I've been playing RPGs and, specifically, GURPS and, hyperspecifically, text-based RPGs based on GURPS for years. About six months ago, I got this idea that it would be cool to have an RPG system created specifically for text-based RPGs, rather than shoe-horning GURPS into such. At about the same time, I was researching wikis for a client. The two things kinda came together at www.playbywiki.com.

The system some friends of mine and I are developing on the site is called "Ninth Sigil." It came about after we discussed (for quite some time) the question of, "What is at the very root of heroic action?" Because, of course, we all want to play heroes. Even if they are bad, or bad at it. I don't think I've ever GMd a game where somebody said, "I want to play the clerk who does nothing but jerk sodas all day!"

What we determined was that great characters -- and, by extention, great places, things and cultures -- in epic stories are defined by key, archetypical attributes. Symbols of what they are. Tarzan is "the ape man." He is lord of "the jungle." He is in tune with his body and with the animal world. The Lone Ranger is a master horseback rider. He wields a gun. He wears a mask. They are both loners. These are the key symbols that define their characters. What are their "stats?" Dexterity? Strength? Who knows... If you were to play them tactically, you'd need to know that. But in a story... Mask, gun, horse... these are the important "stats."

We started with a version of the game that had very few rules. Then some of us (Bill...) wanted an element of randomness. And others wanted more flexibility in terms of character development. Where we are now is two sets of rules. What we call "smooth" and "crunchy."

My first question is this -- is it too weird? The six-or-so of us who've been working on it are kinda getting into it. We're trying a test game and that's been part of what has made the rules change a bit. They've stayed stable for (ahem...) about two weeks now. Which made me think it was time to start banging on other doors. Like this one. Asking other folks who don't know us if the "whole idea" makes a lick-a sense.

Second question -- what do you use for text-based RPG play? I've only ever used either GURPS, or just done away with rules entirely, and gone with "whatever the GM says goes" style cooperative text. I'd be interested to hear what other folks use to play play-by-mail, play-by-email, play-by-post, play-by-bbs, and (now... anywhere else?) play-by-wiki games.

Third question -- How granular is too granular for text-based play? As GM, I'm reaaaaallly comfortable with a one-rule system: what the GM says is law. Funny how my players aren't as comfy with that... The "smooth" and "cruncy" versions of Ninth Sigil that we currently have posted are clearly two different orders-of-magnitude when it comes to granularity of rules, but even "crunchy style" isn't anywhere near as complex as something like GURPS. Is it more fun to have more rules for text-based play? Or is the bare minimum the max fun?

Any help, any thoughts, any criticism, any mockery gratefully accepted, as this is a knave brew world for me...

Andy Havens
[email]awhavens@sanestorm.com[/email]
www.playbywiki.com

Q1: In my opinion, almost nothing is too weird. I think that this sounds like an interesting idea, not a terribly weird one either.

Q2: ... I've never played a text based RPG. If I was going to, though, I would probably play post based. However, the whatever the GM says goes system is not really a rule system. The GM should have the final word on specific rules which are unclear, being argued about, or simply don't exist, but they shouldn't be the entire rules system post character creation. Not in my opinion anyway.

Q3: Medium rules are best for this kind of system. By declaring the Icon stylistic of characters being defined by certain things that are characteristic of the way they handle their problems and what they do in general as, well as some of their iconic equipments, you are blurring the specificness of the system automatically.
    In my opinion it would be best to keep it abstracted, while at the same time putting some kinds of rules into it would still be good. Not too many concrete numbers and values rules, just a few perhaps, and some rules that would help to guide players in what their characters would and would not be able to do.
    For instance a character with the symbol mask would likely be good at keeping people for discovering who they are, a character with the symbol whip might be good at fancy tool based combat maneuvers.
    That's my impression anyway.

First:  Hey!  I think it's quite neat.  Would've liked something like that when I was doing text RPing.

Second:  What happens if someone wants to change a Sigil, especially a Major Sigil?

Third:  I think you run the risk of trying to define what a character is really about by defining what they do actively.  You might want to consider whether you want Sigils to be things that characters DO, or things that just happen naturally to help them.  There's lots of examples of characters, even heroic ones, whose flaws helped them.  For instance, could you have the sigil of <<Fool>>.  Few people are going to go around being deliberately foolish, but nevertheless, it's not hard to imagine a character whose essential unconcern and willingness to walk headlong over a cliff ended up helping him more than hurting him.

Jeremy: thanks for the reply -- glad to hear at least one other person doesn't think it's too weird, and that "medium" is a good direction for rules. That's what we're aiming at. You're right on the money with what we're trying for with sigils; the ones you assign your character "loosely" define what you're able to accomplish.

In reply to Dave; Major Sigils define, as above, what you "are," i.e., your "core values," as well as what you can do. They are assigned at the time of character creation and can't be changed during the course of a character's life, except by dire circumstance and/or huge heroic roleplaying effort. Minor Sigils are more "learned" skills, and they don't need to be defined at "birth," and can be "unlearned," although that would mean, essentially, loss of XP.

As far as sigils being both negative and positive, yeah. There's two and a half ways we get into that. The big way is the concept of the "Ninth Sigil" itself. We picture the character "template" of defined sigils as a 3x3 grid that looks like what you see on this page:

http://playbywiki.editme.com/NinthsigilSmooth

The center spot is reserved for the Ninth Sigil, also called the "Bane Sigil." This is your "heroic flaw." In GURPS, you had to always take some disadvantages (disads) that would harm and foul up your character. The Bane Sigil is like that... but in a big way. "Fool" would be a great Bane, f'rinstance.

Also, any given Sigil can be defined with negative aspects, attributes, etc. And there are assumed ones, of course. If you have <<Night>> as a Major Sigil, you would be, by definition, less of a day person.

Lastly, if you're playing "crunchy style," you can take "Sigil Affinities," which are like minor-minor sigils. Which are, basically, stuff you are good and/or bad at. Ads and disads.

Thanks for the feedback.

The reason I brought up changing Major Sigils is that if there's no, it runs the risk of creating only fairly two-dimensional characters.  They can get better and cooler at what they do, but they can't change what they're really about.  This is very archetypical, mind you, and if that's what you're going for then more power to you, but I tend to think some of the best dramatic moments are those times when a character changes who they are.

I was actually thinking about whether you could take something negative and/or passive, like 'Fool', as a Major Sigil, for instance, and have it help you even though the character doesn't decide to.  Do Sigils, and their use and growth, have to be something that the character controls?  It'd be easy to see a character with <<Fool 12>> getting out of a bad situation through sheer good luck and fortunate bumbling, but hard to see the character actually deciding to do that.

Also, Is it possible to take the same Sigil as both a normal Major Sigil and a Ninth Sigil?  (Say, 'Anger'.)  I can see a lot of times when the same character would be both empowered and hindered in different situations by something, and it'd be a shame if that was relegated only to the very minor status of a Sigil Affinity (which by definition is not really what your character is 'about'.)

We've said explicitly that you can take the same sigil for a Major and a Bane... the point being, as you say, that something can drive you from a negative standpoint and from a positive at the same time.

As far as a Major Sigil being something that would provide non-controlled or chaotic or random abilities or ramifications... that's a great idea, and would depend on the Sigil. Or it could be written into just about any sigil. I would think, for example, that one of the aspects of <<Fire>> as opposed to <<Earth>> is that fire tends to be more apt to spread randomly, whereas earth is, usually, less prone to spreading with abandon. A character with fire as a Major Sigil would, therefore, be more likely to take advantage of quick, easily manipulated opportunities, whereas one with earth would be more (pardon) grounded.

As far as changing a Major Sigil goes... I'm really hesitant to put that in as a standard rule, outside the bounds of anything other than "it would have to be the whole point of an adventure." Which is one of those meta-rules, where, if the GM says it, it's OK. Because, even if you spend your life to get to <<Sword 12>>, and then decide to put down the sword and become a healer.. well, that's still part of who you are.

Coolness.  Looks like a winner to me.  I'm all for anything that makes chat RP more digestible without removing a lot of the freedom.

Perhaps <<Sword 12>> Can become <<Ex Sword 12>> or <<Repentant Swordsman 12>> which you may then strive to take down to as low as possible before you can remove it.

Also check out "Code of Unaris", created to be played solely on Chats, where you can "Edit" words others use for 10 secs, etc.

I like the Symbol idea, though I will prolly use it for TT play.
I don't find the medium weird at all.

I think the Play By Wiki idea is very promising. However, as a newbie, I found the Ninth Sigil game very difficult to get started. You might need a dead-simple introductory walkthrough for new users. I was really interested by the wiki idea, but I browsed around the site for 20 minutes and then wandered off because there was so much to read/digest before I could even decide whether I was into Ninth Sigil game, in particular.

playbywiki wrote: Tarzan is "the ape man." He is lord of "the jungle." He is in tune with his body and with the animal world. The Lone Ranger is a master horseback rider. He wields a gun. He wears a mask. They are both loners. These are the key symbols that define their characters. What are their "stats?" Dexterity? Strength? Who knows......My first question is this -- is it too weird?

Reply to Chris Peterson: Liked your idea for a "dead-simple walkthrough" for new users.

Added a "Quick Start" page at: http://playbywiki.editme.com/QuickStart

Let me know what you think.

Also...

Added a free, "Public Member" level: http://playbywiki.editme.com/Join

The idea being that, for free, anybody can join and add/edit pages... but those pages will be un-locked and editable by any other registered users. Having locked, group-permission pages requires a paid membership. Sound about right?

This idea reminds me abit of the book "Lord of Light" by Roger Zelazny, and a nifty little RPG called Nobilis, albeit in very differant ways. Might be worth it for you to check them out.

High praise indeed, to be compared to "Lord of Light." One of my favorite books of all time. Thanks.