For a long time I’ve been mulling over a way of doing a convincing Doctor Who-style RPG. What I realised, whilst watching the new Russell T. Davies series, was that almost all of these newer stories are based on the same dramatic tension: not whether the Doctor will succeed against his enemies (he always does), but rather *how many people will get hurt in the process?*. I realised that this had to form part of the core mechanics of the game.

At the moment I’ve got the inklings of some ideas about how to do this, but would really love to get some feedback from the Forge on whether you think this could be an enjoyable game, and some advice on how to develop the vague ideas I’m starting with that will get me a mechanic that allows me to exploit that central tension.

The core principles that I think would make for a fun and true-to-source game are:
- The players will be the Doctor and his various companions.
- Low prep. The players will drive the narrative, essentially inventing the plot on the fly. The GM will facilitate, but not lead. I want the players to invent the villain that they’re up against, the dastardly plot that he/she/it is trying to carry out, and the means for foiling it. It was recently stumbling across the rules for the Holmes & Watson Committee that got me thinking this way.
- Simple resolution mechanics. Very little book-keeping.
- Players have a definite goal: to overcome the problem, but to do so with the smallest cost in human (or alien) life possible.

The central mechanic that I’ve come up with is that every conflict can be resolved in only four ways:
#1 Noone is harmed
#2 The opponent is harmed
#3 Innocents are harmed
#4 Self-sacrifice (the player is harmed).

“Everybody lives, Rose! Just this once, everybody lives!”

#1 is the hardest to achieve, with each subsequent approach being progressively easier. #4 - self-sacrifice - is automatically successful, but every time the player chooses this approach then they lose some aspect of their character (the scale of the conflict will determine exactly what is sacrificed – at the smaller end it would be equipment, or skills, but if the danger was great enough it would be their own life). When faced with a conflict the player can choose to tackle it in one of the above ways. #1 might mean convincing a Dalek to become peaceful. #2 might mean killing the Dalek. #3 might mean running away, and #4 might mean pushing the Dalek over the gantry while holding on to it.

Whenever players are faced with a conflict they can attempt to resolve it by using one of the four methods above. Unless they succeed at the most difficult (#1) then success will come at a price – someone will be hurt, perhaps killed. Every time this happens the player receives a number of Black Marks, depending on the circumstances, and the nature of the solution they chose.

I’ve got a vague idea of mechanics. As per the Holmes & Watson Committee I think it might be fun for the players to spend much of the game looking for “clues” to the mystery they’ve landed in the middle of. The clues will allow the players to invent the plot as they move around, determing the villain, their nefarious intent, and a method of stopping them.  The GM will have ‘hazard points’ that he can throw into the adventure at various points to create small conflicts, all leading up to the big climax at the end. Players try to identify the clues by rolling dice – if they’re successful then the GM’s hazard points are reduced, if they’re unsuccessful then they still get the clue but the GM’s hazard points increases, meaning that he can throw more conflicts at the players, on a grander scale, making the potential cost of the players’ success that much greater.

I see it working something like this:
- Players (Timelord and companions) arrive in ...oh let’s say Restoration London.
- Players investigate, rolling to find clues about the strange goings on.
- Slowly they develop a plot amongst themselves – say a secret invasion by gold-eating aliens who are intent on taking over the Royal Mint.
- The GM throws in a few Hazards, relatively small scale in which a number of innocent bystanders might or might not be killed (black marks for the players if they are).
- Once the players have found enough clues and fleshed out the plot there is a big climax, in which the players confront and eventually defeat the alien menace, either by driving them away (no black marks), or by resorting to destroying them (some black marks), or blowing up the Tower (lots of black marks), or by sacrificing themselves (no black marks, but also no further character development...).

I like this idea. I like it a lot. The 'blackmarks' remind me of Doom Points from Roanoke; the fewer you acquire, the better the ending of the game. It's a strong, but not unfair, impetus to do well. Oh, you can kill a few Cyberpersons and still have a happy ending, but the Doctor only gets to dance if no one dies.

My only concern would be that whomever is playing the Doctor far, far outstrips everyone else in terms of skills and abilities; a thousand years' worth of knowledge, sonic screwdriver that can do pretty much anything, borderline immortality... and then we look at Rose's character sheet and all it's got is "+2: cute as a button". What if the Doctor was instead a sort of an NPC that everyone, including the GM, shared control of? I could see how that might be complicated to make work, but it would keep the players on an even keel with each other... and if the GM has a hand in the Doctor's actions, it will maintain his inherent unfathomably. The players can still lead, and obviously they'll take charge of the Doctor during combat and what have you, but I feel like it might fit the source better if they didn't control him. After all, one of the great things about Doctor Who (at least in my opinion) is the way the Doctor, despite everything he does for humans and with humans, is alien at the core; he's a step removed, and you can never really know what he's thinking.

Anyway, just throwing that out there. As I said, I like the basic idea, and the premise of not just getting the mystery solved, but doing it in the best way, really is appealing.

Ed,

Thanks for responding. I don't think I explained myself very well - or at least not in a very engaging way - which is why this thread has been languishing untouched. So thanks for making some really helpful comments.

I think you're absolutely right about the Doctor. I had been focusing really heavily on a core conflict resolution system and hadn't considered very much how the Doctor and his companions would be played, but the more I think about this the more I think you've hit the nail on the head. The Doctor is so completely alien at core and a step removed from the rest of the characters. Yet at the same time his role has to be so fundamental to the rest of the character's lives - it is the engine of all the conflicts they will face - that it might be an impossible burden to ask a single player to try and roleplay the character.

I think I need to start again from first principles and first work out how the Doctor can be a part of the game before I worry about the rest of the system. I recently picked up the rules for My Life With Master, and I'm starting to wonder if that very formalised structure might be the way to go (My Life With The Master, perhaps..). MLWM is essentially an essay in dysfunctional and abusive relationships. The Doctor's relationship with his companions is kind of the reverse - with the companions trying to help the Doctor from love rather than from fear.

The Doctor for any one session or campaign could be created jointly by all the players, to embody the values / interests / drives / oddities that they are interested in, but could then only be played (by the GM? by players in turn?) in strictly formalised and controlled ways. The players would take the roles of individual companions (either the long-running sidekicks, or the one-shot companions that he finds in every place that he lands). Their struggle to (a) live up to the Doctor's standards, (b) temper or in some way limit the Doctor's excesses, (c) understand the Doctor, (d) aid the Doctor would form the central conflicts of each episode. I think this still ties into my original insight about the stories being about "who gets hurt", and actually might help to focus that a bit more. I'm imagining that as with MLWM the player characters would be working towards one of several possible predefined outcomes: a noble death, perhaps, or a pointless death, or being abandoned by the Doctor, or returning to earth bitter, or at peace with themselves, etc.

Really just scratchpad ideas at the moment. I think until I work out how that central dynamic of the relationship between the Doctor and his sidekicks should be expressed then the rest is probably wasted effort. You've got me thinking, which was of course the point in posting here.

Michael.

I really like this idea.  The Doctor (and his Tardis) can represent something along the lines of the shared Covenant in Ars Magica.  The characters are bound together, and adventure together, because of their common connections and overarching priorities.

Also, the Doctor is, frankly, a bit nutty and having players essentially weigh in, somehow, on what the Doctor is and what the Doctor does can actually help support the sense of impenetrable purpose and unpredictability that the Doctor wears.  This approach could also leverage the players' collective wits, channeling their input through core game mechanics, to help make the Doctor character smarter, cleverer, etc.  than a single 'ordinary' person or player, without making the Doctor simply a central, all-powerful GM NPC.

I sense that taking a page, or a hard look at, how Universalis handles shared control/influence of main characters may be a clue here.

Good luck with this!  Can't wait to see what happens here.

Cheers!

Hi Manveru,

Thanks for the enthusiasm. Yes, I've gone back to the drawing board with this. How the Doctor works is key. I've read a bit about Universalis, and I think having a mechanical system for taking control and/or influencing the actions of the Doctor holds a lot of promise. I like the idea of everyone having their own PC, but also owning a little piece of the Doctor. And I also think you're right that the Doctor is unusually unpredictable as a personality, so changes in tone and voice that would come from sharing or alternating control wouldn't necessarily interfere with the story, or make it less true to source. Not sure that's true for many other central figures in fiction.

At the moment I'm thinking that having players tap into a set of different drives for the Doctor might be the way to go, perhaps sets of competing drives: Mercy vs. wrath; love vs. aloofness; human-ness vs. alien-ness; pacifism vs. destructiveness, etc. The players could try to pull the Doctor one way or another. At the climax the Doctor will ALWAYS resolve the threat, but the nature of that resolution will depend on what the players did during the game, so that the results differ wildly (from everyone lives, to millions of innocents die).

So, I had an idea; and obviously this is your baby so make of it what you will, but I figured I'd share it (a Doctor Who RPG is such a fun idea it's been bouncing in the back of my head all week, I swear I'm not a presumptuous jerk who's trying to steal your idea).

So, the Doctor is controlled by everyone, but who does he care about the most? Whomever's in the most danger, or who has the most interesting stuff to play with. So, to reflect this, give every player a small pool of "danger/interest" chips. Whenever they get into a dangerous situation, or stumble across a clue, the GM awards them some more. The players, then, can either hold onto these (for some reason, I know not), or they drop them into a 'Doctor Pile' in front of them. Whomever has the biggest Doctor Pile is also in charge of the Doctor.

This way, the Doctor isn't necessarily being controlled by the characters he's with, and if someone has been monopolizing him, you just have to throw rocks at the other companions or some such. Potential problems: it kind of forces the players to compete with each other (which might not be a bad thing, especially if you want to have one group of 'good guys' and a group of the inevitable Benedict Arnolds who are siding with the aliens), and I'm not sure how or if the GM would step in and take control.

Anyway, the idea just popped into my head, and I thought I'd share, because otherwise it'll clog up my brain. Feel free to play with it, or if it's not what you're looking for, that's cool too.

Remember: the doctor cannot love. he is obsessed with this trait that humans have. player will fall-in love with him, that is also part of the plot of the RTD run.
like real love the have to "make room" in their lives for him, because, like a drug the rest of a normal human life is destroyed by chasing the doctor around time and space. There is a lot of  'coyote in a bear trap' in this game. Another 'losing' for the players could be stepping off the Tardis and going home. The just might get tired of sacrificing everything they have to sniff the doctors armpits all day. I suggest you stay serious with the 1-2-3-4  mechanic result, perhaps you could make the suggestions on the board, 5-6-7-8, sort of a sub-set of mechanics that the players work on in the overarching adventure series. I really dig your adventure first focus. Doctor Who is not so much about world building as it is about utilitarianism, and compassion, liberalism, humanism and alienism.

a couple of quick thoughts riffing on the above...

1. Possibly treating the Doctor as a sort of Trump card reward where access to the doctor and his skill set (+sonic screwdriver) could be a reward within goal oriented play.

2. Running all the players individually as assistants to an npc/dm Doctor in a competitive fashion... either in an alternate universe way or in different eras concurrently.

Good thoughts here!  I have nothing further to add here except encouragement.  I think the three posts above hold a lot of promise for exploration, I have no idea yet what they could come to.

Cheers!

Manveru wrote:
Good thoughts here!  I have nothing further to add here except encouragement.  I think the three posts above hold a lot of promise for exploration, I have no idea yet what they could come to.

Cheers!

Aah this is all *excellent*. Thanks for all the feedback - my mind is buzzing and my notebook filling up with all sorts of (mostly contradictory...) ideas!

Mike,

fwiw, you might want to check out the FASA Dr. Who rpg.  It's long out of print, maybe late 80s.

Throwing yet another stick onto the fire here...

Consider the following fictitious example of play, broadly derived from some of the ideas above:

GM: Okay, Nester's been captured by the Cybermen and is scheduled to be processed.  We'll come back to him ..

Nester's player:  *blink*  Meep ...

GM: Meanwhile, back at the Tardis, the Doctor and Mera have escaped the Cybermen, but Nestor was captured.  He's almost certain to be turned into a Cyberman himself.

Doctor (GM): "Well now, that turned out badly ..."  *blink* *hands in pockets*  *cheers up a bit* "Could be worse, I suppose ..."

Mera's player: "But Doctor!  They took Nester!  We have to save him!"

Mera's player  (to GM): I'm going to <insert game mechanic to allow Mera's player to influence the Doctor here>

GM: OK <insert handling here> go ahead ..

Mera's player (as the Doctor): "You're right Mera, but there's more to it than you think.  We HAVE to save Nester, or the Cybermen will be stronger than ever."

Ok, now stop.  At this point, there's an opportunity for this sort of player control of the Doctor to actually bring previously undetermined facts about the story into the game, adding a new facet that must be addressed.  If we assume that the group above went with this, the GM could accept Mera's player's declaration as a new fact, still yet to be fully realized or explained, but nevertheless becoming something that MUST be addressed.

SoTC/FATE handles this sort of thing with aspect declarations and so on, other games have similar currencies.  There's some tricky ground to navigate with this, but it's one way to take the overall thrust of this exploration.

Cheers!

A friend of mine pointed me this way, and it does sound like a very good idea. (Similar to the idea of Wraith: The Oblivion) but with a Positive Shadow.

I'm not a huge fan of RTD's work, but there's a good idea coming out of this.

Perhaps, the companion's give the Doctor protection against his own loneliness (points wise), in which the Doctor can see things from their point of view. So you're basically influencing the Doctor using your own personality traits.

The only problem I can see is that if Tom Baker/Leela were there, there's a diametrically opposed characteristic (Kill Them/Don't Kill Them), that would have to be resolved in some way.

You might want to check out Ian Marsh/Peter Darvill-Evans "TimeLord" for more details on the Doctor as well, it's a lot less clunky than Fasa's original.

My main concern is that the Doctor often travels with only one companion; so a game where the player plays both parts would be a lot of work.

Twsited,

It's true the Doctor often only has one companion, though wherever he lands he often ends up with one or more "local" companions for the duration of that adventure - people from that time and place who end up assisting him, and who - very occasionally - end up as long-term travelling companions. I thought that might be an interesting way of allowing players to create new characters, or to bring in characters for one-shots.

It'd certainly be interesting, and I know I have some people who'd be willing to playtest it.

Keep us uptodate on your thoughts. :)