Ok, I've been tinkering with prehistoric 'lost world' game in my head for awhile, and thought I'd unveil what I've got. Instead of one long post, I'm gonna break it up into the major game components below, so its easier on the eyes. This isn't the complete game, just a big overview, just to see what people think.

It's called Lost Pangea, and is a roleplaying game set in the prehistoric 'lost world' genre. Most of the "feel" of this isn't really reflected below, but will come out as color for the game.

I haven't playtested it yet, and I don't even know if it really works. I do have specific goals I'm trying to address with the mechanics:

-Simple GM prep time
-More player investment in the scenario and in the 'team' than in individual advancement
-Emulate "story logic" better (no shooting the villian in the first reel)
-Give PCs an emotional connection to their environment
-Have PCs change during the course of the scenario (this is also "story logic")

My answer so far has been group character creation, group advancement (instead of individual advancement), and "story point hurdles" that need to be met before certain actions can be put into play. Although much might change, (hopefully because of useful comments) I'd like to stick to these big ideas I pointed out above.

The system isn't anything astoundingly new, and now having read half a dozen threads on Hero Wars, it seems to look a lot like it. Crap. Anyway, tell me what you think.

Steve

Base mechanic

Scores are usually rated from 1-20 (can be higher). All scores have mods (modifiers) attached to them (a la d20 system). A score's mod equals the score/4, rounded down. A score between 12-15, for example, has a mod of 3. No +'s or -'s, just 3.

Roll under a score with a d20. In opposed rolls, the higher the roll the better, as long as you roll under the score. Mods can either "expand" or "shrink" a score, depending on the situation. An expanded score adds the Mod on top: score 16 + mod 3 = 19. A shrunk score has the Mod "masking" the score at its bottom. Roll within the "mask" and its a failure. Example: score 16 shrunk by 3, failures are 1-3 & 17-20. In opposed rolls, scores over 20 can shrink their opponent's score by the amount over 20 their own score is. For example: score 23 vs score 17. Score 17 is shrunk by 23 - 20 = 3, failures between 1-3 & 18-20. If both scores are over 20, then the lowest score is shrunk by the difference between the two scores. Example: score 28 vs score 24. Score 24 is shrunk by 28 - 24 = 4. Failures between 1-4.

Why the wacky bonus/penalty (expand/shrink) device? I'm trying to keep math down to a minimum. I don't think I'm doing so hot, but I'm working on it. Besides I think "your penalty is 4, roll higher than a 4, lower than your score," is easier mental gymnastics than, "subtract 4 from your score, roll lower."

[edited to include the header]

Tribe and character creation

Character creation is systematic group character creation. The group creates the tribe first, then chooses which tribe-members to be their PCs.

It is conducted in "a round". The GM begins by first setting campaign parameters. This is to give the round focus. He then begins, and play passes to his left around the table.

On each turn a player either passes or plays. If the player plays, he does 2 things:

1) Submits an idea. For each detail in the idea, the player receives one point. The ideas are collected in an idea pool.

2) The player then spends his points on either the tribe's traits -- including two major scored traits (Tradition & Mortality), and a bunch of descriptive traits that describe the tribe's beliefs, customs, daily life, and environment; or on a tribe-member, giving the member a name, role, and relation to another tribe-member; or the player can develop a conflict between a trait or member and another trait or member, which garners him double the points spent (that number of points also becomes a conflict's "value," important later). So a player who gets 3 points from his idea, then "spends" them on a conflict, doubles those points to 6. The player must use ideas from the idea pool to base any traits or members on.

Weirdly, the player accumulates the points he spent or doubled in a pool, but loses the points he didn't. The above player adds 6 to his current pool. This round continues until the GM's pool is 25 points.

Now, the players with the most points gets first pick which tribe-member they want to play. Once that's complete, the players submit their points to the tribe's "value." Each player gets character points equal to the tribe value divided by the number of players. These CPs are spent on the scores of 4 major trait-areas: Identity, Struggle, Relations, Instincts. The GM can submit some or all of his points to the character's points.

For example, 4 players submit their accumulated points to the tribe value, totaling 100 points. Each player gets 25 character points. The GM decides to donate his 25 points, so each player now has 50 character points to build his character.

Attached to each trait-area are various traits that further define that trait-area. For example, under Identity are traits like Strong, Fleet-footed, Master Huntsman. These "subordinate" traits are based off the governing trait-area's score. For each trait area, a player gets points equaling that trait-area's score to boost the "subordinate" traits. So, for example, if a character has an Identity of 12, they get 12 points to spend on traits under Identity. If they create a trait of Strong and invest 3 points in it, Strong's score is 12 + 3 = 15.

Your goals sound great. I'm particularly interested in the mechanics to enforce "story logic" and the thresholds that must be met before "actions can be put in play".

Scenarios

Unlike other games, where the GM juggles oodles of NPCs and stats, he only begins the game with the stats he needs for play, written on a scenario sheet. The scenario sheet has 5 trait-areas, and all the relevant game traits are shoehorned under these areas, just like the character trait-areas. The GM can add as many or as little traits on the scenario sheet as he feels necessary for his game. The trait-areas are:

Theme: the scenario's "theme," a kind of direction or over-arching point that play is geared toward. This should be expressed as thematic keywords, or a question, not as an absolute statement, so as not to stifle play but give it meaning. Gameplay gives shape to the actual theme.

Plot: the scenario's "problem" that needs to be addressed by the PCs. A scenario's problem should be derived from one of the tribe's conflicts, giving the PCs an automatic hook.

Setting: anything not plot or villian related, but instead derives from the "setting." The difficulty of scaling a cliff is a setting trait, as is being attacked by a random dinosaur

Character/Protagonist: PCs' internal struggles. This is where "personality" traits go.

Character/Antagonist: anything related to the bad guy: himself, minions, his lair -- anything.

A GM is free to give whatever scores are appropriate for each trait area. He should match the scores with the PCs scores. Just like character trait areas, GM can spend up to the trait areas' score on traits pertaining to that score. The total of all the trait area scores is the scenario's "value."



So a GM might have the most basic of scenarios:

Theme 15 (Does love conquer all?): Daughter's beauty 20, Love 20

Plot 10 (Rescue the chief's daughter)

Setting 18 (jungle, craggy mountains): dinosaur attack 22, cliff-face 18

C/Protag 15: Love for the daughter 20, need for respect in the face of the tribe 20

C/Antag 12 (evil shaman): magic 18, staff attack 15, minions 8, traps in cave of death 15


In Theme, the GM spent 5 of 20 points on the chief's daughter's beauty and on "love" considering it important to the theme. In Setting, the GM spent 4 points of his 18 pts on a dinosaur attack, in C/Protag he spent 5 each on both traits of his 15 pts, and in C/Antag, he spent 6 on shaman magic, 3 on staff attack, and 3 on cave of death. He made the minions weak to be easy to defeat.

Gameplay

The GM starts play with a number of counters that equal his scenario value. The players begin play with a community pool of counters they all draw from which is equal to their tribe value. Through play, both sides attempt to deplete the other's pool of counters. Once one side's pool is gone, the other side can proceed to victory conditions of the scenario. For the players, that is the PCs' truimph over the problem. For the GM it's the problem's triumph over the PCs.

The basic unit of time is the scene. Anyone can start a scene. To be in a scene, a player must "ante-in" with counters, pulling however many counters from their community pool they feel necessary. This is that PCs 'scene potential.' A GM doesn't have to ante-in, but without counters, all opposed rolls become automatic successes in the players' favor. Every scene has an obstacle that must be overcome. It can be overcome once the GM loses all his counters. Otherwise the players' receive a setback.

Counters are lost in opposed rolls. Basically, the loser of a contested dice roll discards the number of counters equal to the mod (the roll/4, round down) of the winner's roll. Example: in a contest, the winner rolls a 14. 14/4 = 3. The loser loses 3 counters. Plus the loser also loses 1 counter for every mod point over 5 the winner's score is. Example: if the winner's score is 26, his mod is 6. If the roll is 14, the loser loses 3 (for the roll) + 1 (for the mod over 5) = 4 counters.

Here's something a little wacky -- those counters lost during the scene are discarded back into their respective pools. They aren't actually being lost overall. But, the counters they didn't lose during the scene are lost permanently from the scenario. So a player who ante-in's with 50 counters to beat up on a lowly 2 counter blind midget, would kiss those counters goodbye for the remainder of the session.

Reasoning is two-fold: counteract players loading up on their entire scenario pool for every scene, and to (hopefully) emulate traditional story-structure: a protagonist tries, tries, and tries to solve a problem until he is successful. Losing a scene is not the end of the world, and means only to come back later better and more efficient.

Still, losing sides (not losing players) receive setbacks -- counters are eliminated from their pool. So, if 3 out of 4 players are defeated in a scene, but 1 player is victorious, that is a "win," and the players side doesn't suffer a setback. GM, being solitary, always suffers a setback when he loses.

The GM can then bestow traits upon losing or victorious PCs as he deems fits the scenario. If something happened for this to logically occur, this is called 'setting the condition.' Basically, it means that a PCs character can't gain or lose something for their character unless it has been established in the scenario. For example, the PCs are defeated by the evil shaman. The GM decides to bestow a Relation trait upon the PCs -- Hate (Shaman) 12, which gives the PCs motivation to find the shaman and get their revenge. He could also bestow a Struggle trait, Wounded Pride 12 or Shame Before the Tribe 12, or maybe an Identity trait: Broken Leg, Gut Wound, Magically Fatigued. Whatever. He can't bestow Needlepoint, because it wasn't relevant.

Winning overwell still has its bonus though -- players with counters left can trade those counters for gifts and beefing up their traits. But, just like the GM bestowing traits, the condition has to be set for the PCs to use those counters. This means that the midget-beater can't find 50 counters worth of points to sink into his character, since nothing happened to enforce it. The players still loses those extra counters, but at least now they are going somewhere. If a PC defeats a worthy opponent, his combat traits may increase, or defeat an opponent in a debate, his oratory traits may increase.

Finally, character death. A GM can technically kill a PC who has lost all of his counters for scene. One of two things can occur: the player can voluntarily die, or make a Mortality roll to live. If the PC dies though, its never for naught. All members of a tribe receive a trait that reflects that loss to the tribe. For example, if a PC is killed by Hooga the Terrible, the other PCs may gain a Hate (Hooga) trait, or maybe a Struggle trait reflecting their sorrow. PC death is never in vain. It effects the game somehow.

In the end, if the PCs successfully resolve the problem, the conflict's (what the problem is based on) point value is added to the tribe's value. If the problem defeated the PCs, the tribe's value goes down by that amount.

The players are more than welcome to use the extra points won in the game to buy more tribe traits or members. They can also create a new conflict, effectively doubling the points won by the scenario. For example, at the end of a scenario, the tribe is increased by 8 points. One player creates a new conflict, doubling those points to 16. So now the tribe's value increases by 16 points.

Sorry, I should have thrown that up on a website. I always underestimate the size of my posts.

Won't happen again.

Steve

I like it lots. It's sufficiently distinct from HW to stand on its own, though. I have some quiblles about the numerical range - firstly I dislike d20's, secondly I dislike numbers reaching hundreds. Lastly, I don't like the mod division by 4, mostly because its a calculation step to compensate for the range out to 20. I would suggest removing the step by compressing the range somehow so that your stats and tokens interact directly 1:1. Unnecessary currency exchange increases handling time.

My other concern is that it appears to me that the post-resolution period will be dominated by accounting as quite chunky amounts of points are spent into characters; this might be challenging to smooth continuity.

Damn, I'd been toying with a set of stats including Identity and Insight myself :) I like your stat array although Struggle will probably require some clarification. The business with the GM buyibng story points is very innovative I very much like the notion of active currency trading with the GM. I also think you've put your finger on something by categorising all "write permissions" on the PC give to the GM in the same bloc as wounds.

I like it lots. It's sufficiently distinct from HW to stand on its own, though. I have some quiblles
about the numerical range - firstly I dislike d20's, secondly I dislike numbers reaching hundreds.
Lastly, I don't like the mod division by 4, mostly because its a calculation step to compensate for
the range out to 20. I would suggest removing the step by compressing the range somehow so
that your stats and tokens interact directly 1:1. Unnecessary currency exchange increases
handling time.

My other concern is that it appears to me that the post-resolution period will be dominated by
accounting as quite chunky amounts of points are spent into characters; this might be challenging
to smooth continuity.