I am making a very Narrativist RPG called Aers: The Fallen World that takes place in the world I've created, Aers. I am using a Percentile based system that I am creating, which is very simple, but includes everything needed for a GM to make descisions.

There are 11 basic stats, ranging from Willpower to Toughness, Alertness, and Strength.
There are around 50 different Advantages (More being thought up every day) which basically modify the 11 Base Stats in one way or another. You can choose 2 Avantages, or 3 if you choose a Disadvantage (like a speech impediment). The Advantages are things like "Direction Sense (once per day you recieve a +10 Alertness to tell where you are)" or even the very Narativist "Photographic Memory (you can remember things in the past very well)". You'll notice that Photo. Mem. has no rules for it. That is because the GM will decide when it kicks in, thus making for a better story. I am intending to run about 5 adventurers through the world in Autumn, when I'll make their adventures into a book. Until then, I'm refining the rules and the world. I'm going to make this a very detailed world (I've already worked out the phases of the two moons, which is important for the werewolf character).

Any comments and thoughts would be extremely appreciated. Thank you very much for listening to my long windedness.

it's hard to say, since this is a very brief description, but your game sounds more like a High-Concept Simulationist design than a Narrativist design. the use of 11 stats which seem to be variations of the standard ability scores seems like a clue, as well as the 50 advantages. also, I can't imagine Photographic Memory as a "very Narrativist" advantage. I suppose memory in general (not photographic memory) could be used Narrativist, if the game were about conflicts between a character's memories and what really happened, with the player needing to make a choice as to which to follow.

could you describe how the game would be played (not the game mechanics, but the feel of game session?)

Hey GameBoy, welcome to the Forge--or at least this corner of it!

I love the title of your game.

It sounds like you're really putting a lot of thought into your game design. I can't speak to the theoretical terms discussed here, other than to remind you that Simulationism and Narrativism are descriptors, and neither is "better" than the other except in terms of our preferences.

If there's one thing I'd recommend, it's that you start playtesting earlier than August, even if the ruleset is not yet "complete." That way, you get a better sense of what's working and what's not. You may find that something's broken or can be optimized, and that'll make the final game stronger as a result.

Here at the Forge, we share terms and experiences that give us common ground to discuss many aspects of role-playing games as they relate to design. Hopefully some time spent here will give you some answers to questions you've had about gaming, perhaps even questions you've never articulated before.

What kind of world is Aers? What sort of characters do you play? What sort of things do they do?

Mike

Thanks for all the replies, guys.
First off, it is Narattivist in the way that I amy trying for a good story, not a realistic one. I think of Simulationist and Narrativist as Realism and Good Storytelling. I prefer to tell a good story than to worry about the rules at all. If I can help it, I don't want to have the rulebook in front of me when I am GMing the game.

I am planning on running everyone through the game system a few times to sort out the kinks before we start to run it, so I think that will help.

Aers is a fantasy world that is a bit hard to explain. I've been working on the story since I was about 10 (So about 8 years now) and it hasn't always been the way it is now. It was once known as Teranern, now, in the last few months, I've decided to completely revamp the story. What better way to write my book than to have real people act it out through an RPG?

Here is the gist of it:

Long ago, in the age before bronze, when the land was full of tribes, there lived a man known as the Neverone. He sought out the Ancient God, known as Gao, whom men called Earthfounder. Gao told him of the Empyrean, a mystical realm, a plane above our own. The power of "magic" was held there in the Empyrean, if one knew how to tap into it. The Neverone began to harness the energies, and became a master of its power. But the Empyrean is not meant for mortal eyes to see. His eyes slowly degraded, until one day, he was blind. The Empyrean burned his eyes out of their sockets, leaving empty holes. He covered them with a cloth, and became the first Praetor. For though his eyes were gone, his vision remained, in the form of the power of the Empyrean. He could see all around him, he could see through objects. He became a proficient weaponsmaster.
He gave birth to 12 children. They founded Houses. For 1200 years they were the Praetor Houses of Neverone.
But the power that the Praetor houses held brought them under suspicion of the rest of humanity. The Praetors were cast out of the Ruran Empire, and a darkness fell upon the land.

It has been 32 years since the Praetors have left the land. They have settled in other lands, such as the arables of Kylia, The fields of Ferran, and the forests of Myyn. They have waited, and are preparing...


The main character is a mercenaryfrom the Mercenary forests of Myyn, Caymas, who also has the "blessing" of being a Codru, a Werewolf. His "partner in crime" is Jenn, a tough swordmistress, and the two travel the continent of Nane as Freelances.
There is a borderlord (ranger) named Miral, who is their friend, and a Praetor (haven't figured out a name) who is a master of the sword. There is also a banished prince and knight, Kasen, and finally, the love interest of Caymas, a peasant girl (no name yet) who he falls in love with, but can't bring himself to love because of his terrible power.


Hope that gives you an idea. An interesting thing about the world is that there are no races like Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits. It's just humans, monsters, Avatars, etc.

Thanks for all your comments. More would be appreciated.
THANKS!

Mark

Mark-

Back to the Sim/ Nar thing, what are the parts of your system that explicitly encourage Nar play (if that's what you want)?

When I walk into my FLGS and pick up Aers, what are the things that will guide me into a Nar experience - assuming that I enjoy all three modes and have no knowledge of Aers outside of the rules?

Thanks,
-Matt

The thing that would lead you to buy the game is the detailed but simple rules. I want most of the Core Rulebook to be full mostly of history and backstory which would help to create a full and detailed world for others to play in.
I will emphasize over and over that the rules don't matter, so long as the story is enhaced. The rules are simply guides to help with the story and add a tad bit of realism to it.
I know when I am looking at RPG books at my job (I work at a game store), if I see too many complicated rules, and not enough information on how to Roleplay in the world, rather than Rollplay, then I put the book down and look for another one. I love games like Risus and SOAP. I just want a little more structure in my game.
I have nothing against things like the D20 system (in fact, I'm thinking of running a d20 modern game someday). I just prefer that everyone knows the rules around the table so well that a book wouldn't even be needed.

That's what I think, anyway. Does that answer your question?

well, there's still the question on how Aers facilitates Narrativism.

what we're kind of getting at is that Narrativism has a specific meaning here, which doesn't seem to match the meaning you are using. you've told us that Aers emphasizes story over system, but so far, it's just sounding like a High Concept Sim game -- which is fine, plus I'm sure someone who wants to play Narrativist can drift it that way.

TheGameBoy wrote:
I will emphasize over and over that the rules don't matter, so long as the story is enhaced. The rules are simply guides to help with the story and add a tad bit of realism to it.

Mr. TheGameBoy I guess the point everyone is trying to make is that there is a Jargon at the Forge that is by default agreed oppon unless you are specifically descussing that Jargon. As a result you are stroking the cat backwards by throwing the term Narritive around. I'm not saying you're a bad person, Its just that these kind people have worked hard to establish the Jargon that everyone can talk with and be understood. It would be like me telling you I want an eight foot board and then after you give it to me I reply that it is too short, my foot is a size sixteen. You look at me and shake your head with annoyance and kick me out of your store with your twelve inch foot.

Narritive/Sim arguments asside. My question is, do I have to play the characters you've sketched? I like to make my own. I've never played a game modual because I like making up my own story. From what you've wrote, I get the impression that I'm playing somethig like Dragon Warrior on my NES.

Careful folks, narrative is not Narrativist. The first is not a Forge term (and while all these should probably not be capitalized, that one certainly shouldn't). Narrative means what it does here as everywhere else, the running description of the action, or something to that effect. So saying that a game is narrative is saying that people describe what happens, which is pretty much every RPG.

But Emmett is right that Narrativist has a particular meaning here, and we're fairly sure you're misconstruing that meaning. OTOH, maybe it is we who misunderstand you. But it's a basic precept here that the system you use creates the style of play that you want. And it's been noted that light systems don't have any tendency particularly towards Narrativist play.

So if its truely Narrativist play that you want, what you describe will only at best fail to promote the other modes any more than Narrativism. Which means that in practice, players will play any way they like. If that's your goal, if you just want a system that "get's out of the way", then that's fine. But realize for other players, they might get a mixed up experience in play, having less direction.


Here's another thing to think about. Why don't you just use freeform? That is, where the system is just that the players describe their character's actions, and the GM describes the world, and everyone tries to stay consistent. What is it that the system that you do provide lends to the game beyond that?

Mike