Which is a question that I should be asking myself. And I am. The entire purpose of the game (I was going to shorten it to 'Tales', but somebody seems to have grabbed that) seems to be to have a generic, free-form system that can handle any kind of story/setting. That's where all my thoughts seem to be going or end up.

I seem to have succeeded in something. At least, I ran the rules (Currently in my head) through a short, simulated game session and everything went well. It's just that it's hard to come up with a direction for a generic game, because it's, well, generic. And I'm not sure how flavourfull it is. Or whether it's actually playable now. Certainly the last attempt had large holes.

I've got the rules for how it shoud work in memory. I've got an example character and gameplay for the latest. What, exactly, should I do now, besides or before I formalize the rules? Or should I write up the rules first and let you forgites poke holes in it.

I'm thinking I should run a game using it, but that could just be enthusiasm.

For another question or two, what should I name it? (Tales doesn't quite fit, anyway and Generica is, well, bland). And, could the rules be explained entirely through gameplay examples?

Thanks.

Hi,

I suggest  you write down the rules- at least so you can understand it for yourself enough to explain them to others.  Then play it.  As you're playing, make sure that's -how- you're actually playing.  If not, write down the difference.  Also, take notes on -how- you're explaining it, because it'll make it easier to write a draft other people can understand and poke at.

This is pretty much the process I'm at in my design, and already it's useful because I, personally, am finding design issues I'd like to change, but also getting better ideas on how to fix it.

And don't worry about the name for now- if you give it an adequate placeholder name "Universal Freeform Game" or whatever, at least so the other people who might playtest it can recognize it until you do come up with a final name, you'll be good.

Chris

Sound advice Chris.

Playtesting is always a good idea, but you might want to take parts of the rules out, and playtest them on single events, see if they work. ask the player how it worked and so on and so forth.

A year ago, i had a game all in my head, and when it finally got down on paper, i discovered that the rules where contradictory in the extreme, the trick was i couldnt see it before i had written down the rules.

Secondly, there is never a bad time to get feedback, so when you have the smallest shrapnel of mechanic written down, throw it out to people here at the forge, and people will instantaneously start to ask intelligent question ( that does not mean that all questions are nice, but they need to be asked )

Chris

Hmm...A mechanic: Temporary modifiers. If you want to do damage, fill someone with doubts, give them a magic shield, it's a modifier. 'Beaten about the head and shoulders', 'Doubting his convictions', 'Magic shield of defence'.

If positive, only the highest applicable modifier applies. If negative, take the highest modifier and add -1 for any penalty which is at least half that.

In any case, they are equal to a dice roll of (1d10 - 1d10 + Modifiers + Character Abilities) / 3 versus Target Number, rounded down. Target Number may be another dice roll.

They give either a bonus or a penalty to appropriate dice rolls. 'Beaten about the head and shoulders -3' would give a penalty to combat, in this case a -3 penalty. 'Doubting his convictions -#' would give a penalty to social combat. 'Magic shield of defence +#' would give a bonus to combat, as long as your opponent attacks. On the other hand, 'Starting to believe in honour +#' would give a bonus to any honourable action, which would account for such things as inspiring speaches and mind control.

Modifiers would fade at a rate of one point per day, or they could be removed by rolling versus a dice roll with the modifier as a bonus. A positive result would decrease the modifier; a negative result would increase it. Another player could do the rolling, but they risk some sort of negative modifier themselves - Losing confidence in their abilities or beginning to pick up the principles they are trying to defeat.

Hi,

That's a pretty easy to follow mechanic, though, for anyone to really be able to give any useful feedback, it needs more context.

1.  What do you see your game doing differently than any other genreless game?
2.  How are players rewarded?  For what?  How often?
3.  What kind of choices do the players have to make?  How about the GM?
4.  Your mechanic mentions character abilities- what kinds are there?  Are they limited or set by a list?  Can you make up more?  Are some better than others?
5.  Modifiers- is there a list, or is it decided by someone during play?
6.  How does #2-5 work together to support your answer to #1?

And, as a complete secondary question, is there any reason for dividing by three at the end of calculating numbers?  Just that division is kind of a clunky process for a lot of people during play.

Chris

1) That is sort of the question of the moment. To paraphrase my first post, 'Generic, freeform roleplaying'. Also, conflict is rather deadly.

2) Not much point in being generic and freeform if the game tells the players why they're playing. I could list suggestions like 'Good roleplaying', 'Overcoming challenges', 'Getting a reaction from the players', 'Etc.'...

3) Well, the players have to decide what their character wants to do and what their character will risk. The GM plays NPCs and the environment.

4) They are entirely freeform. You select a label or two and add a descriptive phrase. There's General, Area, Specific and Single Effect abilities. The last question is entirely up to the game the GM is running.

5) To revise somewhat, it's decided before the die roll in stakes resolution. The winner gets his or her stakes.

6) It's generic and freeform, I guess.

Otherwise, the modifiers are can be way to big right off. Dividing by three makes them the right size. Your average conflict would probably have no more than four or five rolls, anyway.

Hey Narf,

I guess you're referring to me taking "Tales" before you could grab it.

I've been working on the same kind of concept for a while.

With regards to your query in the first part of this thread...

Narf wrote: And, could the rules be explained entirely through gameplay examples?

Hey Narf,

I would take a long extra look at Chris' 6 Big Ones. In fact, since you have yet to write down your work, maybe structure it around some similar base questions. As I stated in another thread, when I finally finished TAYDS, I looked at it and asked myself, "what exactly was it I wanted to DO with this?". It took me a further year to claify what I could probably have learned from questions like Chris' (I wanted to build a platform for extremely detailed roleplaying furthering the narrative element through simple but highly configurable rules. Just in case anyone wondered :) ). With genreless games, the problem is especially great.

I think you should not only playtest the game, you should build a first game world that emphasizes (to the point of exaggeration) what you think the system would/should be good for. That way, YOU will learn what you want, through example.