So the other day my girl friend was complaining that games have to many rules that don't get used by the group, nearly a quarter sometimes. I took this into consideration (as it's something I have noticed as well) in making the play test of my game which was a very minimalist system. This delve into the concept of minimalism was a short lived dream, which ended in the constant bickering of the group as to things which were either lightly touched on, or not at all. It became apparent to me there are three types of gamers:

Those that want more
Those that want less
Those that want there own

My goal then was to decide which group(s) to accommodate, and how to treat the rest. I came down to the decision that I would target those that want less, appeal to those who want their own,  and provide a viable option to those who want more.

My minimalist system will include rules specifically for managing situations in which the game system lacks specific detail on things a group might want. Now the method is not fully detailed just a concept in my head mostly but I am thinking some kind of bidding system.

Now my question is (while I am still fleshing this out a bit) have you seen a mechanical method like this in place, how did it function, and what inherit flaws did you find with it. I am hoping that any insight from other similar methods could help with what I have going at the moment.

Right now I am thinking of something like this.
Each player starts with 5 influence points. At any point they feel a game is not clear enough on an existing rule, or does not include a needed rule they can permanently burn the influence point from the pool to create a new rule. Any one may veto a rule by challenging it with their influence points. A challenge may be entered by any number of participants whom may stake any desired claim as follows:

To side with the rule being created
To alter and stake claim on the rule being created
To oppose the rule being created
To contribute to one already defined side

The number of influence gambled equals the number of d10 rolled by each person, the original creator gets an extra die for free. The person (or side) with he most obviously wins and the following resolution occurs:

The rule goes into effect and the creator gains 1 influence point every time some one else uses the rule.
The new and altered rule goes into effect and the person who changed it gains the benefits when any one but he and the original creator use the rule.
The rule is put out of place and the person(s) who vetoed it are the only ones who can put it back.
Any one who contributed to any side winning gets double what they put in.

Well thats the basics...I am not sure what influence does beyond this but I don't think it needs to do anything else. Any opinions on how successfully implemented into a game would be greatly appreciated. 

regards, Seth

Hi Seth,

That's neat! If I'm understanding correctly, the game does start with a default resolution system, right? As a sort of starting point, to build upon or perhaps subtract from as time passes?

As far as getting influence from people using one's new rule goes, I'm not so sure ... that's exactly the kind of thing that I tend to forget during play. On the other hand, the system might use tokens or colored thingies to track the usage.

If you haven't already, check out the game Universalis which also builds all aspects of play from the ground up - up to and including the starting rules. One thing that Universalis does quite well is assign specific values to specific changes - a point equals a die, for instance - but also allows people to bid to make the rule more expensive or even to outbid its existence.

Best, Ron

That sounds like fun. I propose a rule whereby player character weapons do ten times more damage than NPC weapons. Any other players want to oppose me? No? Quite happy with that? I thought so!

Joking aside, there is huge scope for abuse with this. On he other hand as a game of farce it has huge entertainment potential. Think Munchkin on acid...... ok, even more acid.

As a 'serious' gaming tool though the problem is you're introducing a whole new metagame of rules management on top of the existing system, distracting everyone's attention from the game you're actually there to play. I can see that if you already have significant disruption to the game from rules discussion this could streamline the process, but what's wrong with simple democratic show of hands each time?

Best regards,

Simon Hibbs

This does sound interesting, but I just have to agree with SImon. This won't likely fit in a too serious game, as the metagame discussions are at a serious risk of overshadowing anything else. You might end up with the group constantly trying to use or not use specific rules in order to gain or not let others gain influence point, regardless of situation or reason.
It sounds like a really a fun game on its own, but in my opinion, it's a bad way to solve a serious problem in a specific game. When rules are an issue in a more serious game, I suggest the group sits aside outside the regular sessions and decides. The bidding system might be an alternative to a standard democratic system, but you shouldn't put to much emphasis on it, so as to not let it creep into the game proper.

Another question: why did you say D100 in the name of the thread?

Michael Pevzner

I'd recommend looking at universalis as well - these mechanics do not overshadow the game, they become the game. Which is really fun when you think how evenly everyone has points to spend on it - that eveness sets you up for some great creative push and pull, taking you places no one at the table could guess and certainly no one outside the game room!

Ok, mostly an encouragement post, I admit!

the game does start with a default resolution system, right? As a sort of starting point, to build upon or perhaps subtract from as time passes?

As far as getting influence from people using one's new rule goes, I'm not so sure ... that's exactly the kind of thing that I tend to forget during play. On the other hand, the system might use tokens or colored thingies to track the usage.

As a 'serious' gaming tool though the problem is you're introducing a whole new metagame of rules management on top of the existing system, distracting everyone's attention from the game you're actually there to play. I can see that if you already have significant disruption to the game from rules discussion this could streamline the process, but what's wrong with simple democratic show of hands each time?

You might end up with the group constantly trying to use or not use specific rules in order to gain or not let others gain influence point, regardless of situation or reason.

Ok I have decided I am going to name the game Manuscript for now, and that I want to post a power 19 to get a little more about the concept out. I am going to include a standard framework from which people can build off on but I want to focus on the meta game mechanic right now, which can be seen through the power 19.

1.) What is your game about?**
The Manuscript systems premise and concept is that in and of itself it is not perfect. The gamers experience towards a personal experience with the game system should not come down to having to kick, twist, and break the system into submission yet the system should be prepared to grow with the needs and desires of the group.

2.) What do the characters do?**
Characters are simply tools used in the development of the creative agenda of the group, serving a purpose to further some aspect of system and story.

3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?**
Players collaboratively and in a fun, efficient, and most importantly fair environment sculpt and shape the system, and story from the ground works up. A basic frame work exists from which they will diverge a little or a lot.

4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?
The lack of setting helps to enforce that the game truly is in the hands of the players, in that part of the fun will be collaboratively creating a beautiful flow. Now as it is realized that not all groups or horridly open to doing their own thing play aids for setting will be included, just like with rules.

5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?
Before play typically comes character creation in this game though pre game play involves a few extra steps:
1. The group must decide whether they are running a “standard” game (ala one gm who maintains control of the plot), or some other method.
2. If the game is not a “standard” game the group needs to decide which aspects of the game are “open” (can be altered by any player) and which are “closed” (meaning the aspect is set by one or all players and can not be altered during play) the players need to get together and flesh out and (in their opinion) missing pieces.
3. after this point assuming characters are still created by players, and before play (depending on a groups concept for game play) the characters can now be created! 

6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?
The game will specifically reward those who contribute positively towards the games desired end result. As a standard players will be rewarded exp for progressing the story line forward, but as all rules this is subject to player discretion and may fall to the wayside.

7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?
As far as reward players are awarded influence points which allows them to better control the flow of the game in the direction they so choose, this creates a situation in which choosing not to actively contribute to the game acts in its own way as punishment as the player will become detached and alienated from the group dynamic.

8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?
As everything there exists a basic concept that there is a gm but everything in the end lays in the hands of the group as a whole. If the group so chooses to divorce the concept of a gm the game is (will) be prepared to facilitate such choices.

9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)
The game truly becomes a creation of their own and without their direct participation threatens to slide away from their design goals, both in story and system.

10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?
The meta game mechanic uses a biding situation in which a number of influence bid represents a number of d10 rolled with the highest amount succeeding, and thus implementing their design goal.

11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?
The bidding system of the game enforces dynamic concept development through constant perfection of every aspect of the gaming experience.

12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so ,how?
Players will gain a higher amount of influence which will allow them to gain a better control over guiding the system and setting to their desired end result. If characters are involved as integral parts of the story (which they usually are) they can typically advance or gain attributes through the expenditure of experience or some other form of currency.

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?
Influence gain represents the players involvement in furthering the progress of the play experience, and also allows them to further push the story and environment in the direction they desire. 

14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?
I want players at the end of sessions and stories to be able to look through the development of the tools created for play that have developed to suite the wants and desires. I feel that through the creation of such a personal investment in the game experience the players will feel comfortable visiting their creation again.

15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?
The game pays a great deal of attention to a narrative, and gamist style of play providing a great deal of creative control, as well as rewarding taking control with pay off.

16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?
I think the idea of moving forward towards creating a game in which the point is to create your groups perfect game experience instead of cracking opening a prefab game and hope you don’t have to force some house rules on. While I have gotten some comments from people as to the fact that they could just house rule what they want, I am hoping that the fact the game is specifically designed to facility such things will appeal.

17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?
Manuscript unlike most games facilitates and encourages divorcing the standard rules of the game through metagame mechanics designed to resolve out of game conflict over design issues.

So that’s a quick power 19 for the system again focusing on the metagame mechanic mostly even though a standard frame work will be provided.

A couple questions I have are:
Now the metagame mechanic functions off of the influence points as currency, as a standard should these influence points also be used to translate over into character advancement?

How detailed should I create the treasure chest of design tools used to elaborate on the basic rules, or to completely divorce them (for those groups with extra time) and create from the ground up their own functioning system?

I was thinking a glossary of system components some where in the back of the book along these lines http://legendaryquest.netfirms.com/books/Patterns.zip but geared a little more specifically for immediate use. I have always wanted to do something with the design patterns book and this seems like the perfect system in which it can be elaborated on. 
Regards, Seth