Hello Forge, these are My game basics

I just want to share my thoughts by saying that I find this forum to be a very enlightening experience and an enjoyable read. Some of the topics are fantastic, and others are thought provoking. It is an invigorating feeling to know that there are so many liked minded individuals on-line that are interested in Indy Game Design.

Ok, where to start, (thinking???) I have been making my own house rules for years, cobbling them around all the RPG’s that I play. So a few years ago I started making my own games. I have always been the storyteller, GM, Narrator, Judge est. for the groups I play with and I came to the conclusion as it seems most of you have here at the Forge. A conclusion by osmosis or evolution of role-playing for years and understanding what’s fun for my groups to do, or the path that’s most interesting-least-resistance is for me.

So now I have 3 Indy Games that I have made and play on a regular basis with my groups. Each of these games is based on the same game mechanic/system as listed below. The only difference between them is Genre/Setting.

I like to use the term AMAD or AMAD System when referring to my games, its just a little acronym that I think sounds neat, stands for attribute-modifiers-ability-dice. Does this mean much? No I just like it and my players are the ones that named it, they refer to it when a dice roll is needed, “roll your AMAD please” I know it may sounds corny, but hey we are role-players after all and a bunch cornballs anyway, haha.

So here goes….

Here is the basic mechanic of the game, or how you total up your numbers, its not as bad as it looks and its proved to be very efficient and affective, fast-passed system. This mechanic covers all dice actions in the game from fighting to Magery to basic ability/skill use of any kind. I personally like a one-system game. I know that I don’t delve into Magic to deeply in this thread, but I will in future ones.

A) Attribute No. + Modifiers + Ability/Skill (rank 1 to infinity) + 1D20 = Total - verses a DC or total verses total.

B) Players create their characters using a set pool of building points; no dice are rolled in the generation process. A player creates his/her character as they see fit with only 1 restriction, no starting Attribute/Ability/Skill can have a rank higher than 10 (exception: Racial Modifiers/Bonuses). So as an example, any starting character could have a max total of 40, which is 10 Attribute + (no Mod/Bonus yet) + 10 Ability/Skill + 1D20 (say they roll a 20 on the die) = 40
C) Racial Modifiers/Bonus: I figured these to have a range of 1 to5 that might be added to a relevant Attribute/Attributes.
D) Attributes are the base to perform any dice action, and can be improved to a degree using XP/experience points gain during a game session/sessions.
E) There is a wide range of abilities/skills that boarder on free form usage with a combination of Game Masters consent and player input. (Meaning what the collective feels is within reason) once an Ability/Skill is gained it hold the rank of 1 and can then be improved using XP, with no cap.
F) In the fantasy setting Magic is deemed as a dangerous, exhausting exercise and is purchased using either building points at the start or with XP once the game is underway. And since I have decided that magic is a dormant ability in all characters, anyone can learn to use it, just in game terms it cost points to obtain it, and it is costly to gain the base abilities and to use them.
G) I access the characters as being the hero’s of the game, a notch above the commoner, and both support a free form approach to their stories and the idea of a unit/group when needed.

The overall objective of the game is 3-fold self/group enrichment with story as the base, achievement through deeds/ability improvement, and a true focus on role-playing ability. I want actors more than anything, that’s fun to me.

Hopefully this is a good start at an explanation of the basics of my games. None of it may be original but it works for me and I am just trying to share my work. I will add more detail when/where needed to explain things better.

I will talk about magic, combat, races and all other crap later. This is just a basic start to see what you guys and gals think.

I would like any input or help, as I am just an ordinary dude, no expert or professional writer.

Thanks to anyone that posts or reads this.

Brannos

The ability to fly is being able throw your self at the ground and miss….

Brannos wrote:
I would like any input or help, as I am just an ordinary dude, no expert or professional writer.

Hello VoidDragon/Jason and well met,

Thanks for greeting me, its nice to meet you as well, my name is Tyson Brannos. Well I really wasn’t sure what to post, other than to give a bit of information on my games and maybe bounce ideas off like-minded RPG developers and get a bit of input on any plagiaristic references I may be using in this basic concept, plagiarism is kind of hard to avoid verses what’s truly public domain, in my experience. I have barrowed from many games I have played, like, D&D, Palladium, White Wolf, Ice, Cyber Punk, War Hammer, Star Trek, Vampire the Masquerade, and I continued list of others.

The games I counterfeited into what is actually the games I have are actually very rich and involved; I just didn’t want to bog you or anyone else down with a tidal wave of detailed game facts. I have done my best to alter the mechanics of my games from their predecessors. Hopefully I have enabled my games with enough originality that they have evolved and truly become independent smilaxes and not just cookie cutter retreads. That’s a secondary reason I posted just a very fundamental version of my game, to see if anyone might see any obvious likenesses to other games they have played, baring the mundane of course. I would say that’s what I was looking for as far as “input” form people. I based the thread upon other treads I read that tended to compare the “their game” in question to other known game mechanics.

Sorry I should have been more indicative in my post, that was my sort coming, I will be more attentive in the future.

Thank you for your positive comments about my “base mechanic” and that it’s easy to “understand”, these are 2 of the main points of me altering games I used to play, and the strive for a “simpler system” that was fun and fast. I mean how cool is it to play a game with one mechanic that does everything. A Mage casting spells against a Fighter and they both use the same dice and procedure to resolve their actions.

So, “Smiles”, do you see any obvious connections to other games in my general descriptivism of my games mechanic? I fade at the idea of originality, but I try.

The subject of originality is a key to me. But there are so many systems; I would be shocked if mine was original, I mean I barrowed from games to make the games I currently play. So maybe you can enlighten me a bit. I can add more detail if that helps, hence the basic concept. Or I might actually just be too critical of my own work.

Would you mind sharing a bit about your self with me? What games have you worked on, played, tested or made? I bet a few a?

What do you think of my (AMAD thing?)

Thanks Jason,

Brannos

Hi Brannos, welcome to the forge!

What big thing are the players trying to get or achieve in a single game session? I know you might be thinking in long campaign terms (or maybe not), but what about in a single session?

In regards to that big thing, how do the dice rolls connect in players getting or achieving that big thing? Does the GM decide when a roll will help them get closer to it and when it wont help with anything at all?

Aloha, Tyson.

My advice is, don't get too caught up worrying about copying someone.  In the effort to create the best game we can, this worry can serve as a limitation.  A lot of work has been put into the games that already exist.  That said, indie games wouldn't exist if we weren't coming up with something different from the mainstream commercial games.  I could talk about the similarities what you've presented has to other games I've seen, but I don't think that would be useful to you.  Some people have made very good games trying to emulate their favorite show or movie. 

I do agree that a single, simple mechanic that can handle all random situations is a plus.  But there can be fun complexities to a system, too.  It's when the complexities get in the way of having fun that I look for another game.

I'll email you with some information about myself, in response to your questions of my (very limited) history in the gaming industry.

-Jason Timmerman

Hello Callan S,

Thank you for you questions regarding my mechanic, I will do by best to answer each inquire you have made. If I fail please feel free to inform me.

During a game session the players are not required to achieve a “big thing” although that can be a factor and a set plan at times depending upon the type of scenario their presented with. A set plan: the scenario has a plot, start-middle-end and aftermath with a reward of some type as the prize for playing that session. In the “campaign” that you mentioned, this is normally an expanded version of the later. It’s the idea of: do I make a movie trilogy or reduce them down to a single movie or an all-in-one set up. Either way the concept is the same with the following in mind (The overall objective of the game is 3-fold self/group enrichment with story as the base, achievement through deeds/ability improvement, and a true focus on role-playing ability. I want actors more than anything, that’s fun to me.)

With regards to the “big thing”, the players dice rolling is only a tool in helping maintain balance and continuity where the “game master” feels role-playing will/cannot resolve a situation. This is how the dice rolls connect in players getting or achieving that big thing, getting them closer to the “big thing”. The only times that I have seen the dice rolls “not” resolve a situation, is when role-playing acts as a resolution itself. I feel that dice rolls should never get in the way of story or a good game session, dice are a tool, nothing more.

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner; real life has kept me quite busy.

P.S. I haven’t forgotten about you either VoidDragon, I have just had a full plate lately.

Brannos

Hi Brannos, welcome back :)

Let's say roleplay was about sculpting clay. When I ask if there's some big thing the players are trying to make, I'm asking do they come to the roleplay session to make anything, like a clay vase or cup or small sculpture (or atleast trying to)?

You say sometimes they are not required to achieve a big thing, other times they are. But at the same time you say you want actors - I'd say acting is like sculpting clay too. It's creating a physical thing. So my first suggestion is

* Say to yourself that the players are always required to achieve, or atleast try to achieve, a big thing. They are sculpting something when they act - it's making a physical thing. (I hope I'm not being too over the top by saying acting and sculpting clay are quite similar. Tell me if I'm over the top, okay! :) )

How does saying it feel? After saying it, what sort of direction you want to continue on? If it's the same direction, that's fine - the reason for saying it is to test out how the idea feels to you.

Now, it depends on how you want to go. But in terms of sculpting, the key issue is how do players finish their sculpture? What tools do they have to finish it? How do the mechanics tie into them going about the process of making, and finally finishing their sculpture?

I'll say this about using GM fiat to determine when a skill check or combat roll should be made - it doesn't do a good job of letting players know what tools they have to finish their sculpture. The fewer tools they player is aware of, the fewer tools he can reach out and use to finish the sculpture and have an exciting end to the roleplay session.

So a final suggestion is to consider how much the GM deciding when a skill check is needed, means the player doesn't know what tools he can use to finish his sculpture.

Any of this a bit helpful? :)

Hello Callan,

Yes, it’s good to be back.

I thought a lot about your last post and I hope I can add a bit more detail to the basic thread that I started here, I know it wasn’t much.

The “clay” of a game session allies its self to 2 ideas, open-free play and a set adventure. My definition of each of these topics is as follows.

Open-Free play: players come to a session and ask to play an single adventure that involves no set ending but is reward based during the in-game journey, as the destination is not the focus, interacting with their world is, and is a reflection of each individuals desires. I realize that his type of game is not the norm and very nonconformist in its very concept and is open-ended or open-free play in where as the players make up the journey based upon their actions/choices and a destination can develop, but it is not the reward in this type of game play. (This is my attempt as the GM to let the players totally do what they want without me as the GM having a set plan of action), I just react and use an old form or boy scout D&Dish play called “trailing” or just making it up on the fly. This type of game worked great in the scouts and works even better at the table. It’s just that this type of game style very much suits the way my group and I like to play sometimes, it’s not for everyone. This style works great for what we define as “down time”. So the clay is role-playing and the role-playing experience itself and the sculpture is the journey. Lastly, we do not play this type of session that often, and it’s always held by consent.

The Set-Adventure: this type of gaming is the norm; players come to the session, play their characters, work together on the journey (common goal), with some rewards, they deal with set situations/obstacles set up in advance by the GM. And by the end of the session the players are rewarded for completion of the adventure for their efforts.
In this gaming scenario the clay is group cooperation with a common goal and the sculpture is the reward.

Personally I like a combination of set-adventure and free-play, it always seems to make for the best gaming sessions.

Acting: yes acting is very important to me, because I strongly feel that if you have little or no acting in a RPG session, then as a collective the group is just there to roll dice and gain prizes and the clay and the sculpture hold little or no real value. Acting should be a part of any RPG session, I mean in my view it’s the reason we play RPG’s in the first place, its make believe, your pretending to be a fictional character and without acting your just you, the person, and that’s boring if you ask me.
Acting is a “very BIG hunk” of clay and is always rewarded as long as its sculpted and it is always treated as an achievement, even if the acting is bad, it’s the effort that counts. Because you are right Callan, it is a physical thing.

My definition of the “big thing” is not singular as you can see, but normally the players are GM’ed or judged upon their achievements for “sculpting”.

The Tools: the tools that are at the players command are, game fact, scenario information, character stats/abilities, role-playing, dice rolls, cooperation, imagination, inquires to the GM during a session (gm playing NPC’s) and reasonable deduction.

With the list of “tools” I just gave, the players should have little issue determining what their sculpting resources are. This should provide plenty of information and induce an exciting end to the role-playing session. This is of course as long as the GM and the players are working in concert with each other, because they are all there to have fun and “role-play”.

I feel that the GM and the players should working in concert as to when the players need to roll dice, for the most part. And I feel that each party needs to make sure that common sense dictates when/if a roll needs to be made. However, I also believe that there are times when the GM needs to make players roll dice, this can have the affect of creating tension and mystery, that curtain that I feel needs to exist between GM and players to foster a sense or urgency at times. Likewise, GM enforce rolls are needed for random/surprise encounters and to sometimes resolve player verses player interactions.

Or? Callan, are you stating that, as a suggestion, that I need to look at, thing about and/or need a set formula as to when a GM determines if/when a roll is needed? Or have I clarified the matter to some degree now? I know that my word usage may see a bit disjointed, but that’s bound to happen when you do not have the book in front of you to go by, all you have are my ramblings, haha, and the way I explain things may not be clear to everyone that reads them. And I very much like “trying/sculpting” my way along here with regard to your questions, it just makes my game better, thank you.

And yes, you have been very helpful. I look forward to hearing from you again in the future Callan. Because the more questions that are asked the more it makes me think about my game and its dynamics.

Thanks a lot.

Tyson Brannos

Hi again, thanks for the informative post! :)

From a couple of your comments, I think you see the clay as being roleplay

So the clay is role-playing and the role-playing experience itself and the sculpture is the journey.

Acting is a “very BIG hunk” of clay and is always rewarded as long as its sculpted and it is always treated as an achievement, even if the acting is bad, it’s the effort that counts

The Tools: the tools that are at the players command are, game fact, scenario information, character stats/abilities, role-playing, dice rolls, cooperation, imagination, inquires to the GM during a session (gm playing NPC’s) and reasonable deduction.

With the list of “tools” I just gave, the players should have little issue determining what their sculpting resources are. This should provide plenty of information and induce an exciting end to the role-playing session. This is of course as long as the GM and the players are working in concert with each other, because they are all there to have fun and “role-play”.

I feel that the GM and the players should working in concert as to when the players need to roll dice, for the most part. And I feel that each party needs to make sure that common sense dictates when/if a roll needs to be made. However, I also believe that there are times when the GM needs to make players roll dice, this can have the affect of creating tension and mystery, that curtain that I feel needs to exist between GM and players to foster a sense or urgency at times. Likewise, GM enforce rolls are needed for random/surprise encounters and to sometimes resolve player verses player interactions.

Or? Callan, are you stating that, as a suggestion, that I need to look at, thing about and/or need a set formula as to when a GM determines if/when a roll is needed? Or have I clarified the matter to some degree now?

Hello again Callan,

Thanks for the post and your continued input.

Brannos