Hi! I'm new to the forge and this is my first thread. I've been reading posts for a while now, and I believe people do have interesting things to say about RPG here. I've found some excellent sources of reflexion. That said, I hope I can receive some advice.

But first, a little introduction. I've been playing RPGs for almost two decades, mostly as a GM. I've played many kind of games (vampires, d20 D&D, call of Cthulu, cyberpunk ...). I would declare myself mostly interested in the narrative aspect of the game.
If you find my english kinda strange, it's because I'm a native french speaker.
I'm currently working on a RPG project which as many specificities. I will talk about rules here.

I'm responding concerning a comment I made in "I Hate Dice", about system and games. I'd say, rules for RGP would look like this (I know, it's not exhaustive... anyway, it's not the purpose of my post) : you get a guy who tells a story in front of others who play characters. When you encounter a situation where it isn't obvious if your character can or can't accomplish a certain action, you refer to a mechanic, a set of rules.

So, what I meant by "no rules" means no mechanics defined for the game. I'd let the DM choose themselves whatever mechanics they like.
Eventually, I would be able to offer a pdf format of my story using different mechanics.
As I'm not interested in developing a particular mechanic for what I'm writing, I do have a different relationship to rules. They exist to represent the story I'm creating and not the opposite (I don't create a story base on a set of rules).

In my product, you wouldn't see character sheet, or anything related to any possible mechanics. It would be purely narrative.
But still, it wouldn't be a novel. It would be illustrated, but still, not a

About that, I'd like to make two observations :
1. take a story design for RPG and remove all elements concerning mechanics : I don't think you get a novel
2. add mechanic pages (as a add-on) to a novel : I don't think you get something like a game

Well it seems I'll answer to my own post... by completing some ideas... and by asking some questions...

Ideas :

• I have to admit I used narrative in a wrong way. It would have been wiser to use story (in the sense to be told). This story would offer a backbone, a skeleton, upon which you add your own need as a DM.
You would be able to play it as narrative (in the sense moral dilemma) or adventurous or with a lot of combats...
• It wouldn't be a novel. Still, it's true that novel, or comics or movies do inspire GMs for their games. But they are not specifically written for the role playing. I think it would be exciting to read a good novel which offers you a possibility of playing after.
• I do have to admit this "new kind of novel" would have to be well written. I don't say I have the talent to do so (as obviously you can see!!). But maybe someone else can...

Questions :

• Would it possible to find a market for this kind of product ? Or, said in other words, are RPG's stories bind so strongly to rules ?
• What would allow this product to be defined as made for RPG ? I would use the to be told criteria. Maybe I'm too vague on this...
• What would you need as a DM in a novel for it to be played ? What would look great books (let's say lord of the ring, game of throne, wheel of time) if they had been written by their authors for the RPG ?

Hey there, Pells... (what's your real name?)

So you're saying you want to write an interactive story, without any mechanics? One that different groups can adapt to their style, so that some may use the story in a tactical way (combat!), while others may want to explore character/moral dilemmas?

It's a bit hard to understand exactly what you mean. Are you picturing something like a standard RPG scenario, just without the stats; or something like a solo gamebook; or something like a background supplement, detailing lots of NPC's and locations, but with no ready-made plot?

Could you give an example of the structure of such a story/novel?

Hey... first name is Sébastien...
I'll try to explain with examples, but I think the general idea can be seen (or pictured) in an other ways.

Are you picturing something like a standard RPG scenario, just without the stats

or something like a solo gamebook

or something like a background supplement, detailing lots of NPC's and locations, but with no ready-made plot?

You're interested in the "fluff" aspects of gaming supplements as opposed to the "crunch", correct?  Something which goes through and details whatever the subject is about, without it being attached to a particular game system?  Basically, you want a book filled with non-system specific information concerning, say, a particular cityor location, or about a race of humanoids or a particular culture, and a handful of potential storylines which could/would follow.

If that, indeed, is what you're talking about, then I'd be most heartily interested.  When I go out scouring for new supplements to pick up, I ignore all of the mechanics specific information and instead look at the quality/ability of whatever I'm looking at to inspire game ideas.  As it stands, I have a very ecclectic collection of books from a lot of different genres and companies.  I end up adapting whatever it is that I'm using to whichever game system I'm using.

To me, this sounds like a generic supplement (statless background info), together with a relationship-map like setup (do you know relationship maps, from Sorcerer?) In other words, you're giving setting and situation, and letting the players decide how they want to handle it; they choose their own rules, and their own goals of play.

This can work for some styles of play, but not for all. What kind of players are you aiming at?

Welcome to the Forge, Sebastian!

First off, you are starting with a very good practice: you're calling your project a product, and that's a fantastic foundation from which to build from.

Secondly, you are dragging in a lot of assumptions about what a roleplaying game is, what players want, and what resources and knowledge players bring to the table.  That can create a whole boatload of problems in design.

Luckily, your foundation can be the key to resolving those assumptions.  Try and define the customer that your product will appeal to: what they want to get from the product, what they bring to the table, what they want to do.  Once you do this, you'll find that a lot of your questions are answered.

I'll try to answer most of the questions... If I can.

You're interested in the "fluff" aspects of gaming supplements as opposed to the "crunch", correct?  Something which goes through and details whatever the subject is about, without it being attached to a particular game system?

When I go out scouring for new supplements to pick up, I ignore all of the mechanics specific information and instead look at the quality/ability of whatever I'm looking at to inspire game ideas.

To me, this sounds like a generic supplement (statless background info), together with a relationship-map like setup (do you know relationship maps, from Sorcerer?)

In other words, you're giving setting and situation, and letting the players decide how they want to handle it; they choose their own rules, and their own goals of play.

This can work for some styles of play, but not for all. What kind of players are you aiming at?

Secondly, you are dragging in a lot of assumptions about what a roleplaying game is, what players want, and what resources and knowledge players bring to the table.  That can create a whole boatload of problems in design.

Actually, I just wrote up what I think is a pretty decent description of Relationship Maps, as well as a few other non-mechanical techniques, over in this other thread; that might help you with Forge terminology and ideas you're unfamiliar with

Hey, Sebastian, I keep running into the hint of an idea in your posts that goes completely counter to my approach to designing scenarios. I design them fairly frequently, as Multiverser chews through entire universes rather quickly sometimes. I've got different approaches that I use, and some critics have said that we should strip the game-specific materials from our world books and sell them as generic supplements, so I think I may be doing something like what you want.

The piece that gets me is that you keep talking about the referee telling the story. Rather than tell you directly why that irks me, let me illustrate it with part of my approach.

As I mentioned, I design worlds a lot of different ways. Some of those worlds are wide open simulationist bonanzas, as it were--places rich with possibilities for exploration and discovery, where nothing happens unless the players make it happen. A lot of players like that; you obviously are not thinking in those terms, but I would guess assuming that such a world already exists as the background for what you're writing.

I also design worlds in which there is some core premise or problem, but no specific plan for what will happen. An example of this is something like a Blake's 7/Star Wars situation, in which the player character becomes part of the crew of a rebel ship fighting against an evil empire. How that fight proceeds and what happens during it is not really detailed, as there is the hope that the player will embrace the conflict and pursue it by whatever means he chooses.

However, I do design what we call "story worlds", worlds in which there is some prepared plot and a set of hooks intended to bring the player into that story. I think this is what you're after, so I'm going to focus on these.

The reason I don't really need much help with these (apart from the fact that I'm pretty good at designing them) is that nearly ever bit of fiction already out there is already fodder for my games. I can use (and have used) The Last Starfighter, Cask of Amontilado, The Dancing Princess, The Most Dangerous Game, Prisoner of Zenda, The Postman--any story that's ever been told can be used as the setup for play.

Obviously, I adapt such stories to game books. What is needed to do this?

• Hooks. Multiverser is not generally a trailblazer game, that is, the players have no commitment to do what it is that I want them to do. If I want the player to help the king keep his throne, I've got to find a way to set up play so that the player will want his character to want to do that. That means I've got to put things together in such a way that he's going to be interested in doing this, and then he'll move in the direction of my story.• Mechanics.  Any idiot can plagiarize a movie or a book in about five minutes, once he's seen it or read it. The time consuming parts come in adapting characters to game stats, working out distances and times for travel, and otherwise making the story rules-friendly. This of course is exactly what you're excluding. I think that the only way to make that work without those details is to include practical equivalents--to say that this person is very strong, or stronger than anyone in the county, or clearly stronger than the player characters, or in some way give the referee a guideline for setting the character's strength. I mean, I can read the Harry Potter books and decide what I think the stats should be for all the characters, but the thing that would be helpful would be having some guidelines in summary form that provide the basis for those stats.• Contingent Scenarios:  To my mind, this is the most important and difficult part of design in the story world, but it is the part that you neglect entirely, as if it could not happen. What do you do if the player plays against the plot? In Prisoner of Zenda, what if the player realizes that he could easily eliminate the king and take over the country? In Dancing Princess, what if the player is not interested in the king's reward and would rather continue his valuable work as a schoolteacher than risk his life on some fool's quest? In The Last Starfighter, what if the player character never plays the Starfighter video game and so can't be discovered as the starfighter? You seem to assume that the players aren't interested in creating the story, but only in hearing it told. Around here, even in very gamist and simulationist games, players expect that their choices are going to create the story, to impact the events of the world in decisive ways. They may well choose to help the king, save the princess, or play the video game, but it will be their choice to have done so. The critical problem for a story world is working into the text how to handle events should the player character choose not to fill that role slated for him in the design. It's all well and good to have a great story, but unless you're going to railroad the players or you know that they're going to do everything they can to follow your plot, that story is probably never going to be told.

Now, maybe I misunderstood your image of the referee telling the story, but I hope that these notes on what concerns I have in designing the kind of thing you describe will help you understand what's really involved.

--M. J. Young

One comment on the viability of such a project: I know from reading about past experiments with this sort of thing -- all fluff, no crunch supplements meant to be used in any system -- that such products do not sell well within the RPG market. This is likely because they offer no method by which to incorporate or utlize the material in a game: no method by which to understand the impact and effect of the material on play (which is a if not the function of the mechanics). Such products thus also require a great deal of work by the buyer in order to incorporate it into play, as the buyer has to stat out everything and decide on levels of effectiveness for each piece to be used, etc. But a consumer is not usually looking to do such work, which is why they are purchasing the material in the first place. Those who are willing to do such work...just write it themselves.

I agree, generally, with the Rev here. Actually, people come up with this idea all the time, and what's really interesting is that they never even seem to make it to market with the idea. I actually can't think of a single product that's out there right now that fits the description. Again, that's not because it's a new idea - it's about a 25 year old idea. It's just that by the time people think it over, it doesn't seem like such a good idea.

Now, OTOH, if what you're talking about is to give a situation that's meant to be played sans mechanics, that's a different story. I think we're assuming as the Rev did that the idea is that a D&D GM will pick the material up and use it with D&D. But I think what you might be saying is that the idea is to play it sans mechanics (I read that up there somewhere, didn't I?).

If that's the case, well, it's already been done, and in spades. They're called freeform LARPs and LARP supplements. That is, most people simply take the "next step" with this idea and figure that if you're going to get together for mechanicless play, you might as well dress up the part, and act out your roles. There are even some LARPS that are more "tabletoppy" if you will.

That all said. Few of these products are not free. The one very odd exception are the "Host Your Own Murder" style games. Which are definitively one shot, written badly, and relatively expensive. I believe they get away with this by selling them to the non-gamer public for the most part.

So I think you definitely can sell such a product in theory. But in practice I think there will be few gamers who'll bite for cash. Because, as Raven points out, situation is cheap. You talk about making the product such that the GM will have the ability to have his own creative input. Well, yeah he's going to want to have that, and the best way is for him to come up with the situational material on his own.

In other words, what people are willing to pay for are systems that do better than what they can design themselves. The fun of creating in an RPG is at such a high level that even crap setting and situation works just fine. You simply don't need to have amazing write-ups, they never make it into play anyhow. It's a matter of there not being enough time in the world to transmit all of this detail in a session.

Sure you can have players read the material first and then play. But then why not use something that evreryone is really familiar with? In practice Interactive Fanfic and the like are alive and well all over the internet using backgrounds like Star Wars, Middle Earth, and all manner of stuff that you simply can't compete with. If you're actually as good as these writers, I suggest you write a book, and then have millions use it as source material like they use these other settings.

But, hey, maybe I'm just not seeing what it is that you're offering that any of these other forms are not. Here's the challenge to you. Write one up. Make a really short one, and then post it somewhere for all of us to see. Then we'll be able to have a better idea if it's viable or not. Until then I think it's all very speculative. I'm not optimistic, but prove me wrong.

You're quite right to make products that you like first and foremost. Just make sure that the sort of product you're creating doesn't already exist.

Mike

I second the "write one up" suggestion.  Pells, something that gets done around here a lot is the writing of (what I call) microgames -- little things that are complete in ten or twenty pages.  The Ronnies contest churns these things out.  Think of it like the game analouge of the concept car -- it's your proof of concept.  It lets you get a holistic view of the project without investing (too much) time in it.  You'd be amazed at how much you can learn about your proposal by doing it in miniature.

Here are two examples:
Otherkind and Conquer the Horizon.  Otherkind is a nice couple of webpages and will be a little more accessible than CtH, which requires you to print and assemble the booklet.  There are also a ton of them at the Thousand Monkeys website, whose url constantly defies my ability to remember it.

Well, well... might be a long post... again !

But, hey, maybe I'm just not seeing what it is that you're offering that any of these other forms are not. Here's the challenge to you. Write one up.

Some of those worlds are wide open simulationist bonanzas, as it were--places rich with possibilities for exploration and discovery, where nothing happens unless the players make it happen

Contingent Scenarios:  To my mind, this is the most important and difficult part of design in the story world, but it is the part that you neglect entirely, as if it could not happen. What do you do if the player plays against the plot? In Prisoner of Zenda, what if the player realizes that he could easily eliminate the king and take over the country?

I can't believe it! Hit the wrong keyboard key... can't edit my post... so I'll continue.
Lets take an exemple. Usually RPG scenarios present one story. What I propose is a lot more. So :

• The paysans wish to reverse the king. Assassinate him or go into civil war. (story A) Meanwhile...
• A powerful mage seeks a powerful magic object to become an undead necromancer and take over the king. (story B). Meanwhile...
• Forces of nature are rebelling against humanoids, both orcs and humans. (story C). Meanwhile...
• The daugther of the king has been kidnapped. (story D). Meanwhile...
• Orcs assemble themselves to go against humain kingdom. (story E).

But I wouldn't propose details for each story. I would give a calendar describing the five stories going at the same time.
Here's two important concepts for my project, and how I applied them. I know that I simplified them.

Existenstialism (from Sartre or Heiddeger) : what defines you is what you're doing.
As no one is waiting for your players, they will have to ask themselves, what are they doing ? They are no path predefined for them. They can try to assassinate the king or protect him. They can be tricked into finding a powerful object for a mage or oppose him. They can seek the daugther's king or even kidnap her. They can drink all their gold in an inn, if they want or even play orcs... The story is not about 'a guy who needs adventurers' and if your players say no... well, it would be "see you next week". One way or the other, whathever story your players choose, they'll have to take sides. They will change things. Or maybe not, but the, it would be their choices.

Hermeneutic : there is no truth, only point of views. There is no such things as a god's eye view.
For a given event, let's say the attempt assassination of the king, I would described many points of view : the guards who sucessed in protecting the king, the assassin who fails... When your players plays the game, what they do, is adding their own perspective of the many stories. That would be story F.

Major impacts of these concepts when applied to writing for RPG :
Role of the DM : what you have to offer is a menu of events. Your players will have the choices. Let's say, in the first week, they encounter someone who is offering to seek a powerful obejct. Your players accepted it, but they will get details instructions in a week... meanwhile, they encounter a battle between guards and paysans. What side will they take ? Will they try to assassinate the king or become his guards ? It is your players who directs the game, not the DM.
Alternative plays : let's say your players try and suceed in assassinating the king. That ends story B. As a DM, you still have A, C, D and E to offer.
Improvisation : so, for a given event you play, you won't have details... meaning you'll have to improvise as your players do. It means you'll be playing with them.
Freedom  of play : you can decide to offer only A if you want. Or play B as a narrative game. I hope each story is in a different style...
Multiples plays : if you play this game more than one, you'll play different adventures each time. 80 % A, 10 % B and 10 % C the first time. 50 % D, 50 % E the next. It means, I think, a challenge (and fun) for the DM each time you play it.

I hope I gave enough informations, knowing I didn't not present all the project yet. But feel free to ask more.

Now, some answers...

The reason I don't really need much help with these (apart from the fact that I'm pretty good at designing them) is that nearly ever bit of fiction already out there is already fodder for my games. I can use (and have used) The Last Starfighter, Cask of Amontilado, The Dancing Princess, The Most Dangerous Game, Prisoner of Zenda, The Postman--any story that's ever been told can be used as the setup for play.

Those who are willing to do such work...just write it themselves.

The one very odd exception are the "Host Your Own Murder" style games. Which are definitively one shot, written badly, and relatively expensive. I believe they get away with this by selling them to the non-gamer public for the most part.

If you're actually as good as these writers, I suggest you write a book, and then have millions use it as source material like they use these other settings

I just blundered across this thing called "Sanctum" on RPG.net, which is an experiment in systemless background, situation, and character. Does this resemble what you were thinking of? How's it different?

Sébastien,

I suggest downloading a copy of John Kirk's RPG Design Patterns (mentioned in a couple other threads, such as this one.) you can find his draft version on his website.

look up the "Loose Coupling" design pattern. it's a technique used in third-party expansion suppliments for d20, but was also used in some early "systemless" suppliments. what you want, it seems, is for a game suppliment that uses generic terms for common RPG mechanics, like "Strength test" or "skill check", without referring to the specifics of any game system. in addition, you would like the adventures included in the supplimnt to have minimal rules to determine when certain events in a story line are triggered, or what the exit conditions for a story's completion are. I think this is all a form of Loose Coupling.

it's possible some people may be interested in creating such suppliments, but we have to be realistic here: it's mostly a matter of content creation, not game design, and most game designers are going to have their own ideas for game systems that they want to pursue. you're not going to have much luck getting people here to agree that System Doesn't Matter, but you can get help here designing a simple set of narrative control rules for use in a series of Loose Coupled generic game suppliments, and perhaps may even convince a designer or two to create the basic system for you. you could then ask content creators if they'd like to create specific content using that system.

there's a certain appeal to the approach. but I'm just saying: you're not going to get people to give up making their own focused RPGs.

I checked sanctum. In the idea of systemless content, I'd say we're aiming at the same goal. Other than that, I can't say.

what you want, it seems, is for a game suppliment that uses generic terms for common RPG mechanics, like "Strength test" or "skill check", without referring to the specifics of any game system

it's mostly a matter of content creation, not game design,

perhaps may even convince a designer or two to create the basic system for you.

you're not going to get people to give up making their own focused RPGs

pells wrote: I don't think I use "Loose Coupling". When I describe an action taken by a character, I don't refer to any particular ability, even less in term of "check" or "test". Take Harry Potter, would be strange to see, in the last confrontation something like "Harry succeeded his magic test and inflict a lot of damage to his opponent ! But the latest, having the trait quick and shadow disapears suddlenly.".

pells wrote: But, is content not one of the main element in RPG creation ?

If I'm reading you right, you don't plan to include the player-characters in your product at all, correct?  I don't even see a provision for leaving a player-character-shaped hole.

It's a commonly held assumption that the gamer market is filled with people who create fantasy worlds in their heads,

Perhaps this assumption is incorrect or at least slightly off target, but you're going to have to prove it wrong before we can really start talking about it.

Ok, having seen your replies to various folks and comparisons with other system-type things, I have  to say this: you are writing fiction. You are not writing narrative fiction, but you are writing fiction. Call it "content" or call it "fluff" or call it whatever, that's what you are doing.

You're hoping to create some sort of (open-ended) situational scenarios, some descriptive overviews evocatively full of potential for resolution in a myriad of ways, that are interesting enough to be picked up and converted into the buyer's system of choice. You aren't creating adventures, per se, but something more along the lines of mini-setting bibles.

Ok, sure. Lots of people have tried to or want to do this. There are numerous examples on the web of such things (I have a whole bunch of them bookmarked, in fact).

But the problem is you're still pulling a Herbie...you're not saying, "Oh, Herbie can run ANYTHING and make it good" but you are coming at the same problematic viewpoint from a different angle, "Oh, as long as the story is good, any set of mechanics will serve you. Here, convert it."

That's still Herbie. That's still "System isn't important."

Example: let's say you write this bit about love and betrayal at the king's court, detailing all the major players and where they're standing in relation to one another, what they each want, what they're each doing, etc. And then turn the players loose on this situation to do whatever they will...

Well, depending on which system they use to play this scenario out, things might turn out very well, or very badly -- enjoyment-wise. Try and throw D&D characters into this mess. D&D is not a system that supports, rewards or encourages romance, subterfuge, or emotional engagement. It rewards killing stuff and taking its treasure. That's what it is designed to do.

Now, it seems to me you've gone this route for the same reason many freeformers do: because the mechanics got in the way for you a number of times in play. Thus you decided the problem must be with mechanics, that mechanics were too problematic and unsupportive of really playing and doing what you want.

Well, yes, the first bit is right, they were getting in the way...but not in the way you think. They were not problematic because there were mechanics, but because the wrong mechanics were being used to achieve the desired effect. By way of analogy: you've rejected all tools because you tried to hammer in nails with a screwdriver and things (of course) didn't turn out so well.

But the problem is that you've decided the reason for this difficulty was that you were using tools, and thus concluded that tools are inhibitive of achieving your goal(s), and that avoiding tools will allow you to avoid the problem and get right down to building the project you're after.

That's what I'm reading.

Now, if you want to be a content creator, and leave the mechanical/system-level stuff to others...well, great. Go right ahead; but at least do it for the right reasons, from the right perspective, or you've failed before you've even begun.

What Raven said, Pells. Actually I won't outright agree with his assessment that you're writing fiction, per se, but you're not writing material that can be used "as is" for a RPG. Even freeform players will have to find a way to manipulate the information to get it to be playable.

You keep thinking that you have your "school" and we have ours. What's really going on is that you've only played a very few RPGs, with very few people, and haven't studied the phenomenon at all. Rather, our school knows everything your school does, and a whole lot more. I wrote this rant for would be designers in your position: Mike's Standard Rant #1: Designers! Know your hobby!

Note that I didn't start off with this assumption, but got to know you first. But you make too many assumptions that are just not true to really know the RPG field. For instance:

For some gamers, certaintly for the pure pleasure of creating, but maybe, for others, because there's no such product on the market.

One of important thing I'd like to create with my project and find missing in typical scenarios is the sensation that the world is alive.

but still, don't you need to write content ?

Mike, while not wishing to contradict the overall thrust of your posts in this thread, I would like to point out that Harn is a commercial setting which is explicitly marketed as "usable with any rule system". With some allowance for hyperbole, this is true--although there is a rule system called Harnmaster, it was published three years (?) after the game world had been introduced on the market, and AFAIK most or all of the modules do not contain explicit references to the system. Actual practice <a href="http://www.harnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3252">at least based on this Harnforum thread supports the idea that the "Harn culture" is fairly diverse in terms of the systems they use.

But--I think one can tell from the entire business model that it's aimed at a niche. These are expensive products, with an extremely high level of detail reflecting a great deal of research and craft. Also, quite possibly, it's a reflection of an earlier time when communication and technology made the production and communication of this sort of work much harder.

Hmmm. All the Harn stuff I have has stats for Harnmaster all over it.

But, OK. There's your example. Which only proves my point, however. This has even been done verbatim.

I'm not saying that one can't make money with this concept, either. I'm saying that there's no niche that needs filling. It's already full. Packed to the brim. If you want to dive into this market, not having stats is not a feature. It's a flaw that'll have to be overcome.

Heck, if Pells is the next MAR Barker, perhaps he's got something. But even Tekumel doesn't sell all that well. It's still an unfortunate truism that the best way to get your setting material to sell is to make it D20 compliant.

Mike

Sorry if this post is comming off as talking down to you, but I think you really need to get some perspective on what RPGs are about in totality before you go off making decisions on what to create.

Ok, having seen your replies to various folks and comparisons with other system-type things, I have  to say this: you are writing fiction. You are not writing narrative fiction, but you are writing fiction. Call it "content" or call it "fluff" or call it whatever, that's what you are doing.

Well, yes, the first bit is right, they were getting in the way...but not in the way you think. They were not problematic because there were mechanics, but because the wrong mechanics were being used to achieve the desired effect. By way of analogy: you've rejected all tools because you tried to hammer in nails with a screwdriver and things (of course) didn't turn out so well.

Well, depending on which system they use to play this scenario out, things might turn out very well, or very badly -- enjoyment-wise. Try and throw D&D characters into this mess. D&D is not a system that supports, rewards or encourages romance, subterfuge, or emotional engagement. It rewards killing stuff and taking its treasure. That's what it is designed to do.

You keep thinking that you have your "school" and we have ours. What's really going on is that you've only played a very few RPGs, with very few people, and haven't studied the phenomenon at all. Rather, our school knows everything your school does, and a whole lot more.

Heck, just playing through the "World's Largest Dungeon" probably takes years of play for most groups

The only difference between these products and yours is that the people in these cases have, where neccessary, added the statistics neccessary to play the game in one system. What's interesting is that there are several published systems to play Glorantha, and some people play freeform (note the freeform LARP on the etyries site).

Also, quite possibly, it's a reflection of an earlier time when communication and technology made the production and communication of this sort of work much harder.

Even freeform players will have to find a way to manipulate the information to get it to be playable.

pells wrote: I'm still not convinced. From what I'm reading, the mere fact I don't have a system to put behind my story means I don't write for RPG, that I don't design a game?

My main trade is selling stories

When it's done, then, I'll ask 'how do I want to build it, using a screw or a nail ?', and then, only then, I'll go and take the tools, hopefully choosing the right ones.

If I use d&d, does it mean I can't play 'intrigue at court' style game ? I don't get it.

That said, I hear you. But what I see, and had already observed, is that there's alot of settings available. Very interesting ones, rich, detailed... but not so many stories.

The precedence (I'll use that instead of absence, if you allow me) of 'story' over mechanics is not the only particularity of my project. I mentionned some earlier and will enumerate them below :

Pells, you should have started your own Thread dude. I was gone for awhile, and the next thing I know, you hijacked it. What's up with that?

Um, I am so sorry. I didn't realize what I did. Please ignore that last post of mine. I thought I was advancing pages in my own thread, but I was moving into the next thread. Please excuse my error.

SORRY...

I'll try to make it short this time...

It may be written for use with an RPG...

It means that another system would have been better suited to playing out intrigue, because the mechanics support the play, the theme, the events and goals of intrigues better than D&D does. It means that you would have a better experience of play utilizing a set of mechanics that supported your play goals.

It is like writing a script for a Hollywood movie; you can write the most amazing script in the world, but an incompetent director or awful actors can sink it like a lead brick despite its brilliance

Pells, nothing you have listed is in any way remotely or vaguely new. Everything on your list is old hat in the gaming industry

There is no way to say, "This will happen at a predetermined time!" and "You create the story yourself! No predetermined story!" at the same time. These ideas are diametrically opposed to one another.

Think about it: if your players affect even one calendar event early in the campaign, they eventually end up invalidating dozens, if not hundreds, of later events.

That may all seem like a harsh dismissal of your idea, but its frank criticism of an idea I have seen played out time-and-again, and that the main hobby has begun to reject as the problems with such set-ups become apparent.

I get it, he is talking about a multi-line or multi-plot game where you can have concurrent plots resolving at the same time.  But his big thing is you aren't "rolling'  you ARE the character so it isn't a choice of luck of the roll, it is who can outthink the plot basically.

And while the idea is intruiging, I and my friends tried to play test our own system like that and it very quickly can become unplayable because there is no 'crunch' It will wander off.

pells wrote: I mean, you still need to have content, don't you ? You don't just come to your friends and tell them 'tonight we'll play that system', let's throw dices !!!

pells wrote: But where do you get ideas for the content of your saturday (or friday, whatever...) game ? Obviously, you don't buy it...
I mean, you still need to have content, don't you ? You don't just come to your friends and tell them 'tonight we'll play that system', let's throw dices !!!

pells wrote: I'll take that !! That seems enough for me at the moment...

But what happens if I don't need mechanics to play intrigue?

Does that mean I didn't play a role playing game ? Is that some kind of flaws to not throw dices ?

What about competent director and bad script ? Do you really need an example ?

Did I pretended it to be ? I guess not.

Do I have to quote myself here to explain it ?

Truly I know you mean well. Anyway, must take you some time to write those long posts. I appreciate it, really, and I hear you, thanks for the advice...

I mean, you still need to have content, don't you ? You don't just come to your friends and tell them 'tonight we'll play that system', let's throw dices !!!

I get it, he is talking about a multi-line or multi-plot game where you can have concurrent plots resolving at the same time.  But his big thing is you aren't "rolling'  you ARE the character so it isn't a choice of luck of the roll, it is who can outthink the plot basically.

Actually, most of the games produced here work exactly like that.  Thing is, gamers don't need content providers.  We're a pretty creative bunch, especially when handed rules and procedures that facilitate creativity.

I certainly don't do all my worlds on the fly; sometimes I put a fair amount of time and effort into them. But the time and effort is usually about the game-related details--stats, maps, equipment, skills, stuff like that. The stuff you want to sell me can be generated at need on the fly

Yes, sometimes it's nice to know that certain things will happen by a particular time if the players don't do anything about them--but then, as far as I can see the game is supposed to be about the player characters

pells wrote:

Actually, most of the games produced here work exactly like that.  Thing is, gamers don't need content providers.  We're a pretty creative bunch, especially when handed rules and procedures that facilitate creativity.

It helps me understand why you say content and mechanics are so tight together. And yes, you are very creative people. So, to do what you're describing, I think (but maybe I'm wrong), you have to be a very good DM, with very good players. It's not 'everybody can do it'.

Well, I'm back from vacations, downloaded Capes, read it, had some other thoughts and I'd like to conclude on some points this thread.

Pells, seriously, for the love of all that is holy, go download Capes Lite (for free) and read it.  Creating content for games is not rocket science.

I'm old; I'm busy. I don't have enough time not only to create a vast Glorantha or Tekumel-like setting, I don't have time to read it, let alone learn it, and I actually don't need it.

On the other side, anything you write in which they can be involved is automatically derailed

Such play is much closer to LARP than anything else.

Joshua wrote:
Actually, most of the games produced here work exactly like that.

  Thing is, gamers don't need content providers.

Look at PTA -- the game starts with the players sitting down and deciding together what they want to play.  This is a recurrent theme in tons of games, some of which restrict the options (MLwM, Dogs) and some which actually broaden it (Universalis).

contracycle wrote: Indeed.  Thats a major failing, IMO...And these games are only interesting to some people.

Rules are easy, content is hard.

Y'know, I like the Forge because of the generally civil nature of conversation here compared to other sites.

This statement is coming from an individual who, in six years of participation at the Forge, has never once produced, discussed, or attempted to produce an RPG, so treat it as you would treat medical advice from your teenage neighbor who works at McDonald's and gets high every weekend.

I like the Forge because it has standards, of which Grey's post was a shining example.  But let's not tangent the thread, bob.

Joshua wrote:
I like the Forge because it has standards, of which Grey's post was a shining example.  But let's not tangent the thread, bob.

The Forge is not only a place for role-playing game authors, though. It's here for anyone interested in discovering new games, having better role-playing experiences, or discussing role-playing game theory.

That's from the About the Forge page. And publicly slagging someone is crude at any time. It's especially crude on athread started by a newcomer to the Forge asking advice on developing a game idea.

Certainly, good content can be just as hard as good rules; the problem with content is that there is plenty of good content already available for anyone who cares to raid a library or the internet -- too much, in fact

Gareth makes a good point that not everyone like the same things, which is why there probably is at least a small market for your product out there, Pells

Yes, we do.  I'm willing to pay people to produce content - rather than rules

greyorm wrote:
This statement is coming from an individual who, in six years of participation at the Forge, has never once produced, discussed, or attempted to produce an RPG, so treat it as you would treat medical advice from your teenage neighbor who works at McDonald's and gets high every weekend.

pells wrote:
Indeed, that might be my bigest problem... Surely my market is out there... reaching it is another problem, maybe the purpose of a thread in 'publishing'. That said, this thread didn't discourage me... and made search alot into the forge. As I see it, narrative purpose isn't 'complete' yet... and I intend to contirbute to it. I once thought I needed to stay in my 'bubble', not to see my idea 'being stolen', but I think I was wrong... If more people would write the way I do, I would benefit from it.

I couldn't agree with you more contracycle. 

The lack of real innovation is definately apparent in the RPG world.  We've been using the same basic mold of "system" to create numerous off shoots from the same "basic set" established by Gygax decades ago.  This pattern has rarely been called into question and redefined by someone else.  The same techniques he prescribed are the same techniques people are employed by a good number of systems (I'm talking main stream).  Real advancement in setting has been completely disregarded as ways to reconstruct how system interfaces in the narrative priciples of roleplaying. 

The funny thing is though, and mind you I am knew so I haven't read all the posts, but it seems the Forge's direction (be it unspoken) is to institutionalize those common system threads into one cohesive texts.  This becomes the standard, the rule, or as this board calls it the Authority.  We give credibility to that authority by adhering these principles.  And the biggest stagnation for progress is institutionalization of ideas into techniques.  Therefore, the forge fails in its own end to break out of common molds of the way "things have always been done."  Instead, they try to work within the established frame of reference. 

This reference mold requires adherence to age old structures and traditions.  Though some may be outdated and redefined, the structure exits...especially in the work design patterns of successful RPG's.  By measuring success and claiming it in the title it suggest a successful RPG is one that follows these guidelines, therefore, misguiding innovators back to traditional molds.  It becomes a quick engine of regergitation of patterns. 

While play testing some of my system elements players asked me the other day, we have a system that works, so why don't we just use it.  That's a darn good question.  But here's why.  It's TOO typical.  You could find it anywhere really, it's just a hodge podge and doesn't push the boundries enough.  Because, as I see it, there are many things wrong with RPG's.  Instituationalizing the principles won't fix it.  Tearing down institutions and building new ones will fix it while creating their own new set of problems.  It's just a different way to go about things. 

For instance, Alignment.  Reading the thread on alignment people began to justify the need for its existence with huge extrapolations and bending of function to put alignment with types that were very dissimular to alignment itself.  In essence, they were trying to make it "fit" or "work" within the context of standard RPG.  It's a flawed concept, yet this board responded rather irrately to the writer's bias against it because they saw it as a useful technology even though a dozen other non traditional advancements have surpassed it's function. 

This leads to why you see hefty morality systems in RPG.  Every writer takes alignment, looks at it, and tries to redefine it.  However, morality is not so black and white to prescribe every human interaction between good and evil, personality archetypes etc.  Personality and moral choices are so complex they cannot be contained by these mechanics.  Yet RPG's continue to beat their head against this wall without abandoning the concept or finding a 100% new way to express it. 

This is just my feelings.  Take it or leave it. 

Real advancement in setting has been completely disregarded as ways to reconstruct how system interfaces in the narrative priciples of roleplaying.

First, apologies to Sebastien and everyone else for my threadjacking yesterday.

Second:
Sebastien, having heard the warnings from several posters about the possible problems of making money off the type of product you are suggesting, are you still interested in pursuing the project?

Knowing that there may not be any commercial profit, would you still be interested in making this?

If your answer is yes, let us begin to discuss possible approaches.

One thing that strikes me about your project is that it has a lot in common with someone trying to make a game set in a historical setting. This leads me to a few genral questions:

Do you want to allow players to make their own characters, or might your purposes be better served by giving them pre-made characters?

How much of your overall background will be read by any participant?

How much background must be read by any participant prior to playing a scenario?

Is there background that must not be read by certain participants?

Have you considered splitting this product into two parts: A scenario product and a worldbook product, for example? Would it be possible to sell one and give the other away, in your opinion? Which would you prefer to make a for-sale product?

Do you wish to create scenarios that are connected with one another directly, or could your scenarios be seperate and distinct, but tied by the settings/events timeline?

Have you considered making this as a series of mini-games, with each scenario only having the barest necessary rules to achieve the playstyle you want for that individual scenario?

Hello,

Sebastien, this thread covers too many topics at once and has taken four pages just to get started. Fortunately, the solution is simple: let's stop this thread and start new threads with many of the smaller points or issues made more specific. I hope you can see that this is not a criticism of any of your points, nor shutting down the discussion. Many years has taught me that we'll all benefit from this approach.

Best,
Ron