I wrote this for my Live Journal, and thought I'd share here as well:


I have just spent the last couple hours actually working on re-vamping the game design for Nine Worlds. I’ve been putting this off far too long. Last week, I realized I needed to greatly simplify the game as I’d conceived it. I’ll attempt to explain succinctly.

Nine Worlds is about the Demiurgist’s (i.e. all player characters) decision to do things according to the rules laid forth by the gods and their forbears or by one’s own reckoning. Originally, I had divided this out, even mechanically, between doing things “naturally” according to Virtues -- what the god and the collective conscious of the universe says is good -- and “supernaturally” according to your Urges – what you, the Demiurgist thinks is good or should be.

In that sense, the character sheet became almost literally divided between these two things. When you as a player entered conflict, you decided whether you’ll resolve it naturally using your own Virtue or supernaturally using your own Hubris (which is actually a good thing in the game, really). This choice determined which “side” of the sheet you’d be using for the conflict.

Needless to say, it got really confusing. It was drenched in Greek philosophical terms, many of which had subtle distinctions. Further, trying to reach some equilibrium for each side was impossible. I kept adding solutions to balance other solutions until the whole thing was too complicated.

Hence the need for simplification. With that decision came a sort of personal epiphany about RPG design in general -- I finally got over my own tendency to see things in a very traditional way. Specifically, I found no need to model actual characteristics -- mental, social, or physical -- of characters. (Sorcerer was enlightening in this regard, notably.)

Rather than modeling things like “Wits” or maybe Coordination, or even more abstract notions like Wisdom or Courage, I’ve taken a different course. And, I see no need to include things like personal skills. The game operates on a more distant, meta-game level that I find refreshing. It certainly won’t be for everyone. But, I think it’ll be something intriguing. That’s my hope, anyway.

Characters still do have attributes, I guess, but they model effectiveness overall, rather than physical, mental, etc. Specifically, characters possess Arete (excellence and virtue) and Hubris (pride and a gauge of “self”). These two are the pivotal attributes, and form the basis for the key metagame mechanic.

In addition, all player characters have four Urges. These might be thought of as magical powers, but in fact they gauge both natural and supernatural effectiveness. These are: Chaos (the urge to destroy), Cosmos (the urge to create), Metamorphosis (the urge to transform) and Stasis (the urge to make constant). These four elements indicate a character’s effectiveness at doing the work of the Demiurge. The actual actions a character performs in a conflict are purely color and therefore fodder for narration by all players. What’s ultimately important is how the character affects the universe itself, though granted often on a small scale.

So, in effect, the character’s attributes do not model his ability, but rather his potential. They aren’t predetermining an action before conflict, but rather informing what that action’s consequences are after the fact. This distinction has been helpful to me, at least, in challenging my own assumptions in how RPGs work. That alone is reason enough to create the game -- it was a goal I set out to accomplish. Should I alter one other hobbyist in that regard, then I’m a friggin’ over-achiever.

Cool!

I actually think I like this game even more now. It's good when the "magic" of the character is built right into the system.

So if the character wants to bust heads, he uses Chaos + Arete in an old-fashioned street brawl, Chaos + Hubris to whip out the old ball of abysmal flames. Likewise, to patch someone up in an operating room, Stasis + Arete, but to patch someone up by laying on hands, Stasis + Hubris?

If so, these Demiurgists are going to come off like Renaissance men, but I think that's a good thing for this game.

Spooky Fanboy wrote: Cool!

I actually think I like this game even more now. It's good when the "magic" of the character is built right into the system.

So if the character wants to bust heads, he uses Chaos + Arete in an old-fashioned street brawl, Chaos + Hubris to whip out the old ball of abysmal flames. Likewise, to patch someone up in an operating room, Stasis + Arete, but to patch someone up by laying on hands, Stasis + Hubris?

If so, these Demiurgists are going to come off like Renaissance men, but I think that's a good thing for this game.

Hmm. I can also see how the game gets tricky: how do you define "what the gods want" and "what is the 'right' thing to do", versus "what I want to happen?" Is it assumed that the gods talk more to you than they talk to 'regular' humans?

Is there some sort of mechanic for potentially confusing the two, or is it the GM's job to decide what the gods want to happen, and work from there? Because it seems that a character in this game could really get in over his/her head in a hurry. Don't get me wrong; that's cool! ;-)

Mechanics-wise, a question: How are things like duration, distance, etc. increased or decreased for 'magic' purposes? Are successes burned to increase them? Or is that built into the number of successes you get?

Curious: do people with wildly different, non-Western upbringings see the Eternals/Titans differently than one who is familiar with the Greek mythos? If so, (and I hope so because that would be so cool) it might be a good idea to offer suggestions on what the lady from Africa sees versus what the gentleman from India sees when both are in front of War or Death.

Odd note: I just realized that, with only the slightest shift in assumptions about the characters, some setting, and some color, you've got a really cool card-based game about Amber. Instead of the Gods/Titans, you've got Pattern/Logrus, characters would have to default to immortality instead of mortality, and punishment for manipulating the universe would have to change slightly somehow to reflect the loss of the Furies. Hmmm. That last one would be a sticking point for Zelazny purists, but I don't think it's that difficult of a translation.

Hmm. I can also see how the game gets tricky: how do you define "what the gods want" and "what is the 'right' thing to do", versus "what I want to happen?" Is it assumed that the gods talk more to you than they talk to 'regular' humans?

Is there some sort of mechanic for potentially confusing the two, or is it the GM's job to decide what the gods want to happen, and work from there? Because it seems that a character in this game could really get in over his/her head in a hurry. Don't get me wrong; that's cool! ;-)

Mechanics-wise, a question: How are things like duration, distance, etc. increased or decreased for 'magic' purposes? Are successes burned to increase them? Or is that built into the number of successes you get?

Curious: do people with wildly different, non-Western upbringings see the Eternals/Titans differently than one who is familiar with the Greek mythos? If so, (and I hope so because that would be so cool) it might be a good idea to offer suggestions on what the lady from Africa sees versus what the gentleman from India sees when both are in front of War or Death.

Odd note: I just realized that, with only the slightest shift in assumptions about the characters, some setting, and some color, you've got a really cool card-based game about Amber.

You've caught on to what boils down as the premise of this game. "What is the 'right' thing to do versus what I want (or what I think it 'right')?" That's the good news. The bad news, if we can call it that, is that I can't sufficiently answer your question, yet. That is, much "how to play the game" attention will be devoted to helping players figure out this central dilemma. I don't have a quick answer here, I'm afraid. That is not to say there won't be some mechanical means to clarify this issue, but that it's still too loosey-goosey to share.

Of course, one thing I'd really like is if someone else besides me would show some enthusiasm in this game. I can't be the only one looking forward to this.

I like the more streamlined stats and stuff.
I have to admit, I stopped reading the previous threads on 9 worlds when it got heavier in mechanics.
I like this idea particularly the Hubris split- reminds me a bit of what we were going for on Enlightment.
(a game I would like to finish, but can't seem to get enthusiasm for...still don't have a clear idea of 'what play is like')

I have an idea; think about it before you shoot it down.

It occurs to me, since this game explores the dichotomy between doing the right thing versus doing something wrong, that players should have some way of reliably distinguishing between the two. Maybe that should be based off of Arete.

Here's my thought: if there's a situation where it's not obvious whether or not an action is virtuous or wrong, the player can request to know. If the player succeeds with a hand (determined as the rules, but going off of Arete somehow,) the GM, if he isn't sure, draws a card:

Spades: HELL NO, that's not virtuous! If you do this, your Hubris will most likely escalate. Why this is so may not at first be clear...

Clubs: Not virtuous, but you're partly on the right track. Now, all you have to do is find out what you're doing right and extrapolate. Still Hubris if you proceed as planned.

Diamonds: Virtuous, but there is a pitfall in the way you're going about it. Avoid that pitfall, and you're golden. Arete, but be careful...

Hearts: No matter how bizarre or outrageous it seems, your action is virtuous. The Eternals sometimes move in mysterious ways. Finding out the rationale behind this could be an adventure in itself. Arete all the way.

This could emphasize the capricious nature of the Eternals, whose workings man was not meant to know. Extra successes should not equate to extra info, because there may be times when the GM is using this method and has no more info than the player why this action is right or wrong. (Ah, the joys of spontaneity!) Plus, it would not entirely remove caprice from the character or the GM. Sometimes, there's just no time to figure it all out. Also, this is an Arete-based action, and the more the character depends on it, the more he risks losing all Hubris and becoming a soulless puppet of the Eternals. Sometimes, the torpedoes have to be damned and the tea just has to go into the harbor...

As an optional idea/stimulator of action, I like it. What do you think?

Couple comments, SF.

First, you're right that this is the toughest, most squishy issue in the game. But, I think I've miscommunicated one issue. The game is not one of Right vs. Wrong. That's not it. Hubris is not "wrong." It can be, but it need not be. In fact, when Hubris is "right," the game sends its most powerful, personal message and theme.

Rather, the game is about seeking approval from the powers that be vs. finding your own truth via creativity. Do you create art because you know it's what the critics will applaud or because it's what you need to create for your own soul's sake?

Now, on to your suggestion for mechanics. Here's where I see a major pitfall....

The mechanics you've put forth seem to me to be strongly Simulationist. That is, you've relegated the issue of difficult player judgment to to a game mechanic. In effect, I think you're saying that since we as players can't really always know the virtuous, godly-approved thing to do, then let's have the cards tell us. The results of random draws dictate what is virtous.

I think this would quite fine in a simulationist game about exploring the push and pull of the gods & titans, etc. I don't think it works terribly well for a narrativist game with a premise like I'm suggesting. I think players must form judgments and answer, via play, what is virtuous and what is prideful. Enter squishiness and hems and haws.

This doesn't mean there aren't mechanics to facilitate this, perhaps even quite similar to what your interesting mechanic poses. It does mean, however, that I've got to give it some serious thought. I'm not satisfied with my "answers" on this key issue yet, but I'll certainly share once I work through it. I have to! That's the game, in a nutshell.

I agree they're Simulationist. They were designed to be to simulate the arcane, byzantine maneuverings and thought-processes of The Eternals.

In most cases, I think that the answer to those questions are going to be obvious. Just thought of something to use just in case it wasn't.

Yep, and I appreciate your feedback greatly. At a minimum, it really makes me think about what I'm designing. The feedback, criticism and suggestions you've offered are very helpful and encouraging.

Matt Snyder wrote: The feedback, criticism and suggestions you've offered are very helpful and encouraging.

And spooky. Don't forget spooky.
And sometimes even a little creepy ;-)

Matt Snyder wrote: This doesn't mean there aren't mechanics to facilitate this, perhaps even quite similar to what your interesting mechanic poses. It does mean, however, that I've got to give it some serious thought. I'm not satisfied with my "answers" on this key issue yet, but I'll certainly share once I work through it. I have to! That's the game, in a nutshell.

What it means for me, in terms of your particular game: Reconsider using a set mechanic for this.

You said it yourself: This game is Narrativist. If the players want to play, then bring them on board before play starts. Hash out with them what they believe the Eternals want, the "thou shalt nots" and the "thou musts." Figure out how the individual Eternals relate what part of reality they manage to the goals of the overall group. A good way to get them in that frame of mind would be to read the Incarnations of Immortality series by Piers Anthony, or Nobilis if they have it. Then solidify it, and make sure the Eternals don't budge. After all, the Eternals are the pillars upon which rest the whole of reality. That way, no mechanics are needed. Then re-introduce what you hammered out to the characters as needed in play. If you come across a situation you didn't cover and can't extrapolate towards, have the players vote or use a random draw mechanic similar to what I outlined.

If you can actually build an impartial mechanic that makes things flow as smoothly as that, without devolving into randonist absurdity, my hat is off to you. Otherwise, please take my suggestion seriously. After all, if you can't trust your players to do this, why are you gaming with them?

Matt Snyder wrote: The difference or rule of thumb should be pretty clear. If you can conceive of an event happening, however extraordinary, then it's "natural." If there's just no way an event can be rationally explained without some supernatural influence, then it's an hubristic resolution, a supernatural one.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Matt Snyder wrote: The difference or rule of thumb should be pretty clear. If you can conceive of an event happening, however extraordinary, then it's "natural." If there's just no way an event can be rationally explained without some supernatural influence, then it's an hubristic resolution, a supernatural one.

That's problematic for me. There is a calculable chance of pretty much anything happening at random, naturally. Really. For example, it's a simple affair to calculate the chance that you will rise up off the ground and hover there for ten seconds. All a matter of energy.

The odds may be such that the event will be somewhat unlikley to occur in the period between the Big Bang, and the eventual heat death of the universe. But there's a chance.

Mike

By the way, there's no relevance in disguising one as the other. Either your action was magical or it wasn't. Coincidence to the perceiver is irrelevant here. You, the demiurgist know what you did. The universe "knows" what you did, naturally or supernaturally. That's all the matters.

The difference or rule of thumb should be pretty clear. If you can conceive of an event happening, however extraordinary, then it's "natural." If there's just no way an event can be rationally explained without some supernatural influence, then it's an hubristic resolution, a supernatural one.

By the way, you are going to provide some "common-sense" guidelines in the game, just to remind people that Jet-Li/ Jackie Chan movies are not realistic portrayals of street fights, aren't you? Some pertinent examples from The Guinness Book of World Records might be a good idea. In fact, I'd recommend to Nine Worlds GMs that The Guinness Book might become their best friend when they run a Nine Worlds game.

Also, you mentioned earlier that, in Arete-driven challenges, Hubris can help. How? Is the reverse also true?

Now that the logjam is broken, I'm moe eager than ever to actually see this bad boy in print.

Yeah, sounds shakey to me. I can't get two people to agree on Coke or Pepsi, much less what's supernatural or real.

Why not rework it so that it's a player choice? That way, I can do seemingly supernatural things and explain that I'm actually using esoteric mundane forces, or I can do mundae things but explain that I'm using supernatural force.

Perhaps the GM could assign some rating that would make it more expensive to do one way or another.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Yeah, sounds shakey to me. I can't get two people to agree on Coke or Pepsi, much less what's supernatural or real.

Why not rework it so that it's a player choice? That way, I can do seemingly supernatural things and explain that I'm actually using esoteric mundane forces, or I can do mundae things but explain that I'm using supernatural force.

Matt Snyder wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Yeah, sounds shakey to me. I can't get two people to agree on Coke or Pepsi, much less what's supernatural or real.

Why not rework it so that it's a player choice? That way, I can do seemingly supernatural things and explain that I'm actually using esoteric mundane forces, or I can do mundae things but explain that I'm using supernatural force.

They do exactly that, Mike. That is, if I understand you correctly.

Here's how:

Characters have two key characterisitics (and four others, not relevant right now). One is Arete, the other is Hubris. They're called virtues. When the character enters a conflict, the player decides which of the two virtues to use. When the player selects, his chosen virtue becomes sacrosanct -- it can't be altered by the conflict. The other, however, is jeopardized and most definitely can (and very likely will) be altered in the conflict.

Aha! So if the player decides, there's no need to get out the Paradox-ruler like in Mage and check for real-world compatability. Excellent. That's 95% of the BS removed; anything else is up to the GM and players. Just the way (uh huh uh huh) I like it.

SF is right, the logjam is busted. I need to get typing like crazy and get those playtest rules ready for download!

You have no idea how happy I am hearing you say that...well, seeing it on a CRT, anyway. ;-)