What is Shattered Vistas?

Shattered Vistas is a game about life.  Life that sucks hard and is an uphill battle, possibly filled with eldritch horrors and ninjas.

In Shattered Vistas, reality is *broken*.  The world’s ended, it’s up to you to clean up the mess, or at least hold things off as long as you can.  The Vistas are a dark place, and they get a little worse every day.

As a hero, you go into dungeons, kill things, and take their stuff.  But its more than that.  The things that you fight are bound into the fate of the world.  The more you confront monsters in dark caves, the more you confront intrinsic laws that govern life and bind everyone into misery.  Can you throw everything away for the sake of others?

As a player, you have hardcore resource management options.  Think the hidden combat orders of Burning Wheel or Diplomacy combined with blind bidding and lists of kewl powers.  Also buckets of dice.  I love me some rolling of buckets of dice.

Two questions:

Does this appeal to you?

Is there anything that seems particularly problematic?

It sounds like you have a clear vision of the game's color (desperate struggle in the face of encroaching chaos), mechanical stuff, and central activity of play (mission-based dungeon scenarios linked by a sort of gunslinger/Delta-Green moral question). All this is very good.

As far as whether or not anything seems like a problem, more detail on the system and how it informs a session of play would really be needed. Can you give us the executive summary?

Willow,

A question: If the characters know their pilfering destroys the world, why do they engage it in?

Your premise reminds me a bit of  "Power Kill ", the editorial-disguised-as-a-game by John Tynes within the Puppetland RPG. I may be wrong...

Regards,

Erick

Erick-

I may have misrepresented my setting by putting a quick joke in there.

One of the points of the setting is that life sucks, and the world is out to get you.  It's easy to fight the obvious stuff:  go into the dragon's lair, kill it (and because it's there), take it's stuff.  After a certain point, you have to get into dealing with corruption among humans and among the fabric of reality.  Pilfering ancient ruins (at least at first) does indeed make the world a better place, but there comes a time when you have to move on.

So no, this isn't supposed to be satire.

James-

The game's in a very alpha stage, but let me give you a basic rundown of the mechanics.

Each player is going to have a variety of stats, power-ups that give bonuses to certain types of things, specific combat maneuvers, and some magic spells.  I'm looking at a D&D or Burning Wheel level of character depth.  Every character has at least two Reserves, which are basically pools of dice: an Effort Reserve (for things where the character is really pushing themselves to succeed), and a Fate Reserve (for things where the character is getting a lucky break from the universe.)  Other types of character-specific reserves are possible: a really strong character might have a Strength Reserve.

The GM has a Dharma level and a Kharma reserve.  For basic tasks like 'do I get past the trapped door?' SV uses a very tasky resolution- it's an opposed roll between the player, and the GM's Dharma level.  If the GM wants to make the door harder to get past, he has to spend Kharma.  For conflicts against characters, conflict is round by round, and the NPC will have a character sheet, but not reserves of its own- those have to come from the GM's Kharma.

The ideal framework of play is Figure Out the Problem, Find the Problem, Kill the Problem (and take its stuff), all the while encountering minions/obstacles along the way and having to make hard choices about how to spend one's resources.

Hi Willow,

I think I get your general idea: the PCs therein engage in "Problem-Solving Adventures", right?

About your premise, I was simply curious on how your vision reconciled these two elements:

1) "Repairing the broken universe", i.e. heroic self-sacrifice for the whole.
2) Engaging in the "Holy Trinity" of pilfering (corridor-monster-treasure), i.e. amoral looting.

Unless I'm wrong again, from this layman's eyes these two seem at odds... In what way would the PCs be motivated to do both?

Is this contradiction the focus of your game's premise, e.g. "How can I choose between saving the world for everyone's long-term advantage and pilfering it for my short-term advantage?" Say, like the "rogue with a golden heart" Han Solo in Star Wars IV, who finally chooses heroic rebellion over mercenary life? It'd be interesting to see contradictory reward mechanics corresponding to those... a smaller, short term reward for pilfering and a longer to have, bigger for moral action... Just an idea.

Cheers,

Erick

Is this the same game I read and posted about on indieunderground?

Mike

Erick- I guess we just don't see things the same way.  I agree that that's an interesting idea there, but it's not really what I'm going for.

Mike- Yep.  More or less.

A link to those discussions we had could get some people fast-forwarded to where they could give better advice, Willow.

Or do you think that your ideas there are out of date?

Mike

Mike,

Unfortunately, the site suffered some back end issues and is no longer available.

Regards,
Daniel

wrote: But its more than that.  The things that you fight are bound into the fate of the world.  The more you confront monsters in dark caves, the more you confront intrinsic laws that govern life and bind everyone into misery.  Can you throw everything away for the sake of others?

What is Shattered Vistas?

Shattered Vistas is a game about exploring dungeons, killing things, and taking their stuff. Life that sucks hard and is an uphill battle, possibly filled with eldritch horrors and ninjas.

In Shattered Vistas, reality is *broken*. The world’s ended. The Vistas are a dark place, and they get a little worse every day.

As a hero, you go into dungeons, kill things, and take their stuff.

As a player, you have hardcore resource management options. Think the hidden combat orders of Burning Wheel or Diplomacy combined with blind bidding and lists of kewl powers. Also buckets of dice. I love me some rolling of buckets of dice.

Hi Willow,

I think Joshua has just expressed very clearly the exact oxymoronic interrogation that I tried miserably to convey with my earlier question in this thread. (That's what I meant by wondering about the two "opposite premises" of "heroic deeds" vs "amoral looting", from a rules angle, not implying that any of them isn't fun.)

Yeah, Joshua got to it before I did.  I'm going to say it in stronger words, though.

Over on story-games, you said this:

The game is primarily about the game itself, the resource management, the conflict system, and resolution.  I'm approaching it from a primarily Gamist standpoint, but there's some chrome that seeps in along the edges (setting and color).

I thought I was supposed to be Bad Cop! We gotta get this straight!

Willow, (What's your real name?) write down, without any need to convince anyone of anything, what your game is and does. Let's go from there.

Ouch.  Harsh but fair.  I have to mull this over.

And actually, Willow *is* my real name.

Willow wrote:
Ouch.  Harsh but fair.  I have to mull this over.

And actually, Willow *is* my real name.

Word.  In fact, I'd be more likely to pick up a game that said it was all about hard core resource-shifting and strategy rather than "life is tough" Oliver Twist platitudes.

Here's a post from my blog about the game in a more designy sort of way, that might provide a broader picture of the game and what I'm trying to do.  (And it was also crossposted to indiegamingunderground, so this is the one that Mike Holmes has seen before)

http://willowrants.wordpress.com/2006/04/30/reserve-system-the-power-19/
Probably the most straightforward 'what is this game,' write-up I have; there are some ideas about self-sacrifice and choices that I think in retrospect conflict with the gamey parts of the design that I care more about.

Hey Willow,

I used my Search-fu. Hi-ya! I think this is the thread that Mike Holmes was referencing. Also Willow you should be able to recapture anything you need for your game that was previously on indiegamingunderground.com here by using the cached links. Hope this helps your discussion.

Joshua wrote:
Which makes your present ad copy pretty much bullshit. Shattered Vistas is not about life, it is not about sacrifice.  What you've got above in the OP is a high-gloss snowjob.  You need to ditch this ad copy, and quickly.  Because if I bought your book expecting to get game about life, broken reality, and sacrifice and instead I got some resource-shifting game rewarding cleverness and tactical finesse, I'd be pissed.  Your ad copy cannot be a broken promise.  That's the quick route to the trashcan.

If the game is about clever use of tactics and resources, say that.

Callan, that's not true. You're muddying the waters for a new designer here. Gamism is about confronting challenges as a player. That is incompatible with confronting theme.

The crunchiness here is not a factor. It's the desire of the players. If they're confronting themes of self-sacrifice, the system has to support that. If it's a tactical resource management game in a cool setting (that implies, but doesn't demand self-sacrifice) then it's a different thing.

I wrote an article about this over on my blog. I'm pretty sure I'm right.

I'll essentially agree with Joshua on his last comment. Words aren't just words. Sacrifice is about losing something important to oneself for the benefit of someone else without any quantifiable benefit to yourself, e.g. spending your own permanent XP reserve to give someone else a few Hit Points in critical times. Which is why, earlier, I wondered if Willow's game had that sense of sacrifice into the game mechanics themselves. Many games have a knee-jerk reflex of putting advertising that doesn't really correspond to what the game does when applied. Unfortunately, this seldom-realized contradiction creates both unsatisfied customers and designers, because of a simple misunderstanding about a game's true goals. It's a tragic flaws common in Fantasy Heartbreakers - not suggesting Willow's game is one, for I don't know enough of it to have an opinion on the matter.

The example of sacrifice mechanisms above comes from the actual 2nd edition of my RPG, the Chronicles of Erdor (i.e. the power provided by the "Secret of Messianics" is to sacrifice oneself selflessly for the sake of others, without personal gain). My 3rd edition, with another system, offers the possibility to lose Trait dice temporarily (for a scenario) or permanently (forever) to lessen the consequences of an action for the world at large (e.g. reducing a Catastrophy scale by 1D for 1D sacrificed temporarily, or by 2D for every 1 die of sacrifice). Surprisingly, in actual playtest all players deliberately sacrificed their stat dice to save innocents during the last challenge, one even lost permanent Trait dice for this stake *at their first game session*. All this to save a single person who was a sympathetic criminal who had repented his sins... So it is possible for a game to be about sacrifice from both the character and the player's perspective, by "losing" actual game values for strictly "subjective/moral" outcomes. I'm not sure this is exactly what Willow wants to do with her game, which seems "Gamist" (according to GNS classification). despite the original pitch which seemed a bit oxymoronic as to include both a Gamist (carefree looting) and Narrativist (self-sacrifice) premise.

Is self-sacrifice possible or desirable in Gamist games? That's another debate. I'm not sure that question is relevant to Willow's design concerns anyhow. Willow, I suggest you check out the POWER 19 questionnaire: it was very helpful in allowing me to check for inconsistencies in my 3rd edition's design, and there were inconsistencies despite this being 3rd edition. This shouldn't be understood as a wanton critic, but help in assisting you with refining what exactly you want your game to be about and what you want to incite your players to do within it. :)

Cheers,

Erick

Joshua wrote:
Callan, that's not true. You're muddying the waters for a new designer here. Gamism is about confronting challenges as a player. That is incompatible with confronting theme.

The crunchiness here is not a factor. It's the desire of the players. If they're confronting themes of self-sacrifice, the system has to support that. If it's a tactical resource management game in a cool setting (that implies, but doesn't demand self-sacrifice) then it's a different thing.

Here's tricky question for you - my character just saved a significant part of reality and it's people from collapsing into a void hell while my PC is disfigured to do it (looses his face), because damn I suddenly had an inspiration with the system and improved my use of it significantly (my PC would be dead otherwise).

Hello Willow,

This topic has picqued my curiosity. Plus, its at the top of the list now. Sacrifice has served two purposes: satisfy the demands of a higher power; lose something of value to forward an objective.

Dictionary.com has an entry for Sacrifice:
1. the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage. 
2. the person, animal, or thing so offered. 
3. the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim. 
4. the thing so surrendered or devoted. 
5. a loss incurred in selling something below its value. 
6. Also called sacrifice bunt, sacrifice hit. Baseball. a bunt made when there are fewer than two players out, not resulting in a double play, that advances the base runner nearest home without an error being committed if there is an attempt to put the runner out, and that results in either the batter's being put out at first base, reaching first on an error made in the attempt for the put-out, or being safe because of an attempt to put out another runner. 
–verb (used with object)
7. to make a sacrifice or offering of. 
8. to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else. 
9. to dispose of (goods, property, etc.) regardless of profit. 
10. Baseball. to cause the advance of (a base runner) by a sacrifice. 
–verb (used without object)
11. Baseball. to make a sacrifice: He sacrificed with two on and none out. 
12. to offer or make a sacrifice.

I've read the posts several times and I've failed to understand how self-sacrifice works in your game. I followed the Reserve sytem link and read the power19. I can imagine the feel of the world you are trying to create and to me it has a Warhammer FRP tone mixed with TORG and RIFTS. Creating a setting is relatively easy compared to defining a gaming style.

So, maybe self-sacrifice is one ot those things that gamers would really like to see, but it must be defined to satisfy the language and the concepts of the game. That you use the word self-sacrifice makes me think that parts of the character are given up to save the world. So, what you are giving up has a current value in terms of game play and now that value has been reduced. It follows that its something very important and there are no work-arounds or alternatives. Its gone and you will now feel the consequences of the sacrifice. Sacrifice and suffering can be a badge for many people "Look what I have given up to save the world." That can be part of the game in that you get bragging rights, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Callan's example of the missing face is a good example of how to look at self-sacrifice. Is it merely a way to add color, thereby intesifying the experience or does it affect a game mechanic? I can see the consequences of both, but neither is more honorable. Its just something that happens. Many gamers mentally reduce a wonderful setting down to game mechanics and other gamers embrace the setting as a story. You may attract both types, but there still has to be something in the game that satisfies both.

You have an opportunity to include self-sacrifice, sacrifice, mechanics and color to your game. Do know that the gamer community is vast and your game will be picked apart. I would even go so far as to say it could be sacrificed in lieu of the greater good of gaming.

Troy

Willow, reducing player effectiveness for saving the world is no good. Transferring character effectiveness to player effectiveness is. I actually think it's what Callan's saying:

My character's face melts off; no one will ever believe her that she's the great hero. She's a beggar on the street with a mysterious past.

But!

What I've traded for are identically (or more) powerful resources for effecting the game world. I now have, say, narrative control over the part of the world that I've saved. When someone interacts with that part, I use it like a character; I control NPCs in that saved part of the world, for instance, or I control the weather there, or whatever. It obeys my will as a player, not a character.

wrote: the Sacrifice Reserve.  This is a set of points that can be spent for super-awesome effectiveness, have a color effect of some sort of personal sacrifice (which doesn't impair the character, stat-wise), and never come back, ever, even if your character dies and you start a new one.

Ron Edwards wrote:     Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation, System, Color] provide an arena for the competition.

Ron wrote: Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:

• Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.
• Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.
• Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.

Callan, I suppose self-sacrifice can be an input into Gamist design, yeah. Whoever has the greatest effect on the world is the awesomest, stuff like that. Nonetheless, it's a potent and traditional dramatic theme and I think that's why Willow chose it.

I think we're worrying too much about the agenda the game will promote. We're looking at something that may be hybrid here, or have similar qualities. That is, it may be that what's really going on is that it's narrativism with a lot of mechanics that do challenge the player somewhat to move the numbers around creatively, but in the end are about theme. Or we might have a gamism game where the color is all about the values that are being supported. It's quite possible to produce theme as a byproduct of gamism play (even in D&D, much less a game where that's part of the design). The theory doesn't say that this is impossible, merely that in gamism that players aren't intending to produce theme with their decisions - in this case it would be, again, an accidental byproduct.

There aren't many examples of this, but it's always been acknowledged that it's possible. Take, for instance, Pantheon.

So, whether it's crunchy gamism with color about life and reality, or crunchy narrativism producing mechanics, either way she isn't doing wrong by mentioning that the game does have these themes - whether or not they're player produced or not. Call of Cthulhu has a theme of "Dispair in the face of the unknown." The game creates this theme, it's not something that the players do as part of play. So it doesn't promote narrativism. That doesn't mean that theme isn't there. Just not Edwardsian "Premise."

I think that we'll probably have to wait a considerable while until Willow shows us some mechanics before we can really see if it'll be narrativism, gamism, hybrid, or incoherent.

Mike

Mike, you're right: we need to see mechanics and a paragraph (lists of questions, whatever) that says what the game's about in an honest way.

I look forward to seeing that.

Willow,

You've got a good idea for a game and it requires attention, exploration and development. Look at it from all angles and never let go of the original thought and feeling that made you want to create this game. Look at what you and your game needs. I think it needs a hands on approach from people you can talk to face-to-face or at least have some comfort with them. Get with your friends or pick some people and communicate with them in private mail.

Ignore what the forum needs or wants of you. If you think the forum is helping you then continue, otherwise close this topic. Your style of creating the game doesn't appear to jive with some of the forum members and you will be dissected and treated impersonally until you can satisfy them.

Do you notice a few people who just get under your skin? Take a look at their other posts and you'll be amazed.

And I apologize for not checking my mail. I hope your rummy-fight game is successful.

Troy

Troy-

First of all, RummyFight! is relatively successful (in that I played it a couple of times, killed some time, and told some wierd stories.)  I can't find a link to the file, maybe I never put it on the internet, but it's a fun little game, and I should make it available.

Troy, that's good advice.  Some people are asking me the questions that I'm not asking myself, whereas some people (even me, a little bit) are getting caught up on matters of GNS.  I haven't run out of uses for this thread, but there's one thing I want to address:

Let's put the issue of creative agendae and GNS on hold here. There's more relevant questions to be asked.

Ok, now that we're not using the G-word or the N-word or the S-word, I've figured out what my personal agendae are for this game:

1)  Create a game with really cool game mechanics that can be as tactically enjoyable as the typical German Boardgame.

2)  Create a game that effectively conveys the feel of the setting: a world that is actively hostile to those that live in it.

(I went into huge detail about what I think makes a game tactically enjoyable.  I wrote a bunch of random stuff about it in my 'On Game Theory' essays on my blog.  I link to those is on my 'best of' page: http://willowrants.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/best-of-willowrants/ If you want to really get into #1 with me, reading those is a good way to get inside my head.)

So what I'm specifically looking for right now is:

Are there any game mechanics that don't help either of these goals?
Are there any game mechanics that help one goal but not the other (or worse, at the expense of the other?)
Can you think of a way to make any of these mechanics even cooler?

Quick update before the basics of the SV rules:

I've found the short rules for Rummy Fight!  They're the last post of this thread:http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19028.0

Shattered Vistas:

The core mechanic of Shattered Vistas is that everything is an opposed roll of d6s.  The die pool is typically Stat + Modifiers + Reserves Spent.  Any roll of 4 or above is a success, and 6s rolled have some sort of extra effect.

There are two types of rolls:

Task Rolls are basically task resolution.  If it's between two characters, they secretly write down the Reserves they are spending, and then reveal and roll.  If it's between a person and 'the world' (picking a lock, crossing a river, searching for traps) the GM has a die-pool equal to the Reality Shard's Dharma Level (i.e. how much this place sucks).  The GM can spend his Kharma to increase this die pool.  After he does that, THEN the player decides what kind of Reserve dice he wants to spend.

Here's a neat trick with this:  suppose a master lockpicker is picking a masterpiece lock.  The Dharma level is 3, so the GM rolls 3 dice.  But suppose the GM wants this lock to be particularly challenging (either because he wants to burn out the player's dice, or because his notes say it's a master lock, and he doesn't think it's "realistic" to have a 3 die master lock, or whatever.)  So he spends 5 Kharma, and now it's an 8 die lock.

The winner is whoever rolls more successes.  I'm thinking of a light-stakes method, but I'm not sure how much I want to veer in either way.  I'm also thinking of a traditional narration rights split (but perhaps a campaign option where the players get a 'Narration Reserve')
Also, both participants do damage to each other.  The winner does damage equal to the number of net successes they rolled, plus the number of 6s they rolled.  The loser does damage equal to the number of 6s they rolled.  Damage can represent physical wounds, mental doubt, or fraying of one's soul, or myriad other things.  There's some armor, but after that's applied, each point of damage translates to a -1 die to all rolls.

If there's absolutely no way that either side can see how damage could be applied, the winner gets bonus dice to their next roll against the loser equal to (Winner's net successes, plus winner's 6s rolled, minus loser's 6s rolled- if that's negative, nobody gets anything)

Extended Conflicts:

In an extended conflict, both sides (or multiple participants on each side) secretly pick a Maneuver each round, and write down their reserve expenditures.  Extended conflicts are always only between characters, not characters and the world.  (I'm still sketchy on whether or not I'm going to allow writing up innanimate objects as NPCs.  Pro:  It lets there be more variety for conflicts, and it certainly has a whole 'hostile animism' vibe.  Con:  It will require some massive alterations for the maneuvers.)

One important thing to note is that Extended Conflicts do not have stakes; individual Maneuvers have stakes.  Most of the time, it's just 'do damage to your opponent' or some tactical variant, but there's a whole class of Maneuvers that have the potential to end the conflict in one way or the other.  (More on this later.)

So you reveal what everyone has, you roll the dice, and you apply the results of your maneuvers.  You keep going until someone manages to polish off the conflict.  Essentially, it's the Task rules, but drawn out to facilitate tactical thinking.

How the Maneuvers Work:

Each Maneuver has a number of components:  a success result, a '6' result, additional bonuses and drawbacks, and some keywords.

Take the typical attack maneuver: it's exactly what's used in the Task Resolution.  You do damage equal to your net successes, and you do damage equal to your 6s rolled, no matter what.  It has the ATTACK keyword, and either the PHYSICAL, MENTAL, or SPIRITUAL keyword (which affects which trait you roll, what kind of damage it does, and what sort of armor applies to it.)

There's the typical defense maneuver:  Any net successes you get translate to damage reduction, and any 6s you roll also translate to damage reduction.  (So supposing you win, but your opponent rolled 10 6's (!) your net successes and 6s would subtract from that.  If you lost, your 6s still subtract from incoming damage.)  It has the DEFENSE keyword, and either the PHYSICAL, MENTAL, or SPIRITUAL keyword.  (The successes you roll automatically oppose whatever maneuver your opponents throw at you, but the extra successes and 6s only apply against the chosen type of damage.)

There's also a Maneuver maneuver; which gives you bonus dice to future actions.  (Essentially the 'no damage' outcome of a Task Resolution; this is in here so people can do things like 'I sneak up on him and then stab him in the back,' but there's some other cool tricks.

Then there's the conflict ending maneuvers- an Escape that gets you out of battle, a Finish Foe that takes an enemy out of the battle, a Withdraw for villains (pretty nasty- after they've reduced a character to a negative base die pool, they can leave if they win the roll AND gain back Kharma equal to the d6s rolled.  Helpful for those villains that like to see their victims suffer, and fight another day.)

So here's the part I'm really grooving out to:

There's a set of universal maneuvers that everyone knows (probably Attack, Defend, Maneuver, Escape, and Finish Foe, with PHYSICAL and MENTAL variants for those that need it, and a SPIRITUAL variant for Defend.)

Then, the rest of your maneuvers are customizable.  This is a big part of designing your character.  Each maneuver costs you a Power (sort of like D&D feats), and you build it off a list of base maneuvers, 6 results, bonuses (which come with die pool penalties) and drawbacks (which give die pool bonuses).

So you might have as a maneuver:

Defensive Blow (ATTACK, defend, PHYSICAL):  Net successes do physical damage to the opponent.  Any d6s rolled count as Physical damage reduction.

Or:

Mind Blade Strike:  (ATTACK, PHYSICAL, spiritual):  Net successes do physical damage to the opponent.  Any d6s rolled count as spiritual damage to the opponent.

Or:

Scathing Remark (ATTACK, MENTAL, physical): Net successes do mental damage to the opponent.  Any d6s rolled count as physical damage to the opponent.

Or:

Riposte: (DEFEND, maneuver, PHYSICAL):  Net successes count as physical damage reduction.  Any d6s rolled give you bonus dice to your next action against the same opponent.

So building your own maneuvers is a major part of character generation.  The rules are more complex than that (more options and stuff), and I haven't completely written them up yet, but that's the gist.

The Big Game Structure:

So there's this Reality Shard.  It's a little pocket dimension (because the rules of reality that used to hold things together just don't work anymore.)  The Shard has a Dharma level.  That's how bad things are.  Suppose the Dharma level is 5.  The GM's basic die pool is five.  Out there in this shard, there are 5 Samsara Singularities.  Maybe they're people or monsters with a Samsara Shard in them and need killing.  Maybe the Singularity doesn't physically manifest; it exists as a permeable condition in the world that makes life suck.  Example:  After all other factors, half of the harvest withers and dies.

To fight a monster/corrupt person, the PCs need to figure out where it lives, go through it's lair, kill it, and take it's stuff.
To fight a condition, the PCs need to do stuff to mitigate the effects of the condition, thereby weakening it to the point where they can confront it and kill it (and if it has anything, take it's stuff.)

Also, for each point of Dharma in a Reality Shard, the GM gets to assign a special power to the Shard.

(I'm looking at using the something like the Quest frameworks from Agon to add more detail to these Samsara Singularities.  I've recently discovered Agon, and I think there's a lot I can learn from that game.)

To the player characters go along, doing stuff, merrily spending their reserves along the way.  Simultaneously, the GM is burning through his own reserves.

Once the players confront and defeat the Samsara Singularity, all the reserves refresh (including the GM's- note that this is the only way for players to get reserve points back, and the only other way for the GM is the Withdraw Maneuver.)  The player characters gain experience (this is also the only way to gain xp, by defeating a Singularity), and the Dharma level of the Reality Shard reduces by one.  If the Dharma level is reduced to zero, the Reality Shard merges with another Reality Shard of the players' choice.

(Yes, it's possible to get to a point where the party has spent all of their reserves, is really wounded, and can't handle anything the GM throws at them.  Game over man, game over.)

So you'll note that the PCs actually increase in power over time, whereas the power of their opposition decreases.  (The singularities themselves get tougher the further down one goes, but the loss of a Dharma point for the GM is pretty big.)  That's intentional.

The game has a setting called the Confrontation Level, which starts at 1.  After a certain number of Dharma Confrontations (say five or so), the Confrontation Level goes up by 1.  This does a number of things:
Raises the cap on certain PC and NPC abilities.
Increases the GM's Kharma Reserve, and how tough they can make their adversaries.
Increases the Dharma level of all Reality Shards in play by 1.  (If this increases a Shard's Dharma level to 11, the Reality Shard ceases to be, and is forever lost.)
Raises the range of Reality shards the GM is allowed to set for new Reality Shards encountered in play.

So the idea is that game play is similar to playing a computer game like Final Fantasy:  When the player enters a specific "dungeon," the player is a certain level and the monsters are a certain level.  This is orginally a hard fight, but as the player plays more, he gains experience, and eventually the monsters become easy.  When the next dungeon comes around, the monsters are tougher, and the player is challenged anew.

That's something I'm going for: instead of player character power that increases at the same rate as adversarial power, the player power increases gradually at a certain rate, and the adversarial power increases in infrequent but large bursts.

Hello Willow,

Excellent response. I'll check out the rummy-fight post.

I don't fully understand the Dharma and Kharma. I'll read more.

I think pools with success tallies work very well. The basic premise is good, but adding a lot of rules concerning how to use the pool could get mind-boggling (for me). I think I read that 4-6 on a die is success. If you use the 6 as an extra success then you have a stacking situation that could make an imbalance. I suggest that you treat the 6 as an escalated success or activation success. Example: I roll 5 dice to attack, get 3 Successes and 2 Escalation. The defender rolls 5 dice, gets 4 Successes and 1 Escalation. The defender cancels one of my Escalation with his Escalation and wipes out my other successes. The extra Escalation does something. It can just be a point of damage that gets through normal Defense Successes OR activates a special ability. So, one Escalation of the Attack form I'm using activates Feint and the opponent's next attack is reduced by 1 dice. Some abilities may require multiple Escalations; therefore, making those very special and only available when you pump enough reserves into the roll.

Creating maneuvers is a nice idea. It reminds me of the spell casting in Ars Magica. If you use 6 as an Escalation then you could potentially have sub-abilities in your maneuvers that activate when the correct number of Escalation arises. That way, you get damage and maybe a cool effect, or very little damage and a major effect. That would give you some balance instead of just creating stacking critical damage (has that been done?)

Many times I rely on special objects (weapons, spells, circumstances) in a dungeon to defeat the monster residing there. This allows the characters to have two ways of succeeding: attack the monster until it dies (yawn) or discover a unique way of defeating it. Attacking is simple, roll the dice and add the damage. Discovery is better because it introduces something new for the characters. Part of the discovery is finding the object, knowing its purpose and using it against the right challenge at the right time. The corruption factor you talk about comes in. Holding on to the object, becoming greedy or straying from the challenge gives rise to corruption opportunities.

This whole system reminds me of the Zelda games. I liked those because they challenged me mentally. Of course the mechanics are seamless. I can see that being your greatest task: develop the system so it is very fast from declaration to resolution, still allowing you all the options, maneuvers and combinations you want. I find the best systems are the ones where you use the dice as they are. No checking the current dice then rolling additional dice.

Troy