Before I divulge my concepts, being the paranoid type, I want to go through my usual (though pointless) little speech. I would be much abliged if the ideas on here remain the property of the original owners (ie, me). I apologise if I have offended anybody by implying that they might possibly steal someone else's intellectual property, but that's me.

The concpept behind my RPG at its most basic, is that within the world of human dreams, lurks a manifestation of Human malignancy, known as the Dumirik. Whenever a Human dreams, thinks etc. he has an affect on the Dream World. The Dumirik, after millenia of existence formed a regimented culture. Without going into the details, there was a civil war and the whole cultural climate collapsed, displacing millions of the Dumirik. When they were displaced, many of them were shunted into the material world of Humans by manifesting inside the bodies of dreaming Humans. These Dumirik then began to seek their fate in this new realm.

That is, in its most basic form, the idea behind my game. You can play as either a Human or a Dumirik. The game uses a percentile system as I have found it is the most self-contained, yet versatile. The game abolishes the use of classes, and focusses mainly on skill selections. Also, I have gotten tired of the strictly regimented Level system, and have developed a (moderately) more fluid advancement system.

I have utilised three different and unique magic systems, each with their own capabilities and specialities. Also, I am currently working on a set of factions. Because of the limited race choices, I am allowing much more manouverability inside those frameworks by giving each faction a set of modifiers that alters the character.

To make it even more complicated, the Dumirik, as they are beings made of dreams, cannot exist in reality without assistance. This is gained by making humans believe in them (if they can believe enough in dreams to create the Dumirik in the first place, then why can't they allow them to exist in the real world if they believe stongly enough).

So, I have given the overall concept of my game and need feedback on who would be interested in this type of game, how I could improve it, improvements of rules etc.

Hi, and welcome to the Forge!

It's difficult to make any comments without more details. I know that when I first posted to the list, I just wanted encouragement - so I say, Hurrah! Great Work! You've got a cool idea. Do more work on that!

The first question that comes to mind is: what do players do and experience in a typical game session? What activities do they focus on? Does your game system encourage the sort of activities you want to have happen?

And second, can you sketch, in a sentence or two, the setting? Is it modern, medievil, or SF?

Listen to Alan's advice on coming up with what the PCs actually do, and how a session should work. It'll give you insight into what you want and how a rulesystem can encourage it.

Something that set alarm bells ringing for me was "The game abolishes the use of classes" and "I have gotten tired of the strictly regimented Level system". Is most of your experience with class and level based games? This isn't mean't to be a criticism, just a way of gauging what kind of RPGs you've been exposed to. It's very easy to design a game based only on "fixing" what you know of, and I wouldn't want to spending ages reinventing the wheel.

-Matt

Thanks for the support! The game is mostly set in a conglomeration of eras, a sort of medieval/rennaisance style, slightly surreal, steampunk cityscape. It is basically a gesalt of your typical magical realm, rennaisance cities and inventions and many other concepts such as firearms, mechanical vehicles, and lots of crazy Victorian/Gothic style clockwork. No real SF ideas are given, and anything that remotely resembles lasers or space ships are firmly grounded in magic.

When I said I was abolishing character classes and levels, I merely meant that I found them to be overly restrictive, and much more versatile gameplay could come from non-class based games. I have had quite a bit of experience with both class and level based systems and non-class and level based systems. I have opted for the latter because I found the workings to be more fluid and unrestricted.

I guess I was sort of "fixing" those restrictions, and you have made me aware of those pitfalls. The game doesn't set itself to reinvent the wheel, just to put some fancier treads on it.

The game really focusses on the Dumirik, who are really the stars of the whole concept. Although the players can choose to play as Humans, I am really expecting that play will revolve mostly around the machinations and brutal ambitions of the Dumirik. Also, quite a few players like the idea of being hugely powerful beings and being worshipped as gods by the puny Humans, but I am attempting to be careful by making the Dumirik have weaknesses that don't require them to be confronted directly.

The character creation basics are the same for both the Dumirik and Humans, each have the same skills and characteristics, though they each have their own special traits and special abilities.
A list of the characteristics are:
Strength
Constitution
Initiative
Will
Intelligence
Nerve
Manipulation
Leadership
Luck

Play mostly is structured as an action movie, a series of skirmishes between characters and NPCs linked by an often complex and twisting storyline. The game is mostly set in the largest and last of the Human cities known as the Hub (though not restricted to there, the game can be played in the ruins of the surrounding world). Though the game focusses a huge amount on combat or skirmish based play, I have tried to maintain a sense of character and promote thinking and playing as your character would.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for the welcome.

Dumirik wrote: A list of the characteristics are:
Strength
Constitution
Initiative
Will
Intelligence
Nerve
Manipulation
Leadership
Luck

My first thought here is "The Dumirik are a lot more interesting than humans. Why play one of those? I'm one already." Why do you provide the option - what do you want it to add to the game?

Dumirik wrote: Though the game focusses a huge amount on combat or skirmish based play, I have tried to maintain a sense of character and promote thinking and playing as your character would.

After viewing the recent posts, I have decided to re-write the characteristics in order to refine the concepts. A list of revised characteristics are:
Body (an all round physical stat, thanks to Thomas Tamblyn)
Dexterity (speed, reaction time etc.)
Will (strength of willpower, metal strength)
Intelligence (Just as it says, how smart a character is)
Manipulation (Getting others to do what you want them to)
Luck (Pure, random fate, applied in several different situations)

As to Shreyas' question about the Dumirik and Human character options, I felt that often people enjoy playing as the 'common people' and fighting valiantly for survival against alien creatures. I was originaly only going to offer the option of playing as the Dumirik, but a friend of mine turned around and said: "Why do that? I want to be able to play as a Human that hunts these down for a living!" and from that conversation I decided that he did have a point and it would be fun to see what it would be like to have the game played from the Human point of view, exhilerating and valiant yet in the end, futile.

What do others think of this?

The Humans are also in the process of being elaborated, their social structure and factions becoming more defined, and the tenuous symbiosis between the Dumirik and Human cultures is being revised, making the total destruction of either of them impossible, so they will just have to find a way to live with each other. I have also decided to further corrupt the Human society and their government for more play possibilities, ie. the anarchist rebelling against the brutal Human government.

I would like to restate my previous statement :

[/I said] Though the game focusses a huge amount on combat or skirmish based play, I have tried to maintain a sense of character and promote thinking and playing as your character would.

What I really meant was that I have focussed on the combat, as it is an exhilerating and exiting part of play, easy to get into for novice players, and the game is focussed around sections structured scenes as in a movie. I have written information on the Hub and the surrounding area in the rules in a way that I hope will encourage players to understand their character and the world that they live in. Every rule is somehow linked to the setting and this helps to tie the characters to their world. Also I have included Stanislavski's Fundamental Questions in the rules to help players create their characters and play them as they really would act.

How do others encourage players to play in character?

I am also currently writing a short story on the history of the Dumirik and their habitation of the material world, and will post it as soon as it is completed, hopefully to further elaborate on the setting and plot ideas imbedded in the game. I will also be submitting my draft copy of the game soon (as in, when I feel that I can let it out in publick) for all to see, so please check it out.

I don't know if anyone is familiar with it, but I am currently utilising the Inquisitor system (Games Workshop) as the basics of my combat system, and would appreciate any comments or feedback on how to utilise this ruleset, or possibly any other alternative rulesets. As before, I would really enjoy some feedback on my setting: would anybody actually want to play this game, is it interesting and how could it be improved.

Also, as a closing question: What do others think of your typical D&D style skills rules? I am currently using such a system (although I am using percentage dice). I would like comments on this topic, as I have been having doubts about it and have recently been considering using only the characteristic scores of characters to work out rules.

One final thing before I continue any further with this topic: Disregard what I said at my first posting. Feel free to bandy about ideas and 'borrow' mine. If we manage to improve each other's games in the process, good on us.

Dumirik wrote: I was originaly only going to offer the option of playing as the Dumirik, but a friend of mine turned around and said: "Why do that? I want to be able to play as a Human that hunts these down for a living!" and from that conversation I decided that he did have a point and it would be fun to see what it would be like to have the game played from the Human point of view, exhilerating and valiant yet in the end, futile.

What do others think of this?

Dumirik

Hey, thought I'd respond to your questions. First, as to the game concepts, it sounds like it could be interesting, but so far what you ahve is a bit to abstract and 2nd hand to give a clear vision of your game. It is not very punchy. I have found communicating the vision of your game to be something of a challenge. Emily Dresner Thornberry has a good article here at the forge on how to communicate the thrust of your game, you can find it here

Right now the nature of the Dumirik is very clear, if they take over human bodies as hosts and have to be believed in, how did they manage to reduce the earth to a single citystate. Instead of being slaughtered by apathetic guys with machetes, or whatever. Or having the citystate put all it's people in a dreamless sleep to destroy the Dumirik or some such.

Also, in terms of general world scenario, your game setting is reminiscent of Obisidian. Which posits a single surviving human city fighting off demonic hordes in a wasted world.

As for improvement of your mechanics, since you ahve shown any, there not much to comment on. Generally, I find it is most important to be sure that your basic resolution mechanic is sound and comprehensible. Perhaps you could post a description of that.

As for encouraing players to play in character, you can have a reward system that rewards players for playing in character. Generally by meeting certain expectations defined for them, or by the idea of Kicker's. Which are used in Ron Edward's sorcer game. Which provide an initial impetus for a character.

Also, you are significantly cross purposes in your design from what I can tell in having "gamist" combat element (I am not familiar with INquisitor, but if it is game workshops, it is about beating up the other guys cool units.) While at the same time wanting to focus on character based play. How this works out is partly in how you instruct the players to play the game. You mention framing play sessions as an action movie (again not encouraging in-depth in-character play.) SO as part of that setup by the GM or whatever, you will want to ensure he involves elements of the character to provide motivation for the character to engage in all this wicked cool combat.

As for typical D&D style rules. What edition are you referring too? D&D 3rd/D20 has a semi-detailed skill system. While previous editions only had a bit of Proficiencies thrown in.

Perhaps if you set out and explain to yourself what each of the elements of a character design include and what purpose you see them serving in the game, it will help you make that decision. I mean why did you choose the attributes you did. What Scale are attributes and Skills on. Is there a relation between skills and attributes. What purpose do the attributes serve mechanically. What other elements of the character are included.

Generally, it is best if you look at the whole of your character creation system cohesively and develop an understanding of why you have the different elements, and in what level of detail & granularity in which they are present. The way character's are defined is a major factor in the feel of the game, since they are major interface to the game by the players. So what elements do you want the players to see the game world in light off. The way you define character's is the first filter applied by the players in relating to the game.

So, my advice for you, in order to garner the most productive feedback, would be to post specific elements of your systme that you have pointed questions on. And to complete a readable manuscript. For general comments and useful feedback, providing a manuscript for people to read is the most effective. As that way they can respond to things they have questions on or think are missing. Otherwise, posting focused bits of information with specific questions tied to them are best.

Simply hashing out your ideas or brainstorming piecemeal is probably the least effective way to garner input from the posters here.

HTH

P.S. Hope I don't come off negative, just repeating what I have learned, often the hard way. You can see many of my rather oversized unspecific posts and the lack of feedback or comments garnered by them in the forum.

Thank you SO much RobMuadib, that was the most important piece of feedback I'f gotten yet! I am relatively new to the forum concept and was merely doing what I would normally do when spitting out my concepts with my gaming group. As I have said in my previous post, I will be displaying my first draft of the game rules and background as soon as it is finished (which should be finished within two or three days). You were definately right about the Dumirik, however, I wasn't clear about what you were saying when you spoke of the "apathetic guys with machetes" and "putting everyone in the city/state in a dreamless sleap". If you are asking about why these things haven't happened, I can certainly answer that for you.

The Dumirik, since their initial displacement into the material realm flooded in in the millions, taking over dreamers left right and center. These early pioneers were quick to take advantage of the unsuspecting humans and practically forged huge empires overnight. The Humans were quick to believe in them as nothing of the sort had been seen in their world before, and quickly took up the "religion" of the living gods. This onslaught carried on for a few hundred years, during which the Humans began to fight back, however, despite their efforts, they were forced back unto their mightiest of city/states and sought refuge there, and have been holding back the Dumirik for a thousand years. Neither side can win, as they rely on each other for survival (the Dumirik need belief and the Humans need to Dream to keep the material realm from tearing itself apart), and have reached a tenuous equilibrium. From that came a sort of joint government between the Human faschist Sovereinity regime and the Dumirik Obscurus Dictum ruling House. This coalition was formed to regulate the amount of Humans and Dumirik in the world (that I have named Kadath, a reference to H.P. Lovecraft, my favourite author), and adjudicate issues between one another. Other than that, the races pretty much govern themselves, but the nature of both leads to many traitorous plots and incursions into one another's territory.

Sorry, that may or may not have answered your question, but that certainly outlined the basic history behind my game background, and it sort of helped me to solidify my ideas.


"Also, you are significantly cross purposes in your design from what I can tell in having "gamist" combat element (I am not familiar with INquisitor, but if it is game workshops, it is about beating up the other guys cool units.) While at the same time wanting to focus on character based play. How this works out is partly in how you instruct the players to play the game. You mention framing play sessions as an action movie (again not encouraging in-depth in-character play.) SO as part of that setup by the GM or whatever, you will want to ensure he involves elements of the character to provide motivation for the character to engage in all this wicked cool combat."

I am, as you have stated, not the best at framing my ideas in a form easily deciferable by all. I imagined the game being played with a group of characters and NPCs banded together as a small gang or warband. The story would be told through scenarios or scenes involving anything from sneaking subversives to generally beating the crap out of the opposition (or anything else that fits the campaign storyline). It is true that I want some pretty cool combat, and imagine something of the flair of an action movie being involved in it. It is also true that I want to encourage character based play to, as you said: "provide motivation for the character to engage in all this wicked cool combat." I haven't yet found a feasable way of encouraging this sort of character motivation, but your suggestion of making sure that the GM includes those elements into his game, and instructing the players on how to play their character is sort of similar to the vauge and, fankly, extremely indistinct idea that I had. I would appreciate any further suggestions on how this would be acheived (in detail, please)

I sort of have a reward system for characterful play. It is a combination of my points based advancement system (I have instructed the GMs to give these out only in slightly larger quantities when characterful play has been acheived by players), and my new skills system, which I just deleted (after deciding that the rather specific and sometimes restrictive 3rd Edition D&D skills system didn't work with my concept of play) and wrote up again as an entirely different concept.

M. J. Young,

Thank you for the posting, but this has now offered several puzzling problems. I was sort of considering the game to be played with the two species independant of each other, However, unlike your suggestion, they would quite often confront each other, either on friendly or unfriendly terms. The idea that I had, was that each player play as a single main character, but have a group of NPCs tagging along for the ride for one reason or another. This would mean that each character has their own self sufficient cell of individuals vying for survival in this massive steampunk city. This negates the need for actual adventuring parties (though groups could band together if their interests happen to be going in the same direction, but all in all they would have their own agendas). Let me know what you think of this, and if it would be workable at all.

And no (to anyone), I don't take any of this negatively and welcome any constructive criticism, and I particularly thank you for saving me from learning the hard way as well. Wait for the current rules draft in a couple days when I can get it dressed up enough to actually look respectable. It will have enough information in it to give an idea of the concepts behind the game and how to play it, but will be missing some of the small details, such all of the various factions of the Dumirik and Human races, and the equipment and spells available to characters.

Stay tuned...

Dumirik

Hey, glad you found my comments useful, just have a couple of quick points right now. I mentioned the game Obsidian earlier, as i said it presents a similar setting, so you might find useful to examine or read about. Ron posted a review of it. You can also find the company website about the game, http://www.apophisconsortium.com/xobsidian/obsidian1/obsidian2.html

As mentioned in the review there a number of games with dark apocalypse kind of feel/theme going on. A popular subject you will find. WHat you have seems like an interesting take on the theme. Your brief history answered my questions well, and I think the rise of the Dumirik naitons could make for some interesting background. THe idea of an undeniable god existing would certainly motivate people. I liken the idea to having Mohammed reappearing in the middle east, in short order he could have a unified muslim nation ready for a god awful jihad. Similar concept, Faith meets unquestionable truth, or some such.

IT seems to me, the different factions and groups of the nations could provide a solid character basis for the players. Steeping them in the setting. Also, as Ron mentioned about Obsidian, basing Advancement/Rewards on the character achieving goals based on his in-game world motiviations can help drive character based play. Avoid rewarding players for killing bad guys or whatever, instead reward for achieving goals of their characters/faction, whatever. An interesting take on this concept is the idea of Spiritual Attributes in THe Riddle Of Steel, which features rocking vicious combat as it's main draw, but rewards based on character motivation, instead of enemies killed.

Anyway, I look forward to reading more of your background, particularly how the magic and supernatural abilities of the Dumirik are present in the game. (Gotta love Kewl powerz:) )

I like the hints of the dark gothic post-apocalytpic world concept you have here, and the idea of "alien" invaders of our own creation. Definitely alot of potential there.

Best

Rob Muadib,

I'm glad you like the background, I'm just not so sure about the rules. I am much better at creating stories than at writing rules, so I will need a hell of a lot of anylisis to get my existing ruleset up to speed. I began writing the rules before I ever got around to these forums, and please bear in mind that it is only a first draft.

I will now detail what exactly the first draft entails in this little preview:
It will contain very little background material, but you know the skeleton of it already. It will contain the basic dice mechanic, combat rules, character creation rules and the masic rules for my three spell systems. The character creation system will be a little incomplete, lacking all of the descriptions and rules for every one of the Dumirik and Human factions and social classes. I will, however have the rules for making Dumirik and Human characters.

I would like feedback on the layout of the rules, how the descriptions of the various factions (that I have completed) fit into your concept of the setting, whether or not the rules work and how a bit of 'wow' factor can be added to them. I would also greatly appreciate any additions to the existing rules when you read them, such as added uses for certain traits, new powers for the Dumirik, how to make the rules encourage playing in character etc, etc etc.

The draft will be posted by tomorrow (Australia Time).

Dumirik wrote: I was sort of considering the game to be played with the two species independant of each other....they would quite often confront each other, either on friendly or unfriendly terms. The idea that I had, was that each player play as a single main character, but have a group of NPCs tagging along for the ride for one reason or another. This would mean that each character has their own self sufficient cell of individuals vying for survival in this massive steampunk city. This negates the need for actual adventuring parties (though groups could band together if their interests happen to be going in the same direction, but all in all they would have their own agendas). Let me know what you think of this, and if it would be workable at all.

Dumirik

Hey, looking forward to your rules mss. Just thought I'd point out that if you can put together a file (PDF's are generally preferred if you have the means, HTML is ok, with RTF/TXT third in terms of usability, and proprieatry formats (word docs etc.) after that.) is to post on some handy webspace or whatever you might have access too, and put the link to the file, along with some specific questions or preamble in a post, rather than posting the actual, presumably lengthy, rules text in the forum. IF you don't have your own space, an easy way to get it is to use a Yahoo group, (which can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com) Where you can get like 25mb or so of space to post files, either by making your own group or posting in an established group such as RPG-Create, or Kester's Fantastic Creations group.

I guess my next question would be for you to elaborate on your vision of the game, what is the "creative agenda" you see driving play. From my impressions it would seem you are going for a High-Concept Simulationist design, with a Gamist focus on combat. Oh speaking of "Forge-Speak", have you read any of the articles from the article section of the forge? I, and many other posters here, use the terms and concepts presented in them quite a bit in discussing games being designed.

The articles that I would recommend you read are GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory , Simulationism: The Right to Dream , and Gamism: Step On Up. and M.J. Young's Applied Theory article.

Second, I'd check out Mike's Standard Rant #1: Designers! Know your hobby! , which puts forth an opinon that I share. That to design RPG's, it helps to have had a wide exposure to what has come before in terms of major methods & style, concepts and ideas present in RPG design. This study is the primary means by which I have developed my RPG design-fu.

Finally, and probably most importantly, what are your goals for the Game. Do you just want to write it up for you to GM for your your friends to play, Do you want to "publish" it online for other people who might want to download it, or do you hope to publish it as a PDF, or even DeadTreeFile to sell? What you want to do will will be the largest determiner of how rigorous and detailed the work you will have to do for the game.

HTH

Rob

P.S. The other thing is, take it easy, it's easy to get burnt out on trying to write a game. It takes time and effort, generally lots of it (Especially for Sim games with an emphasis on mechanical resolution/modeling of elements). First and foremost you have to have the passion to want to create the game, regardless of other people's interest it. Which will inevitably wax and wane during the creation process. Only you will be able to feel it kick and move and grow in your mind until you finally have the mss complete, have given birth to your baby, as it were, and other's can appreciate your creation. Until then it is your own intimate thing that others can only gain hints or details of, or something like that.

Oh, and the other thing is to understand that everyone has different preferences and interest when it comes to RPG's, and they're feedback will be tempered by that. I, for example, am in the simulationist camp, with a penchant for "Purist For System" design priorities and like robust, detailed mechanics & systems. Many people here prefer Narrativist games with less emphasis on detailed resolution/modeling mechanics etc. So another thing is to be aware of your own preferences and desires in role playing, which will shape the creative agenda and methodology of your game as well. I go by the motto, make the game that YOU most want to play. Otherwise you can just write some D20 supplements to score ph4t l3wt, or some sh*t :)

Best

Rob Muadib,

Thanks for your tips. If you would actually like me to get a web-space (I haven't any at all) it will take a little while longer to finish my ms of the game. My parents didn't tell me not to make promises I can't keep for nothing, so I will have to withdraw my statement that I will release my ms sometime today. I have just found numerous holes that need patching and a couple of new rules I would like to impliment. I will now have to say that it will be posted as a link to a web-space WHEN IT IS READY. That meaning within a week or so, but no promises.

As far as I can understand it, Gamist means gamer point of view, Simulationist means very realistic and detailed systems which adhere closely to reality and Narrativist is focussed on storytelling and character. If that is so, I am sort of focussing on indeed a high-concept simulationist with mostly gamist combat, but a lot of the game is very character driven and based on their philosophical goals and relationships. I see the game as being a conflict of interests. Many of the social and political factions, as well as individuals vying for power and might within the state, inside or outside the law. The various philosophical ideals and concepts is what I view as the main concept behind the game, the real focus of the play. What I have purposely tried to do is create and provide a strange and mutable world in which the players can forge their realms of power. The dark and convoluted politics and dark gothic setting I believe further adds to my overall vision.

I do agree with the point of view that I must have a good understanding of what has come before me in terms of style and rules, but I am also afraid of becoming a little bit too "influenced", which I may already have been by Riddle of Steel. So I don't really know what to do. What is your suggestion?

My first idea was to publish the game, but now I am merely thinkinf of placing it on a PDF format and possibly selling it over the net. If that doesn't end up looking too appealing, then I will merely give it away for anyone who is interested. It is what I would want. If that is the case, how detailed and explanitory will the ms have to be? I am already writing it as though a person had just bought it from a store, but aside from that I don't really have a clue.

I too like detailed and robust mechanics, though have a preference for very cool combat with lots of crazy attacks and abilities (while still maintaining the simulationist mechanics). However, as opposed to that, I like the combat to be tempered by story and character based play. I want the players to know the reason for them fighting and act accordingly. I have encorporated a metagame reward system that rewards this sort of behaviour.

M.J Young,

My play organisation system is yet uncompleted, but I sort of imagined a series of scenes or skirmishes where these parties come into contact, their interests similar, or conflicting. Between sessions, the players decide what they were doing in between the scenes (as a sort of diary), and the next scene is created by the GM accordingly. A strict timeline or calendar would have to be kept to make sure there are no problems with timing or other such misunderstandings. As these events unfold, the plot of the campaign can be manipulated not only by the GM, but by the players as their characters pursue their own agendas (a very actor focussed stance). So instead of running several different play sessions at a time or at different times, a series of conflicts where all (or some) of the involved parties come into contact are engineered to keep (almost) everyone in the same play area and limit the confusion. This is my take on the situation, so please tell me what you think of it, if I answered your questions, the idea has some merit or is completely unworkable or unrealistic.

Thanks.

Ignore this posting, something stuffed up with my computer.

Dumirik wrote:
Thanks for your tips. If you would actually like me to get a web-space (I haven't any at all) it will take a little while longer to finish my ms of the game. My parents didn't tell me not to make promises I can't keep for nothing, so I will have to withdraw my statement that I will release my ms sometime today. I have just found numerous holes that need patching and a couple of new rules I would like to impliment. I will now have to say that it will be posted as a link to a web-space WHEN IT IS READY. That meaning within a week or so, but no promises.

Dumirik wrote:
As far as I can understand it, Gamist means gamer point of view, Simulationist means very realistic and detailed systems which adhere closely to reality and Narrativist is focussed on storytelling and character. If that is so, I am sort of focussing on indeed a high-concept simulationist with mostly gamist combat, but a lot of the game is very character driven and based on their philosophical goals and relationships. I see the game as being a conflict of interests. Many of the social and political factions, as well as individuals vying for power and might within the state, inside or outside the law. The various philosophical ideals and concepts is what I view as the main concept behind the game, the real focus of the play. What I have purposely tried to do is create and provide a strange and mutable world in which the players can forge their realms of power. The dark and convoluted politics and dark gothic setting I believe further adds to my overall vision.

Dumirik wrote:
I do agree with the point of view that I must have a good understanding of what has come before me in terms of style and rules, but I am also afraid of becoming a little bit too "influenced", which I may already have been by Riddle of Steel. So I don't really know what to do. What is your suggestion?

Dumirik wrote:
My first idea was to publish the game, but now I am merely thinkinf of placing it on a PDF format and possibly selling it over the net. If that doesn't end up looking too appealing, then I will merely give it away for anyone who is interested. It is what I would want. If that is the case, how detailed and explanitory will the ms have to be? I am already writing it as though a person had just bought it from a store, but aside from that I don't really have a clue.

Dumirik wrote:
I too like detailed and robust mechanics, though have a preference for very cool combat with lots of crazy attacks and abilities (while still maintaining the simulationist mechanics). However, as opposed to that, I like the combat to be tempered by story and character based play. I want the players to know the reason for them fighting and act accordingly. I have encorporated a metagame reward system that rewards this sort of behaviour.

The whole Creative Agenda thing can probably be tabled at this point, IMO. I'm not sure why Rob brought it up, but it's not likely to be of too much use at this point. I mean if you know about it, it can't hurt to have a goal in mind GNS-wise. But there are other more important priorities that need to be adressed first before you even have to worry about the GNS aspects, IMO.

I do agree with Rob, however, that you ought not worry about being immitative. By that I mean if you take other's work and tailor it to your goals, it'll end being original enough when all it said and done.

This part is interesting:

I see the game as being a conflict of interests. Many of the social and political factions, as well as individuals vying for power and might within the state, inside or outside the law. The various philosophical ideals and concepts is what I view as the main concept behind the game, the real focus of the play. What I have purposely tried to do is create and provide a strange and mutable world in which the players can forge their realms of power. The dark and convoluted politics and dark gothic setting I believe further adds to my overall vision.

Dumirik wrote: Rob Muadib,

I'm glad you like the background, I'm just not so sure about the rules. I am much better at creating stories than at writing rules,

Mr Holmes (elementry my dear Watson...),

I consider this to be two games, if you insist on calling it more than one. I feel that the relationships between Human and Dumirik are inextricably tied up with their political machinations. I view the combat to be secondary to the political intrigue, but it is often essencial to determine the outcome of various events (assassinations, murders etc.). Your idea that the combat be used to generate reputation resources for use in the political arena is nothing short of brilliance. I hade merely seen combat as an interesting and sometimes essencial way of allowing characters to confront and stop each other, and only having an influence on political actions that way, but allowing them to have others fear them for their brutality etc, etc, etc. is something that never occured to me. I must get working on a system...

As for your comment that other games would mostly make a combat system and write about the Dumirik possession (which is assumed to happen out of game when the character is created, the Dumirik waking up in the body of the dreamer), I go about an opposite route. I have focussed on the character creation system (though making sure that the combat system is robust and tactical), and whenever there is any reference to the politics of the Hub, I go into a fair amount of detail to describe their aims and background. I also consider the indistintness of the Dumirik/ Human relationships to be one of the greatest strengths of the game. As there is a Human/Dumirik coalition government, it allows the two races who hate each other, but cannot destroy each other to co-exist in the same environment. It also allows for more political and factional options. A Human could become great friends with a Dumirik, or gain a worst enemy, it all depends on their predispositions and ideologies.

I have attempted to encorporate all of these elements into the mechanics, but you can see for yourself when I post the mss later, as I would much rather submit a mostly complete ms than just tiny bits of one that make no sense ('Rome wasnt built in a day...'). Oh well, thanks very much for the feedback, it did help.

I'm going to quibble with this, as it just struck me wrong. That no one else has already touched on it may mean that I'm just overreacting, so take it with however many grains of salt you wish.

Dumirik wrote: As far as I can understand it, Gamist means gamer point of view, Simulationist means very realistic and detailed systems which adhere closely to reality and Narrativist is focussed on storytelling and character.

Then in response to me he wrote: My play organisation system is yet uncompleted, but I sort of imagined a series of scenes or skirmishes where these parties come into contact, their interests similar, or conflicting. Between sessions, the players decide what they were doing in between the scenes (as a sort of diary), and the next scene is created by the GM accordingly. A strict timeline or calendar would have to be kept to make sure there are no problems with timing or other such misunderstandings. As these events unfold, the plot of the campaign can be manipulated not only by the GM, but by the players as their characters pursue their own agendas (a very actor focussed stance). So instead of running several different play sessions at a time or at different times, a series of conflicts where all (or some) of the involved parties come into contact are engineered to keep (almost) everyone in the same play area and limit the confusion. This is my take on the situation, so please tell me what you think of it, if I answered your questions, the idea has some merit or is completely unworkable or unrealistic.

M.J Young,

Thanks for clearing the GNS issue up for me. I am very new to the concept (and RPG writing for that), but it now occurs to me that I might want to review my classification of the game. There is no element of gamism in my game (which I have now dubbed as The Last Bastion, or TLB). TLB focusses on narrativism in a set simulationist mechanics. Now, could you please tell me, now that I have a clear notion of these in the back of my mind: why do I need these distinctions or genres exept as just that, classifications?

I do agree that these antagonistic players might possibly use the between play journals as quick turnarounds to assault each other, but your suggestion that a specific time limit that these events can take between sessions is certainly a solution. The idea was that some communication between games would be necessary, as I believe that that keeps the group in contact and thinking along the same lines, but others might just disagree with that.

As for your comment about the players attempting to kill one another, and the unreality of constantly thwarting these efforts, or the consequences of allowing them to succeed, I have discovered an interesting background issue that deals with these problems. I have said previously that the Dumirik and Human governments formed a coalition to keep their murderous masses from slaughtering each other and subseqently annihilating each other (they require the existence of each other to survive). Thus, the coalition would have a way of making sure that these groups don't kill too many of each other (at least no the important ones), and employ such means as necessary. What do you think of this?

I would greatly appreciate you telling me those questions you would raise if this were on your desk for publication, because I am a bit of a perfectionist and appreciate any constructive criticism. Oh, and by the way, my ms is close enough to being finished that if you want to see it just e-mail me at the_guy_next_door@hotmail.com and ask for The Last Bastion manuscript, and I'll send it to you.

It certainly was helpful. Thanks.

Dumirik wrote: Thanks for clearing the GNS issue up for me....Now, could you please tell me, now that I have a clear notion of these in the back of my mind: why do I need these distinctions or genres exept as just that, classifications?

Then Dumirik wrote: As for your comment about the players attempting to kill one another, and the unreality of constantly thwarting these efforts, or the consequences of allowing them to succeed....the coalition would have a way of making sure that these groups don't kill too many of each other (at least no the important ones), and employ such means as necessary. What do you think of this?

In conclusion, he wrote: I would greatly appreciate you telling me those questions you would raise if this were on your desk for publication....ask for The Last Bastion manuscript, and I'll send it to you.

M.J Young,

I have just been going over my previous posts and the responces on GNS that they have generated. Looking at this issue in this new light, I have to say that I don't really have a clue about what The Last Bastion is going to be, GNS wise. It has both Narrative (as in exploring moral, ethical and philosophical issues), and Simulationist (exploring this created reality of Kadath and its inhabitants) qualities. I read through your article on Applied Theory and understand your point on how it can highlight issues that one might otherwise miss, but at the moment, trying to explain my concepts in such a foreign fashion to me (I had never heard of GNS before in my life) is quite frankly, cumbersome, and rather difficult. I will leave it for when the manuscript is finished to classify what it is, but I pretty much stand by my above statement, as it describes the game as I understand it.

Your observation of my comment on the prevention of keeping the players from killing each other is rather shrewd. It is indeed a criminal offence to kill each other, and it is reasonably enforced.

Also, it was only a suggestion that you look at the manuscript and tell me what you think. I don't mean to encroach upon your personal time. When I stated that I would send the manuscript if you e-mailed a request to me, it was a general offer for anyone who wanted to take a look at it and comment. The manuscript, at its current state is 15, 981 words long. Thanks.

Dumirik wrote: I have attempted to encorporate all of these elements into the mechanics, but you can see for yourself when I post the mss later, as I would much rather submit a mostly complete ms than just tiny bits of one that make no sense ('Rome wasnt built in a day...'). Oh well, thanks very much for the feedback, it did help.