I'm currently working on a game called American Wizards and would like to get thoughts on certain aspects of its design.  BUT I want to presage this with a touch of information re: my RPG experience & history, because I think it has a bearing on the way I think about RPGs and thus any discourse regarding RPGs that I'm involved in, so bear with me a minute.  It won't take long.

I got into RPGs junior high, along with several friends of mine.  We became interested in them because we liked games, but mostly because we had imaginations and liked using them.  But there was a problem; we lived in a small town with literally ZERO book stores, comic stores, gaming stores, or anywhere else where you would buy an RPG.  However, we knew what they were, and had a general idea of how they worked, so the solution was simple:  we made our own.  It started with one of us and then snowballed, with nearly everyone in our clique coming up with their own game.

Now, those early games were, of course, not very good at all, but in hindsight I see a lot of elements in them that had potential.  But I got hooked on making games, and it became a hobby, and I got better at it.  For one thing, I am also a painter, a composer, and a writer (specialization is for insects), and in those artistic endeavours I cling tightly to the idea that Form must be appropriate to Content (to put it another way, the way in which you say something should be appropriate to what you are saying), and I applied that principle to game design as well.

But here is my point:  I have been isolated from published RPGs, in that my experience with RPGs outside those I or my friends made up is slim.  I played Vampire once, Toon a few times, and a little bit of D&D (don't ask me which one, I have no clue), and I skimmed a few texts (and remember almost none of the information they contained).  I don't know what the conventions of the hobby are.  Which of course frees me from them, but also means that I missed anything in them that might be useful.  Basically, I am the Thing that Crawled Out of the Muck.  I like to think of myself as highly evolved, but to you other organisms I may be lacking certain organs, or have a disturbing surplus of others.

I was very excited to discover that this site existed and that other people were interested in designing their own games.  I devoured the essays, and found many ideas that I hadn't thought of.  I was also surprised to find a few ideas that I thought would be common sense (presented in different words than they were in my head, of course).

But my point is, my point is, if the stuff that follows seems nonsensical, misguided, or outright silly, please bear with me; I crawled out of the muck.  I'm here to learn, so help an organism out.

(Damn.  That took longer than I expected.  Sorry)

Now the real stuff.

My current project is an RPG called American Wizards.  In it, you play a student at the American Institute of Wizard Arts (or, perhaps, an alumnus, or a dropout).  As with all my games, I am designing the mechanics from the ground up, and I try to make the mechanics appropriate to what the game is supposed to be about.  What I specifically want to get opinions on are the Character system and the Resolution system.

The Character model is extremely detailed.  The primary attributes are split into three categories:  Physical, Mental, and Abstract.  These break down into individual stats, each with a score running from -100 to 100 (with 0 considered an average person's value).  But the stats are numerous.  For example, the Physical list includes Strength (further broken down into Arm, Leg, and Core), Dexterity (broken down into Manual, Arm, and Leg), separate acuities of all five senses, bone density, equilibrium, tolerances to cold, heat, toxins, infections, pain, allergens, hunger, and thirst, speed, flexibility, and beauty.  The other categories are similarly broken down (Mental contains fewer items than Physical, and Abstract even fewer than that).

In addition to these attributes are the Arts (skills), Lore (data and theoretical knowledge), and Tricks (specific feats), and finally a section of character Faults (at least 3 are required for all characters).  Oh, and Wisdom, which is basically like Experience Points, except you get them for everything you live through and sometimes you get more for an embarassment or bitter failure than you do for a sterling success.

Now, onto the Resolution system, and how it's tied to the Character system.
I use a unified, task-based resolution system for all tasks in the game, and it works like this:  the player announces the task his character will attempt to accomplish (or the GM announces the task he cannot avoid), and rolls a d100.  This represents how well, in proportion to his ability, he performed.  That is, 100 means he performed to the best of his ability, and 1 means he didn't even show up.  Now, to this roll, we add ANY and ALL Attributes, Arts, Lore, and/or Tricks that apply to the current task -- INCLUDING negative values.  Then, you subtract the value of any Faults that apply.  Finally, you subtract the Difficulty Factor of the task itself (set by the GM, which is twitchy I know, but I'm working on a guide for doing it well), and, with a little interpretation, this result tells you what happened.

A value of Zero is a near-miss.  Functionally, this means that the task failed, but the goal has yet to fail.  In other words, you didn't get it right, but nothing was lost, except the time that your attempt took up.  Below zero is a failure with consequences (the lower, the more severe), and above is a success (the higher, the more effective and impressive).

Here's an example of how the final results work.  Let's say the task was to pick a lock.  A final result of 100 means that you unlocked the lock almost immediately after inserting the pick, making absolutely no noise, and without leaving a single scratch on the lock to evince that you had ever been there.  A -100 means your hand slipped, the lockpick broke off in the lock (jamming the mechanism and making a lot of noise, alerting the people on the other side of the door), and you poked yourself in the eye with the remainder of the pick.  And, of course, there's the inbetweens.  At -90, for instance, you wouldn't poke yourself in the eye.  At 10, you would get the lock open but only after a lengthy struggle making lots of noise, and breaking the pick at the last minute.

This same system works for combat (although combat might not happen in a given gaming session).  The only difference is that the Difficult Factor is represented by the defender making a roll and adding any stats that would influence his ability to defend himself.

The important things here are the selection of stat modifiers to the roll (which is the reason for the uberdetail of the Character system) and the interpretation of a result.  The former is meant to encourage cleverness, resourcefulness, and lateral thinking, and the latter is meant to allow all manner of nuance in the process of task resolution, for purposes of flexibility and occasional humour.  (The game is intended to be at turns humorous and serious, like a game about American wizards should be).

So, here's my questions.

1.  Did that make sense to anyone aside from me?

2.  Do you know of any useful ways around "GM sets the Difficulty Factor"?  If so, can you point me to textual examples?

3.  Do the detailed character system and loose resolution mechanics work as well together as I think they do?  Are they at cross-purposes?

4.  Is there a question that I should be asking but have neglected?

Many thanks for reading this far.  I look forward to input.

Heya,

Welcome to the Forge!  I read your mechanics.  The do make sense :-)    It reminds me, in a way, of something else I've seen.  I was wondering, though, if you would be interested in reading a free game that's actually really good?  It's caled "The Shadow of Yesterday."  It has a resolution system that is similar to yours, but is a little lighter on the math. 

It uses a thing called "Fudge Dice."  They do sorta the same thing you're doing with your game with a d100- looking for a result above or below zero.  However, it uses dice that have a "-" or a "+" on each side.  In this game, you tally up all the pluses and minuses your rolled, and if it's above zero you succeeded, and if it's below zero you failed.  That may be simplifying it a bit, but that's the general idea.

If you're not interested in reading it, then I won't bother to link it.  That would just kill the conversation you're trying to start here.  Instead, I'll just get right to helping you with your mechanics.  But, IMHO, you may benefit from looking it over since you haven't had much experience with RPGs (which is not a bad thing at all).  So would you be interested?

Peace,

-Troy

Sure, if you think it could give me some insights, link it on over.

My reason for using a d100 partly for its range (REALLY good to REALLY bad), but mostly because it means that individual stat & skill points aren't worth too much, preventing scary stackage and producing a low power curve (which I have a personal fondness for). 

(I'm not saying that to shoot down any other ideas regarding dice; just explaining my rationale behind this particular dice arrangement)

I also neglected to mention that it's not always necessary to roll, if the task is clearly something the character can do easily.  The way I'd like this to work is if none of the players say "I wanna see if you can actually do that," then a roll isn't necessary, but I'm worried that might create argument.

Another thing I forgot to mention is my favorite feature of this arrangement (although I did provide an example, where the lock was unlocked but the pick was broken):  success with a price.  I love that concept.  Although I can see where some people might find it frustrating, I think it's appropriate to this game.

Hi Marshall! Welcome to the Forge.

I'm actually extremely curious about these earlier games you and your friends made up, with little to no influence from published RPGs. Could we talk you into writing about one or more of these, perhaps the most recent one you played, over in Actual Play? This will probably give us some insight into where you are in thinking about these games, and will be more fun for both of us than sending you off on a reading assignment.

Aw, dammit, you realize that's kind of like asking me to get out baby pictures of myself and show them to everyone, right?

Seriously, though, the only gaming sessions I remember well enough from those ancient days (actually only like seven or eight years ago, but still) are ones that make me itch (mostly in the "What was I thinking"? deparment--and I don't mean making foolish ingame choices, but being a douchebag).

But I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll drop a post into Actual Play that will gloss over the earliest games and give a real gameplay example of one from an early intermediate stage.

Heya,

Here is the link to the game's Wiki: http://tsoy.crngames.com/

There you will find all the info needed to play.  It's also a creative comons game, so if you use ideas from it, it's free.  You just have to credit Clinton.

Here is the link to Clinton's forum on this site: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=28.0

You can ask questions about The Shadow of Yesterday there.  Also, I'd just like to echo the call for an Actual Play report.  I think that would be very helpful.

Peace,

-Troy

I've made a post to Actual Play.  Can't vouch for how helpful it'll be, but hopefully it will be.

And I will also check out that link.  Thanks

Hi Marshall,

Welcome. My post might have a somewhat challenging tone. It's meant to have it, but in a good way. It isn't meant to be mean or negative. Feel free to tell me I'm not being helpful.

1.  Did that make sense to anyone aside from me?

Yes, somewhat. I've only given it the one read but I feel I've got an o.k. grip on it.

2.  Do you know of any useful ways around "GM sets the Difficulty Factor"?

Three thoughts come to mind; random, charts, or another player.  The thing to be careful of is something called the "Czege principle." (It's the second post by Ron) My badly paraphrased restating of it says that if the person who sets the difficulty is the same person who faces the difficulty the game is likely to be boring.

2.5 If so, can you point me to textual examples?

Not off hand.

3.  Do the detailed character system and loose resolution mechanics work as well together as I think they do? 

Do they? That's difficult to say. Right now I don't understand your motivation for making a game and what you are trying to achieve which makes it difficult to analyze if this idea is being successful. What are you trying to achieve? A certain kind of feel? Realism? Something else?

3.5 Are they at cross-purposes?

Again it's hard to tell without understanding your goals.

4.  Is there a question that I should be asking but have neglected?

There are several I think you should ask, or perhaps you have asked but I'm not picking up on the answer. What are my goals? What is the game about? Essentially what's the premise? Think about this as if you had one or two sentences to throw out to explain the idea behind your Hollywood blockbuster film. You said it's about Wizards and America and rewarding lateral thinking. Why America, Wizards, and why is lateral thinking something you want to reward? You have developed a really involved structure, how does making a very large system reward lateral thinking? Where is the room for lateral thinking? My first thought is that it seemed to be the opposite of what you might want, but then maybe you are thinking of lateral thinking as more of hacking? Basically taking a system and making it accomplish goals it wasn't created to accomplish? Do you really need bone density, cold tolerances, etc in a game about Wizards? Does it matter if my flame spell kills you by burning your arm off or your leg off? (It might) I could understand that type of thing in a game about Gladiatorial combat, gun combat, or martial arts perhaps, but for wizards? Perhaps I conjure up a different image by the word Wizard than what you are intending to say. I'll stop here.

Ah, yes, I see your point.  I should have been more explicit regarding what the game is really about.

One of my main reasons for making this game is that I hate the way wizards are portrayed in RPGs.  This game basically says what I think wizards really are and should be.

My basic idea for the makeup of a wizard is this:  one part discipline, one part talent, three parts fakery, and a dash of actual magic.  What it means to be a wizard is to know that the mind and body are controlled by an abstract (non-physical, non-rational) body.  The aspect of this abstract body that the wizard revolves around is the Will, which puts into motion the mind and body, but with correct training can be used to influence the outside universe.  Essentially, nothing happens unless it is willed to happen.

Now, using the will outwardly is hard; in fact, using any kind of coarse (overt, obvious) magic is hard, and can hurt the wizard (straining his magic muscle, as it were).  But here's the thing:  since the motions of the body and mind are accomplished by will, they too are magic -- magic that everyone knows how to do, but still magic.  This is why the wizards of the American Institute of Wizard Arts (AIWA) study Everything; you can't rely on coarse magic.  Besides, all arts, properly approached, are wizard arts.

But this is also why things like bone density and cold tolerance are important; if you fall off of something, you might break your leg.  Since you can't just wave your hand and *poof* shit happens, you will have to deal with that broken leg.  You might be able to magic it up a bit so that it will heal a bit faster, but you mostly have to suffer through it just like anyone else.  The idea is that actions have consequences; Murphy's Law applies here in spades; and, also, that the wave of a hand and a few Latin words doesn't do shit.  Nothing is created, only moved around, and there is ALWAYS a price.

One of the most profound differences between American wizards and, for instance, European wizards, is that American wizards have no traditions.  There are no apprentices, and no one inducts them into the mysteries; they must do that part themself.  All the AIWA does is teach them impressive things they can do with their power; it's up to the individual to find that power in the first place.

AIWA was founded on the Seven Virtues of the American Wizard.  These are Panache, Aplomb, Nerve, Resourcefulness, Creativity, Curiosity, and a Sense of Humor.  Behavior driven by these virtues is encouraged in the players by the resolution and reward systems (rewards consisting of Wisdom and Mastery Points, used to improve the character, thus opening up new avenues of exploration).  The primary example on which AIWA was founded was the first American wizard, Benjamin Franklin.  (You heard me.

The nominal goal is to succeed in your academic career at AIWA, but this is subordinate to the goal of Why you are a wizard.  Is it for the power?  For the sheer beauty of the art (the cool factor)?  The prestige and respect?  Or do you seek a path to the Total Freedom of a true Master, freedom from yourself, your past, from death, time, and all other laws of nature?

There are also more short term goals:  finding a book in the labyrinthine Borges Memorial Library, surviving the hazing of a wizard fraternity, finding a date to take to the big party, getting back home when you've run out of gas on a wild and crazy interplanar summer road trip (this is, after all, college). 

But the objective isn't winning at your goals; it's exploring the setting, and also the color, and hopefully getting a few thrills andlaughs along the way.  It's pretty much sim-oriented.

Does that make things a bit clearer?

Hi Marshall,

Excellent. I was taking the long way to see if a Sim-y game was actually your goal as in my experience going straight at Creative Agenda causes confusion, as the terms aren't well understood. So one of the problems, in my opinion, that a lot of Sim games fall victim to is serving two masters, realism, and the actual part of the dream they are trying to enforce. I'm not going to go further than that as in my mind you have answered that you find both masters important.

I am curious though.... To me the seven virtues seem like they would make much more interesting building blocks than physical, mental, abstract. Have you ever considered building from them instead?

That being said, I don't think you can get a good idea of the merit of the resolution system based on our opinion. You sound like you have a pretty solid handle on what you are doing, and maybe you should get some folks together, playtest, and then write about it in the playtest forum.

I don't know if realism and "the dream" are necessarily two separate things; I can see where in some situations they would be, but I don't see it here.  Basically, the dream is "wizards in the real world."  Or, at least, from the real world.  So a certain level of realism is important.  But I can see your point.

(This game is far less realistic & system-heavy than my previous project (still unfinished, giving it a rest) The Rustbelt.  The numbers and details in the Rustbelt get scary sometimes)

Y'know, I originally had most of the seven virtues listed as stats.  But then I realized that I wanted them to be guiding forces behind character behavior, behind what abilities are used and how, not abilities in and of themselves.  Do you get what I mean?

In hindsight, it seems that my previous missive contained more information than was necessary to satisfy what you were looking for.  Sorry for making you read through all that, especially considering how poorly structured it was.

Maybe I'll give a playtest a try.  Thanks for the thoughts.