Learning from the Forge, I see that a goal is essential to making a decision on the system.  What you want the feature to do is the first question that needs to be answered before ading it to your RPG.  In my case, I have a goal that I want my feature to accomplish, but I'm not familiar with where and how it might have been implemented elsewhere.

I'm working on a storytelling RPG where the starting chracters present a challenge to rewarded players.  This means I have to counterbalance the chracter setup with the reward system for the game.  It may be that I'm not familiar enough with games of this type to know where I can see this dome well, but I've no clue how to do this, and no idea of who might have already done it.

Any help would be appreciated.

Hello,

Can you clarify what this actually means?

where the starting chracters present a challenge to rewarded players

Thanks for your response Ron.  I'll try to clarify.

The game I'm working on is competitive in that all of the players are working towards individual goals that may or may not conflict with other players.  While it falls to the GM to provide the "twists" in the story, it falls to the players to ensure that their backs are covered againt any threat, even from a current ally.

Characters that have "won" games will be rewarded and characters that have participated in games will receive consolation prizes that allow them to change their characters for future games.  For example, a rogue looking to steal a sacred item from a wizard might attain the skill "sense necromancy" even if he fails.  The wizard, in return for thwarting the attempt, might earn a favor from the thieve's guild.  The wizards reward is signifigant in that it allows him to change a future story and the rogue's reward is signifigant because it changes the character slightly, but permanently.

My question is how can I balance this style of play in a way where a new character wouldn't be overwhelmed by the existing characters?  The conceit is that I can make a pick-up-and-go game where a new player can jump into an existing story, and move towards a goal without suffering a signifigant penalty for being new aside from perhaps not being as good as everyone else.

Hiya,

Seems like you've added a design goal (adding new players) quite arbitrarily. Why bother?

Your initial concept sounds so fun and interesting that I think it should be designed for its own sake, and let the whole concern about new players simply disappear.

On a slightly less harsh note, if you design the core game well, then you can look at it and design "drop-in" rules, perhaps on as simple a basis as using the current power levels as a framework of some kind. We can talk about that later; as I see it, it's a kooky distraction from the real task of making the game work for people who are in it from the beginning.

Best, Ron

Good point, the drop-in is probably something that could be fudged if and when it comes up.

Looking at the initial concept then, my first task should be coming up with a mechanic that revolves around a session that I'd imagine playing out like this...

Assign GM and Player roles.
Create new characters or use characters developed in a previous session.
GM establishes "setting" which is to include the story up until this point.
Players maneuver characters through the gameworld towards individual goals, alliances and rivalries between characters shift as the story changes.
Players who accomplish their goals "win", players who die, or fail to accomplish their goals "lose".
Consecutive sessions can be planned around a continuously changing superstory.
Imagined settings include espionage, horror, and mystery.

I'm breaking it down as simply as possible because the "how" is where I get hung up.

Scott,
  Well, I think one solution that might fulfill both of your needs is to balance the rewards. What I mean is, maybe at the end of a session/adventure a character always gets the mechanical reward they sought at the beginning of the adventure. But the winner pays a minor price to get it while losers pay a larger penalty.

  For instance, to use your example, maybe at the beginning of the adventure your wizard asked to get the bonus of "Thieves' Guild owes me a favor" and because he won, he gets the minor penalty of "Some thieves see him as an interloper." While the Thief's Player always wanted the Sense Necromancy ability, but because he lost the conflict he gets the "Enemy of all Necromancers" Penalty.

  The reason I think this solves two of your problems is this:
1) How does it work - I think this is a decent framework to build a competitive game off of. Because the reward the players are aiming toward is a known quantity and there is a direct benefit to winning and a direct penalty to losing. I think because the reward is less ambiguous, less subject to GM fiat than the GM selecting the reward after the conflict and selected by the player in question, it will provide a great incentive to good play.
2) What about the noobs - Well, if "advanced" characters have a slew of bonuses, but also a slew of weaknesses, then the noobs have an advantage in that they don't have any such weaknesses. Its not a perfect solution and players that win consistently will still have a huge advantage as all of their weaknesses will be minor nuisances as opposed to deal breakers. But still, a seasoned character cannot pick on the new guy with impunity, I mean, some Thieves still think he is an interloper and that could be used in a situation to defend my brand new character if necessary...

  I am not sure if its what you are looking for, but was hoping it might push you in a good direction. Either way, good luck man!

That's a good idea.

It also solves the question of how to handle the advancement of characters.  Instead of an assignment of some random ability or new spell at the end of a session, sessions can revolve around developing characters through their actions in game.  The GM role is less domineering since the story can then be shaped to provide all players with a chance to develop characters.  Additional rewards can even be given for completing a collective goal like "escort the princess to her home planet" while players can work towards side goals like "assassinate the prime minister" or "capture the plans to the secret rebel base".

Scott,
  I wonder if something like Otherkind might not be worth looking at as far as actual mechanics go.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040707171558/www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/pdfs/otherkind.pdf

  In this game you roll 4 dice for every conflict, one for offense, one for defense, one for progress towards accomplishing your character's overall goal and one for narration rights. You roll the dice, then after the roll assign each die to one of those 4 arenas after the fact (not before). So the idea is, if you have a really cool idea about what can happen in this scene, put your highest die on narration, if you just want to live through this conflict, put your highest on Defense, etc.
  You might have to tweak it a bit to make it a little more competitive, but it might be a good foundation to start from.

F. wrote:
Good point, the drop-in is probably something that could be fudged if and when it comes up.

Looking at the initial concept then, my first task should be coming up with a mechanic that revolves around a session that I'd imagine playing out like this...

Assign GM and Player roles.
Create new characters or use characters developed in a previous session.
GM establishes "setting" which is to include the story up until this point.
Players maneuver characters through the gameworld towards individual goals, alliances and rivalries between characters shift as the story changes.
Players who accomplish their goals "win", players who die, or fail to accomplish their goals "lose".
Consecutive sessions can be planned around a continuously changing superstory.
Imagined settings include espionage, horror, and mystery.

I'm breaking it down as simply as possible because the "how" is where I get hung up.