Topic: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
Started by: John Bromberger
Started on: 6/15/2006
Board: Playtesting
On 6/15/2006 at 8:30am, John Bromberger wrote:
[Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
Hey there.
I've just put my RPG, called Affinity, up on the net ... and would love to know what you think!
Playtesting, if you are interested, would be even more appreciated.
Its a fairly traditional design in some ways, probably closest to simplified Exalted without the setting, so please look at it from that perspective. I haven't tried to get rid of the storyteller role, for example.
<A href="http://d.1asphost.com/affinityrpg/>Affinity RPG</A>
Its a primarily (high) fantasy game, with the basic premises of its mechanics as follows:
- It does away with Attributes
- 20 broad Abilities are used for every type of action, including combat actions and reactions and resistances.
- One dice roll, a single d6, resolves any action.
- Very little resources tracking (no number of spells per day or wound penalties).
- Around 400 Talents based on Abilities (which replace Backgrounds, Feats, Spells, Special Abilities and Merits) with one simple mechanic: If you have the Talent, you can do it.
- No classes or levels
- Description bonuses a la stunting
- Play any fantasy “race” you can imagine, by taking the required starting Talents
- Total separation of mechanics and flavour.
It's free for anyone to copy and use if you like it. ^_^
I've been using it for about two years now, updating aspects of it as time goes by.
Hope you like it.
Brokenshade
On 6/15/2006 at 9:32am, Filip Luszczyk wrote:
Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
Wasn't the previous title of your game Aspect? I remember that I've been interested in seeing it back then.
I'll read it and let you know what I think about it.
On 6/15/2006 at 9:55am, John Bromberger wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
You're right, Filip. ^_^
I did post an entry for this game under the name Aspect. You have a very good memory!
I'll look forward to hearing what you think. ^_^
John
On 6/16/2006 at 12:30am, Filip Luszczyk wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
I've got myself familiarized with the game, although I didn't read everything (I skipped on the lists details mostly ;)). Fantasy/Exalted Heartbreaker it seems, but that's OK since I've been expecting a rules lite Exalted-style game. There are some things I consider interesting, but also a number of things which I don't like. I also have some suggestions as to the specific rules. And I'll comment in this order. Mind you, I'm tired now, so some criticism might sound a bit harsh.
First, what I like:
1.It's simple as a stick and looks very fast. Not exactly what I like the most, but I might try it someday when I'll be in a mood for something fast and uncomplicated. The system generally looks quite elegant, that's a plus. (It's possible I would have had some comments on very specific combat rules or equipment mathematical balance - I usually have - but I didn't dig in the rules deep enough to enumerate such minor things now).
2.Lots of Talents. Character generation looks very simple, but I suppose that I could dig into the thing and play with stuff for some hours to optimise my character. This is one of the things I like in Exalted, and you provide similar, but less time consuming experience it seems. Also, looking at the lists, there is probably still some place to add new powers.
3.I suppose that using Talents in play could be quite fun - in a similar way that finding new ways of using Spheres in Mage is. Lots of possibilities for the address of challenge. Good.
4.I have an Official Exalted Stunts Fetish, go figure ;)
5.I don't know if it was intentional, but I got a slight console feel while reading the game. Nice.
And now, what made bad impression on me. I'll set aside most of the pitfalls of the traditional design, since in Affinity I found many things which I personally find flawed in most of the standard role-playing games. Also, the previous title sounded better, I think ;) But as for my major criticism:
1.Right at the beginning:
You have to enjoy the company of those you are playing the game with! If there are tensions between you it can spoil the game.
You need a good storyteller. I cant emphasise the importance of this too much.
The world setting needs to be new and exciting and fun.
The game mechanics must be simple, and not get in the way of the story.
Too subjective from your side, and sounds too arbitrary. What does it mean "a good storyteller", if you emphasise his importance so much? I'd say, that GM's responsibility is by no means greater than that of the players. Also, you should specify what you actually mean by "mechanics getting in the way of the story".
And as we're here, Storyteller's function is not explicit enough. Some years ago it was sufficient to say "you know, he's the GM, but the game is all about story so he is called the Storyteller to emphasise this". But today there are way too many games with non-standard GM-tasks division, so simply stating "the storyteller" doesn't really say much about his role and rights to the potential player.
2.And oh, my, how I dislike this part:
As you are going to be playing the part of a hero, you need to know something about that hero. The more you know, the easier it will be to describe how your hero reacts to the various situations he is placed in as the story progresses.
That is after all what Role Playing is all about!
Now, truly, is this all what Role Playing is about? I must ask you - did you read the theory articles from this site?
Anyway, I'll pretend that you meant "what this particular Role-Playing Game is about". If so, you are not specific enough. After reading these suggestions of yours I could get an impression that this is a game in which:
a).The storyteller creates and tells a story, and...
b).The players sit and listen politely, mostly participating in the storyteller's story, and...
c).From time to time they are given an opportunity to shine, by providing some colour.
But then, some sections of the game does not support these assumptions. Though others do. Man, you've got some serious incoherence in your design...
So, you go on how this game is all about story and role-playing, and you provide a system that is all about customizing your character, fighting monsters and using funky powers. Something doesn't fit here.
3.In character creation:
How does your hero relate to others? What family does your hero have? Where are they? What is his relationship with them at the start of the game? Does your hero have a pet or pets? What friends does your hero associate with? What colleagues does your hero work with? What important acquaintances does your hero know? What enemies does your hero have? Are the other heroes in the party family, friends, colleagues or acquaintances?
Now, this is something I'd like to see the rules for.
4.I'd suggest 12 or 8 Talents for High Power Level. This divides into quarters more nicely.
5.Talent names. Too many direct references to Exalted. I advice on either making all those Charm-style names more generic, or renaming all the Talents, using this colourful style, but getting rid of the names that already are a colour specific for the other game.
6.Measurements. I advice on getting rid of all those yards and seconds, and using abstract ways of measuring things instead. In Exalted we often find ourselves ignoring the movement rules, since they often get in the way of stunts, and tracking yard-by-yard movement is too much of a bother. Also, what does it change to know how many seconds action will take, when in narration it comes down to stating that it's swift? I'd rather suggest using abstract measurement of things, that is also easily scalable on the narrative layer depending on the desired powerlevel and mood.
For example, instead of tracking the exact distance you could use simplified range rules similar to those in Donjon or WotG, or use abstract "areas", of size scalable depending on the needs of the situation (e.g. if you want an inn brawl, every important, distinguishable part of the interior would be an "area", but if you wanted a godlike duel with jumping over the mountains, every "area" would be the space of a city or geographical region or so ;)). Instead of seconds, you could simply use "ticks" of unspecified length.
Also, what is the significance of the complicated monetary system? Wouldn't it be easier and more intuitive to simply track total value of monetary resources? You have no rules for encumbrance anyway ;)
7.I don't quite understand what was your design reasoning in here:
The storyteller secretly sets a target number that you will require in order to succeed.
Why is it done secretly? This allows the storyteller to manipulate the results if he wants - and I'm sure that I've seen something about not coercing players to do exactly what ST wants them to do ;) I'm somewhat sensitive to such things, since Force techniques and disfunctional illusionism are commonly overused in my country.
Also, why not making the rolls open-ended? It's high fantasy after all, characters are heroes, and stuff. I expect that with 1-6 random result and the range of difficulties you suggest, it's practically impossible for many characters to succeed unless ST is not objective in setting the difficulty and adjusts it to the character's effectiveness (and then, what's the advantage of having high abilities, if with low abilities you'd succeed at exactly the same rate if ST wants you to succeed). Again, I'm sensitive for techniques that I've seen terribly overused many times.
8.+3 stunts:
In order to get a +3 bonus, the description should sound awesome, and should involve at least three senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch)!
I don't see a point of this 3 senses restriction (our stunts in Exalted are mostly visual anyway - but the thing is that I don't see any connection between the number of details and awesomeness of the roll; if something is awesome, it simply is awesome and everyone knows that). And it wouldn't work well for Diplomacy or Stealth stunts.
Also:
You can describe the way you perform the action in a way that enhances the fun for everyone. ^_^
If the storyteller likes the way you described your action,
A contradiction, and a grave one. You state clearly that you are rewarded for what the storyteller likes - so what about enhancing the fun for everyone? Unless you give the ST an exclusive right to determine what are the preferences of the players during a given session. But this I can't imagine working in practice ;)
9.Why don't you provide system (in terms of mechanics or simply stricter regulations) for this:
Give each player equal amounts of time with their hero in the spotlight.
Make sure situations arise in which each hero can show off their Talents.
Give the heroes (relatively) equal rewards whether they be money, magical items, allies etc.
If one hero is comparatively too powerful, help the other heroes catch up.
and this:
It is no fun for the players if heroes always lose to their enemies.
Nor is it fun for the players if every fight is a total walkover.
Give them some situations they can handle easily, some that are harder, and some that are too tough for them to handle without a lot of planning and forethought.
But remember, in all good stories the heroes win in the end.
As for the second quotation, you could simply state that it is impossible for the character to die unless his player gives his consent (not even because of agg damage, coup de grace, poisons, 16t loads and stuff)? When it is impossible for the player to loose his character, the storyteller doesn't have to wear protective gloves. Protagonist's death limitations work well in many fine games.
10.Somewhere, you stated that the storyteller shouldn't coerce players to do what he wants, but:
Have the players interact with events that shape the world around them, and let them realise it.
Have the players interact with a new and marvellous location.
Have the players interact with a new and marvellous type of creature.
Arrange for the players to fight foes in a fabulous and different setting.
Have the players interact and talk with a new and intelligent foe
Have the heroes find new and interesting allies.
What if players don't want the fight at all? What if they don't want to interact with the foe, and simply desire to crush him right away? What bothers me is this "have them" formula. Otherwise, this is another thing you could ensure in the system, by creating formal rules that would regulate the structure of the session. Possibly, you could also allow players to decide on the specifics of these story elements, giving them some amount of narrative control. Or maybe let them state what they are interested in at the end of the session, and oblige the storyteller to provide them with what they want next time. Or something.
And well, that's all for now. I hope it didn't sound too harsh or anything.
Best,
Filip
On 6/19/2006 at 9:36am, John Bromberger wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
Filip, thank you. You make some excellent points, and it's just the kind of input I needed! ^_^
1. You are right, "good storyteller" is too arbitrary. I'm changing it to "a storyteller you feel comfortable with". And yes, I can see that the whole concept of storyteller importance is subjective. I'll look for a better way to explain the story role.
The core point I am trying to make is that based on a lot of (subjective) experience with a lot of groups, I've never ever had an enjoyable game without a "good" storyteller. I've had great games where both storyteller and other players were "good", and good games where the storyteller is "good" and the players aren't. But ...
2. Yes, perhaps it is not quite "all" that "role playing" is about. I do understand the simulationist and gamist points of view, and I have given a lot of mechanic for something purportedly narrativist.
And yes, I made a conscious decision to primarily detail mechanics, in a system that is all about story. Contradictory? Actually, I don't think so. ^_^ I'm trying to prevent both the mechanics and the lack of mechanics from getting in the way. ^_^
And again, yes I need to better define the storyteller and player roles, and explain how what I have suggested can be internally consistent.
What I intend (and it clearly has not come across properly, so I'll be adding a section to address this) is
a. The storyteller develops a setting
b. The players create characters in that setting
c. The storyteller creates the situation in which the players find themselves, taking into consideration both the mechanics (Talents) and flavour (likes, dislikes, allies etc) of the characters.
d. The players choose and describe their course of action.
e. As the players do so, the storyteller reveals some of the consequences of their actions, hoped for and otherwise
f. Loop back to d.
3. I hear you. The intended rule is, the player chooses. He wants to play the emperor? Fine. He wants to play an inanimate boulder? Fine. Its up to the player.
4. I actually don't want it to divide into quarters. In play, more rounded characters with better synergy (there is tons of it) work better and give more fun.
5. Talent names ... yes. There are still a few names that match to Exalted, but I had thought I had gotten rid of most of them (in the same way I got rid of those linked to D&D and Rolemaster and the other games I used for Talent inspiration.) As and when I notice them, I'm changing them.
6. Concrete measurement is a choice, and I can understand your preferring abstraction.
Seconds are merely the mechanic for measuring who goes when (there are no multiple actions). To use "Swift" isn't well enough definied, as it has to be determined with reference to the speed of everyone else's actions. Ticks might work, but they are unnecessarily abstract when seconds are something everyone understands.
Yards ... again, they merely measure distance. Jumping over mountains is cool, and designing a Talent for it would be pretty easy. That too would be perfectly well handled by saying you could jump a certain number of yards. Yards define more precisely what your character can and cannot do - at the moment. And that precision (using minimum mechanics) is what I am after.
7. Why secretly, you ask. Primarily because the characters do not have that information. There are often factors affecting the situation that the players are unaware of, and telling them the difficulty causes them to (often unintentionally) adjust their actions in undesirable ways.
I'm working from the point of view that players and storytellers trust each other enough not to be manipulative.
8. Good first point ... I've removed the requirement for three senses.
The second - I think I worded that badly. The storyteller needs to take others' reaction to the description into account. It seems to work in practice. ^_^
9. I don't want to constrain story with mechanics. Call it a flaw or a feature, that is my intent. ^_^
And I want heroes to be able to die. Taking that away takes away not only risk, but its corresponding excitement. Taking away the chance of failure, removes the joy of success.
10. Tricky one here. I guess I'll be blunt. ^_^
If there is going to be no combat, then Affinity is not the system for you.
If there is going to be only combat, then Affinity is not the game for you.
It's consistend with the design of the game.
The players dont' want to fight? Then they run away from it, which makes just as much entertainment!
They want to kill without talking? Not very heroic (primarily in the Western sense) and frankly I'd rather they play another game.
The game is designed for some combat, with a lot of narrative interaction (even in combat).
Thank you again for your comments and criticisms, they are truly much appreciated. I'll be changing some wording, and posting the update to the site soon. ^_^
Kind regards
John
On 6/19/2006 at 7:30pm, Filip Luszczyk wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
Yes, perhaps it is not quite "all" that "role playing" is about. I do understand the simulationist and gamist points of view, and I have given a lot of mechanic for something purportedly narrativist.
I have a feeling, although I'm not entirely sure about it, that you have got something wrong. There is absolutely nothing supporting narrativism in your system. It is almost purely simulationist design, that can be easily drifted towards gamism. Just like Exalted 1st edition.
And yes, I made a conscious decision to primarily detail mechanics, in a system that is all about story. Contradictory? Actually, I don't think so. ^_^ I'm trying to prevent both the mechanics and the lack of mechanics from getting in the way. ^_^
Ah, but I'm not accusing you of detailing the mechanics at all. It's not the fact that you tell about story, but the system is all mechanics. It's about what the mechanics are about. And these mechanics do not support "creating stories" (which doesn't necessarily have to be narrativist) more than D&D.
Look at Universalis or Capes for games that are all about mechanics and at the same time all about the story. Look at DitV for a little more traditional game with mechanics that perfectly reinforce what the game is about.
Now. Exalted is a game about kicking ass and looking good while doing it, and its mechanics do great when used for cinematic ass-kicking, especially if you want to look good while doing it. In theory it is also a game of world-scale politics and intrigue - and 1st edition doesn't capture it at all. The 2nd edition of Exalted captures this stuff and fully supports it mechanically.
And now D&D. In theory it is a high fantasy game of heroic adventures. In practice, you have game that greatly supports killing things and taking their stuff, and that demonstrates some fantasy trappings. It doesn't provide anything to support the "heroic" part. Unless we define "heroics" as being carefull planner during the exploration of the dungeons and resolving tactical combats. Because for these things, the game provides great support.
So, if you want to say that your game is all about creating stories involving killing things and looking good while taking their stuff, then yes, your design fully supports that. If you want to say that your game (mind you, game and not "a good storyteller"), is all about creating stories like those seen in the movies or books - then its current version utterly fails.
The players dont' want to fight? Then they run away from it, which makes just as much entertainment!
In what way? I haven't seen any rules that would make runaways entertaining. In fact, unless I missed something, the movement rates are static. So, what's entertaining in comparing two values and accepting that monsters are simply faster, no sense to even try running?
They want to kill without talking? Not very heroic (primarily in the Western sense) and frankly I'd rather they play another game.
Is there anything in your game that actually punishes players for avoiding talking? I haven't seen anything that would encourage talking in the first place. The same goes for acting honorably. No rewards for that.
The game is designed for some combat, with a lot of narrative interaction (even in combat).
In fact, if I were to play/run the game as it is designed (not as the designer hoped it to be), I would go for lots (I mean lots) of combat, possibly leaving some place for interaction with the environment (I mean - using funky powers to do funky things). The game should work quite well for this style of play, if I wanted anything else from it, I would have some troubles.
This is the incoherency I've been talking about. You obviously want the game to work for everyone else the way it works for you. Still, you have your own ways of running the game, and use mechanics almost exclusively for resolving combat, am I right? Now, this won't work, unless the game is played by someone of preferences and agenda very similar to yours. Everyone else is going to pervert/drift your designer intents, because there is nothing in the system that would enforce them to play the way it "was designed to", nor support that style of play without having you at the table.
On the other hand, this is the feature of most of the "mainstream" games out there. Since you are basing your works for games that are flawed in this regard, it's not surprise your design reflects those flaws. Also, note that I'm not blaming you for anything - it's understandable that you made the game the way you made it, having not much experience with different styles of play or games that actually support what they are about.
3. I hear you. The intended rule is, the player chooses. He wants to play the emperor? Fine. He wants to play an inanimate boulder? Fine. Its up to the player.
Ah, but I've been referring to something akin to Relationship rules from DitV, or some corresponding mechanic. If you want to stress the importance of those things in your game, such rules could work. For now, you stress it, but leave it only in the background, in the area of colour.
On 6/20/2006 at 9:34am, John Bromberger wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
Hey Filip. ^_^
I can absolutely see where you are coming from.
I fully realise my approach to achieving narrativism is an apparent paradox.
My approach is to make everything except narration take effectively no time.
The aim in doing this, is to facilitate narrativism rather than enforce it.
I'm trying to imperceptibly invert foreground and background! As what appears to be in the foreground (the mechanics) fade into the far background, what appeared to be in the background (the flavour) turns out to be in the now foreground.
It's kind of insidious, but it seems to work. ^_^
In all the various games I've played I've never seen groups come anywhere close to playing as interesting or varied characters as I have in Affinity, nor have I ever seen so much in game time given over to narration and so little to mechanics. That is the feedback I've received from the other playtesters, too.
So I disagree that there is abolutely nothing supporting narrativism in my system.
If you had phrased it slightly differently I would have agreed with ...
(1) There is absolutely nothing enforcing narrativism in my system.
(2) There appears to be nothing supporting narrativism in my system.
What's entertaining in comparing two values and accepting that monsters are simply faster, no sense to even try running?
There is nothing fun in what you describe, no. It does however encourage the players to be creative if they wish to succeed. And they have more than ample Talents to facilitate this. My players ran away from some guards last night, and it was very entertaining indeed:
(1) They were disguised as lizards
(2) They used the rocky, cratered landscape for cover
(3) The pursuers were first outrun by most of them, then started teleporting after them and throwing spears at them, then fled in fear when they realised what they were pursuing. Then came the ballistae attacks ... and the trackers, who could not follow the tracks after the party teleported.
Is there anything in your game that actually punishes players for avoiding talking? I haven't seen anything that would encourage talking in the first place. The same goes for acting honorably. No rewards for that.
Precisely. Nothing to force players into a course of action the storyteller desires, or that the game designer desires. I'm very much into freedom of choice. ^_^
Of course I'm also very much into every action having a natural consequence.
You don't talk, but kill? You won't make friends that way. You'll kill some people you shouldn't and find out about it, and it may just haunt you. You will make enemies who will steal from you, or kill you, or do their best to make your life a misery. The law will be after you sooner or later.
You don't act honorably? Well, don't expect anyone to treat you honorably or take your word for anything or respect you (fear you, perhaps, respect, no).
Nothing more is required than natural consequence.
In fact, if I were to play/run the game as it is designed (not as the designer hoped it to be), I would go for lots (I mean lots) of combat, possibly leaving some place for interaction with the environment (I mean - using funky powers to do funky things).
So you are saying the game is designed for combat? Thanks for the compliment! ^_^
The game should work quite well for this style of play, if I wanted anything else from it, I would have some troubles.
What problems would you have? Specifics might help ...
Still, you have your own ways of running the game, and use mechanics almost exclusively for resolving combat, am I right?
No, 200% wrong. ^_^
Each of Awareness, Investigation, Stealth, Travel, Medicine (diseases etc), Performance, Diplomacy and Craft are used as much as all of the Combat abilities combined!
Now, this won't work, unless the game is played by someone of preferences and agenda very similar to yours.
I'm still not quite sure what won't work. ^_^
But yes, I understand that the game won't appeal to everyone. Nothing does.
Everyone else is going to pervert/drift your designer intents, because there is nothing in the system that would enforce them to play the way it "was designed to", nor support that style of play without having you at the table.
Yes. I'm happy with that. Feature, not flaw. ^_^
Also, note that I'm not blaming you for anything - it's understandable that you made the game the way you made it, having not much experience with different styles of play or games that actually support what they are about.
Perhaps you are being a little condescending here.
I'll take it as well meant. I really do appreciate your comments. ^_^
Ah, but I've been referring to something akin to Relationship rules from DitV, or some corresponding mechanic. If you want to stress the importance of those things in your game, such rules could work. For now, you stress it, but leave it only in the background, in the area of colour.
Ah in return. ^_^
The colour, which appears to be in the background, comes to the fore as the (few and fairly consistent) mechanics fade into the background.
Kind regards
John
On 6/21/2006 at 11:06pm, Selene Tan wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
It sounds like what you're going for is Design What Doesn't Matter (DWDM). You might be interested in this discussion of the game Blue Rose in terms of DWDM. The Forge tends to focus on Design What Matters, so you might not find as much help here as you'd like.
I will point out that there's a difference between the Forge concept of Narrativism and narration. The presence of one doesn't guarantee the other. (Creating Theme is a good explanation of Forge Narrativism, if you want to learn more about it.)
On 6/22/2006 at 1:36pm, John Bromberger wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
Hi Selene! ^_^
Selene wrote:
It sounds like what you're going for is Design What Doesn't Matter (DWDM). You might be interested in this discussion of the game Blue Rose in terms of DWDM. The Forge tends to focus on Design What Matters, so you might not find as much help here as you'd like.
Yes, you are right ... my approach is definitely DWDM. I'll see what I can find on that in the links you provided - much appreciated. ^_^
Selene wrote: I will point out that there's a difference between the Forge concept of Narrativism and narration. The presence of one doesn't guarantee the other. (Creating Theme is a good explanation of Forge Narrativism, if you want to learn more about it.)
Filip pointed out the same thing, and has been explaining the difference between Narrativism and Narration in PMs.
Thanks again for your help! ^_^
Kind regards
John
On 6/22/2006 at 2:55pm, John Bromberger wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
Hi again Selene! ^_^
I read the articles thoroughly, and really enjoyed them. Its difficult to pin down DWM and DWDM exactly though! But I think some of it is the reward system, and some of it refers to systems in place to encourage players to act in certain ways.
I'm still a little hazy about this so comment would be appreciated, but I actually think what I have done is pretty much half half.
My DWM mechnics are
- Talents and Talent synergy (doing amazing things is what matters)
- Stunting (description is what matters)
- What is important to the players matters (natural consequence, they get what they work for)
- Possessions matter (a very real reward mechanic players clamour for)
- Character balance matters (each player gets an equal number of Talents).
- Variety matters (the variety of races, effect descriptions, Talents, combat options)
My DWDM mechanics are
- time spent generating characters (all you do in creation is choose Talents)
- time spent calculating (action resolution is either one d6 + fixed modifier, or you simply do it with a Talent)
To me, characters need to do amazing things, describe those things in amazing ways, work to obtain what they want, not outshine other characters, and be very distinct from each other. (DWM)
Players should not need to spend a lot of time out of character. (Also DWDM).
Am I missinterpreting something?
Kind regards
John
On 6/22/2006 at 3:06pm, Adam Dray wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
Welcome to the Forge, John. I'm gonna say some hard things in this post, but that's why you're here, right? Try not to get too defensive and think about what I'm saying. Some of it's gonna sound harsh, because I want to get through to you, and I didn't see a lot of that happening above. Trust that I'm spending my time responding because I care and because I want to help, and not because I want to tear you down. I've worn your shoes.
Precisely. Nothing to force players into a course of action the storyteller desires, or that the game designer desires. I'm very much into freedom of choice. ^_^
Of course I'm also very much into every action having a natural consequence.
You don't talk, but kill? You won't make friends that way. You'll kill some people you shouldn't and find out about it, and it may just haunt you. You will make enemies who will steal from you, or kill you, or do their best to make your life a misery. The law will be after you sooner or later.
You don't act honorably? Well, don't expect anyone to treat you honorably or take your word for anything or respect you (fear you, perhaps, respect, no).
Nothing more is required than natural consequence.
Who determines what "natural consequence" arises from a player's action? I assume, your storyguide. So it's all basically left to GM-fiat. If you have a good GM, you'll have a good game. If you don't have a good GM, you'll not have a good game. What does Affinity provide?
The most telling example of GM-fiat is Affinity's reward system. From the rules (color emphasis added):
Over time, your hero learns new Talents. Your storyguide will tell you when this happens.
You then get to choose those Talents. Remember that at most one quarter of your hero’s Talents can be associated with a particular Ability. For example, if at the end of a session you have 11 Talents total, the maximum number of Talents you can have associated with any one Ability is three (11/4 round up = 3).
The base value of any Ability is the number of Talents your hero has that are associated with that Ability.
There are of course many other ways to reflect hero progression – including money, status, magical items, followers and acquired enemies. To a large extent these rewards are up to the storyguide, who will dole them out as appropriate and as he feels you have earned them.
You want players to have freedom of choice, but really they are playing at a game of "please the storyguide." To succeed, they have to second-guess the GM and figure out what will earn them new Talents.
There's also a theme of "the storyguide is a control freak" throughout the rules. The storyguide controls all the rewards. The storyguide is the sole keeper of secret knowledge that the characters don't know (there is a difference between player knowledge and character knowledge). The storyguide decides when to roll dice. The storyguide decides which Ability is pertinent. The storyguide alone knows the target number.
Your Storyguide Information chapter starts out with some really broken ideas:
Since you are reading this section, I will presume that you are the storyguide. As such, congratulations! You have a huge and rewarding task ahead of you. And you have a huge responsibility too.
From my store of over 20 years as a storyguide, I have learnt some of the most important secrets of Role Playing and I am about to share them with you! ^_^
Firstly, Role Playing is meant to be fun, and it is your responsibility to make it fun. Your goal as a storyguide is to make things fun for your players. If you succeed, you will find that you have a great deal of fun too. If you fail, not only will it be no fun for you, but in a shorter or longer period of time the entire group will fall apart.
So make it fun!
First of all, is the storyguide section super-secret-GM-only info? I don't think you mean that. But then you do the whole, "I am about to share the most important secrets of role-playing with you" thing, like it's a branch of the Masons.
Second, it is not the GM's responsibility to make the game fun. God, I hate that attitude. I used to believe it myself, and I was the sole GM for my groups for decades, too. I was good at it, but I was a control freak. So please take all this advice as one control freak to another. I've been there and I know the signs. Let go... Why is it not the responsibility of everyone at the table to make the game fun? If your group falls apart, why not ask every player, "What did you do to make the game fun?"
Secondly, and in order to keep things fun, it is your job to keep balance. Make sure the players are balanced against each other:
1. Give each player equal amounts of time with their hero in the spotlight.
2. Make sure situations arise in which each hero can show off their Talents.
3. Give the heroes (relatively) equal rewards – whether they be money, magical items, allies etc.
4. If one hero is comparatively too powerful, help the other heroes catch up.
This is really broken. What is a Talent a reward for doing? For showing up? Is it a carrot to keep the game fun for them? Is it duct tape to keep the game together? It is not a boon for playing well?
You've just scuttled your game with this section. Do you really play that way yourself? "Huh, even though Bob's been a really great player, Cindy is way behind in Talents, so I'll give her more to catch up with Bob." How does that make Bob feel? Do you think Cindy really appreciates the extra Talents she got for doing essentially nothing? Do you think no one at the table notices that rewards seem to have nothing to do with how well people play?
This, more than anything, goes to Creative Agenda. What behaviors are rewarded in the game? If you want a Narrativist game, it has to reward people who Address Premise. If you want a Gamist game, it has to reward people who Step On Up. If you want a Simulationist game, it has to reward people who defend their Right to Dream. Your game doesn't do any of those things. As written, it rewards showing up. If you are curious about understanding how the Affinity games that you run fit into all that GNS stuff, post an account in the Actual Play forum and we'll help you figure it out. If you play according to these rules as written -- and I suspect you do not -- your game is likely very incoherent in terms of Creative Agenda.
Also make sure that the players are balanced against their enemies.
* It is no fun for the players if heroes always lose to their enemies.
* Nor is it fun for the players if every fight is a total walkover.
* Give them some situations they can handle easily, some that are harder, and some that are too tough for them to handle without a lot of planning and forethought.
* But remember, in all good stories the heroes win in the end. And hero deaths should be infrequent.
What exactly is the contribution of the player in this game? This is classic illusionist gaming. The GM puts on a play and the players get to pretend they have a role in it. Through careful manipulation via rewards and social dominance, the GM gets the players to do exactly as he wishes. Characters are never in real danger because the GM controls everything, and maybe even fudges some target numbers after the dice hit the table (after all, the target number was secret anyway!). No matter what actions the players take, the GM has a conclusion in mind. Most of the time, the players aren't really aware of how little control they have, or they are but don't want to think about it.
If you play D&D 3.5 more or less by the book, you get a game where a player's decisions matter. Make the wrong choice in character creation or during a battle, and you're sent back to the Player's Handbook to make a new PC to replace your dead one. Or you get someone else in your party killed and the other players glare at you. But if you play well, everyone at the table knows it and they cheer you and clap you on the back and it rocks. What you do matters.
If you play Dogs in the Vineyard by the book, you get a game where a player's decisions matter. You, the player, decide the fates of townspeople and pass holy judgment on them. How you play your character is then judged by the other real people at the table. "Wow, Adam, you shot that girl because her older cousin slept with her? Do you have some issues we need to talk about?" After the game, the discussion can be intense. What you do matters.
If you play some theoretical Simulationist game set in the Star Wars universe, you get a game where the player's decisions matter. If you try to bring in some Dr. Who element, the players get on your case because you've violated the canon. If you come to the table and aren't familiar with the thematic material and make continuity mistakes, it ruins the game for people. But if you can really nail the Star Wars universe in a way that connects with the visions of the other players, you get a great game. What you do matters.
Tell me how what a player does matters. Don't tell me how they make great stories, because they're not. The storyguide is making the stories. Don't tell me how their player actions matter, because they don't. Whatever they do, the storyguide will still give them the same rewards. Don't tell me what the characters do. That doesn't matter one iota, because they're not real people.
On 6/23/2006 at 9:53am, John Bromberger wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
Hi Adam! ^_^
wrote: Welcome to the Forge, John. I'm gonna say some hard things in this post, but that's why you're here, right? Try not to get too defensive and think about what I'm saying.
No offence taken, and I will indeed try not to get too defensive. I truly appreciate your comments. And I do indeed appreciate that you care. ^_^
wrote: Who determines what "natural consequence" arises from a player's action? I assume, your storyguide. So it's all basically left to GM-fiat. If you have a good GM, you'll have a good game. If you don't have a good GM, you'll not have a good game.
Correct, sadly enough. I pretty much state that. For this style of game, the only way you are truly going to enjoy it is with a good storyguide.
wrote: What does Affinity provide?
Merely an aid to the group, to help them have fun.
wrote: You want players to have freedom of choice, but really they are playing at a game of "please the storyguide."
Actually, if you read the storyguide section, the storyguide is playing at a game of "please the players", not the other way around. ^_^
wrote: To succeed, they have to second-guess the GM and figure out what will earn them new Talents.
It seems I wasn't explicit enough here, so I'll clarify it both here and in the game itself. Players get one Talent per session attended. Talents are one reward that is solely in the hands of the players.
The only thing I had (or intended to have) in the hands of the storyguide was the timing the group Talent gain. I've updated the rules to put that squarely in the hands of the players, just so there can be no confusion. ^_^
I guess I hadn't properly considered the possibility of a control freak as storyguide.
wrote: There's also a theme of "the storyguide is a control freak" throughout the rules. The storyguide controls all the rewards.
Not intended. Talent gain is meant to be squarely in the hands of the players. Thanks for pointing out that that was not clear!
wrote: The storyguide is the sole keeper of secret knowledge that the characters don't know (there is a difference between player knowledge and character knowledge).
True. Ish.
Players always find things out that they shouldn't. And despite their best intentions, that extra knowledge colours their actions, especially when they are very attached to their character (which happens in all role playing games).
The intention is for the storyguide not to ruin the players' fun by revealing too much up front.
wrote: The storyguide decides when to roll dice. The storyguide decides which Ability is pertinent. The storyguide alone knows the target number.
Yes, yes-no and yes.
The storyguide has to decide when a dice roll is needed. This is part of setting the target number. He only asks for a roll when success is neither guaranteed nor impossible.
I'm hoping which Ability is pertinent should be specified pretty clearly in the rules.
I know that doesn't happen in a lot of games, but I have put a lot of work into defining exactly which actions fit under which ability. I'd actually appreciate some critisim along the lines of which actions don't fit clearly and squarely under one of them.
And yes, the target number is hidden. This is necessary - the characters would not know exactly how difficult a task is, and player knowledge affects their actions. However, the storyguide does not roll dice. Its a fixed target number, and base difficulties are detailed in the section on difficulties. Its not hard for the players to figure out if the storyguide starts doing a lot of fudging.
wrote: First of all, is the storyguide section super-secret-GM-only info? I don't think you mean that.
You're right, I don't. ^_^
wrote: But then you do the whole, "I am about to share the most important secrets of role-playing with you" thing, like it's a branch of the Masons.
Gotcha!
Its not the storyteller section which is secret though. Its the ultra obvious fact that if you help the players have fun, you will have more fun yourself.
wrote: Second, it is not the GM's responsibility to make the game fun.
Is it not? Is it not, as you say, everyone's responsibility? And is the storyguid not one member of that everyone? So it is the storyguide's responsibility.
And in this type of system, the storyguide has the most ability to ruin the game. Thus he has the most responsibility not to do so.
What I am trying to say here, is "don't be a control freak!".
wrote: If your group falls apart, why not ask every player, "What did you do to make the game fun?"
Trying to place blame afterwards never helps.
The point I was trying to make, was not that it was the storyguide's fault if the game fell apart.
Instead, I was simply pointing out that in this type of game the storyguide had the greatest opportunity to ruin the game for everyone - so don't do it.
wrote: This is really broken. What is a Talent a reward for doing? For showing up? Is it a carrot to keep the game fun for them? Is it duct tape to keep the game together? It is not a boon for playing well?
A Talent is a reward for showing up. Or otherwise simply for playing, whether you show up or not.
wrote: You've just scuttled your game with this section. Do you really play that way yourself? "Huh, even though Bob's been a really great player, Cindy is way behind in Talents, so I'll give her more to catch up with Bob." How does that make Bob feel? Do you think Cindy really appreciates the extra Talents she got for doing essentially nothing? Do you think no one at the table notices that rewards seem to have nothing to do with how well people play?
Its known to everyone up front that this particular reward - Talent gain - has nothing to do with "how well people play". Everyone has the same number of Talents.
Other rewards cater for "how well people play", or in words I prefer "the style in which they play" - stunts, possessions, allies.
wrote: What behaviors are rewarded in the game? If you want a Narrativist game, it has to reward people who Address Premise. If you want a Gamist game, it has to reward people who Step On Up. If you want a Simulationist game, it has to reward people who defend their Right to Dream. Your game doesn't do any of those things.
I hear you. You are trying to pigeonhole my game into your predefined (but generally accepted) categories.
You are welcome to. But I never agreed to aim for any one of these pigeonholes. Hopefully you can accept that?
wrote: As written, it rewards showing up.
It. The one reward you have picked out. ^_^
The reward I have specifically designed to reward everyone equally, in utter disappointment at systems which allow players to be "channeled" through the ability of others (generally the storyguide) to award "XP".
Talent gain is one reward - all are equal.
No other reward in the system is equal.
wrote: What exactly is the contribution of the player in this game? This is classic illusionist gaming. The GM puts on a play and the players get to pretend they have a role in it.
Oh my, no. I really thought I had specified exactly the opposite. Look at the Player Information section.
- The players get to direct the play.
- The storyguide simply gets to play along in the direction they choose to go.
The one point that has really been coming across is that I have not been clear enough!
Kind regards
John
On 6/23/2006 at 2:57pm, Adam Dray wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
I think the best place to take this at this point is to Actual Play. Can you post some accounts of games from your playtesting?
I don't agree with many of your responses, but I don't think I'll get far if I try to debate you point by point. Yes, I think that your game says the things I claimed, and yes, I'm willing to believe to some extent that you're just not being clear about your design intentions.
As for the GNS stuff, I'm not trying to pigeonhole your game. Your game can fall into any of those categories or none. I was responding to several posts in which you specifically referred to Narrativism [1] or told us what matters in your game [2].
Specifically in the latter, you say:
My DWM mechnics are
- Talents and Talent synergy (doing amazing things is what matters)
- Stunting (description is what matters)
Assuming the "what matters" is "what matters to the players/storyguide," that's a Creative Agenda. Depending on what you think "amazing" is, it could be Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist, and nothing short of a strong Actual Play example is going to tell us which you mean. If your game has strong support for one of those three things, it will more predictably produce fun play.
Regarding this bit: "Players always find things out that they shouldn't. And despite their best intentions, that extra knowledge colours their actions, especially when they are very attached to their character (which happens in all role playing games)." There are many examples of RPGs that tell players all kinds of things their characters don't know, yet somehow the players manage to play on. What are you afraid a player will do? Consider this: The storyguide has all kinds of information that his characters (NPCs, monsters) don't have. Can the storyguide play without the extra knowledge coloring his actions? Why is the storyguide an exception?
Some general things that I think will make your game better:
• Make it clear what each player's and the storyguide's responsibilities are for making the game more fun for everyone.
• Make it clear what kind of behaviors your mechanics reward. In fact, please share that here, because I want to discuss it more.
• Make it clear what power the players have to make their mark on the fiction. Is it just reacting to the storyguide, or is there an active role for them?
• Seriously reconsider the bit about players not being able to play their characters properly if they have too much information.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 20121
On 6/26/2006 at 7:57am, John Bromberger wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
Hey Adam. ^_^
Adam wrote: I don't agree with many of your responses, but I don't think I'll get far if I try to debate you point by point. Yes, I think that your game says the things I claimed, and yes, I'm willing to believe to some extent that you're just not being clear about your design intentions.
I can see that you honestly believe it, and I do appreciate your comments. I guess I just don't really understand them. Perhaps that will come with time.
Posting to actual play - I guess I would, if I could see the benefit. I might at some point, but ... to some extent it doesn't matter what my actual play is like if (as you say) it does not show in the game design itself.
Adam wrote: As for the GNS stuff, I'm not trying to pigeonhole your game.
Thanks. ^_^
As Filip and others pointed out to me, I apparently misunderstood the way the word Narrativism is used in the GNS model. I meant that story is my goal, which I now understand to fall under Simulation?
Adam wrote: Assuming the "what matters" is "what matters to the players/storyguide,"
I'm glad you put that assuming in there!
What matters to the players and the storyguide is having fun, not these things.
These things only matter in that they cause enjoyment ...
Adam wrote: What are you afraid a player will do? Consider this: The storyguide has all kinds of information that his characters (NPCs, monsters) don't have. Can the storyguide play without the extra knowledge coloring his actions? Why is the storyguide an exception?
I'm not afraid of it at all. Truly.
It is simply my judgement that it is more fun (and more "real") if the players don't know what their characters don't know. What is the fun in finding out what you already know?
The storyguide is only an exception because he has to be. Ideally, he shouldn't know what his npc's don't know either!
Adam wrote: Some general things that I think will make your game better:
Thank you for the list! ^_^
Making responsibilities clear - would you suggest I add a section, something along the lines of "Player and Storyguide roles: It is the players role to design heroes and describe those heroes' actions. It is the storyguide's role to design the setting and situation, and describe the effects of the heroes actions on the world around them." To me, making things fun for those around you is not what you do - different people find different things fun - but an attitude of wanting to make things fun which naturally leads to fun.
Behaviours I mechanically reward - I haven't specifically set out to reward many types of behaviour. I don't want to. The behaviour I try to reward, is "playing"! You play, you get Talents. You play (by describing) and you get stunt bonuses.
The power the players have ... I think I've dealt with this? It is to direct the story.
Also as stated, minimising player information is not about playing properly. It is about making the game fun for the players - which is really what games are all about.
Kind regards
John
On 6/26/2006 at 6:12pm, Adam Dray wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
As Filip and others pointed out to me, I apparently misunderstood the way the word Narrativism is used in the GNS model. I meant that story is my goal, which I now understand to fall under Simulation?
No, "story" is common to all kinds of role-playing, regardless of Creative Agenda (if the player even has one). All "story" means is some kind of continuity in the fiction. You can trace A to B to C as events in the fiction. That's all. There've been numerous threads here and on the Story Games forum about what makes a good story, and it generally goes to things like "a beginning, a middle, and an end" and "escalating conflict, resolution, and the protagonists change as a result." Creative Agenda is only tangentially related.
I feel at this point that I have little to add to this thread. Do you have any questions? Realize that you and I have very different philosophies on what makes a good game and my answers and advice will come from a place that doesn't seem to mesh with your design beliefs. If you have nothing further, I'll bow out.
On 6/27/2006 at 7:37am, John Bromberger wrote:
RE: Re: [Affinity] Please playtest or comment on this RPG. ^_^
Hey again, Adam. ^_^
Adam wrote: All "story" means is some kind of continuity in the fiction. You can trace A to B to C as events in the fiction. That's all.
How can I put it? Enjoyable immersion?
Adam wrote: I feel at this point that I have little to add to this thread. Do you have any questions? Realize that you and I have very different philosophies on what makes a good game
Thanks for your comments ... and no, I don't have any more questions.
We do seem to have very different philosophies, don't we?
Kind regards
BrokenShade