Topic: Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...
Started by: Roy
Started on: 4/12/2002
Board: Indie Game Design
On 4/12/2002 at 3:20pm, Roy wrote:
Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...
Hi, everyone! I just found The Forge a few days ago and I must say I'm very impressed. You're all very insightful and it's been a joy reading your posts these last few days. I know I'm really going to enjoy bouncing ideas off everyone here.
I'm going to start developing a new system over the next few weeks, so I thought I'd take this opportunity to introduce myself and provide everyone with a system I created back in 1993 and have used for most of my games ever since. It's called the Heretic Conflict Resolution System and you can find a link to it on my homepage. It's available in both Microsoft Word format and HTML format.
Next week, I'll try to post another system that I designed last year.
Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com
Visit Possibilties, my roleplaying homepage.
On 4/12/2002 at 3:40pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...
I'm impressed, I think you'll find quite a few who share your design goals here.
Some questions:
1) why %? Your table is all in 5% increments and there are no +/- % modifiers...why not a d20, which is built in with 5% increments?
2) why does Poor carry a negative modifer for assists and a positive modifier for resists? It seems a bit off to me, especially given that Poor is the default. In the horse shoe example, I may not know anything about shoeing a horse, but if the expert says "Here hold his leg while I hammer this on" (or however it works) than I'm assisting in a positive manner even though I don't know what I'm doing.
Similiarly I may be a lousy fighter but my efforts to dodge a punch aren't going to make it easier for the tough guy to hit me than if I just stood there and took it.
I know that there are some funny scenes possible where things get screwed up because of the assistance of the incompetant guy, but those scenes seem to me to be better served by narration than the type of penelties the chart gives.
3) Why is Poor the default for everything. From Westing's description we know he is a physically tough active man. He may not regularly beat people up in a saloon, but surely he'd be worth more in a fist fight than "poor". Shouldn't the GM have the option of declaring "average" as the default for a character based on the character's description and related abilities even if the skill is specifically possessed?
On 4/12/2002 at 3:53pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...
You have some stuff ommitted or put in weird spots.
For example, what happens if due to being assisted or resisted, I go off the charts? Do you just use the highest or lowest value? So a character with an Incredible can't be helped, and a character with a Poor cannot be hampered by resistance?
The section on Wounds should be clearly marked, and the level should be decided on in CharGen, no? So it ought to be mentioned there. And I missed the effects of going to zero wounds. You say there is no character death. OK, so what happens at zero, unconciousness, incapacitation? Does the same apply for NPCs? What if I want my character to die?
Several of your rules only appear in the examples. This is a poor place to introduce them.
Mike
On 4/12/2002 at 6:12pm, Roy wrote:
Response to Valamir's Post
Hi, Valamir! Thanks for the comments. Let's go over your questions one at a time.
1) why %? Your table is all in 5% increments and there are no +/- % modifiers...why not a d20, which is built in with 5% increments?
I decided to use 5% increments because it's the smallest unit I found that actually makes any difference in play.
I originally started using the d100 because I related very well to everything being a percentage of a total. This helped me immensely when working through various design issues. Of course, I've modified the actual values on the Conflict Resolution Table through the years.
Why not a d20? I asked myself that same question once, reasoning as you did that my system was based on 5% increments anyway and that should work very well with a d20. In practice, the d20 just didn't provide me as large a range of results as did the d100. I tested this using several d20s and several d10s over thousands of rolls and found that the d100 just provided better random results. I'm not a math wiz, so I won't venture a guess as to why, but the d100 suited the system much better in the end.
2) why does Poor carry a negative modifer for assists and a positive modifier for resists? It seems a bit off to me, especially given that Poor is the default. In the horse shoe example, I may not know anything about shoeing a horse, but if the expert says "Here hold his leg while I hammer this on" (or however it works) than I'm assisting in a positive manner even though I don't know what I'm doing.
This can be very confusing when you're trying to think this through, so I'll do my best to explain the logic I used.
The first thing you have to understand is that the system is very abstract and doesn't try to simulate reality the way Rolemaster tried (with it's hundreds of critical hit charts that tried to quantify what the human mind can easily come up with on the spot). Even after the advances we've made in computer science, we still cannot accurately simulate a real environment. I knew that I could not accurately simulate reality in my system, so I didn't try. I used a basic set of personal observations to form the abstractions for the system.
The Poor Rank can also be considered the same as Unskilled. When an unskilled person is assisting someone of a higher skill, the unskilled person often makes "beginner's mistakes" that actually hinder the more skilled person. For example: Bob, who's unskilled in pottery (aka Poor Rank), is trying to help Wilma, a professional potter (aka Excellent Rank), finish a large clay cactus pot. Bob, trying his very best, ends up pushing too hard on the clay and caving it in slightly. Wilma smiles and fixes it. A little bit later, he leans in too close and his apron string catches on the side of the pot and makes a mark on it. Sighing, Wilma fixes that mistake too. This continues until the process is finished. The result is a serviceable pot (Complete Success), but it's the not the masterwork that Wilma might have been able to complete on her own.
Conversely, when an unskilled person is resisting someone, the unskilled person often makes "beginner's mistakes" that actually help the person they are resisting. For example: Bob, a green belt in Judo (aka Good Rank, is sparring with Gary, a new student (aka Poor Rank). Bob pushes on Gary's gi jacket and Gary automatically pushes towards Bob to maintain his balance (instead of just stepping back and pulling Bob with him). Gary just made a classic beginner's mistake that Bob takes advantage of. As Gary pushes toward him, Bob steps back and throws Gary cleanly to the mat (a Complete Success).
The terms "Assist" and "Resist" are also abstractions. When I use the term "Assist", I'm referring to someone trying to actually provide help with the activity, not just handing someone the tools or holding a horse's leg up.
In your example of shoeing the horse, I wouldn't consider the person holding the horse's leg helping unless he was also offering advice ("No, no ... you don't do it like that! Here, give me the hammer. Now hold that damn horse still!").
As another example, I wouldn't consider a nurse actually assisting a doctor if she just handed him his instruments, unless she also rolled up her sleeves and clamped a severed artery.
Granted, I didn't make that clear in the write-up, but please understand this was my first serious attempt at providing this system in only written form. In the past, I've always been able to explain most of this verbally when I was face-to-face with the GM wanting to learn the system.
Similiarly I may be a lousy fighter but my efforts to dodge a punch aren't going to make it easier for the tough guy to hit me than if I just stood there and took it.
You're thinking in terms of simulating reality again instead of an abstraction. If you just stood there and took it, you'd have 100% chance of being clobbered because I wouldn't even have you roll the dice for it. Your decision made the result happen.
But if you're a Poor fighter (or an Unskilled fighter), then you will leave various openings that another fighter will take advantage of. Perhaps you misjudged your distance and stepped into a punch when you thought you could reach him first, or you fall for a feint and duck right into his uppercut.
Why is Poor the default for everything. From Westing's description we know he is a physically tough active man. He may not regularly beat people up in a saloon, but surely he'd be worth more in a fist fight than "poor".
Poor (or Unskilled) is the default because the player didn't find it important enough to his central character concept to provide him with a higher skill. If the player thought John should be tougher in a fight, it should have come out during character creation. In reality, a player and a GM often discuss the concept and get a very good understanding of what the character is capable before the list of what he can do is completed.
John Westing may indeed be a hardy man from his time on the ranch, but that doesn't mean he's good in a fist fight. A tough guy that spends several times a week getting involved in barroom brawls doesn't make the same "beginner's mistakes" that John does.
Shouldn't the GM have the option of declaring "average" as the default for a character based on the character's description and related abilities even if the skill is specifically possessed?
Of course the GM can decide to do this. Every GM worth his salt makes a decision to use a system as is or to alter it. I have presented the way I use it. If I had intended this to be picked up a by a new GM and used, I would have written it in an entirely different style.
I originally made this system available so that a person in the Yahoo RPG Writer's Group could see that a single table system based on percentages can work. I never intended to publish this system as is, but I did whip it together in three days so that person could get an idea of the concept.
I posted it here so that everyone could see some of the design philosphies I've used in the past. Hopefully, it will give everyone an idea of where I'm coming from as I post in the future.
If someone is really interested in using this system, I will take the time to re-write it in a better format. I'd just hate to do spend that much time on it if there isn't any interest in it.
Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com
On 4/12/2002 at 6:40pm, Roy wrote:
Response to Mike's Post
Hi, Mike! Thanks for the comments. I do appreciate them.
You're 100 percent correct that the layout is a bit odd. I will work to correct that as I edit it.
For example, what happens if due to being assisted or resisted, I go off the charts? Do you just use the highest or lowest value? So a character with an Incredible can't be helped, and a character with a Poor cannot be hampered by resistance?
You cannot go above the highest or lowest value on the table. I had to draw the line somewhere and this is where I decided to draw it. Not everyone will agree with me, but the system does work quite well during play. I could have spent hours trying to quantify exactly how much assistance an Incredible Ranked character can get, or how much more a Poor Ranked character can be hampered, but I decided it wasn't worth the minor payback it would have given. The system is simpler and just plays better without it.
The section on Wounds should be clearly marked, and the level should be decided on in CharGen, no? So it ought to be mentioned there.
Noted. I'll take that into account the next time I edit it.
And I missed the effects of going to zero wounds. You say there is no character death. OK, so what happens at zero, unconciousness, incapacitation?
If a character goes to zero wounds, he is no longer capable of action. The exact form this takes is up to the GM. The character could be knocked out if he was punched or clubbed, or in shock holding the bullet wound if he was shot. The GM is free to decide what best fits the situation.
Does the same apply for NPCs?
Again, it's up to the GM to describe what is appropriate to the situation. GMs can kill all the NPCs off that they want. I can (almost) guarantee you that the GM will never be sued by the NPCs family for wrongful death.
Personally, I like to use recurring villians, so the players may think he's dead only to find him at the head of another nasty plot in a few weeks.
What if I want my character to die?
I would suggest you roleplay it to the hilt and earn the admiration of the other players as you bring tears to their eyes. Any good GM would let your character die if that's what you wish. The choice is yours as a player, but it's your responsibility to let your GM know that's what you want.
Several of your rules only appear in the examples. This is a poor place to introduce them.
Noted. I'll also take that into account the next time I edit it.
I originally made this system available so that a person in the Yahoo RPG Writer's Group could see that a single table system based on percentages can work. I never intended to publish this system as is, but I did whip it together in three days so that person could get an idea of the concept.
If someone is really interested in using this system, I will take the time to re-write it in a better format. I'd just hate to do spend that much time on it if there isn't any interest in it.
Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com
On 4/12/2002 at 6:43pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...
OK, our mistake sorta. We assumed that by posting the system here that you wanted to discuss it. If I read you correctly, now, what you really intended was just to give us an idea of your design style, right? That's fine, but you should have said so specifically in your original post, or cut us off after the first attempt.
So how related is the new system? When can we see it? To be very technical, this post probably goes against the policy at the top of the forum. You should probably have waited until you had your actual system that you are working on ready to display.
But, FWIW, welcome anyhow.
Mike
On 4/12/2002 at 6:46pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
Re: Response to Mike's Post
Roy wrote: Any good GM would let your character die if that's what you wish. The choice is yours as a player, but it's your responsibility to let your GM know that's what you want.
I have to make one more comment here and mention that this sort of remark doesn't carry any weight around here. You made several of them. If you want to know why it doesn't carry much weight then read this:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/system_does_matter.html
Mike
Forge Reference Links:
On 4/12/2002 at 6:51pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...
Hi Roy,
And welcome to the Forge. As long as policy has been brought up, I'll say that your post was perfectly appropriate (and I'm the guy who gets to say so, by the way, not anyone else).
I'm interested in what you think, now, about your Heretic system - it's been almost ten years, right? How has it worked out for you? What various things did it solve at the time, and what various things cropped up since then? How about how other people, in use, have reacted to aspects of the system, and how that's changed elements of your play, or thoughts on design for the future?
All of Ralph's and Mike's comments are relevant to that set of questions, so we all can consider them in that light.
Best,
Ron
On 4/12/2002 at 7:00pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...
The reason I mentioned it Ron is that if you read closely, he seems to imply that the game is not open for discussion (as opposed to his new one that he'll have soon). I just didn't want to pressure him into defending an old game system that he just displayed for information's sake. The policy says:
All threads started in Indie Game Design should be about either the process of designing a game, or a game you are actually designing.
So if he really doesn't want to talk about Heretic, then it's not really (like I said, "technically") appropriate. Not a big deal in any case.
That said, he has responded, so maybe he's changed his mind. Which is it Roy? Is this system open for comment, or should we wait for the new one?
Mike
On 4/12/2002 at 7:09pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...
'Scuse me, but if people have a problem with my reading of appropriateness, they can contact me about it privately. I've taken Mike's comments to that venue.
Meanwhile, my apologies to you, Roy. This is your thread. Folks, if you want to chat with Roy about Heretic, go for it.
Best,
Ron
On 4/12/2002 at 7:31pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...
I have a thing about % dice (i.e. I hate them). I agree with you 100% (heh) that you can't really justify differences smaller than 5%. Slicing things into 1% increments just seems pointless to me. That said, unless you're using flawed dice, the odds of rolling a 20 are identical to the odds of rolling 96-100.
As far as the assist resist thing goes. I understand completely what your doing and the level of abstraction your going for. But it seems to me (on the surface, obviously you have much more experience with the game than I who've read it once) that attempting to assist someone while I'm "Poor" is pointless, meaning I'd never do it, meaning most people would never do it, meaning if noone uses it why have a rule for it.
I'd be tempted to add another die roll into the mix. If I'm assisting I make a roll first. My level of success would then determine the additions to the other persons roll rather than a fixed amount at all times. Outstanding +3, Complete +2, Parital +1, Failure +0, Horrible Failure -1.
What that would do is allow for the fun moments where Bob ruins the Pot (15% chance of Horrible Failure at poor) while still allowing a good chance of Bob actually being usefull. Useful in the sense that he can go get more clay, refill the water, and do other assorted stuff allowing the potter to finish that much quicker. This is after all the benefit that craftsmen got to having an apprentice. Yeah the 7 year old kid isn't exactly going to help me forge my sword, but he can stoke the fire and work the bellows and that makes my job as a blacksmith easier. Just a thought.
As for the default level, you and I would come to different conclusions about Westin's value in a fight. So I'd suggest making the GM's ability to set the default value explicit the next time you right it up.
Personally, I'd do it a little differently. I'd probably have MOST things default to Average, unless the description specifies they're particularly bad at it. As is stands "John is a lousy fighter" doesn't really have a place in your character creation system because whether he says this or not he's going to wind up "poor". Just another stray thought.
All in all I think it looks pretty solid. I prefer my games a bit crunchier, but its certainly workable.
On 4/12/2002 at 11:23pm, Roy wrote:
Respone to Mike's Comments
Hey, thanks for the warm welcome guys. And don't be too hard on Mike, Ron ... he makes me feel like I'm back with my old gaming buddies in Illinois. <smiles>
I'm going to respond to Mike in this message and then I'll answer your questions a little while later, Ron. You asked some very good and insightful questions that I'd love to answer.
The reason I mentioned it Ron is that if you read closely, he seems to imply that the game is not open for discussion (as opposed to his new one that he'll have soon). I just didn't want to pressure him into defending an old game system that he just displayed for information's sake.
I'm sorry if I implied that, Mike. I most certainly do welcome comment on Heretic and will gladly answer any questions anyone has on it. I think just the process of answering those questions will help me with future designs.
As for your concern about pressuring me to defend an old game system ... thank you for that consideration. I really appreciate that. I'm sorry if I came off defensive on those posts. I certainly didn't intend to.
I don't feel like I am having to defend it as much as answer legitimate questions about the design philosophy I subscribed to when I created it. As we're all game designers here, I think that discussion is very appropriate and helpful even to casual readers of this thread.
I'm sorry that I didn't communicate as well as I thought I had. It's very difficult presenting something you know inside out without missing a few details you think should be obvious. Unfortunately, I have to use this imprecise language we call English instead of just beaming the ideas over to you directly. I'm sure everyone here will help me become a better writer as a result.
Mike, I'm also sorry Heretic had so many holes in it. I will edit it for the next draft as I've stated previously. I tried to answer as many of the questions I could anticipate, but I knew there would ultimately be questions that I had not anticipated. I'll try to answer them all as constructively as I can.
All threads started in Indie Game Design should be about either the process of designing a game, or a game you are actually designing.
Well, Heretic is a game I designed, so I'm sure that's close enough (thanks Ron!). Sure the writing could be better, but the system was complete. Besides, sometimes you just have to push the edge a bit. :-)
That said, he has responded, so maybe he's changed his mind. Which is it Roy? Is this system open for comment, or should we wait for the new one?
To quote Pat Benetar, "Hit Me With Your Best Shot." I love to discuss game design and this is a golden opportunity to do it with a talented bunch. I hope we'll all walk (or limp) away from it with a better understanding of game design in general.
Roy wrote:
Any good GM would let your character die if that's what you wish. The choice is yours as a player, but it's your responsibility to let your GM know that's what you want.
Mike wrote: I have to make one more comment here and mention that this sort of remark doesn't carry any weight around here. You made several of them. If you want to know why it doesn't carry much weight then read this: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/system_does_matter.html
It's funny that you should refer me to Ron's article. That article was one of the first things I read on the site that made me realize I've found a new home. I agree with almost everything stated in that article, by the way.
However, my comment still stands as is. Sure, it's my opinion (as is everything else I write). But it's also a personal observation I've made from years and years in the hobby (I think it's been 21 years now ... sigh, I really AM getting old!).
A good GM (regardless of whether he's a Narrativist, Gamist, or Simulationist) understands that player satisfaction is a key element in the enjoyment of a roleplaying game. I have never met a good GM that will force a player to continue playing a character he no longer enjoys. If a GM does that, he's usually missing a player within a week or two.
Now the way an old character is phased out and a new character is brought in is usually handled differently by the three outlooks.
For example, a Narrativist GM will often help create a scene that will allow the player to kill the character in a way that is appropriate to the story, usually involving a final blaze of glory. A smart Narrativist GM will use this golden opportunity to add drama and tension to his game as the adversary that killed the player's character now becomes the most hated villian in his world. The new character is often brought in a little later in that session as a rescued prisoner, an old ally, or what not.
A Gamist GM, however, will usually ask the player to create a new character of roughly the same power level (depending on system, of course) and ask him to hold onto it until the old character actually dies according to the system. A smart Gamist GM will then scale the power level of a few encounters up until the old character is killed. The new character is often introduced at the start of the next session by briefly summarizing why he is now with the group.
I have to make one more comment here and mention that this sort of remark doesn't carry any weight around here. You made several of them.
I have to disagree with you here. My opinions carry as much weight as ANYONE else's opinion. You may disagree with them as you wish, but you cannot undermine their value by doing so.
Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com
Forge Reference Links:
On 4/12/2002 at 11:37pm, Walt Freitag wrote:
RE: Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...
Roy, this is fine work.
I don't mind that abilities default to poor, if you were to make it clear that any ability that is mentioned in play is only being mentioned because its use is being judged at the level of a professional or specialized or notable skill. I think that's more or less what you had in mind, but perhaps you could check me on it. And if it is, then you should be able to make that clearer in the next edit.
For example, if I don't mention that my character can write, it would be assumed that he could write about as well as the average person in the milieu. If he tried to write a newspaper column, though, he'd be "poor" at it, just as the average person would be. Since the check would only be made if the character attempts to do something out of the ordinary, like write for a newspaper, that's why the system refers to it as "poor." Similarly, if my Western character is "poor" at horse riding, that just means that he'd be poorer at it than those who ride the range all day and/or have notable riding skills, not that he'd be any worse off than the average townsperson. Or if I'm a "poor" chef, that doesn't mean I burn my lunch every day, it just means that if I tried to perform a notable culinary feat like cook a fancy dinner for 12 or work as an assistant chef in a restaurant, I'd be pretty bad at it.
If that's true, though, what do I do if I want my character to be really truly bad at something? Like, he's such a bad chef that he usually does burn the hard-boiled eggs, or he can't stay on a horse at any faster than a walk? It's often very interesting when circumstances call on someone to try anyway. Would you just play it as automatic failure?
- Walt
On 4/13/2002 at 12:05am, Roy wrote:
Response to Valamir
Hey, good to see you back posting again, Valamir!
I have a thing about % dice (i.e. I hate them).
I'm not overly fond of them myself, but they can be useful in certain situations. Even if I'm not "in love" with a tool, I have learned that sometimes you need to use a tool you don't necessarily like if it will get the job done. Kind of like a Mac if your PC is broke. <Just kidding. Please don't flame me on this ... it was just a little joke.>
Slicing things into 1% increments just seems pointless to me.
Exactly. If your system is that detailed, you really need to test the usability of it before you fall in love wih it. For some reason, Rolemaster keeps popping up in my mind. <grins>
That said, unless you're using flawed dice, the odds of rolling a 20 are identical to the odds of rolling 96-100.
Well, in a perfect world, you're correct. But when I actually tested this theory using several different d20s and d10s from several different manufacturers overly literally thousands of rolls, it didn't hold true. There are subtle differences in the way the dice work and it does skew the odds in the long run.
Of course, it could just have been me ... I am known to curse all dice I touch. My wife thought I was kidding until she saw it in action. I can't even get a break with electronic dice (just rolled 5 ones in a row the other day on a computerized version of Clue).
What's really funny about this is that I actually went to the extreme of creating a version of the Heretic Conflict Resolution Table that took my bad luck into account (thinking there just had to be a few people like me in the world). The player would roll a d100 and a d6 together. If the d6 came up odd, then the d100 was an Outstanding Success on 01 through 05. If the d6 came up even, then the d100 was an Outstanding Success on 96 through 100. Pathetic? Absolutely. But it worked. And it also cut down on those players that thought they might want to use dice that just happened to roll high more often than not. <winks>
As far as the assist resist thing goes. I understand completely what your doing and the level of abstraction your going for. But it seems to me (on the surface, obviously you have much more experience with the game than I who've read it once) that attempting to assist someone while I'm "Poor" is pointless, meaning I'd never do it, meaning most people would never do it, meaning if noone uses it why have a rule for it.
Here's where a glaring omission of mine makes for a confusing situation. You're exactly right in what you state.
However, when I run a game using the Heretic system, the players know a system is providing them with results, but they don't ever see under the hood. They roll the dice and I announce the results. They never realize that a Poor Rank hurts the character they're assisting because they don't ever see the chart. I left this out of the version I put up for download because I felt this was more of a GM style issue. I hadn't thought of it in the light that you mentioned. Thanks for pointing that out.
I'd be tempted to add another die roll into the mix. If I'm assisting I make a roll first. My level of success would then determine the additions to the other persons roll rather than a fixed amount at all times. Outstanding +3, Complete +2, Parital +1, Failure +0, Horrible Failure -1.
Actually, that's a very elegant solution. I think I'll incorporate that into any future versions. Thank you for the idea.
At the time I designed it, I was just so sick of rolling tons of dice and seeing them all turn up 1s that I decided one roll was enough. I think part of me also wanted to see if I could accomplish it.
As for the default level, you and I would come to different conclusions about Westin's value in a fight. So I'd suggest making the GM's ability to set the default value explicit the next time you right it up.
Thanks for the suggestion. I will be sure to include this the next time I update the document.
All in all I think it looks pretty solid. I prefer my games a bit crunchier, but its certainly workable.
I can appreciate that. In some ways, I do too now. But overall, the system has worked beautifully for me and some other people. I think the excercise of just creating it made me a better GM and game designer because it forced me to understand what was really important in the roleplaying experience to many different types of people.
Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com
On 4/13/2002 at 1:47pm, Roy wrote:
Response to wfreitag
Hi, wfreitag! Thank you for the compliment and the comments.
For example, if I don't mention that my character can write, it would be assumed that he could write about as well as the average person in the milieu. If he tried to write a newspaper column, though, he'd be "poor" at it, just as the average person would be. Since the check would only be made if the character attempts to do something out of the ordinary, like write for a newspaper, that's why the system refers to it as "poor."
Bingo! You win the cupie doll! Actually, that's exactly the way I saw it. Thanks to the excellent feedback here, I now realize I should have made that explicitly clear. I will be sure to clarify this in the next edit.
If that's true, though, what do I do if I want my character to be really truly bad at something? Like, he's such a bad chef that he usually does burn the hard-boiled eggs, or he can't stay on a horse at any faster than a walk? It's often very interesting when circumstances call on someone to try anyway. Would you just play it as automatic failure?
When I first designed the system, I saw this issue as requiring more roleplaying on the part of the player than a need for it in the system. As I've aged, I do see more of a need for it in the system itself as well. There are a lot of concepts in this system that I do like and will try to incorporate in future projects, but I'm moving past this system into something with more meat.
Would you just play it as automatic failure?
Personally as a GM, I would still have them use the Poor Rank and make an Action Check, then vary my description to take into account the character concept. Yes, this does place some extra burden on the GM, but remember that I designed this as my own personal system, not to be sold. If I were doing this as a commercial product, I would have approached it differently. Still, it has some interesting design concepts that I think can be useful to other game designers.
Again, thanks for the comments. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.
Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com
On 4/13/2002 at 5:25pm, Roy wrote:
Response to Ron's First Post
Hi, Ron! First, let me say I'm now officially a fan of yours. I intend to get my hands on Sorceror very soon. I can't wait to see what you've done with that concept.
I'm interested in what you think, now, about your Heretic system - it's been almost ten years, right?
Pretty close to it. I first created it 1993, so it's right at 9 years. God, I feel old. <sighs> Thanks, Ron. Appreciate that mortality check. <grins> (Hmm... Mortality Check? <shakes his head> Nah.)
How has it worked out for you?
It's worked very well for me in my games in that it provides enough structure to guide our creativity. It's quick and keeps the action flowing instead of taking us out of the moment as some systems tend to. Since I started using the system, I haven't had one rules dispute at the table. Most importantly, I've had very satisfied players since I started using the system (even at cons with more Gamist oriented players).
What various things did it solve at the time ....
When I created this system, I was a hardcore Narrativist stuck in a Gamist atmosphere. It was very frustrating to me (if I were in Call of Cthulu, it would have been time for a Sanity check).
I was tired of systems that required me to learn a ton of rules that only shackled my creativity as a player and as a GM.
I still have the viewpoint that if I purchase a game on Friday night, I should be able to play it by Sunday. If I can't, it doesn't work for me.
Heretic solved a lot of the issues I had with other systems.
It provides a good range of results that can be easily described (Horrible Failure, Total Failure, Partial Success, Complete Success, and Outstanding Success).
It allows players to build just about any character they can imagine without worrying about game balance. As a GM, I viewed maintaining game balance as my job. (As an interesting sidenote, I had a player that wanted to play a god once. It worked fine without him being overpowered. He learned that great power comes with great responsibility.)
It is quick and doesn't stop the flow of the game, letting everyone stay "in the scene".
It is simple and uses the same mechanic universally for all actions, with just a few minor adjustments for combat.
... and what various things cropped up since then?
Very few things have ever cropped up that the system can't handle.
The main weaknesses with the system are:
The GM is shackled to the Conflict Resolution Table. You need a copy of this every time you play the game as it is very hard to internalize. Referencing the table is quick and easy, but I'd still prefer a system without it.
The limited range of ranks (Poor, Average, Good, Excellent, and Incredible) combined with the limited number of Fate Points slows down character advancement a bit. I would prefer a system that let a player advance his character a little bit after each session.
The system requires a fairly concrete background when you're creating a character.
The freedom of character creation can be daunting to inexperienced roleplayers.
How about how other people, in use, have reacted to aspects of the system ....
Most GMs prefer the speed, ease of use, and descriptive results (Horrible Failure, etc.).
Most players prefer the descriptive results the GM gives instead of just a numerical result, the ability to create just about any character they can imagine, and the fact that you don't have to look any rules up during gameplay.
... how that's changed elements of your play ....
Very few elements have needed to be changed. Most of the changes were additions for other GMs that wanted more structure than I had originally used. That's why I added the Assist and Resist Modifiers and the Armor modifiers for Wounds.
I had previously used a different Wound system. Basically, a character could take X Light Wounds (Partial Success), X Wounds (Complete Success) and X Heavy Wounds (Outstanding Success). Once you ran out of X Light Wounds, any Partial Success would instead count against X Wounds (Complete Success), and so on. It worked, but a lot of GMs didn't like it, so I changed it to the current Wound system.
I also originally began with the GM rolling all of the dice instead of the players. I found that most players prefer to roll the dice, even when they can't interpret the result. I think it's that they can accept their character's fate better when they are the ones responsible for the dice roll. It's a subtle difference, but it does have a huge impact on gameplay.
Here's an interesting sidenote that I've personally observed over the years. If you allow the players to roll dice but don't give them a target number to shoot for (i.e. roll 5 or higher), then the players' excitement and tension rise in anticipation of the result. If you give them a target number, it seems to lessen the impact.
... thoughts on design for the future?
Before I dive into what I've learned, I want to offer just a little bit of advice to any aspiring game designers out there. When you start a system, finish it even if you find out your own play style has changed during the time you've been working on it. The mere fact that you've been through the entire process once will help you immensely on whatever you design in the future.
Also, I would really suggest you begin your design by imagining what the "perfect" game would be like when it's played. Write it all down in dialog format (i.e. GM: What do you want to do?), but leave out all of the system details. Then go back in later and fill in the mechanics. Just a suggestion, but it worked wonders for me.
I've learned so much from this that I don't know where to begin. Here's a list of the few main things I've learned from designing Heretic:
Character Creation. Some people love the freedom and some people are stifled by it. Any future design I have will include both freeform design (probably using a point system) and the choice of appropriate archetypes (which I prefer to call Paths). I will also strive to create systems that allow players to define extensive backgrounds in the beginning, or to allow them to play their character while they fill in little details during play.
Fortune Resolution. Most players really do prefer a Fortune based resolution to a Karma based one. And most players want to roll the dice themselves.
Character Advancement. Most players would rather improve their character a little bit every single session than go through several sessions before they can advance them.
Sometime next week, I think I'll start a thread where I post all of the little things I've observed about player preference and encourage everyone to expand it with their experiences. I think everyone could benefit from it.
Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com
On 4/14/2002 at 8:44pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...
Hi Roy,
"... I would really suggest you begin your design by imagining what the "perfect" game would be like when it's played. Write it all down in dialog format (i.e. GM: What do you want to do?), but leave out all of the system details. Then go back in later and fill in the mechanics. "
H'm. What questions would you suggest in such list? This strikes me as something that deserves development.
Best,
Ron
On 4/15/2002 at 3:37pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
Re: Response to wfreitag
Hi Roy, sorry to take so long getting back (looong weekend),
Anyway, I didn't think you were being defensive at all. Your responses were great. It's just that looking back that I thought that you might just have posted the system for info's sake, and here we were tearing into it. Just wanted to be sure you were getting the sort of feeback you were looking for. Glad you are.
Roy wrote: Actually, that's exactly the way I saw it. Thanks to the excellent feedback here, I now realize I should have made that explicitly clear. I will be sure to clarify this in the next edit.
When I mentioned system does matter, and statements about how a GM can fix things not having weight, that's all I meant. If you include the good advice that you have for GMs explicitly in your system, then it'll work just fine. Fang Langford refers to these things as techniques (though some could be encoded mechanically as well). So, as long as you tell the GM things like "consider certain common abilities to be average", it's all good.
This was my original problem. Having been posted in brief, the system seemed to be lacking these elements intentionally, which was fine if it was just for information.
My question becomes, are you going to use these mechanics pretty much "as is" for your new game, or are you intending to modify them first? I'm assuming that you will include all the good advice stuff explicitly in this version, but will the posted mechanics be mostly the same or will they be changed significantly? Just curious.
I apologize for any previous misunderstanding due to my bungled posting. I just hope that you can get what you need from the good folks here at The Forge.
Mike
On 4/15/2002 at 3:59pm, Roy wrote:
Response to Ron's Post
Hi, Ron!
Roy Wrote: "... I would really suggest you begin your design by imagining what the "perfect" game would be like when it's played. Write it all down in dialog format (i.e. GM: What do you want to do?), but leave out all of the system details. Then go back in later and fill in the mechanics. "
Ron Wrote: H'm. What questions would you suggest in such list? This strikes me as something that deserves development.
I think I'll start this as a new thread, but it will probably be this evening or tomorrow before I have time to sit down and give good examples of this. I'd like to get everyone's input and see if we can develop this idea. A structured approach could be very useful for a lot of people.
Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com
On 4/15/2002 at 4:54pm, Roy wrote:
Respone to Mike's Post
Hey, Mike! I hope that long weekend was a good one. Personally, I'm still trying to find a way to make my weekend last 6 months. I'll let you know if I figure it out. :-)
Anyway, I didn't think you were being defensive at all.
Thanks, Mike. I'm glad to hear it. I sure hope I haven't gotten off on the wrong foot with some people here at the Forge. I think you're all a great bunch of people with some very interesting opinions and ideas. I'm very opinionated myself (in case you hadn't noticed <smiles>) and I love a good debate. I just want everyone to know that I take everything they say very seriously and really consider it.
My question becomes, are you going to use these mechanics pretty much "as is" for your new game, or are you intending to modify them first?
There are several elements that I will try to carry over into my next design (such as the results Horrible Failure, Total Failure, Partial Success, Complete Success, and Outstanding Success), but it will not be using these same mechanics. I'm leaning heavily toward a roll and add method or a dice pool method. I'm also wanting to include a good mechanic for the player's taking an author's stance during play without losing the excitement.
I'm assuming that you will include all the good advice stuff explicitly in this version
Oh yeah. I've learned my lesson there. In fact, I think I'll let you pick it apart in private before I let anyone else see it. I'm still mopping up the blood from this one. <smiles> Of course, I'm just kidding you. You've really helped me realize what was missing and I think I'll become a better writer for it. Thanks, Mike.
Just curious.
I'm sorry, Mike. I didn't really tell you much about my new project. Here's what I'm working on:
I want to design a system that will capture the flavor and excitement of action adventure movies and TV shows. I want it to feature:
fast structured and freeform character creation (possibly using a point system that will help a GM scale an adventure so that it challenges the players)
steady character advancement each session, a simple yet robust conflict resolution system that keeps the action moving quickly
a system for letting the players take an author's stance
a structured approach to building adventures and campaigns with that action adventure feel
Something that is important to me is creating a system that captures the flavor and excitement of action adventures while allowing them to work in whatever setting the group wants. I can just hear it now: "Oh no! Not ANOTHER universal system!" Don't worry, it's not a universal system since the system itself will help maintain the action adventure feel regardless of which setting it's used in. Or at least that's my goal.
What do you think of the idea?
Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com
On 4/15/2002 at 9:11pm, Roy wrote:
Moved Heretic to a different section of my website ....
If anyone's new to this thread and wants to download the system we're talking about here, go to the Download section of my website: http://www.geocities.com/roypenrod123/.
If you've been there before, stop by and tell me if you like the new design.
Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com
On 4/15/2002 at 9:31pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
Re: Respone to Mike's Post
Roy wrote: I can just hear it now: "Oh no! Not ANOTHER universal system!" Don't worry, it's not a universal system since the system itself will help maintain the action adventure feel regardless of which setting it's used in. Or at least that's my goal.
Well, being as I have designed a generic game called Universalis (with one Ralph Mazza, AKA Valmir, the writer), I can hardly be critical of such an idea in principle. Yet a lot of people are fairly critical of such systems, and I have to agree with some of their points. Let me try to get my position on this topic across clearly.
I think that if a GM want's to play a game for which he has a general idea, and for which there is no particularly appropriate system, that using a "generic" system that matches his general play goals is good idea. But in all other cases, where there is a specific system available (and all other things are equal) that system will cater more to the needs of the participants.
Thus, I see your system as potentially good right now for Sim RPGers who want a slim system. Unfortunately, there are lots of systems that match this description already. See RISUS and FUDGE, for two. So, you already have what many people consider good games as competition.
What slot does Universalis fill? Universalis is good for players who don't already have any story ready. You just sit down and play, and a story occurs. Actually, this ground has already been covered by Baron Munchausen, and Once Upon a Time, but our game is very distinct from these in the stories produced (i.e. not silly, necessarily).
So, what role do you see your game filling? Are you going to try and beat the other Light-Generic Sims at their own game? Or is there some twist that will make your game substantively different?
Mike
On 4/15/2002 at 11:40pm, Roy wrote:
RE: Response to Mike's Post
I think that if a GM want's to play a game for which he has a general idea, and for which there is no particularly appropriate system, that using a "generic" system that matches his general play goals is good idea. But in all other cases, where there is a specific system available (and all other things are equal) that system will cater more to the needs of the participants.
You're absolutely right here. I personally like universal systems since I don't like having to learn different rules for each setting I play in. In a nutshell, I want "structured freedom".
I do, however, like it when a system that's tied to a particular setting really brings that setting to life. For example, using playing cards as a resolution method for a game set in the Old West.
I did something very similar with runes when I ran a fantasy game based on the Norse culture. Instead of rolling dice, I made each player a bag of "runestones". They would draw a number of runes out equal to the number of dice they would have used in a dice pool system, then they would "cast" the runes onto a cloth we had on the table and count their successes. This resolution method really helped to immerse the players in the setting and they had a blast "throwing the bones".
Unfortunately, there are lots of systems that match this description already. See RISUS and FUDGE, for two. So, you already have what many people consider good games as competition.
I've enjoyed both RISUS and FUDGE, but the system I'm aiming for will be different from them because it's specifically tied to the action adventure genre.
Can you run action adventures using systems like RISUS and FUDGE? Sure. But those systems aren't structured inherently to bring out the flavor of that specific genre. It's up to the GM to create that flavor himself. I want to give that GM a helping hand while still giving him free reign over the content of his game.
What slot does Universalis fill? ... this ground has already been covered by Baron Munchausen, and Once Upon a Time, but our game is very distinct from these in the stories produced (i.e. not silly, necessarily).
Hmmm, that sounds very interesting. How do I get my hands on a copy? My wife and I really enjoy Once Upon A Time. I guess everyone else does too since I'm on my third set. <smiles>
So, what role do you see your game filling? Are you going to try and beat the other Light-Generic Sims at their own game? Or is there some twist that will make your game substantively different?
No, I'm not going to try to beat the light-rules universal systems at their own game.
The twist behind the system, as I see it, is the fact that it's customized to one style of play (action adventure) within any setting while helping the GM quickly create adventures that challenge and entertain.
One of the problems I want to address with this system is a lack of preparation time. I hope that the successful formulaes used to create hit action adventure movies and TV series can be utilized for creating an enjoyable and memorable adventure and/or campaign while allowing the GM to still spend time with his family.
Whether you want to play in a fantasy setting (such as The Scorpion King), a modern setting (such as Alias), or a science fiction setting (such as Stargate), the system should help you preserve the enjoyable elements of the action adventure genres while helping you create satisfying adventures in that specific setting. Essentially, structured freedom. I think I've found my new catch phrase.
How do I intend to accomplish this? I haven't figured that part out yet. But that's what makes it fun! <smiles>
Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com
On 4/16/2002 at 3:48am, xiombarg wrote:
[totally off-topic]
Roy wrote: Hi, Ron! First, let me say I'm now officially a fan of yours. I intend to get my hands on Sorceror very soon. I can't wait to see what you've done with that concept.
And so the Cult grows. ;-)
On 4/16/2002 at 6:46am, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Response to Mike's Post
Roy wrote: I did something very similar with runes when I ran a fantasy game based on the Norse culture. Instead of rolling dice, I made each player a bag of "runestones".Have you seen Scott Knipe's "Wyrd" yet? Should be a link in the resources.
Can you run action adventures using systems like RISUS and FUDGE? Sure. But those systems aren't structured inherently to bring out the flavor of that specific genre. It's up to the GM to create that flavor himself. I want to give that GM a helping hand while still giving him free reign over the content of his game.Cool, I get it. Good goal.
Hmmm, that sounds very interesting. How do I get my hands on a copy?Playtesters only, right now. If interested, PM me.
Mike
On 4/16/2002 at 1:21pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...
Hi Roy,
A fan, eh? With any luck the following material won't change that. I'm afraid I shall dissect a couple of your paragraphs, and I hope that breaking it down does not destroy the unified point you were making. This is perilously close to the line-by-line response method that I try to discourage on the Forge, so let me know if you think I am missing your big picture.
You wrote,
"No, I'm not going to try to beat the light-rules universal systems at their own game.
...
"The twist behind the system, as I see it, is the fact that it's customized to one style of play (action adventure) within any setting while helping the GM quickly create adventures that challenge and entertain."
Reeeeally. This "twist" is precisely what Fudge, and GURPS before it, advertised as the primary selling point. Therefore I do, in fact, think that you are trying to beat these systems at their own game. (For those youngsters among you, GURPS was originally advertised as a "system-light" "easy" "fast" game).
"One of the problems I want to address with this system is a lack of preparation time. I hope that the successful formulaes used to create hit action adventure movies and TV series can be utilized for creating an enjoyable and memorable adventure and/or campaign while allowing the GM to still spend time with his family."
Two points. (1) Those successful formulae do not exist, or rather, those formulae referred to in the industries you mention do not work. The "hit" shows rely on competent writing and production just as in any other entertainment medium; the shows which rely on formulae (usually a mindless attempt to imitate the details of the hit shows) bite the dust. (2) Various role-playing games have attempted to use a "construction" approach to designing scenarios, usually a matter of rolling a subject, a verb, and an object. I consider this approach flawed and non-functional, as it completely misses the key ingredient of effective narrative - a protagonist engaged in crucial decisions.
"Whether you want to play in a fantasy setting (such as The Scorpion King), a modern setting (such as Alias), or a science fiction setting (such as Stargate), the system should help you preserve the enjoyable elements of the action adventure genres while helping you create satisfying adventures in that specific setting. Essentially, structured freedom. I think I've found my new catch phrase."
You have essentially quoted from the back cover or ad copy of every generalized game design out there, regardless of system complexity, from GURPS to Fudge to JAGS to Risus to Multiverser to what-have-you. It's a worthy goal, and some of these games are design marvels. But it's not a "twist."
"How do I intend to accomplish this? I haven't figured that part out yet. But that's what makes it fun!"
See, I'm stuck on the "this." If it's doing what the games I've described already do (in their individual ways), then fine - you are joining an eminent tradition of RPG design, and should stop talking about unique this-and-that. If its doing something else, then I still don't see what that something else would be.
Best,
Ron
On 4/17/2002 at 11:09am, Roy wrote:
RE: Response to Ron's Post
Response to Ron Edward's post:
Hey, Ron!
Ron Wrote:
A fan, eh? With any luck the following material won't change that.
(This might have been a clue for me to get my nitroglycerin tablets ready ... )
Roy Wrote:
"No, I'm not going to try to beat the light-rules universal systems at their own game.
...
"The twist behind the system, as I see it, is the fact that it's customized to one style of play (action adventure) within any setting while helping the GM quickly create adventures that challenge and entertain."
Ron Wrote:
Reeeeally. This "twist" is precisely what Fudge, and GURPS before it, advertised as the primary selling point. Therefore I do, in fact, think that you are trying to beat these systems at their own game. (For those youngsters among you, GURPS was originally advertised as a "system-light" "easy" "fast" game).
(Hmmm ... why's my left arm tingling ....)
Neither Fudge, nor Gurps, are customized to one style of play. They are a basic framework that allows for resolution of actions within any style of play or setting (much like my Heretic system did).
What I want to do is have the very mechanics of the system itself contribute to the flavor of the action adventure genre. A minor distinction? Yes, but I feel it's an important one.
Roy Wrote: "One of the problems I want to address with this system is a lack of preparation time. I hope that the successful formulaes used to create hit action adventure movies and TV series can be utilized for creating an enjoyable and memorable adventure and/or campaign while allowing the GM to still spend time with his family."
Ron Wrote: Two points. (1) Those successful formulae do not exist, or rather, those formulae referred to in the industries you mention do not work. The "hit" shows rely on competent writing and production just as in any other entertainment medium; the shows which rely on formulae (usually a mindless attempt to imitate the details of the hit shows) bite the dust."
(Ungh ... left arm ... numb ... )
Ok, perhaps formulae was a poor choice of words for the concept I have. I think "elements" would be a better choice.
What I'm striving for is to take the elements of successful shows, show the various ways they can be assembled together (like building blocks), then let the GM add his own details to this structure. Theoretically, this should cut down design time since the GM is given the tools to structure his adventure with.
If you don't think these shows have common elements, ask yourself these questions:
1) Have you ever known when a plot twist was coming up but still waited on the edge of your seat to see exactly what that twist was?
2) Have you ever seen a show, but then thought "That was good, but there was just something missing"?
3) Have you ever leaned over to a friend and said "OH, this should be a good part" although you've never seen the movie and the scene wasn't even fully set up yet?
There are certain elements that screenwriters have found to be present in most successful action adventure films or TV series. It's the way you assemble the elements and mix it with the individual's own details that makes the show interesting.
Ron Wrote: (2) Various role-playing games have attempted to use a "construction" approach to designing scenarios, usually a matter of rolling a subject, a verb, and an object. I consider this approach flawed and non-functional, as it completely misses the key ingredient of effective narrative - a protagonist engaged in crucial decisions.
I am not talking about taking random subjects, verbs, and objects then turning them into an adventure. And I agree these have been totally useless in the past.
Imagine a toolbox with various elements and techniques in them. You've been taught how to use each tool in your toolbox. Now, you're setting down to build your adventure. Hmm, there's an interesting plot twist ("friend has dark secret") and what's that? Oh, and I'll have one of those too. Now you have a basic structure to your adventure, but you haven't filled in the details yet (such as which friend has the dark secret and what that dark secret is).
What I want to do is give the GM the structure for a good adventure: interesting plot twists, good pacing, climax, etc. If I do this right, the structure should give the GM the inspiration they need to fill in their own details and turn each GMs adventure into something that is uniquely their own.
Ron Wrote: You have essentially quoted from the back cover or ad copy of every generalized game design out there, regardless of system complexity, from GURPS to Fudge to JAGS to Risus to Multiverser to what-have-you. It's a worthy goal, and some of these games are design marvels. But it's not a "twist."
( Oh God! The world ... it's black ... mouth dry ... chest is hurting ... )
The only thing I can say is that the "twist" is the way in which the adventure design structure, campaign design structure, character creation and development, and mechanics will all work together to create a unified feel of the action adventure genre. Maybe it's not a "twist", but I haven't seen this design goal accomplished either. If there is a way to do it, I'll figure it out.
Roy Wrote: "How do I intend to accomplish this? I haven't figured that part out yet. But that's what makes it fun!"
I'm perfectly honest when I tell you I don't know how I'm going to accomplish this yet. Sure, I've got some ideas but I'm not going to let everyone rip them apart before they've had the chance to ripen. But know this ... I will find a way even if it kills me. I'm stubborn and a creative problem solver ... a dangerous combination.
Ron Wrote: See, I'm stuck on the "this." If it's doing what the games I've described already do (in their individual ways), then fine - you are joining an eminent tradition of RPG design, and should stop talking about unique this-and-that. If its doing something else, then I still don't see what that something else would be.
( ... must get pills ... where's ... my ... nitro ... heart stopping ... fade to black)
Ron, what is truly "unique" about Sorceror? You've taken the elements of a summoner (Palladium's RPG has a summoner class), combined it with a modern setting, and explored a moral question ("The question is: can you handle it?" quoted from the Sorceror website). By itself, none of these elements are unique. But their combination together creates a symmetry that the seperate elements didn't have on their own. If this is a flawed view of Sorceror, forgive me. I am relying on what I've seen on your website.
All I'm wanting to do is the same thing. I hope you can appreciate that.
Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com
On 4/17/2002 at 1:44pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...
Hi Roy,
Good post (and you're a good sport, too, I must say). I'll focus on a couple of the things that matter most.
I see your point about the "elements," and now that we have both stomped on the roll-for-it adventure design notion, I think we agree perfectly. Elements, or components, indeed yes. Your list of questions is very much like those I ask other people, so we're good.
But what are those elements always about? I submit that they are about something, or a very narrow range of somethings, that matter to us. I suggest that you give some thought as to bringing those somethings into existence, verbally, and using them as your yardstick for everything in the game, both down into the system-mechanics and up into the literal components or elements of a scenario. I'm talking about Premise.
For instance, the "back atcha" Sorcerer question might be construed as mildly rude, but it is definitely the key question (which excuses nearly anything). The answer is that Sorcerer works because it focuses on the Premise level, which operates between the actual-setting-scenario material (which is to be customized) and the mechanics (which only exist to make Premise happen).
Now, if you want to focus on the Premise level for the Action-Adventure type of story, and have (a) the system and (b) the elements of play clearly integrated with it, I'm all about that. I think it's the finest goal around.
Now for the necessary research, because few existing role-playing games accomplish this goal, which seems so obvious and easy, with any success at all. I think that Extreme Vengeance came very close (albeit that it used the "roll for it" adventure design that you and I both dislike), and you should give it a serious, careful read and at least three sessions of actual play. I think that Swashbuckler's combat system has lessons for everyone who wants action to be fast yet good, although it's not written very clearly. And evidently the new Pulp Adventures is garnering some praise from players, although I have not yet seen it. So that might be a good start.
To go a little more abstract or general, I suggest checking out Soap, The Pool, and InSpectres, all of which produce stunning action sequences and highly organized plot structure through (rather than before) play. I would recommend Sorcerer, but the combat/action rules in the free Apprentice are obsolete, and I can't ask someone to buy my stuff as part of a rhetorical point.
Best,
Ron
On 4/17/2002 at 11:12pm, Roy wrote:
RE: Response to Ron's Post
Hi, Ron!
It's always good to hear from you and I must say I wanted to see how you were going to respond. Talk about a long day at work. :-)
Good post (and you're a good sport, too, I must say).
Thank you. I really appreciate that. You're a good sport too, Ron. You ask some great questions ... they've got the probing quality of an expensive surgical laser. :-)
I submit that they are about something, or a very narrow range of somethings, that matter to us. I suggest that you give some thought as to bringing those somethings into existence, verbally, and using them as your yardstick for everything in the game, both down into the system-mechanics and up into the literal components or elements of a scenario. I'm talking about Premise.
I can't agree with you more. Those elements always touch us on an emotional level, sometimes very deep within our subconcious. The trick with this design will be touching those same chords with what matters to the PLAYERS and not just their characters.
For instance, the "back atcha" Sorcerer question might be construed as mildly rude, but it is definitely the key question (which excuses nearly anything). The answer is that Sorcerer works because it focuses on the Premise level, which operates between the actual-setting-scenario material (which is to be customized) and the mechanics (which only exist to make Premise happen).
I'm sorry if it came off as rude. I have nothing but respect for you. I used Sorceror as an example because I knew it was something you could relate to on a personal level. And that always has power. Thank you for being a good sport about it, Ron.
Now, if you want to focus on the Premise level for the Action-Adventure type of story, and have (a) the system and (b) the elements of play clearly integrated with it, I'm all about that. I think it's the finest goal around.
That's exactly what I'm shooting forl. It's going to be a long bumpy road, but it's going to be a great roadtrip.
Now for the necessary research ....
Thanks for the tips here. I've already been trying to get my hands on "Extreme Vengenace", but I hadn't heard of either "Swashbucklers" or "Pulp Adventures". I'm also knee deep in screenwriting books. Fun, fun, fun!
Thanks for making me really think, Ron. I always enjoy our discussions.
Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com