"Advancement via Notoriety and PC-summoned foes"

From the similarly-named thread in the rpg theory forum, here are 2 ideas for a new system.
Setting, characters, etc. still need to be done (the fun stuff!). I am hoping this can be done as a collaborative effort. Any helpful input is welcome.


Note: I'm using The Pool rules as a placeholder to explain what I'm talking about.

ADVANCEMENT VIA NOTORIETY
-"Advancement for the PCs is described by the acquisition of increasingly stronger nemeses"
-PCs rarely actually kill off the enemy as in a typical hack n' slash campaign.
-eg. a D&D world. Low level players might have an adventure where they have to rescue a town from goblin raiders.
-After the players beat the foe, they would record "goblin raiders- Level 2"- next time, their nemesis would be more stronger and/or more in number. Eventually, after many encounters, the entire goblin kingdom would be their enemy.
-High level players would have lists of dragons and demons they've temporarily defeated but are still gunning after them.
-Convergent to Rich: PCs can "buy off" a foe: ie. pay a certain amount of Pool dice to permanently kill off a foe.
-From Valamir: killing foes should reduce a PC's total effectiveness somehow.
-Campaigns can be like an episodic tv show with recurring villains.

PC-SUMMONED FOES
-"PCs have the metagame ability to insert villains into their game session and get rewarded for it."
-eg. When the PCs have low Pool dice, someone can narrate in a nemesis. It has to make sense narratively. The party receives Pool dice depending on their foe's level.
-Each time you bring in a nemesis, their level increases.

It seems strange to penalize the players for not pissing people off. I mean I understand the idea that foes are more interesting when they don't pop up just to be smashed into oblivion but what about when the players actually turn a foe into a friend, or manage to defuse a situation without angering anyone too bad.

By rewarding to players for having people angry at them you encourage them to make people angry at them, and generally that is going to make them less likely to look for solutions (or plots) that don't lead to pissing people off.

StumpBoy wrote: It seems strange to penelize the players for not pissing people off. I mean I understand the idea that foes are more interesting when they don't pop up just to be shamshed into oblivion but what about when the players actually turn a foe into a friend, or manage to defuse a situation without angering anyone too bad.

By rewarding to players for having people angry at them you encourage them to make people angry at them, and generally that is going to make them lessl ikely to look for solutions (or plots) that don't lead to pissing people off.

You're not rewarding them for "not pissing people off" you are rewarding them for creating, extending, and bringing into play, long-term enemies. I would be inclined to extend this to include creating long term recurring consequences of any kind (not just enemies).

The big deal is that it is the Player who has to take charge of remembering and introducing such consequences.

But having eneimes is a bonus because it gives you control over the game and an ability to restore a powerful resource.

Maybe having allies should work simallerly, but using an ally reduces the power level of an ally? (After all if you call on someone too often without ever helping them out yourself they stop being as willing to help you?) Maybe the player could bring in allies that need the players help in order increase the allies value?

StumpBoy wrote: But having eneimes is a bonus because it gives you control over the game and an ability to restore a powerful resource.

Maybe having allies sohuld work simallerly, but using an ally reduces the power level of an ally? (After all if you call on someone too often without ever helping them out yourself they stop being as willing to help you?) Maybe the player could bring in allies that need the players help in order increase the allies value?

Thanks for the allies/enemies suggestions.


I worked on these mechanics and general gameplay before reading the comments.

Again, this assumes we're running a D&D-ish adventure.
-You need: D6s. PC have a list of a few numberless skills (ways they solve conflicts) and a list of nemeses.

Either a PC or GM can initate a CONFLICT. Everyone takes turns adding to the CONFLICT until satisfied.
PC A: Our old enemies Goblin raiders ambush us. 5 Dice difficulty (level).
PC B: ... and they're riding wolves. Add 2 Dice.
PC C: ... and don't forget it's dark and rainy. Add 2 Dice.
GM: ... and they trapped the place, so a big net falls on you guys. Add 3 Dice. I think that's enough. The encounter is 5+2+2+3=12 Dice. The reward is (5x2 because you're fighting an nemesis) +2+2+3= 17 Dice.

PCs then go into action resolution phase.
*I was really hoping to incorporate the Ritualized Boasting mechanics for task resolution.
For now, the PCs take turns picking skills and rolling and narrating results.
*Sample resolution table:
6 Great success. Foe loses 1d6 Dice.
5 Good success. Foe loses 1d3 Dice.
5 Success. Foe loses 1d2 Dice.
3 Hit. Foe loses 1 Dice.
2 No gain no loss.
1 Failure. Lose that skill for the rest of the conflict.
* I just realized this is a ripoff of Inspectres. Shoot. To be rewritten.

Long Conflicts
-A conflict can be a single fight like mentioned above.
-Or it can be a long scene: eg. The PCs sneak into Goblin Warrens (5 dice) + lots of traps (2 dice) + dark and cramped (2 dice) + regular patrols (3 dice) = 12 dice Scene.

Skills
I think I'm ripping off Risus here too. Inspired by Stumpboy's comments, a conflict doesn't have to be solved with combat skills. Someone with fast-talking skills can use that too.
The PCs can figure it out.

Nemesis
They don't have to be a list of foes. They can be recurring motifs. If your PC is Indiana Jones, "Snakes" would be a nemesis. If the PCs are pure dungeon hackers, "Pit traps" or "Surprisingly Hazardous Floors" could be nemeses too. If you're running a drama rpg, "Deeply Personal Issues" or "Transportation-based time constraints" may be key.
-as suggested, I guess a party should have 5 or so nemeses. And Buying Off nemeses should be a particularly important option.

This one almost got away from me, but I can’t let it fade away yet. I’ve been thinking about it on and off over the course of the week.

First, I like the nemesis idea.

Second I have a couple of questions, and an idea:

How are character abilities defined? From the post, it’s clear how notoriety is used to establish the difficulty of the scene. This I get. Also, I noticed that you’ve mentioned “numberless skills.” How do these affect the die roll, if at all? I'm having trouble figuring this out.

Why D&D fantasy? Why fantasy at all? I’m not implying that fantasy is a bad fit for this system. I’m mostly asking why you see this idea being particularly relevant to fantasy.

Hmmm… ok, bigger question. Why notoriety? This probably sounds unfair from someone who is pretty excited about the idea, but play along with me for a second. I think it’s a neat idea to work notoriety, ritualized boasting, etc. into a system. But why are you using it as a system? Is it just because it’s a neat idea? There’s nothing wrong with designing some aspects of a game based on an initial cool idea, but that’s not enough in the long term. As a player, “it’s cool” doesn’t give me any ideas about what to do with it.

Basically, I’m having trouble putting this system into context. What are your goals for this system? What kinds of games do you want to run with it? I noticed that you mentioned the potential for hashing out a setting through this thread, but I think it’s difficult because I don’t know if I understand your goals well enough to help with that part.

I’ve been thinking about this for the last week, and here’s one possible direction I got out of it. First, I asked myself, “Who is defined by notoriety?” Now, perhaps it’s actually the word choice, “notoriety,” that’s throwing me, but I see heroes defined by their “deeds,” and “fame,” or something like that, whereas I see… rascally sorts… defined by notoriety. Rascally sorts, like… gamblers, smugglers, “wanted men,” bandits (Robin Hood?), and assorted riff raff.

So, using Robin Hood as an example (since he inspired me to shoot thousands of arrows into helpless trees when I was a kid), the guy is notorious throughout the lands for robbing the rich and giving to the poor. Everybody knows about the time he marched into the Prince’s dinner with a stag on his shoulders. He’s notorious, and he’s a hero. It also fits nicely with the expanding scope of action that might result from the expanding powers and responsibilities of the players to determine the scope of the adventure. So when Robin Hood is just starting out, the players would start out small because that’s all they can do, system-wise. But as Robin Hood and his Merry Men become more notorious, the players would be able to do bigger and more dramatically rascally things. It would scale adventures and their impact, so that as the characters do rascally things, become more notorious, do even more rascally things, become even more notorious, etc.

Sticking with the Robin Hood example, I think it also fits something I saw implied in your post: the characters (Robin and the Merry Men) could actually share a lot of notoriety. They’re all notorious for robbing Prince John’s coffers and outwitting the Sheriff. Sure, Robin is more notorious for the stag incident, and of course it was Little John who pushed over the gallows through his enormous strength (I realize I’m mixing and matching sources terribly here), but a lot of their notoriety is shared.

Now Robin Hood is just an example, but the point is that I think what this idea needs is focus. What I’ve sketched out with Robin Hood could also be done with a bunch of other ideas. The point is that the system needs to be applied to something specific, otherwise it’s just another system idea. Sure, I’m excited about the whole idea of notoriety as a central part of an RPG resolution system, but I’m a lot more excited about Robin Hood, using notoriety as a key system, than about generic fantasy. And I wouldn’t need it to be Robin Hood, necessarily, to get into it. I’d just need it to be more focused on something.

I’m sure you’ve still been thinking this over. What have you come up with in the interim? And am I still thinking along the same lines as you, or have I split off in another direction with this?

Rich Forest