I'm new here, but I've been a refining a setting for both a comic and a roleplaying game. I've hit a few snags in mechanical development, as in, I'm having trouble finding mechanics that express the system's worldview. My setting is a quarantined American midatlantic in 1939. It combines German Expressionist, Gothic and film noir elements to tell the story of a nightmarish metropolis where the lower class has been eradicated and replaced by zombies, and gangsters seek to take power from an upper class that practices necromancy and from vampires seeking to regain their hold on the city. Characters will all be human, I know that much, but I want to find a balance between mechanics and narrativity, as well as a lower emphasis on dice rolling. My question to the game design veterans here, how do you use mechanics to establish a harsh world where the characters are underdogs, but not one where they're splattered against the ground if they forget to untie a shoelace?

Hi Doc,

I kind of see some of the setting. It's sounds cool, but am unsure about other elements and would like to try to refine what it is you see for the game some, before trying to offer advice. Could you answer these questions?

1. What is the game about? By this I don't mean what is the setting. It sounds like it could be about class struggle, or telling particular types of stories (noir), or maybe other things.

2. What do characters do?

3. What do the players and or gamemaster do?

I think these questions should help focus on what you are trying achieve and relay the info in a way we are better able to understand what you are going for.

If you have the time and would like to hear how folks who have designed alot of games use these questions I would suggest listening to the Sons of Kryos recording of the game design seminar from Gen Con SoCal 2005, available here; 1, 2, 3.

Also are you familiar with conflict resolution?

Thanks for the feedback. I'll definitely check out the seminar. To answer your questions, the game is primarily about telling stories of social upheaval, corruption and moral uncertainty. Yes, it is geared toward telling noir stories, but it also deals with some Gothic elements. Characters in the setting might for example, ferret out Nazi officers shipping children from concentration camps to the vampire ghetto to solve both the city's food problems and the need to cover up the Holocaust. Another time players might be doing a job for local mobsters involving releasing certain souls from the necromancers. There is also a resistance organization called the Illuminators who under the direction of a mysterious patron seek to shift the balance of power away from all of the warring factions and into the hands of honest people. The gamemaster serves a fairly conventional gamemaster role as far as I know and the players seek to affect change in the city in favor of their character's particular affiliations. Whether it be Self, Mob, Community, Illuminator or DMM (Dead Man's Mercy, the Corporation responsible for raising zombies and mummifying the rich alive to make them immortal). The paranoid atmosphere and the amount of forces at work allow a GM to shape a deep, rooted noir occult conspiracy to unravel and an array of social problems to solve. For example, figuring out how vampires can fit into the city's niche without causing too much damage, or what Nazi operatives in the city are up to, or (I will check on what's in the public domain) how figures like Count Orlock and Doctor Caligari can be thwarted. I do know Dracula is public domain and the prelude involves Count Dracula's get becoming a wave of immigration. Should Caligari be unusable, I'll create a similar evil mentalist type to be conducting experiments in the local madhouse. I've roleplayed for ages and do know of the various philosophies regarding ability tests, but haven't looked into specific conflict resolution types. I'm tempted to say dicing for things would be a reasonable way to work things out, but I'd like to keep the emphasis off of dicing and charts. I'm thinking of doing a sort of paper doll system for character creation, similar to the traits present in Mind's Eye Theatre vampire LARP. Selecting named traits seems appealing to me, as does simplifying tests and keeping dice rolls few and far between.

Hi Doc,

Let me parrot back what I'm hearing, so I can make sure I understand. So are you saying...

1) The game is about telling dramatic stories in a society that is full of corruption and moral ambiguity. These stories should be heavily flavored by Noir with Gothic color.

2)The characters are heroes trying to right the world.

3)The Gamemaster creates story and plot and has the most story authority. The players respond to elements the Gamemaster introduces through the personae they create and attempt to portray those personae faithfully.

Now it sounds to me that you don't understand what I mean by conflict resolution. I'm using a very specific term, rather than in a more general sense. Forgive me if I'm explaining something you already know. Conflict resolution is a type of resolution system used in roleplaying games that resolves by conflicts rather than single actions. The other type of resolution is task based resolution. Let me give you some examples.

Task based resolution:

The party has finally caught up with Count Orlock, and I'm pissed because he not only killed my daughter but turned her into a Zombie, whom I ended up "re-killing." So I want Orlock to go down hard. I tell the gamemaster, "I'm going to kill the bastard, I pull out my gun and shoot him!" In task based resolution we would then resolve each action, and likely the Gamemaster would narrate the results. So most likely we would roll dice for whether I hit the Count, then roll dice for whether I hurt him, and then how much I hurt him. Then we would take a turn for the Count. We'd countinue until the count or I died or somehow changed the terms of combat.

Conflict Resolution:

The party has finally caught up with Count Orlock, and I'm pissed because he not only killed my daughter but turned her into a Zombie, whom I ended up "re-killing." So I want Orlock to go down hard. I tell the gamemaster, "I'm going to kill the bastard, I pull out my gun and shoot him!" In conflict resolution we would establish what Count Orlock goals are in the scene. So let's say his goals are to humilate us all with his superiority, reveal his plans, and leave us in a precarious position to die. Classic deathtrap villain stuff. He could also try to kill my character, or whatever seems appropriate. We would then use the rules to determine which conflicting position is the one which happens and likely the winner would narrate. so if I won, I could narrate how I shot Orlock in the head, or how there was a big gun battle and I finally got him. If the gamemaster won he could describe how Orlock neutralizes my gun, and leaves us in a death trap. This example is a bit over-simplified, to get across the general ideas of the concept.

So to try to be more clear. You can generally think of Task Resolution as Game Physics. There are certain ways the universe works and resolution is story-neutral. It will be the Game Physics that determine what the narrative is. Whether I can shoot Orlock depends on my skill, possibly attributes, my luck with the randomness, and perhaps my strategic decisions, versus his skill, possibly attributes, the gamemasters luck with the randomness, and perhaps his strategic decisions. Whether Orlock gets me into the death trap depends on those same factors.

Conflict Resolution is about resolving narrative conflicts. It's not Game Physics. We each decide on what our goals are, negotiate if the terms are not acceptable to everyone, and then resolve them. This route is less well mapped as people are still playing with the possibilities, but there are many good examples.

Both methods have their plus and minuses.

I mention all this as I think, "use a conflict resolution system" would be my answer to your initial question. Trying to narrow down what you are trying to achieve was an attempt to get at how you might use conflict resolution.

Conflict resolution in this case does seem more sensible. I hadn't heard of it is a specific game design term before. I think you're right on about conflict resolution, as opposed to task based resolution. That sounds much more functional. Are there are any precedents in conflict resolution for contesting effort and making a narrative outcome more plausible? For example, before the conflict occurs characters bidding points of some kind to simulate effort, passion and motivation applied to the task? In your example, the character would REALLY want to shoot Orlock in the head. Were it possible, he would bid some sort of motivation points to make his success in the scene more probable. Orlock might actually be shorthanded, because as an arrogant vampire overlord, this man with a gun is just something to humiliate and crumble. So, the comparison would be influenced by this contested effort . In a more narrative environment, grudges and emotional distress would have game benefits that could affect conflict resolution, I'd imagine. Is the idea of contested efforts in conflict resolution, old hat, common sense or something that could flavor things substantially, do you think?

Because I believe in a good example being worth a thousand words, I suggest that the good doctor finds his way to CRN Games and downloads himself a game called The Shadow of Yesterday. It's an excellent fantasy adventure game that uses both conflict resolution and expendable resources like you suggest, among other useful mechanical ideas. One of its benefits is that the game is available for free. Or at least should be, I haven't checked the current situation. Write Clinton and bitch to him about it if he still hasn't restored it after the last site update.

Anyway, my point is that taking a good hard look at a system that pretty much achieves what you're looking for is a good way to start your own design. Or you could even end up using a licenced system: TSOY could conseivably do exactly what you want, for example, and it's available practically for free.

Hmm... now I'm looking at the above and realizing that it looks conspiciously like a commercial message. Unfortunately I don't really have anything else of substance to say to this kind of preliminary situation: read and play good games, get educated on the possibilities out there, and only then start your own system design. Odds are that most of what you're looking for has already been done in some form.

Hi Doc,

I think it sounds like you are off to a good start to answering your orginal question and moving forward in your design. I think that what you are on to by factoring who has the advantage based on previous established elements, like motivations, passions, and effort is a great way to go. Those type of things will likely set up a reward system for the players and encourage them to play in the way you see the game.

I'd like to take a moment to point out where my example is simplified to further bring across the idea of conflict resolution. The goals I stated might be a little bit too big for some games. Killing the Count outright might be anti-climatic. Other games would divorce my statement of shooting him in the head with the actual results of that. So I might shoot him in the head, but it might only end up be a glazing wound, or it could be a mortal wound. Other games set up an increasing tension of drama into the resolution. Like I stated before there is still many ideas being developed around the idea of conflict resolution.

I agree with Eero some also. I don't agree that you shouldn't be designing now. You should definitely be designing now. I also don't necessarily agree that The Shadow of Yesterday has already modeled what you want. However, it is a very good example of the difference between Conflict Resolution and Task Resolution as it uses both systems. It's also free so it has no risk. It's also a great game.

I have other questions I'd like to ask but they aren't within the current framing of the scope of this thread, so I'd like to wait until you feel you've gotten an answer that works for you about resolution, and well your permission of course, as I like the idea of Zombie/Vampire Noir. Here at the Forge, the thread creator can and should dictate the scope of the discussion, so it might be bad manners to just plunge into those questions.

Both of you make good points. I'm sort of out of the loop when it comes to indie gaming. I'm used to groups that have strong brand loyalties. The setting and thesis are fleshed out, but it needs a skeleton, so I came here. I'm going to check out the threads on conflict resolution theory and game philosophy as I try and set up ways to experience the setting. I'm completely blown away by how much closer to the kind of gaming I always sought independent systems are. Not to mention the fact that I'm the biggest dice jinx under the Sun and it always left a very sour taste in my mouth that a person who's doing everything right can be stopped cold by a 1.

Oh no! I hit the reply button.

Hey Doc,

I like the setting and I'm thinking of elements from Metropolis, Dark City, City of Lost Children, Brazil, Time Bandits, The Hunger and Underworld. Please, don't think of mechanics at this time. You have some great ideas and putting a system on it will stop your creative flow. Look further into the story that you want to tell before limiting it with some stats, cogs and gears. I think you'll find there's a lot more in there that will help you define what kind of game you want to have. Maybe it won't be a traditional RPG. So, break tradition and get on with the juicy prose and let us bite into it.

Troy

TroyLovesRPG wrote:
Oh no! I hit the reply button.

Hey Doc,

I like the setting and I'm thinking of elements from Metropolis, Dark City, City of Lost Children, Brazil, Time Bandits, The Hunger and Underworld. Please, don't think of mechanics at this time. You have some great ideas and putting a system on it will stop your creative flow. Look further into the story that you want to tell before limiting it with some stats, cogs and gears. I think you'll find there's a lot more in there that will help you define what kind of game you want to have. Maybe it won't be a traditional RPG. So, break tradition and get on with the juicy prose and let us bite into it.

Troy

Hi folks,

I'm going to make a more clear argument for why I disagree, then I'm going to drop the subject as it seems we are going off topic. I clearly yield I'm not an authority. I have no completed game. I think my thinking is clear however. I think design is a process that is different for each designer. It's a process that's going to be learned by doing, not thinking about doing. I say make some horrible mistakes. Learn from them and keep refining your skills. You're likely going to change a lot about your game when you hit playtesting, so why worry about making mistakes.

Alright I'm done sounding pompous.

Hi Doc!
  Well, to answer the question you asked, I think it rely depends on what characters in this setting need to do/give in order to succeed at their own goals. For instance,
  For a resolution system that emphasizes that need for one player to WANT to narrate the story, check out ...in spaaace! ( http://www.gregstolze.com/inSpaaace.zip ). In this system, players have tokens and when there is a conflict, players bid based on the number of tokens they have. the winner gets to narrate, the loser gets the token. Sort of a Win/Win situation.
  For a system that let's the players and/or characters expend resources to have their characters succeed, check out something like Marvel Universe. Essentially, in this system, there is no rolling. Characters have skill levels and powers and what not and if the rating is high enough, they automatically succeed. and if it is not, players can spend these effort tokens to succeed anyways. Using a system LIKE this, you can modify it so that the "effort" required matches your setting and add a little despair by making replenishing those tokens a rare event...
  For a task-based system that involves the players/characters spending effort to get the job done is Shadow of yesterday ( http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/tsoy2/book1--rulebook.html ) In this game you can spend a point of ability score to roll more dice in a related skill. and the upshot is, you replenish that ability score by engaging in the setting with other characters. Its truly brilliant.

  As to holding off on the mechanics, that's up to you. But since you have a web comic, my guess is that spending some quality time on the mechanics won't squelch your creativity.

Hi

My question to the game design veterans here, how do you use mechanics to establish a harsh world where the characters are underdogs, but not one where they're splattered against the ground if they forget to untie a shoelace?

Thank you all once more. I like the idea of sacrificing benefits for other benefits, or sacrificing benefits for consequences. I'm also glad to hear that there's interest in the setting, and I agree that I should take time working the creative end of things to make it more playable as a game. Since joining this forum, I've been able to add a major faction to the setting that adds a sinister steampunk bent to the German Expressionist undertones I think a setting needs to have potential to slide in all directions genrewise for it to be the basis of a gaming system. I think I may find get some webspace and put up setting details sometime soon, in addition to some short fiction and a letter from Lord Mayor R.M Renfield, Esq.

Doc, I like your idea ALOT. Contact me at NYCPulpWriter@gmail.com. I want to talk to you about a comic project. Maybe we can collarborate.