For a long time I've been looking for a simple RPG system which focuses on role-play rather than rules play.

I'm a big fan of the Window and the style of play it encourages but have never been entirely happy with the whole Window ladder thing and bunches of different dice.

I've read the Pool, and liked what I read. I've never had the opportunity to play it though but I really like the whole concept of player initiated Monologues.

I've been fiddling with a simple resolution mechanic which takes a bit of each. It's just a seed of an idea, maybe not even that, and it may be one thats been touted already on this forum. If so, simply point me to the relavent thread and I'll be happy.

In brief...

Players have a small number of freeform non-specific traits that can be assigned to their characters, a bit like Amber's Warfare, Psyche, etc.

Each trait has a numeric value, corresponding to a level of ability,

1...Pitiful
2...Poor
3...Mediocre
4...Fair
5...Good
6...Excellent
7...Superb
8...Remarkable
9...Incredible
10+ Whatever

The Scale is a bit nebulous but any similarity to the Window Ladder is entirely intended.

Contests are fairly straightforward.

The GM determines the difficulty of contests/tasks when they arise based on his assessment of circumstance or, in the simplest instance, the traits of competing characters.

The GM deducts the PCs trait from the value of the opposing trait to arrive at a difficulty. Assume that the GM has a note of each characters notable traits so that this bit of math can be done without involving the players.

In any case, the trait vs trait or trait vs difficulty result denotes the difficulty of the contest from the players perspective.

+4....Incredibly Easy (5d6, take highest)
+3....Extremely Easy (4d6, take highest)
+2....Very Easy (3d6, take highest)
+1....Easy (2d6, take highest)
+0....50/50 (1d6)
-1.....Difficult (2d6, take lowest)
-2.....Very Difficult (3d6, take lowest)
-3.....Extremely Difficult (4d6, take lowest)
-4.....Incredibly Difficult (5d6, take lowest)

The GM describes the difficulty and the player rolls the appropriate dice and checks the result.

Contests which are described as "easy" mean that the player takes the highest result of any dice rolled. Contests that are described as "difficult" "hard" or "challenging" mean that the player takes the lowest result of any dice rolled.

"The lock is one you are very familiar with, roll 4 dice."
"He obviously has the edge on you, roll 3 dice."
"He's a wily Diplomat, convincing him will be a real challenge, roll 2 dice."

Degree of success is measured by the result that is rolled...

6....Total Success
5....Significant Success
4....Marginal Success
3....Marginal Failure
2....Significant Failure
1....Total Failure

Results are narrated as appropriate in the context of the scene with the degree of success acting as a cue.

Inspired by the Pool I'm thinking of using a special Trait called "Fate" to influence who gets to narrate the outcome of contested events.

A player can spend Fate before a roll is made to try and influence their chance of success and also grant them a monologue. Each point spent increases the trait that is being tested by one point. Regardless of the result of the contest any Fate that is spent in this way is considered lost but the player gets to narrate the outcome of the contest.

A player can regain Fate before a roll is made by decreasing the trait that is being tested. This lessens their chance of a successful outcome but replenishes their Fate trait. Again, if the player opts to do this then they get to narrate the outcome of the contest.

I'd probably impose a limit on the number of points of Fate that can be spent/regained in a contest.

Like I say, it's just a seed of an idea which isn't currently tied to any system although I'd certainly intend to use it in play sometime if I thought that it was workable.

Any comments appreciated.

Looks a lot like bonus and penalty dice from Over the Edge. Seems pretty solid to me in general terms. The one protential problem with such a system is that, other than for a 50/50 roll, the most extreme results are the most likely to occur (on an "Easy" roll, the chance to get a Total succcess are 30%, which is almost the same as the chance to get either a 3 or a 4 put together). That may not concern you, however.

As for the "fate" thing, what more than one player spends? For example, their characters are competing. Highest bid? Can players bid back and forth? I assume that Fate is, from your description all spent before rolling?

Also, in such a case, which player rolls the dice? Or do they each roll (that might be cool).

Mike

Hi Cassidy

Maybe you can explain this to me. I'm playing devil's advocate here, so just stay with me. At first you said:

For a long time I've been looking for a simple RPG system which focuses on role-play rather than rules play.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Hi Cassidy

Maybe you can explain this to me. I'm playing devil's advocate here, so just stay with me. At first you said:

For a long time I've been looking for a simple RPG system which focuses on role-play rather than rules play.

And then you outlined your idea for rules, simple rules, but rules nevertheless. But the rules are just a simple task resolution system. Would you not be better served by a game with rules for roleplaying. I mean, just how different is the rules you have outlined here from most other RPGs in what they do and how they work? In other words, I still see rules play instead of role-play, as you had put it. Just trying to take a look from a different angle.

Upon reflection, I may have come across a little harsh in my first post. Sorry about that.

But what I was getting at is, and I believe Andrew is too, that you want to focus on the roleplaying but what you have here is a system that supposedly "gets out of the way" of the roleplaying, but does not necessarily aide the roleplaying at all. I would instead encourage you to find rules that aide roleplaying instead of finding rules that get out of the way.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Upon reflection, I may have come across a little harsh in my first post. Sorry about that.

But what I was getting at is, and I believe Andrew is too, that you want to focus on the roleplaying but what you have here is a system that supposedly "gets out of the way" of the roleplaying, but does not necessarily aide the roleplaying at all. I would instead encourage you to find rules that aide roleplaying instead of finding rules that get out of the way.

Mike Holmes wrote: Looks a lot like bonus and penalty dice from Over the Edge. Seems pretty solid to me in general terms. The one protential problem with such a system is that, other than for a 50/50 roll, the most extreme results are the most likely to occur (on an "Easy" roll, the chance to get a Total succcess are 30%, which is almost the same as the chance to get either a 3 or a 4 put together). That may not concern you, however.

As for the "fate" thing, what more than one player spends? For example, their characters are competing. Highest bid? Can players bid back and forth? I assume that Fate is, from your description all spent before rolling?

Also, in such a case, which player rolls the dice? Or do they each roll (that might be cool).

Mike

You will probably want to decide just how literal the words you choose to use are to be taken. Are "duellist" and "swordsman" just different colorful ways of describing "fights with sword" or do they have particular meaning based on the words chosen.

For example, Findan may be a superb duellist, but what if they are not fighting a duel. What if they are fighting a gang of thugs in a dark alley full of debris? Would Gant's lesser skill in "swordsman" actually be more applicable here and thus gain an edge that might even things out.

Does "Duellist" imply a narrower specialty than "Swordsman".

If I'm on horseback armed with a broadsword can I use my "Duellist" skill at full ability, what about "Swordsman".

Conversely, if this is actually a formal duel with seconds and all the trimmings does the duellist get a special edge?

Or not. But you probably will want to be clear in advance.

Valamir wrote: You will probably want to decide just how literal the words you choose to use are to be taken. Are "duellist" and "swordsman" just different colorful ways of describing "fights with sword" or do they have particular meaning based on the words chosen.

For example, Findan may be a superb duellist, but what if they are not fighting a duel. What if they are fighting a gang of thugs in a dark alley full of debris? Would Gant's lesser skill in "swordsman" actually be more applicable here and thus gain an edge that might even things out.

Does "Duellist" imply a narrower specialty than "Swordsman".

If I'm on horseback armed with a broadsword can I use my "Duellist" skill at full ability, what about "Swordsman".

Conversely, if this is actually a formal duel with seconds and all the trimmings does the duellist get a special edge?

Or not. But you probably will want to be clear in advance.

Cassidy wrote: I did the math for the probabilities and they seem ok. The plus scale is just an inverted mirror image of the negative scale which makes perfect sense.

I had thought about 'bidding wars' between 2 competing players. I don't know if it would be better to have an open bid or secret written bids. I think 'secret' bids would be an excellent opportunity for players to try and bluff one another.

It really doesn't matter who rolls the dice since success or failure is always read in respect of which player is doing the rolling. Success for one is failure for the other and vice-versa.

I need to give some thought to Player vs Player conflicts and also to multi-character conflicts in general.

Mike Holmes wrote: It's "balanced", yes. My only point is that the "Marginal" results are never more likely to be produced in play than any other result. That is very different from most systems, and might seem counterintuitive to some. There's no reason that it woudn't work, and it might even be a lot of fun getting mostly extreme results. I'm just trying to make sure that this is one of yor design goals. If so, then great.

Mike Holmes wrote: Sure. But who rolls? The first guy to grab the dice? Players are weird that way. Some will want to roll. Others would prefer someone else to roll. You need a simple way to determine who rolls. Otherwise people will be rolling off occasionally to see who rolls. You can avoid this extra step by saying that the originator of the conflict rolls, or the target, or the GM.

Mike Holmes wrote: Also, your say that you want a "Mathless" system. But what you have, of course, is a system where you have to do math anyhow. You subtract one total from the other. And there is a translation going on. The player says, OK, Fair is 4, and Superb is 7, so 4-7 = -3 = extremely difficult.

Is this a level of math that you are comfortable with? Or would you still like to go for "mathless"?

So you're saying that the GM does the math? That's specious. Players will figure out what their opponents' levels of ability are through observation, and they will do the math.

Not that I think this is a bad thing, but it'll happen. I personally see the whole "math trasparency" issue as a non-factor. I prefer numbers myself. How strong is "Fair"? How much can I lift with it? In GURPS, I multiply my ST by 20 to determine my max lift (and by other factors for other lifts). So, looking at an 11, I have a good idea what that means.

Andrew would take it further, and just say, "You're character can max lift 200 lbs." There's nothing there to get in the way of understanding what it means (though I'd argue you lose something mechanically).

The point is that just translating between words and numbers does not remove the math. It just hides it. If that's something you want, fine. It's just always seemed odd to me. I always note how stilted the use of the descriptors seem. "I'll try to solve the puzzle cube with my Fair intelligence". Doesn't come off any more naturalistic than saying, "Ill try to solve the puzzle cube with my eleven intelligence".

Just my take, tho. Some people seem to think it helps.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: So you're saying that the GM does the math? That's specious. Players will figure out what their opponents' levels of ability are through observation, and they will do the math.

Not that I think this is a bad thing, but it'll happen. I personally see the whole "math trasparency" issue as a non-factor. I prefer numbers myself. How strong is "Fair"? How much can I lift with it? In GURPS, I multiply my ST by 20 to determine my max lift (and by other factors for other lifts). So, looking at an 11, I have a good idea what that means.

Andrew would take it further, and just say, "You're character can max lift 200 lbs." There's nothing there to get in the way of understanding what it means (though I'd argue you lose something mechanically).

The point is that just translating between words and numbers does not remove the math. It just hides it. If that's something you want, fine. It's just always seemed odd to me. I always note how stilted the use of the descriptors seem. "I'll try to solve the puzzle cube with my Fair intelligence". Doesn't come off any more naturalistic than saying, "Ill try to solve the puzzle cube with my eleven intelligence".

Just my take, tho. Some people seem to think it helps.

Mike

This is an elegant mechanism. Since you were interested in similar ideas discussed previously, I'll point out that it has a lot in common with the high-granularity variant of the "Symmetry" mechanism I use for most of my role playing. Some of the similarities are:

- A variable number of dice rolled, with a result that's interpreted differently based on whether the chance of success is above or below 50%.

- The symmetrical quality itself, such that chance of failure if you roll equals chance of success if the opponent rolls, and vice versa.

- Centered on a 50% chance, and the residual chance of success or failure decays exponentially as one adds dice to move the odds away from 50%.

I gotta say, though, I like your mechanism better in many ways. Probably better overall, too, though I can't tell for sure until I've tried it out.

And I agree that the way you propose having the GM determine the number of dice during play, without mentioning the numbers or the descriptors out loud, can work. I've done this myself with high-granularity Symmetry. (The original low-granularity version, in which four points of difference have the same impact as one point in the high-granularity version, seems to fit better when the players are doing their own adding and subtracting and small modifiers can come into play.) It works because each die represents a doubling or halving of the task's relative difficulty to the character, so the on-the-fly assessments the GM is called only need ballpark accuracy. They're more convenient and even seem, to me at least, more natural. (Research has shown that in many cases, human senses and gut feelings are more oriented toward logarithmic scales than linear ones. That's why, for example, the decibel scale for perceived loudness of sound is logarithmic with respect to the actual energy of the sound.)

There's one issue you may want to consider in the numbers vs. descriptors issue. One thing Symmetry, and your system too I believe, is very good at accommodating is extreme old-school character advancement. Mechanically there's no difference between a character with a decoding skill of 5 attempting a decryption of difficulty 4, and a character with a decoding skill of 9 attempting a decryption of difficulty 8. In fact, there's no mechanical reason you couldn't go on to have a skill of 20 confronting difficulties also in the neighborhood of 20.

Tying the numbers to descriptors reduces this flexibility somewhat, because descriptors above "superb" tend to lose any clear sense of their relative meaning. That is, a "23 vs 20" situation remains easy to understand as numbers, while whatever descriptors you'd have to assign at that magnitude just get silly.

Using numbers alone without descriptors also helps at the low end of the advancement spectrum. If I have a skill of 3 and I routinely beat challenges of 1 and 2 (and sometimes even prevail over challenges of 3, 4, and 5) that arise, my character comes across as competent and I don't have to think of his skill as really just "mediocre" relative to some universal scale.

Of course, this is a non-issue if you don't want (as most designers here don't usually want) open-ended character advancement.

Best,
Walt

I still don't get it, sorry. What follows could constitute a rant. So be forewarned.

Sometimes in GURPS or whatever system, I do all the math myself in my head. What do my players do? They ask me how I got to that point. Why? Because they realize there is a math step, and they want to be able to do the calculations themselves. They are not satisfied with just not knowing. If the math is simple, like your game, they just automatically back-calculate (hmm, my skill is a four, and the diff is easy...the opponent must be a three).

Anyhow, the point is either I can do the math for any system in my head, and if I have players that don't care, they will not ask about it (in which case any system is just as "non-number" as any other), or the players will want to know the numbers, in which case, such a system is an impediment, and I'd be silly to do it, anyhow.

So, what's this system got that all other systems don't already have? Other than, perhaps text that encourages the GM to do all the math himself?

Again, if this is just a "feel" preference, then fine. I can't argue with that. But I'd argue that numbers give as good or better a feel. Personally.

When will players mention their stat ratings you ask? When you ask them for them.
Q."What are you using to open the box?"
A. "My Fair intelligence."

Again, the GM can do all this himself in any game. It just takes more effort. There's nothing specific to your game that makes this more true in the enumeration system. I play GURPS using chargen similar to what you describe. I ask a series of carefully selected questions, and just pick values that fit the description. Ignoring points. This makes GURPs chargen easier, and better, yes. But it's a function of that tactic, and has nothing to do with how the system rates anything. If you realy wanted to keep the numbers from the players, wouldn't you take away the cahracter sheet as a whole? So that they'd have to work from their impression of the character rather than have levels listed that could be converted.

Heck, GURPS resolution is just as simple. You always roll three dice and add them (please don't tell me that adding three numbers from one to six in onerous; moreso than searching four dice for the max value? Or sometimes the min?). Never any change. The player simply tells the GM the total, and he can do the neccesary comparison (assuming that the GM does it all himself).

I'm not saying that GURPS is a great system. It has it's flaws. I'm just not seeing how what you're doing is significantly different in terms of math or enumeration. Again, if you just like it, say so. But if I were to play, I'd chuck the descriptors, hand the character sheets to the players, and have them do the one step of math whenever they need to. It baffles me as to how this is an impediment to role-playing. It's never slowed down any game I've ever seen, or made any player somehow...I dunno, I can't even see what it might do: make them uncomfortable?

In fact allowing the players to do some of the work has its advantages. I certainly don't want to be hampered as a GM in my creativity in having to handle all the calcualtions myself, all the time. Bettter to distribute it about. In Rolemaster, I always assigned a player as "Chartboy" so that I could continue with play while they looked up results. GMs are players too!

This may come off as overblown. But I've never understood this POV. It doesn't make any sense mathematically. Perhaps that's just my math mind talking. I dunno. But I've yet to see a convincing argument to the opposite. And we've been over this about four times now (do a search on "Transparency" and "FUDGE" for examples).

Mike

I guess it comes down to my own personal view that having the players define and think of their characters in game terms as a series of numbers, stats, bonuses, etc can at times make them appear to be just that - an ordered list of numbers, bonuses, values or whatever.

I totally buy what you say about some players wanting to "know" how the system works. You can't hide the math, although you can disguise it's use.

Once players figure out how the system works then they can do the math themselves. Point is, even if they do know how things work it's the actual application of the mechanic that matters.

I'll pinch your example to show what I mean.

Q."What are you using to open the box?"
A. "My Fair intelligence."

I wouldn't even ask that sort of question in that sort of way if the player had announced that their character was trying to open a locked puzzle box.

I'd ask, "How are you trying to open it." and I'd expect an in character statement of intent not an out of character one like, "Using my fair Intelligence".

Sure, a player could still answer, "I'm using my Fair Intelligence." but where is the roleplay in that?

The player could try to smash the box open "I have a crowbar, I'm going to try and prise it open and if that doesn't work I'm going to give it a few hefty whacks." (implied Strength assuming it's a bloody big box).

Or maybe the player could try to finesse it open, "I'm going to see if I can try and figure how the thing opens, is there a lock mechanism?" (implied Intelligence or Knowledge of some description.)

The point is I'd expect the player to tell me what their character is actually doing and infer from their stated intent what trait is most logically being employed.

In essence by limiting the requirement for the players to view aspects of their character in "game" terms (like stats or bonuses) I would hope to promote more in character roleplay.

It is very hard to be objective with ones own ideas and I fully appreciate your take on things. You're not ranting. You are giving an honest opinion which to be fair is one that some of the players in my own group would probably share.

Question: If a GM proposed running a game and presented you as a player with this kind of idea would it be a step too far?

wfreitag wrote: This is an elegant mechanism. Since you were interested in similar ideas discussed previously, I'll point out that it has a lot in common with the high-granularity variant of the "Symmetry" mechanism I use for most of my role playing. Some of the similarities are:

- A variable number of dice rolled, with a result that's interpreted differently based on whether the chance of success is above or below 50%.

- The symmetrical quality itself, such that chance of failure if you roll equals chance of success if the opponent rolls, and vice versa.

- Centered on a 50% chance, and the residual chance of success or failure decays exponentially as one adds dice to move the odds away from 50%.

I gotta say, though, I like your mechanism better in many ways. Probably better overall, too, though I can't tell for sure until I've tried it out.

And I agree that the way you propose having the GM determine the number of dice during play, without mentioning the numbers or the descriptors out loud, can work. I've done this myself with high-granularity Symmetry. (The original low-granularity version, in which four points of difference have the same impact as one point in the high-granularity version, seems to fit better when the players are doing their own adding and subtracting and small modifiers can come into play.) It works because each die represents a doubling or halving of the task's relative difficulty to the character, so the on-the-fly assessments the GM is called only need ballpark accuracy. They're more convenient and even seem, to me at least, more natural. (Research has shown that in many cases, human senses and gut feelings are more oriented toward logarithmic scales than linear ones. That's why, for example, the decibel scale for perceived loudness of sound is logarithmic with respect to the actual energy of the sound.)

There's one issue you may want to consider in the numbers vs. descriptors issue. One thing Symmetry, and your system too I believe, is very good at accommodating is extreme old-school character advancement. Mechanically there's no difference between a character with a decoding skill of 5 attempting a decryption of difficulty 4, and a character with a decoding skill of 9 attempting a decryption of difficulty 8. In fact, there's no mechanical reason you couldn't go on to have a skill of 20 confronting difficulties also in the neighborhood of 20.

Tying the numbers to descriptors reduces this flexibility somewhat, because descriptors above "superb" tend to lose any clear sense of their relative meaning. That is, a "23 vs 20" situation remains easy to understand as numbers, while whatever descriptors you'd have to assign at that magnitude just get silly.

Using numbers alone without descriptors also helps at the low end of the advancement spectrum. If I have a skill of 3 and I routinely beat challenges of 1 and 2 (and sometimes even prevail over challenges of 3, 4, and 5) that arise, my character comes across as competent and I don't have to think of his skill as really just "mediocre" relative to some universal scale.

Of course, this is a non-issue if you don't want (as most designers here don't usually want) open-ended character advancement.

Best,
Walt

I understand what you're going for. But there is nothing about having "Fair" on the character sheet that makes a player less likely to give a roleplaying description of their actions, than to just state the stat. I'm not saying all players do this, or that all would with your system. Just that the system is not achieving your goals, IMO.

You're goals, are, BTW, just fine. I'm not arguing with the notion that it might be cool to have a game that promoted such play. I'm only looking at what you have critically, and trying to help see whether or not it will achieve your goals.

I have played, and in fact run games in the manner that you describe. I've been using examples from those experiences. What I found is that my players hated it. They wanted to know the mechanics, and not knowing them just made them fidgety. They'd ask, "Well, what sort of chances does my character have to accomplish x?" etc. They wanted to know for various reasons, but a lot of it has to do withy control. I even experimented with systems where I, as GM, did all the rolling myself. THe players never saw anything mechanical at all. They hated this even worse. They wondered if it wasn't all arbitrarily being decided by me (after all I could be fudging every roll). Players get a sense of control from not only rolling their own dice (which you sensed, probably, as you didn't take that away from them), but from seeing the mechanics in action.

Now, my players are particularly of a certain variety. And not all players would respond so. But to the extent that the mechanics enhance the eperience, the players enjoy seeing them in action. To the extent that the mechanics don't enhance play, they should be non-existant. The system is, itself a part of play. If you don't want a resolution system to at all be the center of any of play, I suggest you not have one at all. Freeform RPGers (mostly the online variety; this does not refer to LARP) do without resolution systems just fine.

This is not to say that you can't keep the fortune system and yet still promote the sort of play you like. I think it just needs something else. For example, you should definitely include the "roleplaying bonus" as seen in games like Sorcerer. That is, if the GM likes the description, he could, for your system, bump down the difficulty by one level, or two in the case of extremely well described events. This incentivizes players not to say, "I use my Fair intelligence," or, "I hit it" as the descriptin of the intent of their action, but to be as narrative as possible.

These are the sorts of mechanics that actively enable the sort of play you describe. I've seen no evidence anywhere that simply relabeling traits accomplishes this in any way. I've seen as many FUDGE players go either way with their descriptions. Mostly seems to depend on what the "norm" was for the group they played in prior. Because, like your system, FUDGE does little to actively inform the player that the game is about better descriptions.

Now, that example mechanic is just a vague idea. But I'm sure that if you put your mind to it, you can come up with something linked to your game's premise that will produce the kind of play you're looking for.

This is getting to the point where it's going to become important to know what the other design goals of the game are before you can tweak it further. This highlights the problem of discussing any particular mechanic outside of the context of the game for which it might be used. Do you have something in mind?

Mike

Cass, would joining the indie-netgaming group be a possibility for you? I'm really excited about the success of our Monday night games. They're regular as clock-work, and we've got a decent-sized core group that you can count on to show up, and a fairly large group of folks who are less regular, but some of whom can be counted on to show up every week. We hardly ever have fewer than 4 people these days. We play a large slice of indie games. It's all very informal, also. If you want to play something, you just bring it up on the mailing list (it's a yahoogroup).

You'd be able to try out a lot of different play styles. I think you might be surprised at how different the kind of gaming you've been doing (Window with task resolution) is from the kind of gaming you say you want. I know I was. :)

Mike Holmes wrote: This is getting to the point where it's going to become important to know what the other design goals of the game are before you can tweak it further. This highlights the problem of discussing any particular mechanic outside of the context of the game for which it might be used. Do you have something in mind?

Mike Holmes wrote: I understand what you're going for. But there is nothing about having "Fair" on the character sheet that makes a player less likely to give a roleplaying description of their actions, than to just state the stat. I'm not saying all players do this, or that all would with your system. Just that the system is not achieving your goals, IMO.

Paganini wrote: Cass, would joining the indie-netgaming group be a possibility for you? I'm really excited about the success of our Monday night games. They're regular as clock-work, and we've got a decent-sized core group that you can count on to show up, and a fairly large group of folks who are less regular, but some of whom can be counted on to show up every week. We hardly ever have fewer than 4 people these days. We play a large slice of indie games. It's all very informal, also. If you want to play something, you just bring it up on the mailing list (it's a yahoogroup).

You'd be able to try out a lot of different play styles. I think you might be surprised at how different the kind of gaming you've been doing (Window with task resolution) is from the kind of gaming you say you want. I know I was. :)

Cassidy,

Have you heard of Fudge? It's a pretty nice system that may work for you. Trait levels are focus very much on words, but you can use dice to randomize results. It's available online at Grey Ghost Games'website.

Jon

Have you read the System Does Matter essay, Cassidy?

What is the point to the first four fifths of that last post? How does it contradict anything that I've said?


And I like Fortune resolution, too, FWIW. The point is that in having such a system, that the system makes itself known through play. And there's not much you can do about it.

Mike

zaal wrote: Cassidy,

Have you heard of Fudge? It's a pretty nice system that may work for you. Trait levels are focus very much on words, but you can use dice to randomize results. It's available online at Grey Ghost Games'website.

Jon

Mike Holmes wrote: Have you read the System Does Matter essay, Cassidy?

What is the point to the first four fifths of that last post? How does it contradict anything that I've said?


And I like Fortune resolution, too, FWIW. The point is that in having such a system, that the system makes itself known through play. And there's not much you can do about it.

Mike

Cassidy wrote: Got my own set of Fudge dice so I have - very funky looking. It's a nice system but a little too math heavy for what I want.

Andrew Martin wrote:

Cassidy wrote: Got my own set of Fudge dice so I have - very funky looking. It's a nice system but a little too math heavy for what I want.

Could you explain further, please? I'm puzzled by this.

Cassidy wrote:
Thanks for the invite Pag. I'd love to do something like although I'm guessing that most of you guys are from the States.

I live in England so the time difference may be a problem, we are 5 hours ahead of EST.

What time do you play?

Cassidy wrote:

The type of games I like which are ones in which the GM tries to emphasize and encourage a Narrativist approach to play.

Paganini wrote:
But, seriously. I might be able to point you at a game you're *not* familiar with that will do what you want, but I need a little more info. For one thing, are you looking for something more or less generic, as the Window is, that you can apply to any setting / genre etc.? Or does your group have a particular setting that you always play in?

Cassidy wrote:
I was merely trying to illustrate how use of the mechanic in play would facilitate the illusion that the players are acting out the roles of their characters.

Mike Holmes wrote:
In Sorcerer, to use an obvious example, players have several numerical scores. Further, each score has a descriptor attached to it. Yet, do you ever hear anyone reference these numbers or descriptors? Not really.

Mike Holmes wrote:
What if a player want's to play Narrativist, and explore his dark fate? You'll reward that angle only by narrating poorly? The reward should occur no matter which direction you go.

Cassidy wrote: During ongoing narrative focused play are you aware of those numerical scores?

Is your attention ever diverted from the narrative to look at those numerical scores when you are resolving an action?

Is it desirable to require players to divert their attention away from the in game narrative so that they can consider abstract numerical elements of their character.

The concepts of True Fate and Dark Fate are the stated win/loss parameters as set by the player.

True Fate is the Fate that the player desires for their character and vice-versa.

If the player wants to explore a particularly nasty outcome for their player then that becomes their True Fate.

I haven't played Sorcerer and I've only read the online PDF a while back but from your reply it seems pretty close to what I'm after in terms of in play conflict resolution.

On the math/stat angle as I did mention before I am inclined to agree with you that stats and knowledge of how the "system" works are a necessary part of the whole gaming experience.

In hindsight, and on reflection, the notion of distancing the players totally from any inherent system mechanics is likely to be viewed suspiciously by some players. I suspect that to be true of the players in my group.

With that in mind, and assuming that it is in some ways desirable for the players to adopt an active role in "using the system" are there any drawbacks in the using the following sort of in play process to resolve conflict...

a) Conflict arises.
b) GM narrates the scene and requests statement of intent from player.
c) Player narrates statement of intent.
d) GM requests roll from the Player.
e) Player determines what dice need to be rolled and rolls them.
f) Results are interpreted and narrated.

The steps I would be concerned about are (d) and (e).

(d) Because the GM will have to step out of "narrative mode" to phrase the request to roll, potentially in using system terms that the player(s) can interpret.

i.e. "I need you to make a test - difficulty 7"
"Give me a roll - difficulty 6"

I'm assuming that the character trait that is being tested is either inferred or stated in some way either by the GM or the player as part of the prior to the GM stated request to 'roll the dice'. This limits the need for the GM to refer to the trait being tested in 'system' terms.

I'm concerned that phrasing requests to the player could detract from the narrative tone that has previously been set and which I would be trying to maintain.

(e) Requires the players to step out of "narrative mode" to do the math which determines how many dice need to be rolled.

i.e. (player thinking)
<My Strength is 6, the difficulty is 7, 6 - 7 = -1, so I need to roll 2 dice and take the lowest result.>

or...

<My Perception is 8, the difficulty is 6, 8 - 6 = +2, so I need to roll 3 dice and take the highest result.>

Whilst it enhances the players feeling of 'involvement' in the 'mechanical' process of conflict resolution (which I accept some players like), I can't help feeling that it's potentially detracting from the narrative goals I want the game to achieve.

Am I just being over-zealous in my desire to create a gaming envoronment that is focused on promoting narrative play?

Rewards for "good role-playing" never seem to work in my group and thats probably due to the group dynamic more than anything else.

Some players are just more articulate and better able to role-play a character than others. They may inadvertently "over elaborate" or "grandstand" in an effort to be seen as "playing well" if they believe it is likely to result in an in-game reward of some sort.

Others players just aren't as eloquent or find it harder to adopt their chosen roles. They see rewards being handed out to other players who are just better role-players. Ego's get bruised and players can start to feel a marginalized from the game.

Have you experienced anything similar?

I have seen what you are talking about. In systems built inappropriately. This is the basic problem that I have with the Fate system you're building. Essentially, I feel neither good enough a roleplayer, nor judge to try the system out.

The ones that do work are the ones where the GM gives out the reward on the spot, the reward can't be gotten another way. And the GM gives them out like candy based on the effort the player displays. I once saw a guy go from complete D&D hacker mode of play, to complete narrativist play, simply because he saw that we were getting extra dice. The GM found a spot where the player described the action with the least little fair, getting into it. The GM said, "Cool!" and gave him an extra big bonus. From that point on there was no stopping this player.

Because it's not good roleplaying that we want. That's right. You and I both agree, it seems to me that what we want is effort in that direction. Some players just can't do it well. But that doesn't matter. As long as they're trying, that's all we can ask, right?

So what do we do? We give on the spot rewards for what we like to see. And players respond. Boy do they respond. You wouldn't believe. Such a switch in focus is startling. Because play suddenly goes from "I'm trying to win by player tactics" to "I'm trying to make this dramatic". And the difference can be like night and day. Starting with the player stopping thinking in terms of stats (which no longer have anything to do with the rewards), and instead starts thinking in terms of "cool".

Gotta admit it's getting to me. Actually, you can have the best of both worlds. See TROS.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
However, that means that all players will always attempt to play well, and, if that's the simple criteria, they will always succeed at achieving their True Fate. To avoid this, you have to make the criteria strong.

Mike Holmes wrote: We give on the spot rewards for what we like to see. And players respond. Boy do they respond. You wouldn't believe. Such a switch in focus is startling. Because play suddenly goes from "I'm trying to win by player tactics" to "I'm trying to make this dramatic". And the difference can be like night and day. Starting with the player stopping thinking in terms of stats (which no longer have anything to do with the rewards), and instead starts thinking in terms of "cool".

MH, I just read your "on the spot reward" post.

I never envisaged handing out Fate points like as a reward for good narrative play.

Given your experiences I suppose if I did then players would achieve their True Fate before the pizza had time to go cold :)

Short game.

I always saw Fate points as a long-term reward thing, a defined goal for the player to strive towards which addresed some kind of theme that was of personal interest to the player.

Question:

What about awarding a player who gives a suitably vivid description of intent the right to narrate the outcome?

Hey Cassidy,

I'm not sure that you have a clear picture of what a narrativist system actually looks like, yet. The Forge on the whole has adopted the terms Ron uses in his "GNS" essay. There are some dissenters (Hi Fang!) who keep things interesting, but as a rule if you say "narrativism," people will assume that you're talking about narrativism as described in Ron's essay. Therefore, if you say that you're looking for a narrativist system, it's important that you understand how the word is locally defined. It may turn out that narrativism isn't actually what you're after at all, but rather a system with few "Points of Contact," as described in one recent thread, or a system that encourages player director stance, frex.

Remember that the phrase [sic] "narrativist system" is a short-hand that means "a system that facilitates or promotes narrativst play." So what exactly is narrativist play? Two points are required for narrativist play to exist:

1) Player contribution to narration - IOW, the story-telling duties are not all left up to the GM.

2) The group as a whole prioritizes the exploration of some "thematic question," which is what Ron calls "premise."

The tricky thing is that, until you've tried it, it's (IMO) impossible to grok what a narrativist style game section actually looks like. I was in that position not that long ago, where I'd read the essay, understood the concepts intellectually. Then I actually played a narrativist game, and was totally blown away by how different it was from what I'd imagined.

Now, in order for a *system* (as opposed to a session) to be narrativist, it must facilitate and / or promote points 1 and 2. Shadows and the Pool are very explicit about point 1, but leave point 2 up to the group. This means that, game sessions using these systems aren't necessarily narrativist, if you play them exactly as writen. I think this is what Ron calls "abashedly narrativist." It's really easy to play narrativist games with the Pool and Shadows, but the systems of those two games aren't out actively campaigning for a premise. :)

Mike and J.B.'s Synthesis is an example of a game that tries to actively promote point 2. It's in the playtest phase right now, and has a couple of problems, but I think you can still get a lot out of it. (It's actually one of my favorite games right now, coming in fairly closely behind Universalis. If only Synthesis had more director stance... <ducks froth from Mike> :)

Anyway, as it turns out, all this time I thought I was hardcore narrativist, I was wrong! I'm not really into addressing a premise. I enjoy playing in narrativist games, but I can do just as well without a premise as with one. What I really enjoy (and what Shadows and Universalis do very very well) is simulationism (prioritising exploration of situation, character, and / or color) coupled with a hefty dose of player director power (IOW, lots of narration from everywhere, not just the GM). This is one reason I love Universalis. There *is* no GM, so all the narration comes from players in director stance.

This sort of play may often, in retrospect, look a lot like narrativism. It tends to produce oustanding stories, and looking back over a play session you may even be able to identify premise being addressed. (For a good example of this see this shadows game report I posted over in the Actual Play forum.) The difference is that *during play* exploration of a premise was not prioritized. It may turn out that a premise was addressed, but any such circumstance is purely coincidental.

From your posts I suspect that you may be, as I am, more interested in this kind of play than in hardcore narrativism.

Holy cow, Nathan. :-)

Don't let Nathan get you down. You may, in fact, have a perfectly good vision of what Narrativism is. Or not. Either way, that's not actually all that important. You've got goals, and you're trying to get to them, and that's fine.

The problem, again, with "suitably vivid" is that it's very much a GM call. The rewards should be easy to get, actually. Any attempt at appropriate play should get some reward (essentially make it so that not getting the minimum entitled reward is a punishment for poor play which will be reare under sucs a system). The easier they are to get, the greater the fecundity of the response. The key is the phrase "like candy". Give them out left and right, and players will be constantly clammoring for them.

As such, the reward should be of variable intensity. Low reward for any weak effort, large reward for really good effort.

And no reward then becomes a punishment for outright poor play.

"What no dice?"
"Dude, that sucked; don't refer to your character sheet next time."
"Oh, I get it."

:-)

Garunteed results.

Mike

Paganini wrote: From your posts I suspect that you may be, as I am, more interested in this kind of play than in hardcore narrativism.

Paganini wrote: What I really enjoy (and what Shadows and Universalis do very very well) is simulationism (prioritising exploration of situation, character, and / or color) coupled with a hefty dose of player director power (IOW, lots of narration from everywhere, not just the GM). This is one reason I love Universalis. There *is* no GM, so all the narration comes from players in director stance.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Don't let Nathan get you down.

Mike Holmes wrote:
The problem, again, with "suitably vivid" is that it's very much a GM call.

Cassidy wrote:
For me, GNS defined Narrativism that requires players to prioritorize a recognizable theme that addresses or explores some ethical of moral issue is not a suitable mode of play for my group.

Cassidy wrote:
Use of descriptive narrative to provide colour, tone and atmosphere to help create in the minds of the players the imagined setting, situation, characters etc.

Some (not a lot, but some) director stance play from players which allow them to direct the course of the story. Before I read GNS or even found the Forge I've allowed that to happen on an ad-hoc basis in any case. If a player gives me a good description, or the scene is vital to the player, or even if say the player gets a perceived outstanding outcome or pathetically dismal outcome I'll usually say, "Tell me what happens."

Cassidy wrote:
I won't. He's just more familiar with the whole GNS thing that I am.

In a perverse sort of way I think it may have been better if I hadn't even tried to use any GNS terms in my posts.

I think we're starting to communicate.

Cassidy wrote: "Vivid" was the wrong term for me to use. If the players do end up giving vivid descriptions then great. I guess what really matters is that the players are consciously trying to add some colour and atmosphere to the game through the use of narrative. When they are able to that that unconsciously (i.e. without even thinking about it), then you've got to be onto a good thing.

I wonder of thats why the Pool seems to have the appeal it does at the Forge.

The reason for the 1-3 die GM award to players in the Pool is never explained but it seems obvious that it's the 'candy' you refer to.

Thanks for the reply, you've given me a great deal to think about.

The feedback I've received from all quarters has been insightful and if has helped solidify my design goals.

The hard part now is translating those goals into a coherent game design.

Wish me luck :)