Hi all,

I’ve had an idea for an RPG in the pipelines for some time now and am seriously contemplating publishing it. Before I dedicate time and energy into this project though I am posting here for some preliminary research – to find out if it is worth it.

This RPG is about high exploration, that sense of wonder, of the unknown that comes from travelling into mysterious lands – a staple theme in fantasy fiction – and one I hoped I would experience in D&D after reading The Lord of the Rings as a child. It’s about the possibility of going to exotic places, doing ‘anything’ amazing, and allowing you to tell a ripping yarn about it – as opposed to strict rules that somehow can’t cope with sneaking up on a sleeping dragon and stabbing it in the eye.

So firstly, it’s a “generic RPG”. Yeah, yeah, plenty of them around, been done before, I hear you say. So what makes mine so (possibly) different? Well here we go...

There are two parts to this game; system and setting. Firstly, the system is not ground breakingly new; in fact it’s based on a reverse version of The Pool (that’s James V. West’s RPG). The Pool system was chosen because it fits very well with the rules for creating the ‘setting’.

What is unique (I think) is the setting. The setting is created by the players – in a very similar fashion to character creation. If you can imagine the tools and rules that go into character generation and apply similar ones to world building. Now as your character advances, so does the world in which they explore. In fact the world is like a character in itself.

The characters are intrepid explorers (or adventurers if you will) and for one reason or another must venture out into dangerous and exotic lands and make a map of their explorations.

Each player takes it in turns creating a small domain on a large map and narrating the story that occurs in that area. I’m imagining short, pulp like fantasy scenarios. Once the story has come to a conclusion, the characters continue exploring and a new player creates the next domain, maps it out and hosts the story, (obviously while his own character takes a backseat in the story).

Of course I have some very elaborate rules and ideas on how the players can world build that I won’t go into here but I hope you get the gist.

Of course, this idea sets itself up for your over-the-top grand adventure tales; Baron Munchausen, The Princess Bride, The Fall, Pirates of the Caribbean etc. But it could also just be played as your typical fantasy faire.

So my questions are:

What do you think?

Has this, or something similar, been done before?

- Julian Phillip Miller.

It's not really new for players to create their own settings though... I do it all the time for D&D; all I have to do is disregard the setting fluff from the books and fill in my own ideas.
Jus' sayin'.

Originality isn't that neccessary though as long as you can create something that's polished and works well.
If somebody has done it before already? Do it again, but better!

Try not to get too elaborate with your rules though; a lot of times that can actually stifle creativity. Just something to be mindful of.

I hope that helps. :)

It's not really new for players to create their own settings though

Two things spring to mind.

Group setting creation does not facilitate exploration. Exploration is the revelation of the unknown. Stories of exploration involve the clash of what is known with these revelations. Exploration can happen under your kitch sink or in exotic lands, but it can't happen in a place that is known.

I think that special GM knowledge of the setting is vital to a game concept like this. The setting is a secret written down by the GM, the players use clues discovered in their journey to unlock that secret.

Group setting creation is great for certain types of games. I use it, but my games aren't about exploration. My games are about fighting for what you believe. Therefore, having a setting open and known to all allows the players to pick aspects that they care about and fight over them.

Which leads me to my next point. Your comment here:

jp_miller wrote:
The characters are intrepid explorers (or adventurers if you will) and for one reason or another must venture out into dangerous and exotic lands and make a map of their explorations.

I'd like to offer a counterpoint to Luke and say that group setting creation can actually be great for making a sense of exploration.

Sure, exploration is all about the unknown, well there are still unknowns with group creation, in fact there are more unknowns because rather than just one person making the setting, it's everyone. Since you don't play as a PC in your own setting, the players will still be exploring a place they don't know, but this way since the 'host' rotates, everyone will get a chance at exploration. Not to mention that since you're continually going to new areas, you'll get even more exploration crammed in there.

Personally, I think it's a superb idea (I've been toying with a similar idea myself for a while), and that you should go for it!

Also, as far as I know there aren't any games that do this sort of thing explicitly (I've heard about, but not played or read, some games that sound somewhat similar, but I'm not sure which they are. I think maybe universalis? Never played it, so I can't be sure). That said, people have been making their own worlds since roleplaying was born, but as far as I know it's been setting unsupported.

Good luck man! Interested in seeing where you go with it.

I wouldn't mind playing such a game. Sounds like a new, interesting approach to an old idea to me. =)

Hey thanks for the input, great food for thought.

Luke, if I can make things a little clearer:

Let me re-address the premise: the players play characters at the dawn of an age of exploration. When Marco polo set off across the world the average person did not venture far from their coast because they believed a great Leviathan would eat their boat. So the motivation is the exploration itself – think Jules Verne or Baron Munchausen – it’s all about tall tales and truth. I think the mechanic of the Pool treats this well, it’s like Zak Arneston’s Shadows – is their really a leviathan out there or is it bullshit? If so what heroic, hilarious, ridiculous, adventurous things do the characters do to deal with it.

Having different players control a different area of the map and create the scenario adds to the unknown. And I don’t mean players GM a lengthy campaign – I’m talking about out of the frying pan into the fire situations – short, punchy, pulpy, fantasy adventures – like a TV miniseries. Players should GM only a few sessions before resolving the very immediate conflict in their scenario and then move on to then next player (GM).

Perhaps they must go by commission of the King, that’s the characters motivation, but for the players the real point is “Ripping Yarns”.

To give you an example of play:

It’s John’s turn to GM. He looks at the map and picks 10 squares that adjoin the previous scenario. He draws a mountain range and the symbol for a city in the middle of it. He writes Angkmar next to it. Now he makes his entry in the Expedition Journal. Just like character creation (in the Pool) he only has a limited amount of words (say 90) to write his scenario:

“We have been captured by trolls whilst passing through the White Mountains. We are currently being held in the dungeons of their most remarkable stone citadel. Apparently we are to be taken into the court of their great king where I suppose we must proposition our case for trespassing. Whilst they seem hostile I only hope they may be appeased by civilized debate.”

Now all the players read the scenario and play begins. John does the GMing and his character simply takes a back seat, he cannot be involved significantly in the story, he’s unimportant in this show, just lurking in the shadows.

After a few sessions the situation is resolved and another player (not decided on the mechanics of who gets to GM when yet) takes the reins.

As you know with the pool, players also add to their character sheet with a word limit description and traits after a few sessions. So now we have the player’s character sheets, which could be called their Explorers Journals, and a map with scenario’s, which could be called the Expedition Journal. The world is expanding like a character.

Another thing, a bit more advanced. Perhaps as the map gets fleshed out and players control numerous domains, they could add larger elements into play; the game could scale up, into situations that span countries or empires, moving the scenarios into more epic themes.

Whiteknife and Macleod, thanks for your input, it’s very inspiring.

Hope this makes it a bit clearer.

I'll have to admit that my first thoughts when reading this thread yesterday were something like...

"I've seen all this before, sometimes it works, usually it doesn't...you need the right group to pull it off..."

...then I started thinking of things like Universalis, which basically covers these notions but in an even more encompassing degree...

...but I think you might have some good ideas.

One of the things I did on the Eighth Sea, was like a reduced form of this concept and it worked pretty well.

Everyone was able to introduce elements into a storyline through a meta-game currency. No one, not even the Captain/GM, had a perfect idea of where the game would head during each session because the story was developed through the communal interaction of the group. The Captain/GM had twice as many tokens to play with as everyone else, so this player has a stronger ability to control the destiny of the crew and the flow of the narrative, but a collective of players could easily lead the group in their own direction.

You could consider the same sort of thing.

While one player is the "expedition leader", they take on the role of a quasi-GM. Basically the opposite of what you're already thinking in some respects. The "expedition leader" reveals their leads and their intentions to the rest of the team, but the scenes they encounter along the way are produced by a mix of randomised events (based on the terrain traversed), player input (based on some kind of meta-currency), and story specific sequences narrated by the "expedition leader".

If player's don't like the type of adventure being produced by a certain "expedition leader", they can just follow someone else next time...someone who'll lead them in a new direction and reveal a different part of the map.

Just an idea...

V

Vulpinoid, that's interesting. Though this game is not really about 'narrative power'. And I don't want any complex rules governing such things.

It's your typical game really - only taking it in turns GMing. Just imagine playing the Pool, or any other traditional game, straight, as is, only taking it turns being the GM.

While one player is the "expedition leader", they take on the role of a quasi-GM. Basically the opposite of what you're already thinking in some respects. The "expedition leader" reveals their leads and their intentions to the rest of the team, but the scenes they encounter along the way are produced by a mix of randomised events (based on the terrain traversed), player input (based on some kind of meta-currency), and story specific sequences narrated by the "expedition leader".

I'm not sure how you intend to structure the Expedition Journal and all of that... but I think you might get better results by focusing the scope on a particular broad genre, like Fantasy... then perhaps move on to something far more varied and massive like like Science Fiction.

I'm not sure how you intend to structure the Expedition Journal and all of that

Makes sense.
It seems to me that some people love those randomization charts. Including such a thing for name, climate, natives, terrain, etc. as an optional resource would be kind of fun.
You mentioned before about a specific number of words for the scenario. Do you think breaking these up into specific sections and distributing points across them might work? These points would determine the importance/effectiveness of each section of the scenario's description.
This might be waaay off base for how you plan on making the actual game mechanics run... but it would be neat to have the challenge levels of each step presented. Perhaps having a little mechanic for adding new sections during play.

I never thought about randomization but it might be something to consider as an optional extra.

You mentioned before about a specific number of words for the scenario. Do you think breaking these up into specific sections and distributing points across them might work? These points would determine the importance/effectiveness of each section of the scenario's description.

This might be waaay off base for how you plan on making the actual game mechanics run... but it would be neat to have the challenge levels of each step presented. Perhaps having a little mechanic for adding new sections during play.

Is this the game you are referencing with the Pool mechanic?
http://www.harlekin-maus.com/games/shadows/shadows.html
I'm not sure how much you are borrowing from that, but the token-to-roll portion doesn't seem like it would fit. Then again, neither does the 'Shadow' Die. It seems a lot like... opposed rolls only the player makes both rolls while dictating the exact outcome of failure.
I would probably need something a bit more meaty to make things interesting. You would either need stronger task resolution mechanics or the scenario/map building would need some inherent depth.

You could still use that idea... only the GM would get to roll the opposing die. Based on the difference of dice, either the GM or the player narrates success/failure. Descriptions would still work... you would just number them, and if they relate to the situation... that is your pool of dice (roll and add up, of course).

Have you seen this?
http://www.lumpley.com/archive/148.html
I've been itching to apply this to a game. Pretty simple yet it creates neat little tactical choices. Number descriptions in this system could either dictate a number of special re-rolls for related activities or dice rolled (drop the lowest), obviously 3 would be the average die amount.

I think the duration of an actual scenario could very widely... some people are so use to weaving long tales that one GM may take his turn for too long. In any event, if the players are having loads of fun in a particular session... or ends prematurely, having a system for additional descriptors would be neat. Then again, if you are going to stick with the basic version of the Shadows mechanics, it really wouldn't be necessary.

In reference to scale... I think it would be neat to start out really small, like a country fishing town... expand around that, then escalate to more countryside... The cycle would continue until you have reached world size. Well, if the campaign lasts that long.
Which reminds me... the progression of world is a great idea. Most definitely. But, given my previous views on what little I know of your intentions towards mechanics... it sounds like characters wouldn't progress at all. Do you have an idea set for this, or was that the plan all along?

I won't be using Shadows. I will be using a reverse version of The Pool. I mentioned them together because they have similar mechanics.

it sounds like characters wouldn't progress at all. Do you have an idea set for this, or was that the plan all along?

My apologies for making a silly assumption. @_@ I just sort of saw that in your earlier text and figured that was what you were referring to... never realized a game actually existed called The Pool.

After reading the document... I can see where you could make that interesting. Could you please explain exactly how the reverse of The Pool would work? I think I may be too much of gamist to accept the rules as they are now but I still would like to learn.

I wonder if the Story and the Traits could work better in a different way... Perhaps save room by writing the story/description as if it was composed of the Traits already. At the end of a Trait, it would simply be (T~#). Instead of a word limitation, make it 6 Traits. Filler between Traits is allowed. One trait is rated at 3, two are at 2 and three are at 1.

I'm not convinced that The Pool mechanic couldn't utilized difficulty modifiers. 0 is standard, +1 is easy, -1 to hard, etc... It would replace the "GM hands you 1 ~ 3 dice" part with something that actually makes consistent sense.
I know you are pretty adamant against adding any sort of complexity so I'm expecting a full-fledged response of negativity. ^_~

Here are a few significant differences with my version and The Pool:

- I have some solid precepts about each players roles (inspired by the 3 precepts in The Window). Most importantly, the players responsibility to play their character in an interesting way story wise (as opposed to playing their character to win all challenged they face).

- Traits with unassigned dice can be used, using dice from your Pool, to affect the story. If you don't have a trait listed it is much harder to interject and ask for a roll.

- Players do MOV's as well as monologues of failure.

- Any roll of a 1 and you succeed, take a MOV, and loose all the dice in your pool.

- If you do not roll a 1, take a Monologue of Failure, and add a dice to your Pool.

- Other players can donate any number a dice, any time, with a brief explanation of how their character aids in the story. Of course if the player wins a roll than any donated dice are lost.

I'm not convinced that The Pool mechanic couldn't utilized difficulty modifiers. 0 is standard, +1 is easy, -1 to hard, etc... It would replace the "GM hands you 1 ~ 3 dice" part with something that actually makes consistent sense.

I see. So you gain dice by failing but lose them succeeding. Any particular reason for this choice?
This means that the reliance on Traits will be increased a bit... I assume that a Trait's rank still adds free dice. In any event, you have that covered by making upgrades cheaper.
Non-Trait actions will actually become automatic failures at a certain point if you don't have any dice to throw. Or, do you plan on allowing a bare minimum of 1 for each action?
Wait, you lose ALL of your dice when you succeed? Not just the ones you used? Hm?

One thing I want to point, its not very important but it bugs me... The Window claims Traits and Skills are rated using adjectives instead of numbers... yet, each adjective has a rank that relates to a particular die. Feels like I'm still rating things based on numbers. So, phooey on that game. =3

I see. So you gain dice by failing but lose them succeeding. Any particular reason for this choice?

This means that the reliance on Traits will be increased a bit... I assume that a Trait's rank still adds free dice. In any event, you have that covered by making upgrades cheaper.

Non-Trait actions will actually become automatic failures at a certain point if you don't have any dice to throw

Wait, you lose ALL of your dice when you succeed? Not just the ones you used? Hm?

One thing I want to point, its not very important but it bugs me... The Window claims Traits and Skills are rated using adjectives instead of numbers... yet, each adjective has a rank that relates to a particular die. Feels like I'm still rating things based on numbers. So, phooey on that game. =3

The Reverse Pool sounds good. =) I think my reaction to the problem of auto-failures is that I keep thinking in a very small scale. I think The Pool is meant to cover larger scale, at least it seems that way.

Since players can share dice, it would be nifty if it was just one big pool that everyone pulled from. Without permission, of course. That would promote team work. =D You could (but won't) have a game mechanic where different kinds of dice get deposited in there. Obviously bigger dice would be warrant a high difficulty.

You mentioned that the GM has no dice... And I gather from The Pool that he doesn't roll anything anyways... This means the difficult of any given challenge is strictly based on the player's dice management and Trait creation strategy. Do you feel that this is a positive thing?

Do you have anything specific or detailed you'd like to say about the scenario building aspect of the game? I'm not the sort to drop out of a discussion until I've sated my curiosity. :)

In reply to your bit about The Window...
I've never actually heard anyone but you and one other guy mention The Window before. I thought it was some sort of secret relic that no one else knew about. =) I just hate the way they make that first precept sound so smug.
I agree that it has a different focus than many other RPGs. I also think that all different styles of play have their place in the world. Sometimes I want something that leans in a particular direction, sometimes I want the very opposite.

Since players can share dice, it would be nifty if it was just one big pool that everyone pulled from.

You mentioned that the GM has no dice... And I gather from The Pool that he doesn't roll anything anyways... This means the difficult of any given challenge is strictly based on the player's dice management and Trait creation strategy. Do you feel that this is a positive thing?

Do you have anything specific or detailed you'd like to say about the scenario building aspect of the game?

Well, hey... Sign me up. =) I'm always willing to try something new as relates to RPGs (unless it is diceless)!

I like the journal as scene framing idea, that's pretty tight! In fact given that you include monologues of failure you barely need any GM at all! Just someone to set up the scenes as you enter them, before anyone has actually done any actions, and then have everything happen in terms of character success and failure. The original framer could step in when stuff starts to slow down, and possibly adjudicate the occasional monologue conflict, but apart from that, he could just get on with playing his character. Nice!

As far as the squares go, I have one suggestion to make things hopefully more interesting: Add comparisons of each square to the last, of to all the mentioned squares around it, so if it is colder, or more agrarian, or richer, or more colourful, put that in the description. How many travel/journey programs say something like "and from the golden fields of __ we moved on to the red hills of __, and little bicycles started to appear, " or something else, noting the contrasts of travel and how they coincide. In addition this insures that you think of the setting in context, with all the areas around it. This will likely change the events that occur because of consideration in the various GM's minds, rather than via explicit demand.

Finally, I do think there could be grounds for the GM offering dice, but only from a pool of gift dice that he gets each game, for example when he particularly wants a player to succeed, but that would be a more activist GM, if you want one. You could also make conditional offers "you get this dice, if you add this to your monologue" etc. There's a whole metagame mechanic in there I'm sure..

I like the journal as scene framing idea, that's pretty tight! In fact given that you include monologues of failure you barely need any GM at all! Just someone to set up the scenes as you enter them, before anyone has actually done any actions, and then have everything happen in terms of character success and failure. The original framer could step in when stuff starts to slow down, and possibly adjudicate the occasional monologue conflict, but apart from that, he could just get on with playing his character. Nice!

As far as the squares go, I have one suggestion to make things hopefully more interesting: Add comparisons of each square to the last, of to all the mentioned squares around it, so if it is colder, or more agrarian, or richer, or more colourful, put that in the description. How many travel/journey programs say something like "and from the golden fields of __ we moved on to the red hills of __, and little bicycles started to appear, " or something else, noting the contrasts of travel and how they coincide. In addition this insures that you think of the setting in context, with all the areas around it. This will likely change the events that occur because of consideration in the various GM's minds, rather than via explicit demand.

Finally, I do think there could be grounds for the GM offering dice, but only from a pool of gift dice that he gets each game, for example when he particularly wants a player to succeed, but that would be a more activist GM, if you want one. You could also make conditional offers "you get this dice, if you add this to your monologue" etc. There's a whole metagame mechanic in there I'm sure..

But hey all, let's talk about the other part of the equation!

So, if we could ignore the system for a while. Imagine using the world building aspect for any system. They really are two separate things. Although I will integrate the world building tightly to the system in my game, doesn't mean you have to.

Imagine the game you are playing right now and adding my world building idea.

This is not really about world building, it's about creating a visual map of your gaming experience, taking it in turns in narrating (which is not collaborative storytelling), so that all players can experience playing other players stories, as well as creating their own - and having some rules and visuals to govern how it all works. 

To re-iterate;

- You have a blank piece of paper with a grid on it. (say 23 x 16 squares, each a half inch in size)
- Each player takes it turns being the GM.
- The GM takes 9 squares in any shape he desires, a Domain (at least one square must adjoin a previous domain).
- He draws some basic geography on a large scale e.g. a mountain range, a river etc. and names it e.g. The Winding River, The Misty Mountains. This is the name of the Domain.
- He then draws a location e.g. Mount Aslij, Bartertown etc. This is where a scenario takes place.
- he then writes a brief scenario that is occurring in that location. The scenario must involve an immediate conflict for the characters.
- He then GM's a short scenario until it is played out.
- The next player becomes the GM and can either create a new Domain or revisit an existing Domain of his own.
- GM's may never play another GM's Domain, nor change the facts of another GM's domain.
- GM's may use the facts of another players Domain in their own stories providing it does not change the other GM's Domain.

How would this work in your game you are currently playing? Could it be a fun addition?