Hi all.

Historical Note:

I began Oscura a looong time ago while improving a D&D game at the beach wth some friends. I had a few ideas for a few new races, a few interesting house rules and what proved to be some very fun plot ideas and great NPCs.

As we continued playing during our normal sessions, the aspects I most cared for started distillig from the rest of the paraphernalia up to the point I thought it would be more rewarding (to me) to actualy create the game from scrap.

It wasn't long before I started focusing more on the game mechanics than anything else, and I eventually came up with a very cool, absolutely innovative, incredibly flexible dice mechanic. I would eventually find out that the basics of this game mechanic are being used (with variations) in games as Heavy Gear and Sorceror. That's what happens when you play D&D too long I guess. I also came across The Forge and posted some stuff and (I think) came to look at game designing from a much more enriched perspective.

I had two test sessions, one went pretty much awful and the other went much better. It took that to realize that I really didn't care very much for adventuring games at this point in life. I was much more interested in developing the NPCs that ruled the world than fanning out plot ideas (or "kickers" even) for the adventure-focused characters.

I've re-directed development on Oscura into this "new" game. It uses the same setting as Oscura and possibly the same mechanics but is focused at another premise. In this sense, if Oscura and Oscura:Heirs to the Throne (hereafter OHT) ever get finished then they could possibly run as parallel stories of a same campaign. I'm not trying to work this out yet though, but it's something I would realy love to eventually work out.

On to the game then:

The objective of this post is to gather feedback regarding the premise of the game and the few mechanical aspects I've worked out this far. The setting is presented very roughly so I guess any comments regarding would be more useful once I flesh out something a little more detailed. Oh, and don't hesistate to point out any grammar or spelling mistakes you might deem important; I'm an english native speaker but I use it as a second language so I'm always a bit rusty.

Setting:
"A golden age of science, organized religion, peace and economy has come to a grinding halt. Decadence is sweeping the Empire as extreme religious factions permeate the social structure, science is all but extinct, regional warlords battle fiercely backed by noblemen struggling for control of the now scarce mineral and agricultural resources."

Premise:
"The characters are in a position that could allow them to influence the events that are to shape the coming era by dominating the conflicts that are to arise."

Mechanics:
I'm sticking to the reduced attribute set originally used in Oscura which are Mind, Body, Soul. Where Body takes care of all physical performance issues, Mind of all intellectual, Soul of all spiritual. I have this much better defined somewhere, but it isn't what I'm focusing on at this point ad is pretty much obvious anyay (IMHO).

Now this is the part I'm working on as of now, and which I deem the most important and characteristic aspect of the actual game:

First of all, I'm considering that the game models character action as conflict resolution. What I mean is, all character action that isn't viewed as an important/decisive/non-trivial conflict is irrelevant to the mechanics. Thus, opening a door, mounting a horse, etc. are not intended to be modelled by the mechanic unless they become transcendent conflicts.

Conflicts are themselves viewed as instances where two or more entities struggle to dominate the other up to a point where conflict resolution is possible.

For example, under this perspective, in relevant hand-to-hand combat (always a favorite topic for examples huh?) the struggle for domination can be understood as the skirmishing where combatants maneuver, probe, feign, etc. in order to bring themselves to a position where effectives blows are possible (and probable). The actual blows are actions taken from standpoint of domination that are aimed towards resolution and can result in actual resolution, greater or sustained domination, or in lesser or even reversal of domination (with a succesful dodge a defender who might have been hardly managing to stay on his feets might position himself for an effective counterattack).

My hope is that this concept of domination can be applied to other types of activities; even though it had arisen from designing-the-better-combat-system. For example, during a negotiation the confict can or might be understood as attaining the greater benefit from the transaction. Here domination could indicate the degree to which a participant in the negotiation has been able to correctly assess variables of the transaction and introduce new variables with hidden values (that the other participants wil hopefully underestimate). At a point where the participant has sufficient domination of the conflict (i.e. the upper hand) he can opt to resolve the conflict (or at least try to), obviously this resolution would be to his advantage if succesful.

Domination itself will probably be a consecuence of accumulating succeses on successive challenge rolls relating to the conflict at hand. I'm considering what seems to be a Sorceror-type roll. A pool of d20s are rolled (the pool will probably be of size equal to the experience in the relevant Mean -as in Ways & Means - more on that further below) against an oppossing pool. Whoever gets the highest roll adds the number of dice greater that beat his challeneger's highest die to his domination. Example: suppose Gustav already has a domination of 3 over Jacob at trying to seduce Mlle. Marié. Suppose Gustav has a pool of 4 dice, and Jacob a pool of 3. Gustav rolls 8, 9, 12, 18. Jacob rolls 2, 6, 10. Tha means Gustav adds 2 to his domination since both 12 ad 18 are greater than 10 (Jacob's highest die). Gustav therefore has a domination of 5. At this point he might try to make a definitive move for Mlle. Marié (thus far they've both just had brief dialogues with her or have boasted before her). Gustav aproaches her and after little nonesense makes clear his intentions towards her. I'm supposing Gustav would roll a pool having some relation with his domination. For example, rolling his usual pool of 3 + 5 for domination for a total of 8 dice, against Jacob's measly 3. Mlle. Marié would have a certain difficulty to being seduced (I guess), let's say it's 6. This would mean 6 successes are necessary for seducing her. This makes Gustav's domination vital for any chance of success. An observation would be that in effect Jacob has made it easier for Gustav to succeed. If Gustav were to try t seduce Marié directly (not competing against Jacob) then maybe her difficulty would express a difficulty pool. Gustav's 4 would be against her 6 and at the same time 6 successes from Gustav would be necessary for succesful resolution. So I guess the competition makes Gustav more attractive to Marié's eyes. I think this is incorrect so far, since the worse the competition, the more domination Gustav would be able to get, thus making him look even better... this makes no sense, especially when translated to other situations I think. Maybe a better interpretation is that the resolution of the conflict between Gustav and Jacob is only the elimination of the competition, so Gustav wouldn't have to beat Mariés 6 but rather Jacob's 3 directly. Having beaten Jacob,he'd have cleared the way, and now must try to seduce Marié on his own accord: now that Jacob's out of the picture he's up against Mariés 6.

I know it's weird, I'm just starting to work out the actual mechanism so that it works on all types of conflicts and situations. A few things I immediately think might be considered (as a consecuence of domination acting as an ad-hoc currency) are:
* Limits to the domination a character can acquire.
* Ways of taking risks by part of the character being dominated so he can aspire to regain domination (especially necessary so low dice pools still stand some sort of chance again higher dice pools): hopefully this would rely on player creativity.
* Clear definitions or guidelines at least on how to recognize multiple conflicts that must be resolved in succession (as in the seduction example).

A positive consecuence I hope this element has in the game is that actions competing for domination seem to be able to correspond to rich narrative elements rather than pure gamist decisions (because I'm aiming for more narrativist than gamist play): "I run a few long sweeps against my enemy trying to distract him from the dagger in my left hand", "As he attacks me I use my free hand to throw obstacles at him (chairs, candletick) and slow him down" <-- both of these combat actions would probably have the exact same roll requierd with the same effect: competing for domination. I'm aware combat is still more tricky than this and I hope it might provide insight to more complete domination managment rules.

I can think of a few more positive and some negative aspects (in the sense of what the intended gameplay is) but I'd rather wait for some feedback.


I'll expand on the model of domination->resolution if it needs further clarification. I have no information of other games using this model explicitly, but then again I don't buy or browse that many games (I'm hoping that will change soon).


The element that should be fundamental to describing the characters mechanically are Means. Most of all the terminology I'm using is sadly provisional, but this part is moreso. I'm not comfortable wit the term Means yet (because mean is so polysemic) and neither am I with the names the Means actually have for now.

A Means is a method (perhaps they can be called Methods?) of dominating. Each means has 4 spheres of influence: personal, collective, local, massive. I'm not sure about the names for these spheres yet, but I'm sure I'll work them out sooner or later. I'll refer to them as spheres 1,2,3 and 4 respectively.

I consider for the meantime 4 Means, their (provisional) names, their descriptions and the descriptions of the reach of each of their spheres are:

Transaction: dominating through the correct estimation and assessmet of mutual benefits arising from trade.
1 - Haggle, bargain face to face over individual items.
2 - Carry long-term business and/or relating to many items on small scale, such as a shop or a trade route.
3 - Manage business on a local scale (such as a city or town), organizing imports/exports storage, optimizing returns, dealing with local commerce authorities.
4 - Organize business on a regional level. Establish trade/production networks between different sectors.

War: dominate through physical menace.
1- Hand-to-hand / personal combat skills.
2 - Command a small military unit (no more than 50 me) at small scale confrontations (compromising small geographical areas).
3 - Command an army of about 1000 men, develop strategies for controlling large scale geographical sites.
4 - Choose and direct other generals, organize and execute a war.

Persuasion: dominate through practical or ethical reasoning and argumentation.
1 - Interpersonal debate.
2 - Establish a coherent and convincing (persuasive) set of objectives around which a small group of people can assemble and interact constructively.
3 - Establish influence networks on a local scale answering to common objectives.
4 - Organize influence networks on a regional scale built on likewise regional objectives.

Seduction: dominate through charismatic behaviour and empathy.
1 - Generate empathy, interest towards oneself in another individual.
2 - Assemble a small group of people (i.e. a circle of friends, or a group of loyal subjects) who appreciate the character as a natural leader.
3 - Charismatically collect a number of followers to one's cause (around 1000 people).
4 - Establish a personal leadership of followers at a regional scale.

Now, a character may have experience levels for separate spheres under separate Means (indicating the number of dice in his pool when relevant). Thus, a character may have 3 expierence in Persuasion-2 (collective), and 5 experience in both Combat-1 (personal) and Combat-4 (massive). This would be expected, for example, for a character described as a military general with good team leadership skills and experienced hand-to-hand combat training.

An unfortunate consecuence of the name War for example, is that it might seem to relate to the ability to successfully perform in war at cretain scales of action. This isn't the correct idea, since bringing a war to successful conclusion needs not only of correct consideration of strict "military" matters but also of an adecuate inclusion of economics, political skills and maybe even a superior charisma. The means try to refer to specific sets of skills or abilities which should be often combined to manipulate conflicts under different contexts.


In principle all sphere are independent, i.e. massive is not considered to include personal. But the mechanics should allow for characters to utilize some experience from one sphere to another adjacent sphere.... maybe for each 3 levels at a collective sphere one can add 1 experience to personal or local actions executed by the same means.

Premise:
"The characters are in a position that could allow them to influence the events that are to shape the coming era by dominating the conflicts that are to arise."

For example, rolling his usual pool of 3 + 5 for domination for a total of 8 dice, against Jacob's measly 3. Mlle. Marié would have a certain difficulty to being seduced (I guess), let's say it's 6.

A positive consecuence I hope this element has in the game is that actions competing for domination seem to be able to correspond to rich narrative elements rather than pure gamist decisions (because I'm aiming for more narrativeist than gamist play): "I run a few long sweeps against my enemy trying to distract him from the dagger in my left hand", "As he attacks me I use my free hand to throw obstacles at him (chairs, candletick) and slow him down"

A Means is a method (perhaps they can be called Methods?) of dominating.

Thanks for the feedback.

I see what you say about Premise, the first two examples are basically what I'm pointing at.. I just wasn't aware of the way Premise is expected to be formulated, now I am :)

I think one of your problems here is that you are confusing characters that roll their skill with characters that act as difficulty tests

While your system would be abstract, it could just as easily be used in an abstractly gamiest fashion. Narrativist rules (it seems to me) tend to support play that centers on players writing detail and direction into the story. While an abstract mechanic doesn&#8217;t get in the way of this, it doesn&#8217;t really encourage player investment in the story, and doesn&#8217;t encourage the players to fulfill the narrative demands.

I think the names of your four areas of skill might be better suited by other names: commerce, combat, debate, and leadership

Overall, you've got some strong ideas, but they're obscured behind a complicated set of rules you haven't tuned together. At this point you have a pile of lumber and not a house. I'd recommend doing an inventory of the situations you want your rules to cover and then specifically detailing exactly what rules should apply in that situation.

Various Comments:
In general, I like it. I really like the Dominion mechanic.
Some ideas.
Need mechanics for loss of dominion. In general this would probably on an interruption.
Also, perhaps a persons who looses a contest looses one dominion. (Loss of all dominon I think would be to crippling)

If Gustave left for a week, he would loose all his dominion over Jacob. Jacob might have had a chance to gain a little.
Possibly add a scale for actions-your Seduction example would probably be days. So for every day Gustav is gone, Jacob gets to roll and reduce Gustav's dominon and gain some of his own.
Combat would have a scale of rounds, unfortuantly getting distracted in combat would probably loose all your dominon.
Thus that gives us two types of contests, which I would call Sustained and Continuios. All contests have a time frame.
In a Sustained Contest the opponent gets a free roll in any time frame one opponent does not concentrate on the contest. The absent opponent cannot gain dominion on this roll. (alternative would be to reduce dominion by 1 per missed time frame--third type of contest?-)
In a continuios contest missing a time frame loses ALL dominion. Combat would be an example.
Just an idea.

Methods I find confusion, although I think I see where you are going.
For instance, nothing appears to be relevent say swinging on
a rope.
Also, Seduction and Persuation appear pretty similar above the individual scale. (They only really differ in the type of leadership.)

Just some ideas

Arrgh. The original premise was a perfectly good premise, KR. Didn't need any adjustment at all. Your tweaks would simply make the premise absolutely Simulationist. Which is fine if that's what Don wants, but I'm not sure that's the case. Anyhow, it was fine exactly as it was.

Your point about abstract/narrative is a good one (even though narrative is not the same as Narrativist). That is abstraction may allow such play, but does little to actively encourage it specifically. OTOH, this is very easy to fix. Simply requiring the GM to require such narration is a start, frex.

Mike

Arrgh. The original premise was a perfectly good premise, KR. Didn't need any adjustment at all. Your tweaks would simply make the premise absolutely Simulationist. Which is fine if that's what Don wants, but I'm not sure that's the case. Anyhow, it was fine exactly as it was.

Tnanks for the feedback guys.

I'm glad the Premise passed the test :)

I've given some thought to your comments damion, but haven't posted any reply because my initial reply snowballed on me (I finally saved the 11KB answer I had prepared) and now I have to deal with tons of ideas and solve an essential problem: whenever I come down to thinking about the conflict-domination-resolution mechanic I keep getting tugged towards the simulationist-gamist benefits that such a model could display (IMHO), I think this is because I ted to think of combt examples which really aren't centra at all in this particular game.

I have to keep reminding myself that I've taken the decision to split the game into an adventure oriented one (Oscura) and a political-intrigue-sociological one (Oscura: Heirs to the Throne).

I need a mantra or something.

Seriously though, I think I'd most benefit from Roy's suggested method at this point (stating an example of how the game should be played). Otherwaise I'll probably get tangled up in the usual mess I come up with when thinking too abstractely. That will save us all from a useless (and excessively long) premature response :)

Thanks again for the useful feedback.