Ok.. so im writing this game, about a dark world...
The basic premise is... cloning is legalised.. babies are "designed" right down to their academic abilities.. when the babies grew up, not all where happy, because they were designed to be really good at maths, they may HATE IT, anyway.. riots insue.. lots of places burnt... etc...
I need comments and feedback on the system?
What works? What doesn't? Which chapters to drop? Which chapters to add? Is the background plausible?
etc..

Ok.. so it wont let me stick the background here (damn pdf wont copy)...
so basically you can get it all HERE

Its all free.. and wierd... One person said "very original, almost had me wanting to can D&D for good", god knows why he said that.. but, he did...

Hi Seamus, and welcome to the Forge!

(I apologize if I got your name wrong. Please understand my reluctance to abuse another human being by referring to you by the screen name you've chosen, even though it's by your own request.)

There's a lot to comment on here, because you've offered a fairly complete write-up of your setting and system. That is to your credit. I also see a lot of potential in it. The setting you describe appears similar to the central "Blade Runner" conflict between replicants and humans. (Substitute the clones for the replicants, of course.) And that's one of my favorite SF settings and situations, partly because it naturally ties in with what I think of as the ultimate, in some ways the only, SF theme: "What is human?"

But... it needs work, as I'm sure you've already realized. I would start out by stepping past the rules system, leaving it aside for the moment, and looking at the player-character roles that the game currently offers. Let me ask a few questions about that:

If some players in a group elect to be clones, and others agents, what happens?

If I were to elect to play a non-clone non-Agent human, what would I do in the game? What types of adventures would I be likely to become involved in?

Why would clones meeting humans act hostile to them, if their survival depends on their blending in?

If clones are physically recognizable as such by fairly simple means (such that two people meeting on the street can immediately tell who's a clone and who's a human), and they're outnumbered by non-clones to the point where they're forced to hide, why haven't they been wiped out already?

As an agent, would I be expected to play as agents are described in the text, with no conscience or feelings, and no desires or goals other than killing off the other guys? What would I hope to accomplish that way?

As a clone, would I be expected to keep a low profile until an agent comes along and tries to kill me? Or is there an active clone resistance, perhaps with armed "agents" of their own or with other planned means of winning or ending the conflict?

Is there an underground, perhaps a society of humans and clones who try to undermine the current system (by peacefully coexisting, perhaps)? If so, I'd much rather play a role in that story than as a willing participant in a conflict that appears strategically senseless and morally monstrous on both sides.

In other words, this is a good setting and background for characters and conflicts that explore some interesting moral issues. But if you intend it as a setting for straight shoot-em-up action, I'm a bit repulsed by it. [sarcasm]I get to role-play an agent who remorselessly hunts down and kills clones who are trying to blend in and avoid discovery? Cool, and after that maybe I'll try a few sessions of GURPS Nazi Death Camp Guard.[/sarcasm]

To strengthen the moral questions involved, I think you might need to punch up the history a bit. A history based on large groups of people doing bizarre self-destructive things just because they're stupid and intolerant is just not as dramatic. Look at the current Israeli-Palestinian terror war: people are doing bizarre self-destructive things, and acting stupid and intolerant, for deep and interesting and complex reasons. In Blade Runner, the replicants had really really good reasons to be pissed off, and the quest that brought them to earth had a truly heroic, though tragic, quality to it: "I want more life, fucker!" At the same time, the authorities manipulating Decker had really really good reasons to regard the replicants as inhumanly dangerous. With that background, Decker's conscience becomes the story.

So, what really really good reason did the clones have for revolting? What was their plan? Being annoyed that they didn't get good enough genes and reacting with pointless mass destruction doesn't make them very sympathetic. What triggered them all to revolt simultaneously? Was there a charismatic leader, a new religion, a technological breakthrough, a sudden attempt by society as a whole to curtail their rights? Where did their plans go wrong? Are they really hated by the general public, or are they only being scapegoated by the current government (which by the way appears to be the real villain here)? Do they still hold whatever grudge caused them to revolt originally, or are they now just fighting because it's necessary to survive? How have they managed to survive this long?

Some of these questions are rhetorical, but please think about them and answer what you can. Right now, Designer is teetering between a game I'd really like to play, and a game I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, and I could see it going either way.

Best,
Walt

Walt (did i get that right?)
Seamus is my name.. thanks... :)

If some players choose clones, and others choose agents (or vigils as they are called in the new version that i haven't uploaded yet, i will refer to them as agents for now), then its like playing elves and dwarfs in the same party in something like WFRP, they may have their reasons for allying. However what would be cool (and i have to expand on this), is not having the agent and clone in the same "party", but having like, one session, the clones play and try and get ahead of the agents, then the next day (or whatever), the agents have a go at tracking them down... although combat would prove bothersome.... I REALLY have to expand on this...

If you elected to play just a normal human, then the gm would decide the storyline but, something like, you could have your home ruined by agents running rampant through it looking for "clones", you could seek vengeance ( I know that is really weak), [Ihavenoideas] but do YOU [/ihavenoideas],

Why would clones meeting humans act hostile to them, if their survival depends on their blending in?

As an agent, would I be expected to play as agents are described in the text, with no conscience or feelings, and no desires or goals other than killing off the other guys? What would I hope to accomplish that way?

As a clone, would I be expected to keep a low profile until an agent comes along and tries to kill me? Or is there an active clone resistance, perhaps with armed "agents" of their own or with other planned means of winning or ending the conflict?

They are called sympathisers.. and yes.. there is some society..

I have to think about this....

Thanks for your feedback

Seamus, thanks for all the answers. This really gives me a better idea of what sorts of play you're looking for.

In particular, you seem to be interested in at least the possibility of presenting a setting in which both sides of the major conflict are deserving of some audience sympathy, and in which both sides are driven by strong emotions. (You could have answered half my questions with, "nah, I don't care about that, I just want to the players to have a good reason to dress in cool outfits and go out with big guns and kill anything that moves." Which is a perfectly valid way to play; my only reservation was that this might not be a good setting for it, as written, if the targeted side ends up appearing unjustly persecuted.) I thought that might be the case, reading between the lines of your game document, but on the surface, especially in the way clones and vigils are currently described, not much of that comes across.

In general, if you want a game that's an unfettered frag-fest, it's better to have only one sympathetic side: fantasy heroes versus orcs and monsters; embattled rebel fighters against slimy alien invaders, and so forth. So far, it looks like you're not going that route. I'm going to guess (and you can tell me if I'm wrong) that you chose that way on purpose, because you're at least partly interested in forms of gameplay that involve either deeper immersion in exploration of aspects of the setting (which is associated with a mode of play called "Simulationism" here), or more player-character emotional involvement in the moral questions that a setting like this can raise (which is associated with "Narrativism" here.)

If you haven't already, I'd like you to read Ron's GNS essay which introduces these concepts of "Simulationism" and "Narrativism," as well as "Gamism" and many other terms that are useful in talking about role playing games, especially understanding what it is you want a game design to provide to its players. This can (and should) affect the design of all parts of a game system, from the setting background as we've been discussing, to the most fundamental game mechanics. Though this way of thinking about role playing games can appear at times to get overly "theoretical," the goal is nothing more or less than to make sure that the system you design really does lead to (facilitates) the kind of play you want it to.

A related question to think about is, why do you think players should play your system, rather than using one of the many role playing systems already out there (perhaps with a few modifications for your particular setting)? Why not use GURPs or D20 or (as you've already credited in your game) Fudge with your setting as a guideline, or a more specialized existing system that already has elements of your setting built in, like Shadowrun or this guy's Blade Runner RPG (which I know nothing about, such as whether or not it's any good, it just popped up in a quick Web search)? This is one of those annoying but necessary questions. Annoying because it sounds like a hostile challenge, and in a way it is: "why does the world need YOUR game when it's got thousands of other RPGs already?..." Necessary because, as with the GNS model approach, it gets you to think about and ultimately focus on what it is you particularly want your system to achieve.

These are difficult questions to wrestle with and, in the case of GNS, some difficult concepts to absorb. No one here will mind if you ask lots of questions along the way.

- Walt

Hi Seamus,

Welcome to the Forge! This post is just to let you know that it's not only Walt who's responding to you - even if others aren't posting, we're definitely reading, and definitely interested in how your design is going to be articulated.

One reason I, for instance, haven't responded yet is that Blade Runner is a widespread influence on people who want to design role-playing games. Quite a lot of people design "android hunter" games and they tend to be distressingly alike, up to and including missing the point of the movie. So I'm a little cautious about game designs that bear some resemblance to that - not dismissive, just a bit cautious.

Also, Walt asked all the good questions already. I'll look forward to what you'll be presenting.

Best,
Ron

Walt,
Thanks for your help, i've read a bit of the GNS essay, and will finish it as
soon as i get home...
One idea which just struck me (and this is just a notion) is to have the VIGILS more like the policeforce (ie. Plagued by curruption),
Let me know what you think of this "notion",
I will answer all questions in a seperate post when i get home...
For now...
Just thought i'dd post this..

Thanks to both of you for responding....

Hello Seamus,

I find it odd why people still use 20th century weapons and technology in the 23rd century. Why not move the setting to the 22nd century at least? Cloning technology already exists.

I also wrote a Blade Runner inspired game at some point. Here:
http://peregrjnus.tripod.com/singularity

It was also discussed here in the following thread, with plenty of references to Blade Runner and replicant hunting:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=262&highlight=singularity

Maybe these will give you another angle on the issue.

Regards,
Gizem Forta

your completley right about weapons.. they are a simple list "borrowed" from various sources...
Im definitly rewriting it....

*mumbleanotherthingtodomumble*

:)

In particular, you seem to be interested in at least the possibility of presenting a setting in which both sides of the major conflict are deserving of some audience sympathy, and in which both sides are driven by strong emotions.

Hi Seamus,

You're heading into a trap, and I think I've unintentionally helped lead you to it. It's the most common trap in RPG design. It's the trap you fall into when you ask yourself, or anyone else, "What should I add to this game?" when you either don't know, or haven't successfully conveyed to those making the suggestions (it might be my fault, for being dense, but it's still a problem) what you want the game to accomplish.

Let me parody our dialog so far, as a way of explaining what I mean.

You write: "I've got this new vehicle I'm working on. So far, it's got a motor, a chassis, a couple of seats, and a color scheme for a really cool paint job. What else does it need?"

I reply: "Well, it all depends on what you want this vehicle to do. If it's a street machine, you need wheels with tires. If you're planning to haul a lot of cargo, a big trailer would be a good thing to add. Of course, you'd also be better off with a big diesel engine in that case. If you want it to fly, on the other hand, wings, a propeller, and a powerful but lightweight engine will probably be necessary, unless you want to try jet engines. For crossing water, your basic requirements are a buoyant hull, a screw drive, a rudder, and maybe hydrofoils. .."

You reply: "Okay, here's the list so far:
- Wheels with tires
- A big trailer
- Heavy-duty diesel engine that's lightweight
- Wings
- Propeller
- Jet engines
- Rudder
- Bouyant hull
- Hydrofoils
Anything else I should add?"

If this were an ordinary RPG discussion site, people would be more than willing to keep throwing in suggestions, so that your new creation would soon also sport booster rockets, tank treads, a snowplow, handlebars, and a caboose.

Here, the consensus is that that way lies madness. Until you've clearly established the goals of what you're designing, you're designing in the dark; and until you can convey those goals to others so clearly and straightforwardly that even I can understand them, any content suggestions you get including mine are like directions you get from an out of town visitor who doesn't really know where you're trying to get to. That's why, if you look around the threads here concerning game designs by amateur RPG designers like you and me, you'll see a lot more advice about "how to go about the design process" than "what you should put into your game."

Please, please, don't fall into the trap you're heading for. It wasn't my intention to fill up your canteens with Good Advice and then send you back into the desert still lacking a compass or a destination. With patience and an open mind, you can get a lot more from the Forge than that.

Best,
Walt

PS: Paging more experienced Forge folk. This green intern is worried that he's losing the patient. (And furthermore, appears to be suffering from some sort of metaphor overdose.) Is there an attending physician on call?

I think you caught it in time, Doctor. Good call, too. What is this game about? Is it an attempt to ask the "Bladerunner" question, "What does it mean to be human?" If so, that's a big challenge, IMO. I don't think anyone has given a project of quite that scope a proper treatment.

In fact, I'd personally be daunted, personally.

OTOH, there are a lot of other things to look at here. I see this as automatically leaning towards Gamist or Narrativist. Beause the Clone/Vigil dichotomy is going to produce a conflict that needs settling in either a tactical or dramatic fashion. I don't see it much as exploration.

All-in-all, it needs some more focus.

Seamus, give us a description of some thoretical characters, and what a session might look like in play. This is something that we use here lately to see just what the game is about. Once you have that focus decided, then you can pick out the parts that are necessary to make play of that sort possible.

Mike

P.S. this really needs to be an article labeled "What's the Game About?". I said not one original thing up there. Just what we always say. It would be nice to just point people to a resource so as not to hav to retype it every time. Who's got this one?

Ok damn.. I wrote out this big long post.. and then the computer froze before i could post it.. the post came complete with a nifty little example scenario..

Basically the post went as follows...

The basic premise of Designer that I wanted (and still do), is more along the lines of the fugitive rather than, for example, Mission Impossible.
Where mission impossible is a guy who is a secret agent, by choice (i thinkm i haven't seen it in ages, so correct me if im wrong),
While the fugitive, is neccessity driven...
I would like Designer to be like that... a game where the player characters, are somehow driven not by want, but by a need, whether it be escaping, running etc.. whatever....
They must always have some reason to be doing what they are,
I dont want it to be :

GM : Ok, so your a human, you have no reason to hide at all, your just walking around, you see some agents
PC : Ok, i blow them all away...

Thats what im trying to avoid...

Im looking for a more deep story driven kind of thing...
(im not really sure what this is, as im still swallowing the GNS essay, but i think that its narrativism)

I will repost the example scenario once i rewrite it (ie, when i get home),

essentially, i would like deep immersive gameplay, with a cool environment.... and nice story.....

Where the players are driven by neccessity rather than a "ok.. so i feel like doing X"

Im not trying to ask any complex moral questions... but rather...
Give a world, where two sides are both deserving sympathy....

Basically, The way im trying to achieve this is by having the Vigils constantly being used as "pawn" by various politicians.. rather than an independent force...

More on this when i get home..

The example below further illustrates the idea of Vigils being "pawns"

----------------------------
Bob the gm has been talking to his players about a designer game.. they all agreed, they wanted to play vigils, so, he set about creating them a campaign...

It starts like this (in a blood thirsty manner), the players are told by a politician that their are some clones at a downtown at a bar... they are given photos and are told to go "bring them to justice", the vigils go and "bring them to justice", only to find that they are not clones, but infact low ranking politicians, visiting from another country, just out to have a drink.
With in minutes, the bar is surrounded by police, there is a helicopter flying overhead. The press is everywhere...

They hear a loudspeaker voice "Put down your weapons, and come out with your hands up", its coming from the helicopter,

The pc's have several choices now, but the wisest would be to run,
so they do, (well they dont have to, but for the sake of argument, we'll say they do)

Now they are running, from the government....

They dont know it, but there was one reason for them being set up,
The politician was payed by the media to set them up, simply as a cover story for the local Ezine.
Because the vigils were expendable, this was no problem...

this is were it gets deeper...
they are now running.. and exploring the world to some extent... trying to redeem themselves is their own problem....

ok.. so this was off the top of my head....
but... i think it demonstrated the neccesity idea...

this is kind of like the fugitive...

Hmmm... So, the real dynamic is the fact that the characters are on the run? Is it possible at all to play this game with characters who are not on the run? If not, make that a forgone conclusion. Have players include how they were screwed over when they make their characters. That way you don't have to have the sort of railroading scene you describe (which is dangerous; what if the characters do not run?). If the player decides on how he was screwed, he will be invested from the start. As opposed to feeling that the GM has screwed the player.

Then it's all about clones and vigils in an underground fighting to stay alive (in some cases against the goernment that created them). This is starting to sound a lot like Underground, BTW.

Mike

Not neccesarily on the run, i have updated the site, and it includes and expanded premise.. the concept i want, is when people spend years going through life in a haze, just living each day at a time, waiting to die. When things get screwed up, how do you react??
Another cool idea would be, a couple of human players working for some company, they find out about how the company is planning to do certain bad things (dont know what), how do they react??

http://www.geocities.com/drunk_monkeyau/designer.htm

i plan to update the pdf asap..

i updated the pdf...

http://www.geocities.com/drunk_monkeyau/designer.htm