All,

I thought I'd share my specific design goals for Incarnate. Are the specific enough, and do you think they are acheivable?

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus from Meditations. iv. 2. wrote:
Let no act be done at haphazard, nor otherwise than according to the finished rules that govern its kind.

The following design goals will guide Incarnate's creation:

The game should encourage and support players who typically prefer Narrativist or Gamist modes of play

Shared narrative responsibility between the players and the game master - tied into the resolution mechanics

One single Fortune resolution mechanic for all conflicts

The minimum amount of search & handling time for the resolution mechanics that supports the meta-game needs of both Narrativist and Gamist modes of play

Streamlined character creation that favors balance of protagonism over balance of power - and results in characters that are easy to qualitatively conceptualize

Mechanics should support the themes/esthetics of the game: Struggle, madness, paranoia, competition

Mechanics should support a cinematic style of play

Mechanics should support the widest possible range of character power without adding significantly to either the search and handling time of the mechanics or the complexity of the character mechanics

Thanks for your time - questions, comments and concern are not only welcome, they are encouraged :-)

Cheers,

Jason

wyrdlyng wrote:
Just some quick questions.

Where does Fortune fall? In the beginning, middle or end?

Will Fortune be used to resolve tasks, conflicts or scenes?

Sure, ask the hard questions first ;-)

Actually, as currently designed (read - not well designed which is why I'm posting my ideas here), and as played on two occasions, Fortune is used mostly to resolve tasks - but with the right level of success can be bumped up to resolve conflicts - and with a really killer level of success can be used to resolve whole scenes.

In terms of where Fortune lies (beginning, middle, end), I'm not sure I understand the questions enough to be able to answer it. Are their links to other threads that discuss this? I will search and see.

In the meantime, the general flow of action resoltuion as it exists right now - at the task level:

Player decides they want Character to do something, and further is unsure of whether or not it can be accomplished by the Character.

Player stipulates a trait (skill/edge/power whathaveyou) and a difficulty level for the task (in the case of Character vs. environment tasks).

The rest of the troupe has the right to modify the stated difficulty.

Player describes what they'd like the character to do and rolls the dice. Compares the # of successes to the required degree of success (the difficulty as expressed in terms of the number of successes needed).

If enough successes were acheived, the player gets to narrate the effects of the character's action.

If enough successes were not gained, the character may have failed.

The player can choose to spend Inspriation points (a Karma/Director Stance mechanic) to turn the potential failure into a success. If they choose to do this, they get to narrate the effects of the character's action.

If the player either cannot or will not spend the required Inspiration, the GM gets to narrate the character's failure.

Does that help to answer the question?

Cheers,

Jason

Mike Holmes wrote:
How do you see the Gamism/Narrativism thing working? For example, is it to be a player competition to tell a good story? Or just something that will support both a certain type of competition over a moral theme that can suport both sorts of play (Walt's congruence)? Any details on what your angling for there?

Mike, another good question. I'll get to it here shortly.

First, I did some checking on the whole Fortune in the Middle thing, and I think what I'm aiming for is a Fortune-In-The-Middle "with teeth" as I think Ron termed it. The result is modified after the die roll, but before narration of outcome effect.

Now, onto the more nebulous issue of Narrativism vs. Gamism. I'm not 100% sure how these two things would play out. First up, the game does have elements of collaborative pc vs pc vs GM competition. Over the long haul, the rules will hopefully be set up to encourage a certain amount of backstabbing, double-cross, cabal forming etc.

Next, in my albiet limited understanding of G/N/S, I think that mechanics that encourage Players to make tactical decisions based on their mechanical advantage in any given conflict Instance sheerly for the joy of overcoming that conflict would tend to support Gamist modes of play. I'm aiming for tha tactical feel with the mechanics, but in such a way as to apply not only to individual conflict, but also to Narrative control.

Does that rambling prose answer the question?

Cheers,

Jason

deadpanbob wrote: Actually, as currently designed (read - not well designed which is why I'm posting my ideas here), and as played on two occasions, Fortune is used mostly to resolve tasks - but with the right level of success can be bumped up to resolve conflicts - and with a really killer level of success can be used to resolve whole scenes.

Aim for the stars!

Now you've piqued my curiosity as a gearhead. I'd like to see how you set this one up.

wyrdlyng wrote:
Aim for the stars!

Now you've piqued my curiosity as a gearhead. I'd like to see how you set this one up.

Yes. I'll probably be posting on my proposed mechanics in the next day or so. I wanted to see if anyone threw-up when they saw the design goals and/or the Premise before I decided whether or not its worth going on without major modifications.

I actually hope that the game in its current design is 75% of the way toward acheiving my goals.

Thanks for the interest.

Cheers,

Jason