Academia is a game I have been working on on and off for about two years now (More on than off, actually). I have tired it in several generic systems and several system adaptions, but I'm having a very hard time coming up with a system that accurately portrays the type of play I'm trying to get out of it.

Academia is centered around a school of magic, on an island in the middle of a vast ocean. Here, various practicioners of the sorcerous arts study and perfect their art far away from anyone they might hurt on the mainland. There are several other locales besides the school to place adventures, but that is beside the point. The point of the game is to play a sorcerous grad student: the players play characters who form their own theories, research their own ideas, design their own spells, and form their own venues of magic. In order for students to graduate, they have to write a dissertation, a paper that makes a significant contribution to the study of magic (Much like a modern Doctoral Thesis paper). But aye, there's the rub.

The setting seems to demand a system that allows the players to make significant changes to it and (more importantly) develop in-story means and motives to bring about that change. In GNS terms, I see this as a Simulationist game, with focus on Situation and System. In most magic type games, the way magic works and the methods by which it is worked are clearly defined, and well documented (Or complete mystery beyond all cognitive ability of the character). This games zombie (To use the term of the writer of "All Flesh Must Be Eaten"; I think the GNS term is Premise) is that the characters can completly change the face and meaning of the game itself; campaigns will focus on the characters trials and researches, and the people and things that get in the way.

Unfortunately, when one thinks about it, this game sounds terribly boring: School the RPG, where you roll to study and research. I don't want it to be that way, and it doesn't look that way in my head.

If you're still with me (This post turned out to be a bit long), I'd like to ask your help: I'd like a system that will allow the characters to make logical changes to the game engine itself, after long periods of in-game work and logical process. Idealy, it would involve number crunching (I just like it that way), natural law, trial-and-error, and a certain unknown element that can show if the player is on the right track. It's a lot I know, but I've been lurking on this board for a while now, and I've come to respect it's posters opinions. Any advice you can give me would be greatly appreciated.

Is this enough information? If you are interested but don't have all the tools you need, please tell me what I left out. Thank you for all your help.

Sincerely,
Travis

You know what would help me wrap my head around your situation would be to have an example of play that you intend to create. I've got a swirl of possiblities going on in my mind, and it would help to nail it down with some concrete examples. Describe please one or two possible adventures that students might find themselves embarking on, with special attention to the sort of advancement in the field they are intending to pursue.

Hi Travis, and welcome to the Forge!

This brings back memories of a setting I wrote up many years ago, which was superficially similar to this and yet totally different in all the important ways. The setting was an alternate ancient world circa 300 BC, in which the hunted remnants of a class of Greek Academy students form a rebel underground against the evil Roman Empire. Before the upheaval, the Academies had been slowly elucidating the laws magic for the first time; the survivors must continue the work while hiding from (or opposing) the legions of the Empire, which wields new magic of its own.

The reason I say my idea was very different is that my approach was, I believe, simulationist. The laws of magic already existed in the objective world, worked out by me, and the characters were only discovering them. (This was exploration of system in an unusually pure sense.)

You sound like you intend to go beyond that, to a much better place. You want the characters to be able to change the face and meaning of the game through their ideas and "discoveries." I don't think this can't be achieved in the purely simulationist way that I went about it (discover the hidden rules). Your players have to invent new things -- even if it feels like "discovery" as it's played.

The key question seems to be: a character performs an experiment. How and by whom are the results of that experiment decided? If there's an objective way to determine the results based on some pre-existing system, then all you've got is my old find-the-hidden-rules approach. But if the players are deciding for themselves (or for each other) and/or the GM is making those decisions on the fly, then what is it that leads the results toward some meaningful conclusion? As you say, what unknown element can show if the player is on the right track?

This was a long way around to saying that this sounds like a Narrativist design problem to me, and I think it could be approached like one. Researchers, after all, start with a hypothesis -- which has a bit in common with a literary Premise, especially when it's about magic, which can easily become a metaphor for larger themes. This is about player characters building (in the guise of discovering) a larger world on the framework of their ideas about how magic works. Absent a pre-existing "hidden system," how magic works has to have a lot to do with what magic means. In a Narrativist system, that meaning would be what guides the outcome.

In fact, this all strikes me as highly analogous to Hero Wars even though different in all its particulars. A close look at Hero Wars would almost certainly be worth your while.

I realize I'm taking you on flights of theory when what you asked for is answers to some far more practical questions about system. I think it's possible (given that whether or not I'm on track here, that "certain unknown element" you mention has to be the absolute key to the problem) that your answers might lie on the other side of such flights of theory. But I'll turn it back over to you. Does what I've said sound like it has any applicability to what you're looking for?

- Walt

marknau wrote: Describe please one or two possible adventures that students might find themselves embarking on, with special attention to the sort of advancement in the field they are intending to pursue.

Hey Travis,

When I first read about your game I thought "umm, okay", but after a few moments something crept into my head. That something was Raiders of the Lost Ark.

My problem was that I wasn't seeing any adventure possibilities in the game and I love me some adventure. If I consider magic scholars venturing forth and going through a great deal of adventure to discover or prove magical theories and formulas with the chance of becoming famous I get a big fat smile on my face. Being able to use the spells I create on my next stint of field work would definitely be a cool thing.

It seems to me that this game would be well suited to a magic system where the spells lose potency the more they are cast. A magic scholar might find himself in a personal pickle between fame (publishing the formulae), fortune (selling the formula), and power (keeping the formula for himself). There are some games, computer and pen/paper, that do this but I can't recall which ones.

Well, I'm off to dream about being Indiana Jones.

-Chris

Walt Freitag wrote: The key question seems to be: a character performs an experiment. How and by whom are the results of that experiment decided? If there's an objective way to determine the results based on some pre-existing system, then all you've got is my old find-the-hidden-rules approach. But if the players are deciding for themselves (or for each other) and/or the GM is making those decisions on the fly, then what is it that leads the results toward some meaningful conclusion? As you say, what unknown element can show if the player is on the right track?

Hmm... Scholarly magicians living in an isolated community, with a few mundane henchmen around and occasionaly going on field trips to test theories or gain magical materials.

Isn't that Ars Magica?


Simon Hibbs

simon_hibbs wrote:
Hmm... Scholarly magicians living in an isolated community, with a few mundane henchmen around and occasionaly going on field trips to test theories or gain magical materials.

Isn't that Ars Magica?

Thanks a lot everybody. This has been very helpful. I'm making better, faster process than I have in the past two years.

I really, REALLY like Chirs' idea (Raiders of the Lost Ark was awesome) of the fame/fortune/power conflict, and I think I'm going to adjust the setting to make it a bit less isolated (Thanks Simon). But in truth, I want this game to be made in the image of Mekton Z, or Sorcerer: a concept system, in which the players and GM come up with their own way of playing out the games central idea/mechanic, in this case scholarly magic. Some people might want to walk far and wide in search of adventure and magic, and some might want to stick around the university in which they can meet and interact with people more fully and more regularly, or whatever else in between.

The Synthesis system is quite cool, and I'm going to enjoy reading it. In truth, I can see Academia very well in that system, and I may adapt it (Perhaps based on self-discovery).

Well, thank you everyone for your help. Like I said, I'm moving in leaps and bounds in my progress now. If you have anything else to say, by all means say it! I appreciate it greatly.

Sincerely,
Travis

Following up on M.J.'s 20 questions idea. Ever heard of "Nomic?" It's a game where the main point is that the players make the rules.

So, the concept of changing the Laws of Magic can operate on either of two levels:
1) Player level. The players, with guidance from the GM, are making up the rules of magic as they go along. Like in M.J.'s 20 questions, there is no "real" answer. The *players* create reality through the game system.
2) Character level. The rules of magic are set and real, but one of the rules is that the rules of magic can be changed. It would be as if I had a math theory, and if I worked really hard at it, and then went out and got the Gem of Infinite Regression, the laws of math would change to accomodate the new fact of my theory being true. While this is an unreasonable system for math, it is not unreasonable for magic. This is like Nomic, where there *is* a "real" answer to the question "how does magic work?", but the rules allow the answer to be changed by the *characters*!

Was I clear on that? To summarize:
#1 posits that changes to the Laws of Magic are a meta-game aspect.
#2 posits that changes to the Laws of Magic are an in-game aspect, one which the *characters* are fully aware of.

In any event, I really like the way you described a typical adventure. It leaves lots of flexibility for different ways for groups to handle the underlying theme, and yet keeps a handle on how malleable the Laws of Magic are. Love it!

FuzionReactor wrote:

marknau wrote: Uh, well, frankly it isn't quite fully designed enough to really give you that kind of example.

I think you missed what the request was about. The example you game afterwards almost did answer the question. But it was too generic. The technique in question is to give an outline of what might happen in an actual game. Sans mechanics. As in:

GM: you are all in a lab with your experiments ready to show to your teacher. Who goes first?

Bob: My character Zig steps up and starts to explain...


This sort of thing. Or don't even do the dialog. But just outline an example of what a good adventure in your game might look like in play. The idea is that this will give you a great idea of what sort of mechanics you'll need to make play go like that.

If you can't envision what play looks like at all, that's what you need to think about. One needs that vision of what he'd like play to be before one can design mechanics that will support that sort of play. Or so the theory goes.

Mike

Good explanation of what I was trying to get at, Mike.
I am a BIG believer in "intent first, then mechanics." I can't even begin to discuss what a game system should be like until I know what the design intent is. There are always SO many options for "how to get there" that you will be able to find a good one once you firmly commit to a design "destination."
A complete description of "What am I trying to make?" needs to precede "How do I make this?" Personally, I start off with a "Goals and Intents" document where I scribble down what I'm trying to accomplish. Then I can refer to this list of priorities when it's time to make a decision on something. If an element helps achieve one of the things on the list, great. If not, bye-bye.

FuzionReactor first wrote: I'd like a system that will allow the characters to make logical changes to the game engine itself, [...]

And then some thought later, wrote: But in truth, I want this game to be [...] a concept system, in which the players and GM come up with their own way of playing out the games central idea/mechanic, in this case scholarly magic.

....and maybe thus pointing in a new direction.

The core explanation for magic in Multiverser can be expressed thus: All magic is controlled by the expectations of the user.

That means that if a particular spellcaster thinks that after he casts a spell, he forgets it, that's what happens.

If another thinks he can only cast spells while wearing his pointed hat, or holding his wand, those things become limits on all his magic.

If one thinks he must recite all his incantations in latin, latin spells are the only ones that will work for him.

It does change the probabilities of success in the game. Any limitation placed on what must be done for magic to work bonuses the chance of success. A spell that can only be cast at midnight on the solstice would receive enormous bonuses because of that stricture.

Something on this order would allow player characters essentially to invent their own completely incompatible magic systems and have all of them be true within the game. (That is ultimately why we did it that way.)

--M. J. Young