Hi,

I'm posting short and long versions of a concept for a game framework. (Not a specific game and not a universal system; more of an approach and rules for role playing in settings adapted from a book or other creative work). I have a few settings in mind and in initial development but wanted to lay our some of the general concepts for feedback.

Any comments would be appreciated. If you want to read more than the short version but less than the full long version, check out the first paragraph or so under each of the 5 subheadings.

thanks

mark


Working Titles: Paper Worlds

I. The short version

1. This rules framework + certain books or other creative work/settings = game
2. Invisible rules. Players don’t know what the rules are.
3. Character creation is by writing a description of the character. Game events can add words or phrases to the description, modifying the character.
4. The moderator(s) have a choice of three resolution systems when they want to randomize events.
5. These resolution systems are modified by the “feel” of the setting. (If characters act against the tone of the setting, the results of their action will be less effective than expected).



II. Longer Version of Framework.

1. The Premise/ intent is to provide a rules framework for role-playing in pre-existing “paper worlds” – novels, stories, non-fictional historical accounts etc, or visual works like films – without extensive adaptation and preparation.

I’m assuming, as a default, that gaming groups will operate with semi-traditional divisions between game masters/ referees and players. Invisible or hidden rules are also the default. The players should not know the rules. They shouldn’t know any numbers associated with their characters. They shouldn’t know what setting-specific “mood/ style” modifiers are kicking in. They shouldn’t know what resolution system(s) is being used. Should never know their statistical chances of success or failure. The framework might also be flexible enough for styles of play where players have a greater role in narrating events.

Sometimes constraints can inspire creativity. Groups of players using this framework would hopefully have their play-experience and role playing choices impacted by the ‘feel’ of the paper world they are running. The strength of this impact or nudge (the paper world’s gravity, so to speak, as reflected in the rules) would depend on how closely they are immersing themselves in the original work:
 following the plot to some degree
 Playing characters from the work but not bound at all to the plot
 Using only the setting
 Just trying to capture the mood or style of the work

Since the framework is pretty general, it’s not intended to outperform games that are tailored to a specific setting. If a group has the urge and energy to create their own rules with which to role-play in novel X; or think that a pre-existing game engine is perfect for handling film Y, good for them. Go for it.

The true test of the framework will be its ability to facilitate fun gaming in a specific setting. I’m starting to work on two settings, and would anticipate that the framework would be packaged with skeleton versions of a few settings as example worlds. But I wanted to start with the general approach and figure out some basics of the framework, understanding that if I get around to play-testing it with specific settings, I’ll need to come back and adjust the frame.

The special challenges of this framework will be to:
 Find ways to subtly influence character/ player choices that are fun, as natural-feeling as possible, and that capture the feel of a book/ movie etc.
 Minimize the amount of preparation needed to run a world. Specifically, it should be possible to prepare a scenario/story without converting NPCs, setting features, etc. into blocks of statistics.



2. Setting and Characters will vary based on the work/world being played.




3. Character creation will be description/text-based, somewhat in the manner of Hero Wars or the Pool. Players write a brief description of their character. If they are playing a specific character from a novel or story, they can simply choose a relevant section of that work. The game master (or player, in some instances) circles or highlights words or phrases that will affect the character’s capacities and possibly the player’s choices and notes down the implication(s) of each of these words/phrases (using words, not numbers).
 Optionally, the implications can be assigned static numerical modifiers: pluses or minuses (which would apply to 2 out of the 3 resolution systems that undergird the framework, see below.)
 I’d suggest a more flexible approach, perhaps using 2 colors of highlighters to signify positive or negative implications, and/or stars to note especially significant implications, then applying these as modifiers as appropriate.
 If there is no word or phrase relating to some aspect of a character, say their physical fitness or ability to sing in tune, assume they are average given their other characteristics (age, fitness, profession, etc.)
 I’d lean against setting a word or sentence cap on the description, but it’s an option to keep players focused. Another way to approach this is to base description length on the style of the work. Characters in a pulp detective setting should have short, punchy descriptions. If you’re playing a nineteenth century realistic novel, longer, convoluted descriptions with plenty of clauses, modifiers, and lists would be appropriate.
 The fewer circled phrases, the more vital and significant they will be. On the other hand if a character description is littered with a gazillion key phrases, they should each have a thinner impact.

Three examples from novels:

Doctor Luis Leonco Martinez, from Reasons of State, Alejo Carpentier

“an austere(A) professor of philosophy(B) and translator of Plotinus(C)… a man with a high, narrow forehead with prominent veins, dry and short in speech, abstemious and an early riser,(D) a militant vegetarian,(E) father of nine,(F) admirer of Proudhom, Bakunin, and Kropotkin.(G)”

A. probably doesn’t interact easily in informal situations or with “commoners”
B. fairly high social status and comfortable income. Research skills.
C. Definitely knows Greek, Latin; probably knows German, French, and/or English to keep up with scholarship. Has international connections with others in field.
D. Physically healthy, not easily tempted by alcohol etc.
E. Prone to lecture meat eaters (hard to get along well with an NPC he sees devouring a beefsteak in a café)
F. Hard to support so many on a professor’s salary, many family ties and responsibilities
G. Anarchist, in opposition to dictators, kings, bureaucracy


Miss Bart, from The House of Mirth, Edith Warton

“Miss Bart was a figure to arrest even the suburban traveller rushing to his last train.(A) Selden had never seen her more radiant. Her vivid head, relieved against the dull tints of the crowd, made her more conspicuous than in a ball-room, and under her dark hat and veil she regained the girlish smoothness, the purity of tint, that she was beginning to lose (B) after eleven years of late hours and indefatigable dancing. (C) Was it really eleven years, (D) Selden found himself wondering, and had she indeed reached the nine-and-twentieth birthday with which her rivals credited her?… Everything about her was at once vigorous and exquisite, at once strong and fine. He had a confused sense that she must have cost a great deal to make, that a great many dull and ugly people must, in some mysterious way, have been sacrificed to produce her.” (E)

A. attractive
B. not as naturally physically attractive as before, requires make up etc
C. debutante, so upper middle to high social class, dancing and other social skills, wide range of contacts with good families. Indefatigable dancing also implies good stamina, grace, and health, and a personality that isn’t too grating on her partners.
D. Independent-minded or unusual enough to not have married yet
E. Perhaps luckier than most; or, on the other hand, perhaps karma will catch up to her

The Time Traveller, from The Time Machine, H.G. Wells.

“The Time Traveller (A) (for so it will be convenient to speak of him) was expounding a recondite matter to us. His grey eyes shone and twinkled, and his usually pale face was flushed and animated.(B) … And he put it to us in this way--marking the points with a lean forefinger (C)--as we sat and lazily admired his earnestness over this new paradox (as we thought it:) and his fecundity (D) … The fact is, the Time Traveller was one of those men who are too clever to be believed: you never felt that you saw all round him; you always suspected some subtle reserve, some ingenuity in ambush, behind his lucid frankness.” (E)

A. Has the engineering and conceptual skills (genius) to design a functioning time machine, and the drive to pursue ‘impossible’ goals
B. Enthusiastic about his work
C. Not fat so somewhat spry? Might need to know more about his build, health etc.
D. Able to speak compellingly and at length about things he cares about
E. gives off a semi-shady impression


4. The resolution system proves three methods of randomizing actions or situations. I tentatively call it the 1-2-3 system, and have given each variant a cutesy name. The game master (or players, if the rules are visible) can pick which methods to use for any resolution:
 1d6: The Little Engine that Could. Simple, no modifiers, just roll a die 6 and see if an outcome is good, average, or bad given the situation being tested.
 2d6: The Gold Standard. Allows for more traditional action resolution, with opportunities to set target numbers and factor in modifiers. For situations that call for strategic, step-by-step, or quasi-realistic resolution.
 3d6: The Drama Queen. Can randomize any action or situation to determine the scale, success, and “dramatic flavor” of the outcome (i.e funny or tragic, revealing or opaque, honorable or humiliating.) Intent is to help spark story ideas. Can be used with or without modifiers.

Setting and level of immersion will also carry resolution consequences. I’m not trying to rehabilitate “railroading,” but do like the idea of the action resolution rules subtly frustrating or rewarding players/ characters in a way that reinforces the “feel” of the setting. How this could work: the game master (if there is to be a moderator type figure) or players should settle on one or a few style/ mood descriptors appropriate to the setting. For example:
 A comedy of manners: Violence is rare and not the best way of solving conflicts – with the possible exception of highly stylized duels, off -screen wars, etc.
 Dystopian: arbitrary acts of oppression regularly grind down the character, bold resistance will bring harsh countermeasures
 Generational epic. The sins, natures, and choices of the fathers/mothers wear grooves that the characters find it hard to break free from.

Character actions that go against these grains should sometimes be penalized by lowering the chance of success or declaring a less favorable result than would be called for in a “neutral” setting. And vice versa.

The strength of these setting-based resolution consequences will vary by the level of Immersion (plot, characters, setting, feel) and may vary depending on whether a player is running a major or minor character. I need to come up with a sliding scale or examples to show how this could work.


More details on resolution:

1d6 The little engine that could

1.Get a clear picture of what action or situation is being resolved. What is the character trying to do?
2. Roll the die.
3. In general, the results are as follows:
1 worse
2 bad
3 average blah
4 average decent
5 good
6 better
Decide what the result means in the situation that was rolled for. The key to this system is that you don’t apply modifiers. You apply the result in the context of the action. If a player is facing a really difficult situation, rolling a 6 doesn’t mean a grand success. It may mean that the failure isn’t as bad as expected, or that some fluke came up which postponed the decision point.
 An interesting feature is that 1 and 6 are open ended results. They could yield a one in a million best or worst outcome. Or they could just be average 15% or 85% outcomes. The referee decides based on the situation and his narrative inclinations.


2d6 The Gold Standard

1. Get a clear picture of what action is being attempted.
2. Set a target number using the following scale as a guide.
-3 automatic
-2 no problem
-1 easy
1 takes some effort
2 challenging
3 tricky
5 hard
8 arduous
13 grueling
21 devilishly difficult
34 herculian
55 bordering on impossible

3. Decide how you will combine the two dice. This is determined by how skilled the character is at the action being attempted.

 If they are bizarrely incompetent: Subtract higher dice from lower dice (0 to –5)
 If they don’t know what they’re doing: Take the lower (1-6) or High minus low (0-5) or Average them (1-6)
 If they know what they’re doing, but have no more skill at the task than the average schlub: Take the higher (1-6)
 If they are skilled at the task: Add them, (2-12)
 If they are an expert: Multiply them (1-36)
 If they are godlike: Add them and square the total (4-144)

4. Decide what bonuses or penalties– if any – apply in this situation. Combine them so you have one plus or minus.
5. Roll, combine the dice, and apply any modifiers.
6. Compare modified roll to target number. See how many “steps” it is below or above the target. For example, if you need a 5 and roll a 55, it’s not a result of +50, but of +5 steps.
7. Decide what this result means in the situation that was rolled for. (I guess I’ll provide a list of approximately what each outcome step can mean in terms of the scale of the success or failure.)


3d6 The Drama Queen

1. Get a clear idea of what action or situation is being rolled for.
2. Optionally, add up modifiers that apply to the situation.
3. Roll 3d6 of different sizes and/ colors. This will give you 3 numbers from 1,1,1 to 6,6,6


Dice 1: scale
1 Puny/ barely
2 minor
3 average
4 average
5 major
6 Huge/ impressive

Dice 2: flavor (drama)

1 Twisted/ weird
2 Unexpected
3 mundane
4 mundane
5 By the numbers
6 Exactly as planned

alternative flavor columns

1. Humiliating
2. Dishonorable
3. mundane
4. mundane
5. honorable
6. noble/ glorioustragic

1. tragic
2: maudlin
3: mundane
4: mundane
5: wry
6: slapstick

1. misleading
2: poker face
3: mundane
4: mundane
5: zen- there’s a lesson here somehow
6: Enlightening- eureka

1. dead end
2. drying up
3. mundane
4. mundane
5. new lead
6. major plot twist

Picking a flavor column: always use your favorite, or swap between them at whim, or use the table that contributes most to the “feel” of your particular setting and game. Design your own.


Dice 3: result

1 failure
2 failure
3 Neither failure nor success
4 Both success and failure
5 success
6 success



4. Optionally, apply modifiers to the first two columns, splitting the modifier as you see fit and using it to move rolls up or down the two columns. If the modifier moves the scale and/or flavor numbers to the top or bottom of the charts, remaining modifiers can be applied to the result column. So if a roll of 2,2,5 is modified by a -6 modifier, there will be –4 of mod “carried over”, yielding a final result of 1,1,1. Ouch.
5. Decide what the result means in the situation being rolled for.

Option: Magic Numbers. On a natural roll of:

 123 (sequence): the result should be the most logical continuation of what came before
 321 (blastoff): what came before was a countdown; this result should launch something significant
 411 (information): dialing 411 in the U.S. gets information, the result should contain a big clue
 451: (conflagration): the temperature (F) at which paper burns (according to Ray Bradbury); the result should create figurative smoke and fire, creating wide spread conflict or confusion
 666: (mark of the beast): no wonder this result is so successful, it represents a deal with the devil, and should return to haunt the character at some point.
 Invent your own.

5. Like character creation, character Reward/ punishment/ modification will be text-based. Words or phrases will be added to a character’s description based on events that occur in play. An obvious example: if a character’s thumb is chopped off by a small town butcher run amok, the phrase “nine-fingered” or “always wears a white glove to conceal his missing left thumb” would be added to the character sheet, and the game master will circle the phrase for future in-game impacts. Player decisions and character successes and failures can also sometimes make their way onto paper. In the first case, if a player claims his character knows how to play the piano and it make sense given the character’s other features, let it be so. As for successes and failures, if the Time Traveller, described above, traveled back to medieval england and found himself pursued by a peasant mob, his success or failure in evading his pursuers on foot (with few initial modifiers) could be cause for writing down additional words concerning the character’s speed or fitness. These player decision and success/failure based notations should be doled out fairly stingily so that character description don’t immediately balloon to lengthy essays.

Hello and welcome! Cool framework thingy. :o)

reddivider wrote: The true test of the framework will be its ability to facilitate fun gaming in a specific setting.

Wasn't there some attempt not too long ago to do something exactly like this? That is, with exactly the same goals? Have you posted this before, Mark, perhaps under a different name? Can anyone remember the system that I'm talking about?

Mike

Unless I missed something, this system is a gambler's paradise. What role does character effectiveness play in all this?

Going through your Paper Worlds write-up, I'm somehow led to conclude that what you seem to be after is some sort of genre simulation with the framework?

I don't know if I'm correct, but if that's the case, I'm wondering whether the Drama Queen method might give incompatibilities with a specific book or film? Say for example, the source material you're playing with is "Atlas Shrugged" and a player rolls a "666" or a "slapstick" result, what happens then? Or is the sudden and fun mixing of styles what the framework is after?

- W.

Mike Holmes wrote: Wasn't there some attempt not too long ago to do something exactly like this? That is, with exactly the same goals? Have you posted this before, Mark, perhaps under a different name? Can anyone remember the system that I'm talking about?

Mike

Hunter Logan wrote: Unless I missed something, this system is a gambler's paradise. What role does character effectiveness play in all this?

redivider wrote: ...the drama queen method will often lead to weird results if you apply it. I see a few ways of getting around this. First, you could come up with a category of drama results that fits your source... alternatively, whoever is interpreting the results could just ingnore the flavor/drama element. Or they could interpret it in a way that semi fits with the setting. So a humerous result would mean one thing in a dark setting, another in a light fantasy one. Basically, its a random idea source meant to be used, abused, or ignored as the gm or group sees fit.

Hi Marc,

Let's look at this thing in a little detail.

Character creation has no numbers or indicators of ability that directly tie into resolution mechanics.

Example: Miss Bart is attractive, but there's no firm indicator of what this means when the dice are rolled. If the player rolls 1d6, it makes no difference whether Miss Bart has the face of a Mack truck or the body of a beauty queen. The player still has a simple 50/50 chance for success. That means outcome is entirely based on random chance; it's gambling.

Now, we go to the 2d6 resolution. Here is a list of target numbers, some of them ridiculously high. In fairness, there is a method for scaling up the results, but who decides which scale is appropriate for each situation? As a player, how do I know if I'm entitled to roll as an expert or an incompetent? Character generation gives cues but no firm definitions.

Example: I'm playing Doctor Luis Leonco Martinez. The doctor is talking to a colleague at a dinner, trying to convince the colleague to expand the philosophy program, but the colleague is enjoying a thick, juicy steak. Now, how does the player know which 2d6 variant to roll? What if the doctor is talking to his boss and asking for a pay raise? It seems to me that the GM is going to tell the player what to roll, and also set the target number. Thus, the player is at the mercy of the dice and the GM, which is again a big gamble for the player.

As an aside, I don't really understand your step function, what it does, or how it works. Plus the charting for multiplication of 2d6 is bizarre but clearly skewed to the low end with a 78% chance of getting 18 or less and only 22% chance of getting more than 18. Put another way, 50% chance of getting 1 to 10 and 50% chance of getting 10 to 36. I don't like those odds. It's more gambling, and it favors the house. I didn't dig into the godlike performance for lack of time.

Finally, we have 3d6 resolution, which again reverts to pure chance as each die is assessed independently against fixed scales.

I suggest you rethink your system from the angle of actually playing it. Do some experiments and write some play samples where players find themselves in situations you envision for your game. Figure out the play flow. Who does what when? How do people know what to do? Who ends up doing most of the work, and how can you as designer make the process work better? The ideas can work, but only if you play through it and figure out how to make them work.

Perhaps one thing that you may find productive to add are sample sets of random effects for certain genres. For example: you could have one sample set of effects for say pulp fiction type sources, and another one for arthurian legend. It could give the group a more concrete grasp of the available source materials and an indication of what play might be like for such materials.

Alternatively, you may want to explore including a process (in the form of a set of guidelines) similar to character creation that is meant to distill a set of effects from a given source. Some sort of random genre effects creation engine that you can run a particular film or book through and end up with a usable table of effects. It could even be a group process instead of the GM's job. That way, a good introduction to and appraisal of the source material is also effected.

- W.

I like these ideas. Examples are a must. The effects machine idea makes me quite happy. Maybe it needn't be random, but more like a flowchart. Ie. If the writing style is convoluted, go to step X... Or I could include a long list of adjectives/descriptors, each associated with an effect or two, and whoever is running the work would pick 2-5 descriptors that came closest to describing its feel.

Anyway, thanks again

mark

Hunter Logan wrote: Hi Marc,

Let's look at this thing in a little detail.

Hunter: thanks for the specific comments. You've identified some areas that do need a lot of thinking through and work.

Character creation has no numbers or indicators of ability that directly tie into resolution mechanics.

Example: Miss Bart is attractive, but there's no firm indicator of what this means when the dice are rolled.

You're right. I wanted to leave things flexible, but that means that whoever is adjuducating will be doing a lot of seat of the pants approximations. Maybe a kind of shorthand could help. For example, jotting down a W, M, or S next to a key phrase to stand for weak, medium, or strong. Or Sk, Ex, Go to indicate level of skill (skilled, expert, godlike). On the other hand, if you're going that far, why not just assign numbers to them? I should probably have an optional rule for quantifying the key words and phrases.

If the player rolls 1d6, it makes no difference whether Miss Bart has the face of a Mack truck or the body of a beauty queen. The player still has a simple 50/50 chance for success. That means outcome is entirely based on random chance; it's gambling.

I haven't explained the 1d6 clearly enough. It's not an absolute scale where low is failure and high is success. The roll suggests a result relative to the situation. Example: Clark Kent and I are walking down a city street. We come across two orphans, each pinned the under a different automobile. Kent ducks behind a trash bin, emerges dressed as superman, strides over to the first car and tries to lift it. I wring my hands, then think, hey wait a minute, isn't adrenaline supposed to give people superhuman strength in these sitations? So I try to lift the other car. Superman rolls a 2 or 1 (bad /worse). I roll a 5 or 6 (good/better). This doesn't mean I suceed in lifting the car and superman fails. It means that superman's result is bad in the context of his massive strength. So maybe while easily picking the car up over his head, it shifts, placing extra pressure on the orphan and knocking the orphan out. So Superman will have to fly his orphan to the nearest hospital. My roll of a 6 is just about the best I could expect given my weakling strength. So maybe my grunts of failed exertion are loud enough to rouse the residents of a nearby apartment, and they rush down to help me.

Now, we go to the 2d6 resolution. Here is a list of target numbers, some of them ridiculously high. In fairness, there is a method for scaling up the results, but who decides which scale is appropriate for each situation? As a player, how do I know if I'm entitled to roll as an expert or an incompetent? Character generation gives cues but no firm definitions.

My default assumption about these rules is that (in situations where there is a traditional game master-player divide) the players won't know the rules. So they will never roll the dice. The gamemaster will, and will use hunches and guidelines to set target numbers, modifiers, and figure out if the character is skilled etc.

Example: I'm playing Doctor Luis Leonco Martinez. The doctor is talking to a colleague at a dinner, trying to convince the colleague to expand the philosophy program, but the colleague is enjoying a thick, juicy steak. Now, how does the player know which 2d6 variant to roll? What if the doctor is talking to his boss and asking for a pay raise? It seems to me that the GM is going to tell the player what to roll, and also set the target number. Thus, the player is at the mercy of the dice and the GM, which is again a big gamble for the player.

you're right. They will be at the mercy of the dice and moderator. Except that the player won't be rolling, and won't know what statistical rules are judging his/her actions. I'm hoping this blissful ignorance will keep players from worrying too much about their chances. On the other hand, maybe being kept in the dark would piss some players off? I don't know

As an aside, I don't really understand your step function, what it does, or how it works. Plus the charting for multiplication of 2d6 is bizarre but clearly skewed to the low end with a 78% chance of getting 18 or less and only 22% chance of getting more than 18. Put another way, 50% chance of getting 1 to 10 and 50% chance of getting 10 to 36. I don't like those odds. It's more gambling, and it favors the house. I didn't dig into the godlike performance for lack of time.

The numbers are (basically) fibonacci numbers, which are related to golden rectangles, a lot of spirals found in nature, and other things I don't understand, not being a mathematician. I kind of like the idea of the quasi-mystical underpinnings. Each number in the scale is the sum of the two prior numbers. Target numbers above 10 should be rare. I do see the potential that moderators would tend to give automatic successes for low target numbers and only require a roll for high ones, in which case your concern will come into play.

Finally, we have 3d6 resolution, which again reverts to pure chance as each die is assessed independently against fixed scales.

This method is going to be the hardest to deal with, no question. I have two thoughts on how to make it workable. First option: treat it like the 1d6 as I described it above, as a relative result based on the circumstances of the situation. So a failure isn't always an absolute failure, it's a disappointing result given the situation.

The second option is to use modifiers generously. It may turn out that it will require a boatload of modifiers to make this method fair.

I suggest you rethink your system from the angle of actually playing it. Do some experiments and write some play samples where players find themselves in situations you envision for your game. Figure out the play flow. Who does what when? How do people know what to do? Who ends up doing most of the work, and how can you as designer make the process work better? The ideas can work, but only if you play through it and figure out how to make them work.

Definately. I also need to pair the system with an actual setting to see if it allows for an enjoyable play experience. It may be I'll scrap one or more of the rolling methods, need to go to a numerical character creation system. We'll see.

thanks again for taking the time to comment

mark

redivider wrote: I haven't explained the 1d6 clearly enough. It's not an absolute scale where low is failure and high is success. The roll suggests a result relative to the situation. Example: Clark Kent and I are walking down a city street. We come across two orphans, each pinned the under a different automobile. Kent ducks behind a trash bin, emerges dressed as superman, strides over to the first car and tries to lift it. I wring my hands, then think, hey wait a minute, isn't adrenaline supposed to give people superhuman strength in these sitations? So I try to lift the other car. Superman rolls a 2 or 1 (bad /worse). I roll a 5 or 6 (good/better). This doesn't mean I suceed in lifting the car and superman fails. It means that superman's result is bad in the context of his massive strength. So maybe while easily picking the car up over his head, it shifts, placing extra pressure on the orphan and knocking the orphan out. So Superman will have to fly his orphan to the nearest hospital. My roll of a 6 is just about the best I could expect given my weakling strength. So maybe my grunts of failed exertion are loud enough to rouse the residents of a nearby apartment, and they rush down to help me.

That last set of posts does clarify your intention, Mark. You want to give the GM a lot of power - Maybe too much power, but it's a conscious decision and you're aware of the implications. So, back to work!

Mike Holmes wrote: Wasn't there some attempt not too long ago to do something exactly like this? That is, with exactly the same goals? Have you posted this before, Mark, perhaps under a different name? Can anyone remember the system that I'm talking about?

That was what I was thinking of, thanks John.

Mike

talysman wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Wasn't there some attempt not too long ago to do something exactly like this? That is, with exactly the same goals? Have you posted this before, Mark, perhaps under a different name? Can anyone remember the system that I'm talking about?

I think the system you were thinking of was Kester Pelagius's 4-page Any Book system he posted in this thread. a similar goal: adapt any given novel to an rpg gameworld quickly. I'm not sure if all the design goals match, however.

Jeph wrote:

redivider wrote: I haven't explained the 1d6 clearly enough. It's not an absolute scale where low is failure and high is success. The roll suggests a result relative to the situation. Example: Clark Kent and I are walking down a city street. We come across two orphans, each pinned the under a different automobile. Kent ducks behind a trash bin, emerges dressed as superman, strides over to the first car and tries to lift it. I wring my hands, then think, hey wait a minute, isn't adrenaline supposed to give people superhuman strength in these sitations? So I try to lift the other car. Superman rolls a 2 or 1 (bad /worse). I roll a 5 or 6 (good/better). This doesn't mean I suceed in lifting the car and superman fails. It means that superman's result is bad in the context of his massive strength. So maybe while easily picking the car up over his head, it shifts, placing extra pressure on the orphan and knocking the orphan out. So Superman will have to fly his orphan to the nearest hospital. My roll of a 6 is just about the best I could expect given my weakling strength. So maybe my grunts of failed exertion are loud enough to rouse the residents of a nearby apartment, and they rush down to help me.

Ahhhhh. That really clears things up for me, thanks. I actually really like that; it's kind of a combo between "karma" mechanics (you always perform at your level) and traditional fortune stuff. You always perform at your level, buthow well you perform at that level depends...

Greetings,

Ah, a bit late to arrive but. . .

redivider wrote:

talysman wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Wasn't there some attempt not too long ago to do something exactly like this? That is, with exactly the same goals? Have you posted this before, Mark, perhaps under a different name? Can anyone remember the system that I'm talking about?

I think the system you were thinking of was Kester Pelagius's 4-page Any Book system he posted in this thread. a similar goal: adapt any given novel to an rpg gameworld quickly. I'm not sure if all the design goals match, however.

Thanks for the link. I just took a quick look and liked what i saw. It's certainly a simpler, more self contained system than mine is at this stage. It does a good job of getting from a book to starting a game in a short period, which was one of my goals. As I work through some of my other design goals, at least I know the basic concept is game worthy.