little bit more experience with different kinds of games. You'll spare yourself untold bother if you'll just take ten different games and play five sessions of each. Sure, it'll take roughly a year, but at the end you'll have a basic familiarity with the ideas, mechanics and principles of different games. At the beginning the benefits of more experience are so massive that it'd be foolish to skip this step willingly.

Still, some random comments:

RPG theory, and particularly GNS: do yourself a favor and don't even try to categorize or justify your actions in GNS terms for now. Or, alternatively, read up on the theory and learn to apply it for rpg analysis. Worrying about GNS theory at this stage is like meddling in art philosophy before learning how to hold a paintbrush. That is, if you're going to do it, then focus on that and leave the practical stuff for later.

Realistic skill systems: the skill system you suggest is most prominently presented in Chaosium's BRP system. However, it has a fatal flaw you really should address if you're going to use it: if your game fulfills these axioms:
1) Players have more opportunities and control over the game when the characters learn stuff.
2) Characters learn stuff through practice and study.
where will that lead? What you've created just now is something called a reward system, a bit of mechanics that direct player action. The problem is that this particular reward system rewards players who direct their characters to act conservatively, stay out of adventure and keep studying. You've created Geek: the Mid-term Exams! The players are rewarded for repetition. Although this is a norm in computer games, same kind of lousy design simply won't fly in a rpg, which require much more polish to get entertaining. To solve the problem, either break the connection between character competence and player fun, or figure out how the fun stuff can also increase character competence. Both are valid solutions, and demonstrated in different games: InSpectres has goofy characters that are frequently screwed by their players, and it works because the players have fun even if their characters are constantly weakening. D&D, on the other hand, rewards players for doing the (ostensibly) fun stuff, like killing and looting. Both games work. What won't work is a game that punishes players for doing fun stuff.

Alternative mechanics: there are a zillion different mechanics apart from ability+skill+die, so what you should do is play more games to experience them. This is one wicked problem for many designers, actually. In Finland, for example, all published designers are locked into a hopeless rut in this regard, and consequently design rather mediocre games.

That's it, for now. What games have you exactly played? From your goals it sound like you'd like something like FUDGE. Check it out.

Hi, Kyle!

If you want to innovate and do things differently than the other games out there, you're gonna have to read a lot of what's out there now. Definitely read Mike's Standard Rants (links posted above).

Since you're interested in Simulationist-supporting games, I suggest you look at The Riddle of Steel and The Burning Wheel: Revised Edition. A google search should quickly find places that sell either.

I think your relative lack of experience in gaming can both hold you back and help you. Experience can teach us important lessons about what works and what doesn't but it can also put on the blinders and keep us from seeing new ideas. Consider applying your graphic design knowledge to the art of game design. Think of the game in terms of interface and usability. Apply your background as a tool used in a different way.

I am concerned that you misunderstand what Narrativism is. Narrativism does not mean diceless or systemless. Look at Sorcerer or My Life with Master or Dogs in the Vineyard for examples of strong Nar games that require dice to resolve conflicts. The GM doesn't "step in and say, okay he wins" at all in these games. What makes an instance of play "Narrativist" is that the players address a central premise with their play, that they share the Creative Agenda of exploring premise.

To get specific about your game mechanics, there's nothing wrong with Ability + Skill + Die Roll compared to a Target Number. It's well-tested and works great for some games. Other games discard Abilities entirely and just use skills, or discard Skills entirely and just use Abilities. Some games roll all character strengths into a generic Traits system and treat them all alike.

Here are some other ways games handle task resolution:
* your stats determine how many dice you get (Storyteller)
* your stats determine what size die you get (The Window)
* your stats are compared to each other, and highest "wins" (Amber DRPG)
* you roll a fixed number of dice then your stats get you rerolls (Verge, sorta)

What games have you played? It sounds like some D&D. What else?

I would second the recommendation of checking out Burning Wheel - it actually has a system that improves skills as they are used. It also does it in a way that rewards in-game use in difficult situations much more than long-term study use, though both are possible. So players usually want to get in on the action so they can improve their skills quickly, but if there is downtime, it's not wasted either.

My eyes have been opened by reading the articles and discussing things, but much more so by checking out innovative games such as Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, and Burning Wheel. They're not as expensive as D&D, either :)

I will agree with you guys that my lack of experience is holding me back, I cannot, and will not despute that. I have read information about other games that are listed in Mike's Rants, however it seems as though they lack the definition and depth that a D20 game presents. FUDGE for instance is really alien to me, and for the most (although having never played it, and I don't think I would want to from my reading) part doesn't seem that appealing. It just lacks the concept of, well... I'll use the phrase, well let me shit gears and give an analogy. When George Lucas went to ILM and told them his vision for the spacecraft in Star Wars, he pioneered the concept of "used future". Basically this presented the craft in a way that you could understand why it was welded here, and bolted there, if you catch my drift. The understanding of why each craft was designed the way it was. They didn't just build it... lol.

Anyway, my point being that FUDGE, imo, doesn't present this sort of a feeling to me when a game like D&D does. Although I will admit it's been around ALOT longer than FUDGE.

And here is my basis for not wanting to use the Ability + Skill + Die Roll = Target Number system. First of, it's inherently D20 and WIZARDS Copyrighted, althought I do like the way it plays very much. Second, I don't want to do something that everyone else is using, or modifying something someone else has already done. And Thirdly, I had my Star Wars RPG with me once at a game shop where they play D&D alot. This one guy hadn't seen SW RPG yet, and asked me who made it. I told him that it was a Wizards D20, and he said "Oh, it's a D&D Clone, and everything works the same (with a very smug look)." So, in essence, I don't want someone to come along and say something like, "Na, that game is a D20 Clone" about a game that I designed. But on the other hand, I like D20. Thus, my problem. I guess anything I say at this juncture, is just pointless, because I don't have the backgroud knowledge of RPG's to design something that hasn't come before. But, I really don't want to play 50 different games in order to understand those concepts. Like I said earlier, I read most of the iinfo on those games Mike presented, so I have a basic concept of them. IMO though, I think some of them lack the refinment of a D20 Game.

I think the two main aspects of the design I need help with though are the mechanic, and developing the story into a design that works for an RPG. And I am basing the "story" concept of gameplay from the SW RPG. They way the characters interact within that universe per say.

To Euro:
I mean no disrespect, wanted to get that out first. I appreciate ALL the comments you guys make, and I know I'm taking up your time when you could be doing something more productive. Anyway, I think you misunderstood the design for the XP Skill System thing, I inteded for the characters to develop their skills by doing ANYTHING that utilizes a skill, asking people questions to develop, say their Influence Skill, or Fighting to develop their Melee Skill. Yes, it is a reward system, but in my mind it doesn't hinder any one from doing whatever they want to develop their skills. Again, in my mind, players would be rewarded for gettting into adventures, because thats where they would use their skills. So, either I don't understand you, or you misunderstood me. If you care to, please elaborate on what you were trying to say.

To AdamDrey:
Yes, I think I did misunderstand Narrativism, but what I was refering to is how some people play Vampires. (Ah, another I have played before, just dawned on me.) They act out all the scenes with dialog, and there aren't ever any dice being rolled. If I wanted a show, I'd go to the theatre, or watch a movie. To me, thats not an RPG, thats just Role-Playing. So thats what I was refering to when I mentioned Narrativism. If that is not what it is, I will admit I misunderstood the concept. Another thing, Conflict Resolution I don't fully understand, I couldn't get a free sample of Dogs in the Vinyard for example, to see how CR worked. But from my understanding, you receive points for every situation you complete towards the main story. <???>

Kyle: you're not wasting my or anybody's time, because we participate here voluntarily. I'm just calling it as I see it. I know that I myself would just ignore advice that told me to back off and learn more before trying something like this, even if it was genuinely the best option. So I don't wonder if you still want to craft your own game, based on your own priorities, even if those priorities will prove fleeting. I just suggest that there are some fundamental choices about game design that you're, it seems to me, ignoring because of lack of experience. Like that distaste of ability+skill+die, which seems to be pretty spuriously motivated. The easiest way to learn oneself out of a million kinds of different boxes is to play more, and different games.

But yeah, I probably wouldn't myself take that kind of advice if I were you. Just too damn stubborn and self-confident, I am.

LordCarter wrote:
Anyway, my point being that FUDGE, imo, doesn't present this sort of a feeling to me when a game like D&D does. Although I will admit it's been around ALOT longer than FUDGE.

And here is my basis for not wanting to use the Ability + Skill + Die Roll = Target Number system. First of, it's inherently D20 and WIZARDS Copyrighted, althought I do like the way it plays very much. Second, I don't want to do something that everyone else is using, or modifying something someone else has already done. And Thirdly, I had my Star Wars RPG with me once at a game shop where they play D&D alot. This one guy hadn't seen SW RPG yet, and asked me who made it. I told him that it was a Wizards D20, and he said "Oh, it's a D&D Clone, and everything works the same (with a very smug look)." So, in essence, I don't want someone to come along and say something like, "Na, that game is a D20 Clone" about a game that I designed. But on the other hand, I like D20. Thus, my problem. I guess anything I say at this juncture, is just pointless, because I don't have the backgroud knowledge of RPG's to design something that hasn't come before. But, I really don't want to play 50 different games in order to understand those concepts. Like I said earlier, I read most of the iinfo on those games Mike presented, so I have a basic concept of them. IMO though, I think some of them lack the refinment of a D20 Game.

I think the two main aspects of the design I need help with though are the mechanic, and developing the story into a design that works for an RPG. And I am basing the "story" concept of gameplay from the SW RPG. They way the characters interact within that universe per say.

Anyway, I think you misunderstood the design for the XP Skill System thing, I inteded for the characters to develop their skills by doing ANYTHING that utilizes a skill, asking people questions to develop, say their Influence Skill, or Fighting to develop their Melee Skill. Yes, it is a reward system, but in my mind it doesn't hinder any one from doing whatever they want to develop their skills. Again, in my mind, players would be rewarded for gettting into adventures, because thats where they would use their skills. So, either I don't understand you, or you misunderstood me. If you care to, please elaborate on what you were trying to say.

I have a copy of Dogs in the Vineyard but haven't played it yet, so I'd rather talk about My Life with Master, which I've played twice.

In MLwM, you play the pathetic minions of an evil master, whose orders you can subvert only with a successful die roll. Every "turn," the GM (as Master) gives your minion an order. You probably try to resist it. If you fail the die roll, you proceed to carry out the order, which might be something like "Go steal the new baby from the orphanage so I can harvest its spleen" or "Find [the other minion] Robert's friend Elizabeth and kill her because she knows too much about our operation." Then you go off and commit various villany and violence against the townspeople and once you make a single die roll to carry out your Master's orders, you're free till the next turn. If you managed to resist your Master's orders, you probably go off to strengthen your connections with the townspeople (gain Love) via another die roll. If you succeed, you gain a point of Love and that makes you stronger and more human. If you fail, you still gain the Love, but you also gain a point of Self-Loathing for the way your failed attempt at connection made you feel. This makes you weaker in a way.

Note that I haven't talked about picking locks or swinging swords or complicated chains of die rolls to figure out if you can find Elizabeth and so on. Conflict resolution takes the scope of die rolls up a level to determine "what is at stake here?" In each scene, there's a single overarching conflict like, "Can I gain the Love of my friend Elizabeth?" or "Can I find and kill Elizabeth and please Master?" or "Can I resist Master and avoid killing Robert's friend?" Each one of those questions refers to something that is important to the player (not just the character who is, after all, a fictional character without real motivations). The die roll answers the question without asking the player how he is going to gain love or kill Elizabeth or resist Master, though the player may very well explain his methods before or after rolling. That's conflict resolution: answering the "what is at stake?" question at a high level as something important to the player's end goal, not individual tasks on the way to the player's end goal.

It works very well in play and I'd recommend playing a game like My Life with Master before judging the merits of conflict resolution vs. task resolution.

And before you think otherwise, let me say that you can still have a detailed skill system and use conflict resolution instead of task resolution.

Also, there are "in between" methods that use bits of both conflict res and task res in creative ways. I do think you'd love Burning Wheel: Revised.

Euro, Thanks for being understanding!!! :O)

Well, to starters. You say that a game mechanic can't be copyrighted. Well then does Wizards just have the copyright to the D20 System Logo, and the words "D20 System" used together? Because, I looked this up at the Copyright Office online, and found a copyrignt for the D20 System, now as far as what that copyright pretains to I am not sure. That's why I was asking.

If it is just the part of the D20 system that fleshes out the rest of the book, thats AWESOME, but if it's all of it, I obviously can't use the D20 System, or the D20 Mechanic either.

Because I spend the better part of aprox. 3 weeks, day and night, pounding my head trying to develop something dfferent from D20 because I thought it was copyrighted. But if it's not, I am more than happy to use that system. Altough, I will admit it would be cool to develop something new, but again, if I can use the D20 System, I will go with that, and put the "new" mechanic on the back burner, until I have enough experience with other game systems. It's like that old saying when people speak of History (MY FAVORITE SUBJECT, besides Art of course. lol) "We have to know where we've been, before we can know where we're going.

I will check out your reccomendation about Shadows of Yesterday, and see how it grabs me though. But for records sake, I have read enough about FUDGE to know that I don't like it, even with an inventive dice system. lmao.

Additonaly, in my design education, I was always taught that you have to target a specific audience, and disavow and ideas that would target other groups. Unless of course, you are shooting for a general audience, which is sort of what I was trying to shoot for. Or is that too ambitious for someone as fresh as I am? Anyway, that was my motivation, but after thinking about it, I would much rather shoot for a specific audience that the whole group. Much easier to develop and build.

And another question about the copyright aspects of the "D20 System", if I design another logo with "D20" in it, and not "D20 System", is that legal? Also, what if I add something else in the name, but keep "D20" and "System" seperate from each other? "Like say "D20 Advance System" Or, could you get away with "Advance D20 System" I've been around and around with people about what is copyrighted and what isn't copyrighted, and for one I would really like to know. Because it would be nice to make a little money from my work. lol. But there's no way I would charge $40 a book! Maybe $10, or $15 for a core book, and maybe $5 or $8 for an expansion.

And thats another question, wizards seems to have made me believe that you can't include things like "Core Rulebook" in the title of your book which serves the same function? Is this true. Also, things like Dexterity, and Strength seemed to be included in what they call "definitions" I know this can't be true, because I have seen many games which use the latter two for sure. I dunno, random thoughts I suppose.

Anyway, thanks for the advice, and keep it coming. I'm currently working in a website that would showcase the company I am founding and also the website for this game. Maybe when I get it up and running, I will give everyone a link.

Anyway, Cheers! :O)

Kyle,

You can produce D20 supplements legal. They call this the 'Open Gaming License': you must put in one page which is available on the website of WotC, which says all of the stuff you've introduced is your copyright and the D20-system is of WotC. Then, you're fully free to produce commercial D20 Products. There are numbers of companies already doing this (of which Mongoose Publishings and Necromancer's Games are well-known).

Yes, I know of the Open Gaming License. But in order to use the System Legally, you cannot have a character creation system, or any system which enalbes character advancement (ie. leveling up).

Without getting into the details, you can create a new game based on the System Reference Document, which is essentially D&D. You're free to do anything you like with it, as long as you follow a handful of rules involving (among other things) putting the Open Game License in it and not calling it D&D.

If you want to say it's compatible with D&D or use the D20 trademark, you must abide by an additional license which adds a couple more restrictions to what you can do with your rules.

If you're just writing a game for you and your friends to play, I wouldn't sweat this in any case. If you plan to publish something, however -- even on the web as a free thing -- I recommend you learn more about the two licenses. If you want to make money on your product, I recommend you consult a lawyer.

Sorry. I crossposted. Thought I refreshed my browser, but I guess not.

Kyle, you can't have character creation and leveling rules under the D20 Trademark License. You can have such things under the Open Game License. Check out any of the various OGL releases from Mongoose Publishing for examples of what you can get away with.

LordCarter wrote: ...then does Wizards just have the copyright to the D20 System Logo, and the words "D20 System" used together? Because, I looked this up at the Copyright Office online, and found a copyrignt for the D20 System, now as far as what that copyright pretains to I am not sure.

I understand the difference between the three. My specific question is the Usage of the words "D20" and "System" in one grouping? Is it legal for me to do that?

LordCarter wrote: I understand the difference between the three. My specific question is the Usage of the words "D20" and "System" in one grouping? Is it legal for me to do that?