The document is very incomplete as of now, but I figured that you folks might be able to help me with my new RPG idea. It's called, very simply, Cowboys and Samurai and takes place in a post-apocalyptic future where the player takes on the role of either a gunslinger or a swordsman (and from there, they can progress).

As I said, very incomplete system and documentation as I just started work on it last night, but I'd like to hear your thoughts so far! Please be kind. :)

The system is influenced by GURPS, the Storyteller System, and a few others whose names escape me...

You can view the document so far here.

Thanks in advance!
~Marc DeGuzman

Marc,
  I am not sure if I like Moxie as a stat for Dex/Speed. My first thought when I hear Moxie is courage or persistence.
  Also, I think it would be more interesting if Health was (Vigor x 6) + (Enthusiasm x 4). You can do the same thing to all your calculated stats. I know it makes it more complicated, but it also make it more interesting.
  Finally, you have 10 skills, 5 of which are combat-related. And there are no knowledge skills at all. But you have an Aptitude stat. Even if you allow for rolling against Aptitude it will not be the same as rolling against 10+Aptitude as if you had a real skill. Personally, I would make Unarmed, Melee and have it include unarmed and blunt. Then Ditch Blunt and replace it with Awareness (to counter traps and stealth) or Knowledge/Education. Right now, you have 5 ways for a character to roll to solve a problem with violence, one way for a character to roll and solve a problem with talking and no way to roll and solve a problem with their minds. Was that your intention?
  I am not trying to dog on you, I just wanted to be sure that you were seeing what I was seeing.
  Good luck on your new design!

dindenver wrote:
Marc,
  I am not sure if I like Moxie as a stat for Dex/Speed. My first thought when I hear Moxie is courage or persistence.
  Also, I think it would be more interesting if Health was (Vigor x 6) + (Enthusiasm x 4). You can do the same thing to all your calculated stats. I know it makes it more complicated, but it also make it more interesting.
  Finally, you have 10 skills, 5 of which are combat-related. And there are no knowledge skills at all. But you have an Aptitude stat. Even if you allow for rolling against Aptitude it will not be the same as rolling against 10+Aptitude as if you had a real skill. Personally, I would make Unarmed, Melee and have it include unarmed and blunt. Then Ditch Blunt and replace it with Awareness (to counter traps and stealth) or Knowledge/Education. Right now, you have 5 ways for a character to roll to solve a problem with violence, one way for a character to roll and solve a problem with talking and no way to roll and solve a problem with their minds. Was that your intention?
  I am not trying to dog on you, I just wanted to be sure that you were seeing what I was seeing.
  Good luck on your new design!

Also, what is the dice mechanic you are thinking about? It's hard to get a feel for those numbers with no context.
And you might want to think about using Notoriety to create a sort of Social HPs. That way you might be able to use the same mechanics you use for combat for social conflicts.
I think using armor as skill enhancers is brilliant. Personally, I might ditch the idea of using armor to give penalties. But I like my PCs to want to wear armor. But, if you want to balance no armor against wearing armor, that is not appropriate. Alternatively, you could ditch the penalties and give skill bonuses to wearing different kinds of street clothes (like maybe fancy clothes give a bonus to Speech).

dindenver wrote:
Also, what is the dice mechanic you are thinking about? It's hard to get a feel for those numbers with no context.
And you might want to think about using Notoriety to create a sort of Social HPs. That way you might be able to use the same mechanics you use for combat for social conflicts.
I think using armor as skill enhancers is brilliant. Personally, I might ditch the idea of using armor to give penalties. But I like my PCs to want to wear armor. But, if you want to balance no armor against wearing armor, that is not appropriate. Alternatively, you could ditch the penalties and give skill bonuses to wearing different kinds of street clothes (like maybe fancy clothes give a bonus to Speech).

I have to point out something obvious:
If each Attribute must be at least 1, and you may only place 10 Points ........
The most you can get in one Attribute is 6, not 10!
And then, the other 4 are at 1!

Have i read wrong, or you written it incorrect?

Also, how do you mean that the Skill System is similar to the Storytelling System, when it is from 10 to 100?
(The Storytelling Sysrem has always(?) been 1-10, each Point(Dot) equalling one D10.)

Catelf

Catelf wrote:
I have to point out something obvious:
If each Attribute must be at least 1, and you may only place 10 Points ........
The most you can get in one Attribute is 6, not 10!
And then, the other 4 are at 1!

Have i read wrong, or you written it incorrect?

Also, how do you mean that the Skill System is similar to the Storytelling System, when it is from 10 to 100?
(The Storytelling Sysrem has always(?) been 1-10, each Point(Dot) equalling one D10.)

Catelf

UPDATE: Re-doing the skills system and making it out of ten, which is a lot simpler and better for this kind of system.

Marc wrote:
UPDATE: Re-doing the skills system and making it out of ten, which is a lot simpler and better for this kind of system.

Catelf wrote:
Do that mean it is more Storytelling-like now, or .......?

Hi Marc. Is there anything, in particular, that you'd like our thoughts about?

hix wrote:
Hi Marc. Is there anything, in particular, that you'd like our thoughts about?

You have just one thing in your rules right now that really, truly makes cowboys and samurai different: their starting special abilities. And I'm sorry but Dead Aim is broken. If I'm not a cowboy and I want to keep hold of the character that I've invested time and imagination in, I'd better always hide behind something unless I really trust the people I'm playing with.

What are your goals here? You're clearly trying to make a combat game about how close combat and ranged are different, and you show clear signs of having figured out that theme and mechanics should support each other in that respect. But you've got to zoom out and figure out what you want the players' experience of play to feel like. If you just build (what you think is) a simulation and leave it up to players and GMs to make it fun, you're not going to meet with success by any criteria I can imagine for a game. But maybe I'm just not imaginative, so: what do you want?

Mike wrote:
You have just one thing in your rules right now that really, truly makes cowboys and samurai different: their starting special abilities. And I'm sorry but Dead Aim is broken. If I'm not a cowboy and I want to keep hold of the character that I've invested time and imagination in, I'd better always hide behind something unless I really trust the people I'm playing with.

What are your goals here? You're clearly trying to make a combat game about how close combat and ranged are different, and you show clear signs of having figured out that theme and mechanics should support each other in that respect. But you've got to zoom out and figure out what you want the players' experience of play to feel like. If you just build (what you think is) a simulation and leave it up to players and GMs to make it fun, you're not going to meet with success by any criteria I can imagine for a game. But maybe I'm just not imaginative, so: what do you want?

Marc,
  OK, on the special abilities, three things are unclear:
1) Do player know when characters have cover, or is this something you roll for?
2) If you use dead aim on a character that has cover, do you roll a regular attack, or does it automatically miss?
3) What do you roll for a chance roll, is 8 or higher easy or hard to get?

Hi Marc,

While I don't want to overload you with questions to think about, there's something about your idea that I'd like to know more about.

You've probably noticed that people often ask "What do the characters do in your game?" and "What do the players do?". Here are a few questions related to those issues that I hope you can answer.

1.
Imagine that we've created our characters and are sitting down at your table to play a game. What do we need to do next to play the game?

Do the players need to come up with starting situations to resolve? Is there a GM who has created an adventure or a cast of characters to meet? Is the game designed to have all of the cowboy characters fight all the samurai characters?

What would be your advice to someone who wants to run C&S?

2.
So, we've made up our characters (which are either cowboys or samurais), and we're in this post-apocalyptic setting (which I'm imagining as dusty and filled with isolated towns and ruins). So ... why is it cool for us to be playing cowboys and samurais in this game?

Are there any particular problems that they face that are going to be cool for us to defeat as a group? Are there loyalty conflicts between cowboys and samurais? Do the inhabitants of the setting hate cowboys and samurais and are hunting them to extinction?

Can you tell me more about the 'hook' that makes it fascinating to play a cowboy or a samurai in your post-apocalyptic world?

These questions are great actually, Hix. They're much clearer and easier for me to respond to. :P And don't focus on the very incomplete mechanics of the game...

1. When the GM and the players sit down to play, the GM should have a clear vision of the adventure that is about to take place and the players should be ready to embrace the challenges brought to the table. The GM should also prepare to alter his/her adventure as the players progress and grow and make different decisions that he/she (the GM) intended.

The game is designed to explore post-apocalyptic conflict in a new light that draws on Spaghetti Westerns and old folk and fairy tales from Japan. The players go on an adventure in a world where they are either seen as heroes and law-bringers or unwelcome outcasts and outlaws.

2. The reason why you play a cowboy or a samurai is because these are two warrior-like cultures that act as either hands of God or the Devil's playgrounds. The towns in the game will take us back to the dusty and wooden settlements of the old West, and the wilderness and ruins will call upon Eastern philosophy and religion.

The big problems are to be brought in by the GM, depending on what kind of character the player plays. An honorable samurai, a despicable cowboy, a sword-swinging maniac, a paladin-like sheriff? Depending on who and what you play, the GM should accommodate the adventure to your character. You should ask yourself as you play, "Why should I step in to this conflict? What's in it for me? Is it something that personally affects me? Is there a grand reward? Do I just feel like being nice today?"

Cowboys and samurai are both very different, but the same in a lot of ways. They have different ways of dealing with their foes, but are similar in that they are, for the most part, lone warriors... So why would they come together? That's for the GM to figure out.

There'll be some things in the setting to expand on the differing philosophies between gunslingers and swordsmen and everything in-between. There will be some classes later in the game that you can choose and progress with that focus more on guns or more on swords... Or even on fists or bows. Maybe even a salvaged chainsaw, converted now into a steam-powered weapon?

Thanks for the questions, though. They've actually helped me think through some things about the game. I might be scrapping a few ideas and adding some new ones now.

Marc,
  Sorry about the questions centered on mechanics. But, I love RPG mechanics, I love talking about RPG mechanics.
  About what you have posted so far two things concern me. either one of them probably wouldn't be a red flag, but together, I see an issue:
1) Player can make Heroes or Villains, nothing in between (I like this part, FYI). But there doesn't seem to be any mechanical difference between good and evil or advice to the players about which to make and why.
2) You stated that it is the GMs job to reconcile any differences that may arise. So, if Player A makes a Nobunaga-esque Ruthless Samurai warlord ad Player B makes a Paladin with a pistol. And you have an adventure where they save the village from bandits. It's the GMs job to motivate the players and their characters to engage. Honestly, I think all the players present are equally responsible for the fun. I mean the GM can only do so much, right?
  What are your thoughts on this?

dindenver wrote:
Marc,
  Sorry about the questions centered on mechanics. But, I love RPG mechanics, I love talking about RPG mechanics.
  About what you have posted so far two things concern me. either one of them probably wouldn't be a red flag, but together, I see an issue:
1) Player can make Heroes or Villains, nothing in between (I like this part, FYI). But there doesn't seem to be any mechanical difference between good and evil or advice to the players about which to make and why.
2) You stated that it is the GMs job to reconcile any differences that may arise. So, if Player A makes a Nobunaga-esque Ruthless Samurai warlord ad Player B makes a Paladin with a pistol. And you have an adventure where they save the village from bandits. It's the GMs job to motivate the players and their characters to engage. Honestly, I think all the players present are equally responsible for the fun. I mean the GM can only do so much, right?
  What are your thoughts on this?