I, just yesterday, wrote down a game title & premise that does interest me, and might interest others.

Credo: A contemperary role-playing game about the power of belief.

Now, here are the issues:

If I am going to be doing this for my own pleasure, I want it primarily Narrativist, but driftable (Transition-capable?), with a single mechanic for resolving everything. I could care less what stance the players take, as long as they don't come to blows over it.

I'd like to have a faith stat/trait/attribute that will allow players to accomplish "unusual" things – like moving mountains if necessary. This could be fairly game-breaking, if used wrong. The individual unit of measure for faith would be an "atom" (so if you've got faith in the amount of a mustard seed, we're talking about roughly 10^20 atoms of faith*)

Out of sheer bloody-mindedness, I'm thinking that it will be stat/trait/attribute only, no skills. That is, for mechanics resolution, only the attribute matters. Skills are more of a 'character background' sort of thing. I'm also thinking that I like percentile chances and I like the In Nomine check die. So mechanics could be roll d100 + d10, check d100 against attribute, and use d10 for quality of success or failure.

How does this work for a beginning?


*The combination of professional Chemist and amateur Theologian leads to some odd ideas, no? :)

Hi Mark,

I don't see a Premise yet. What's the game about? Or more accurately, what is a person playing it (in any capacity) going to be enjoying?

Best,
Ron

FYI, there is a great, satirical card game about how the basic tenants of the Catholic church were established, called Credo. Not that it necessarily matters, but thought I'd point it out.

Mark,
I agree with Ron that we really need to know what the players will be doing. In the meantime...

I'd like to have a faith stat/trait/attribute that will allow players to accomplish "unusual" things – like moving mountains if necessary.

OK – I'll grant that "A role-playing game about the power of Belief" is a little thin for getting people into play. Here's a paragraph directed at the characters:

Your kind has always existed, serving humanity as best you could – you have been called saints, shamen, medicine men, even demigods. But you know better. All it takes is Faith, a little bit of belief – so small it is known as an Atom, and you are changed. Now that you have power, your struggle begins: how much, or how little, you do is up to you. But there is so much to do...

The thought is that the characters are more or less ordinary people, who through some means (based on belief) gain what amounts to supernatural power, but not terribly much of it.

To make life easier on the GM (and the players), I'm "borrowing" a concept from Lois McMaster Bujold's Curse of Challion: anyone who has the power of belief can instantly recognize anyone else with the power. Whether I'll go so far as to make the "flavor" of belief recognizable, I'm not sure.

Mark D. Eddy wrote: To make life easier on the GM (and the players), I'm "borrowing" a concept from Lois McMaster Bujold's Curse of Challion: anyone who has the power of belief can instantly recognize anyone else with the power. Whether I'll go so far as to make the "flavor" of belief recognizable, I'm not sure.

In my game The Keys of Solomon[\i] part of the cosmology was that "belief equals truth". Meaning that if enough people believed in something it became real. A simple example of this is "why is blue blue?" It is because enough people accept that blue is blue. A more metaphysical example might be that God exists only because mankind wants him to exist.

You can use something like that in your game. Perhaps the PCs have a desire to spread the word and build Faith in others, either to increase their own power, or the power of what it is they have faith in.

,Matt G.

Hey Mark,

I still don't get it. What I'm not seeing is any reason to play. What would it be like to play? Look at it from a player's point of view: what do I get to do?

1) Enjoy the neat stories and scenarios presented to me by the GM, using my character's powers and acting out his or her speeches?

2) Kick butt and take names? Have to think fast in order to keep my character from getting killed?

3) Scheme among and against all the other players and NPCs?

4) Other? [fill in the blank]

5) Other other? [fill in the blank]

Please interpret all of the above as exclusive options; that is, which is really, really, really the point of play?

Here's another question that might clarify what I'm asking. Are the characters to improve steadily and/or rapidly, or are they pretty much set as they are?

Best,
Ron

I think that what Ron is saying can be summed up by just answering the Following questions. You say in the blurb, "Now that you have the power, your struggle begins."

What struggle?

"But there's so much to do..."

Like what?

Mike

The player should be trying to have fun.

I had a math teacher who said, when introducing a card game, "The object of the game is to win. Now I'll tell you how the rules will allow you to win."

I don't believe that RPG's are supposed to work that way.

The players, if I do this right, will be exploring how to choose when there are two or more equally compelling goods and only enough resources to accomplish one.

The struggle is to improve the lot of humanity. One instance could be that the PC is an intensive care nurse. She doesn't have enough atoms of faith to help all of her patients survive. So what does she do?

Of course, that's just off the top of my head.

Mark D. Eddy wrote: The player should be trying to have fun.

The dilemmas should be provided by the players first, then by the GM – player/character goals should drive individual storylines, while the GM provides plot complications, hooks and a sense of unity. I'm contemplating taking some of the ideas this is giving me over to RPG Theory and giving them a good airing out, but for now I'm going to be Credo-specific.

The characters should be related before play starts. I'm thinking of having a relationship map be part of character creation: How does your character fit in with all the others? Also before the game starts, the players will work out their first miracle – the event that creates thier characters' first atoms of Faith. This will be reflected by a statement of faith, in the form "I believe..."

If they can reinforce their creed without resorting to the miraculous, the characters can gain more atoms of Faith. If they use a miracle to do something other than reinforce their creed, they have the option to expand their creed in lieu of getting the atom back at the beginning of the next session (this is a *very* shaky mechanic).

So, on to a play example, using our nurse from above, and three other characters based on the way my Friday-night gaming group works. Jane, the nurse, is an RN who just started her six-month rotation in the ICU. Her belief statement is "I believe I can make a difference in the lives of the ill." Another player is playing her boyfriend, Bill, a cabdriver, with the creed "I believe that people will choose good if the choice is clear to them." A third player is playing Dr. Joshua Engels, a trauma resident in the same hospital that Jane works at. His creed is "I believe that my knowledge can save lives." The fourth player is playing Joe, a police detective. Through negotiation, it is decided that he is investigating the attempted homicide of one of the ICU patients, who "belongs" to both Jane and Dr. Engels. His creed is "I believe the perp will give himself away."

So, who is the hot mike tonight, and who are the backups? The GM decides that Jane is tonight's soloist (I'm using jazz metaphors here, which I hope to expand on in Theory...), and, knowing that Jane is worried about *all* of her patients, decides to introduce Joe's motivation as tonight's complication. Player interaction occurs between Jane and Joe, while the GM ropes Bill into a subtheme. Dr. Engels puts in his two cents on the patient, and adds his Faith to Jane's – the mechanics determine that the patient is now conscious, but not terribly coherent. Joe goes away with a very rough description of the perp. Meanwhile, Bill has had a close encounter of the unpleasant kind – the GM has determined that he has had the perp as a fare, and the ensuing conversation (including mechanics to reveal how much is given away by the perp – if Joe had encountered him he could have used his Faith to influence the mechanics) gives an insight into the character of the perp. Jane and Bill roleplay out their dinner that evening, including putting two and two together and getting the perp's identity, while Joe spins his wheels looking for clues and Dr. Engels takes care of a red herring in the trauma center. Jane then decides to reveal the perp to Joe, in exchange for future help with patients (remember, she knows he has "The Gift").

After action includes potential Faith gains (determined by mechanics) and potential Attribute gains (determined by the GM and the other Players). In this case, Joe and Jane have the potential for Faith gains, and Bill is likely to get an attribute gain. Depending on what happened with the red herring, Dr. Engels may be eligible for both Faith and Attribute gains.

Excellent. I am assuming that the Perp had assaulted the patient or something which is why the patient could describe him. You do not say it but I think that's what you're implying. Just to be clear.

Anyhow, I like that there was only one use of a miracle in the session. That makes their use special. How do you plan to limit the use (or would this session be an exception, more use being the norm)? I'm assuming that it has to do with the Atoms mechanic, but how many Atoms does it take to wake a comatose patient, and how do the participants of the game know? I think that's going to be key.

Mike

Hi Mark,

Now we're getting somewhere. I strongly suggest that you work up what you wrote in your last post into a kind of example or essay, then use that as the introductory material to the game.

Also, at this point, I think you'd be best served by working on a game-document, kind of a shortie version in which everything's there or at least outlined. In my experience, further dialogue at this stage tends to dilute one's creative effort rather than enhance it. Once you have such a document, then people can read it, maybe play it (including you), and we can take the dialogue from there.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote: Excellent. I am assuming that the Perp had assaulted the patient or something which is why the patient could describe him. You do not say it but I think that's what you're implying. Just to be clear.

Mike Holmes wrote: Anyhow, I like that there was only one use of a miracle in the session. That makes their use special. How do you plan to limit the use (or would this session be an exception, more use being the norm)? I'm assuming that it has to do with the Atoms mechanic, but how many Atoms does it take to wake a comatose patient, and how do the participants of the game know? I think that's going to be key.

Mike