Here's the pitch for my project "The Hearbreaker War":

The Heartbreaker War is a campaign setting and character creation system designed to work with any fantasy RPG system.  You play soldiers returning from a terrible civil war which saw weird and alien magic unleashed on the world.  It will help you create a shared history for your characters, detailing their experiences in the war.  You'll learn about the setting, and about the magical horrors set loose on the world, as your character experiences them year by year.  The war will forge unique bonds between the characters, and establish a rich network of relationships ripe for exploration.  Taking just one session to play through, The Heartbreaker War will set you up for an exciting fantasy campaign in a unique setting using the system of your choice

The pitch itself could use some work (so I'd love advice on that), but what I'd mostly like to talk about is some of the mechanics of the thing, and how they relate to the "fictional causes" stuff that Vincent's been writing about on his blog.  I don't feel like I'm getting it quite right yet, and I want to hash it out here.

The basic structure of the game is that for each year of the war, you deal out a number of cards, equal to the number of players +1.  The players choose cards for their characters in an order determined by the rank, experience, and age of their characters.  The different cards tell you the important thing that happened to your character that year.  Each year also has special rules that you apply, depending on what was going on in the war that year.

So basically it's a "lifepath" character generator, like from Traveller, but for a specific period of time, in a specific setting.  You learn about the setting as you play.  The intent is for the game to generate not just characters, but "situation".  The experiences your characters have in the war will shape their relationships with the other characters, and with NPCs, and will give you a background to draw on in play.

I ran my first playtest yesterday, just me and one friend running through the thing with three "simulated" characters.  I think that was a drawback in itself.  I think some of the dynamics of the game only emerge when you've got multiple players of multiple characters.  One of the things the rules try to create is "camraderie".  As the player of a high-ranking character, you can choose to take the best results for yourself, or take bad things on yourself to save your friends.  That dynamic didn't really emerge in play.

But what I'm most worried about is how much the rules encourage the players to develop a shared imagined space during play.  I want the players to describe the stuff that's happening to the characters, and in line with Vincent's essays, I've tried to do that by having the stuff they describe matter to the mechanics of the game.  I'm finding that difficult though.

The approach I've used is best demonstrated by example.  The card "Horrors" deals with the pschological trauma of the war.  Picking that card means your character has developed a psychological condition as a result of the war.  The way this works in play is that you say what your character experienced, and then the GM (or the other players if there's no GM) choose from a list of possible conditions that fit your character.

The idea is that the player is motivated to describe something interesting and specific, so they can get a psychological condition that they are happy with.  The less information they give, the more scope the GM has.  I'm not sure if that's effective enough though.

So basically I'm looking for advice.  How can I make the fictional content matter more?  I understand that's hard to answer without knowing the game better, but I really don't want to dump a bunch of rules text on you all.

Cheers,

Simon

Simon wrote:
One of the things the rules try to create is "camraderie".  As the player of a high-ranking character, you can choose to take the best results for yourself, or take bad things on yourself to save your friends.

I want the players to describe the stuff that's happening to the characters, and in line with Vincent's essays, I've tried to do that by having the stuff they describe matter to the mechanics of the game.

The idea is that the player is motivated to describe something interesting and specific, so they can get a psychological condition that they are happy with.  The less information they give, the more scope the GM has.

You're right, and those are good points.

I guess that what I'm trying to create is a "hot house" camraderie generator, so while it would be ideal to have connections built between the characters first, and then introduce danger that they can help each other through, what I've got is that it all happens together, hopefully.  That said, I've got a bunch of stuff that, ideally, will help the players care about the characters, and hopefully face danger for each other.  For example, the name generator creates "bynames" for the characters, which are essentially descriptive nicknames, so you know this guy is a baker, or a fiddle-player, or that he's strong, or that he lives by the hill.  Also, the characters recieve "news from home" throughout the game, and they can use that to develop history and such for their characters.  It's not ideal, but it's what I've got at the moment.  I'm interested in more ideas about how to make this stronger though.

The way the game works, the stuff is happening "now" in the fiction, but its purpose is to create a history for the characters.  I take your point though, that we're seeing brief glimpses into the characters' history, rather than living in their world with them.  I think that is adding to the difficulty, but I think Vincent's point about fictional causes is still relevant.

I don't think "punitive" is how I'd describe the mechanic for Horrors.  I can see how it looks that way from how I've described it though.

Let me describe it better:

For the card "Horrors", I want by the end point, to know the condition the character ends up with, and how they got it.  I could say "choose a condition, and describe something about how your character got it", and that would be ok.  But in that scenario, there's nothing making the player describe anything more than "He saw something bad.  Now he hates the sight of blood." or something equally dull and vague.  This is what Vincent's talking about with his fictional causes stuff.  Unless the stuff you narrate matters to the mechanics of the game, it's very easy to forget it.  That's why the rule I've gone with says "describe what your character experiences, the GM will choose your condition".  The point is not to punish players who don't describe stuff, it's to make describing stuff a neccesary part of the mechanic.  The GM literally can't choose a condition until the player describes some stuff.  Or at least that's the intent.

Thanks for your feedback though.  Your point about camraderie is well taken.

Simon wrote:
For example, the name generator creates "bynames" for the characters, which are essentially descriptive nicknames, so you know this guy is a baker, or a fiddle-player, or that he's strong, or that he lives by the hill.  Also, the characters recieve "news from home" throughout the game, and they can use that to develop history and such for their characters.  It's not ideal, but it's what I've got at the moment.  I'm interested in more ideas about how to make this stronger though.

Noclue wrote:

Also, it would be nice if the news "fictional content" would have mechanical effect, rather than just effect the fiction...that runs into the design goal of keeping things system agnostic.

Ok, so after thinking a lot and playtesting a second time, I've changed a bunch of things, but there are a few things that aren't working yet.

Here are three cards that are very common in the game, but don't quite work:

Embattled
The character is cut off from the others, surrounded by enemies, and in trouble.

In order of Precedence, each player may choose to have their character come to this character's aid.  Only one character may do this.

If a character is aiding, both players roll 1d8. 1: The character dies. 2-3: The character is injured. 4+ The character escapes unharmed.

If no character is aiding the player who drew this card rolls 1d8: 1-4: The character dies. 5-6: The character is injured. 7-8: The character escapes unharmed.

Engaged
The character faces an enemy individual in single combat.  The enemy is powerful and dangerous, perhaps a leader, or some monstrous threat.

In order of Precedence, each player may choose to have their character face the threat instead.  Only one character may do this.

The player of the character facing the threat rolls 1d8, and another player rolls 1d8 for the threat.  If the player rolls a 1, their character dies.  If they roll a 2-3, their character is injured.  If their roll equals or beats the other player's roll, the threat is defeated. 

Tidings from home
The character recieves news from home.  For commoners this will be word of mouth from new recruits, or displaced civilians.  For nobles, this could be an actual letter from home.

Roll a d8.  On a 1-5, the news is bad.  On a 6-8, the news is good.  Describe the news.

My problem with these cards is that they don't encourage narration through mechanics, which is an aim for the project.  I don't want something boring like "+1 on your dice for cool narration" because I hate that shit.  It makes narration feel like work.  I want stuff more like "-1 if there's heavy rain, driving snow, or deep mud".  But I don't know why anyone would ever narrate that to the detriment of their character.  There's no requirement for a GM (to fit with being system agnistic) so I can't rely on that.

What to do?

I like this idea.

I don't like it as a generic thing for any system.

I think it's an excellent start to a game. I think you should design that game.

Lance wrote:
I like this idea.

I don't like it as a generic thing for any system.

I think it's an excellent start to a game. I think you should design that game.

Why does it have to be generic?

What you're describing isn't a generic thing. It's pretty specific. There's this bizarre, harrowing war that the player characters all took part in. From there, play proceeds to explore what happens afterward, when they return home and have to pick up the pieces of their shattered selves and the remnants of their lives. That's a powerful situation to start from.

On the flip side, you're right. There are other really good systems out there. Solar System is open content, so you could develop it specifically to work with that. I don't know Luke's policies on Burning Wheel related content, but from casual browsing of the wiki, it seems that he's pretty open to it. In either case, you can explore the idea of making a mini-supplement. Either making your own game, or making a mini-supp is a far better thing, in my opinion, than compromising cool ideas so that it's system agnostic.

On to more specific feedback that I meant to say earlier, and spaced:

One of the things the rules try to create is "camraderie".  As the player of a high-ranking character, you can choose to take the best results for yourself, or take bad things on yourself to save your friends.

Simon, sacrificing yourself for your buddies is generally something you do "after" you've developed camaraderie. What's the incentive for doing so during character creation?

Lance wrote:
Re: Narrative stuff. In some ways, you're just gonna have to settle for what the play group is willing to give. Colorful, gripping narration is hard unless you feel it. Mechanical bennies aren't going to make you feel it. On the flip side, you're right.. People aren't going to narrate things that lessen their chances of success/survival unless there's a really good reason to. So maybe each type of situation has two or more things at stake. You can narrate difficulty in one area to increase your chances in another.

Oh! Sudden thought!

What if there's just one type of card for fighting things, so it's called "Combat" or something.  You describe how your character is in combat, and then the other players (or GM) choose, based on what you described, between "Embattled", "Engaged", and maybe a third option.

How does that sound?