Topic: My game: Dead Inside
Started by: chadu
Started on: 1/29/2004
Board: Indie Game Design
On 1/29/2004 at 6:27am, chadu wrote:
My game: Dead Inside
Well, here's the press release:
======================================
got soul?
The Year of the Monkey shifts into high gear! Atomic Sock Monkey Press is proud to announce the release of [URL=http://www.atomicsockmonkey.com/products/di.asp]Dead Inside[/URL].
Somehow, a large part of whatever it is that makes you *you* has been stripped away, leaving you empty, hollow, cold, hurt. Perhaps you're mad. Perhaps you're saner than you've ever been before.
You're Dead Inside. What are you going to do about it?
Written by Chad Underkoffler, with interior art by Chris Cooper and cover art by Steve Archer, Dead Inside offers a fresh rules-light game system, an inventive setting, an immersive style of roleplaying, and substantial advice for players and GMS alike.
Dead Inside is available now from RPGNow.
A Print on Demand version at RPGMall is expected to ship the second week of February, 2004.
[URL=http://www.livejournal.com/users/bruce_b/43732.html]Some people[/URL] seem to like it.
A freebie preview of Dead Inside is available here.
Further inquiries can be directed to Chad Underkoffler
< monkeyking@atomicsockmonkey.com >.
# # #
Some basic information: the rules for DI are called the PDQ System (Prose Descriptive Qualities). Anyone who's read my Pyramid column (Campaign in a Box) or my short-lived RPG.net column Let Me Tell You About My Character... will find it familiar.
In a nutshell, Qualities -- which are DIY catchalls for attributes, advantages, traits, professions, etc. -- are ranked: from Master [+6] down to Poor [-2]; the bracketed numbers indicate the modifer to a 2d6 roll. Depending upon the type of situation, either ranks compared to a target number, or characters rolls in competition with one another.
That's the heart of the basic system.
However, the most interesting bit in DI for me is an underlying "Ask Why" ethos. My intention in writing the game was to provide a game-system rationale for self- (or in this case, a character's self-) examination. I've also been interested in the intersection of what a character must do (as required by his character) and what a character wants to do (as required by his player). To do these two things, I constructed the Virtue & Vice system and rules to support the ability of a player to choose whether to show his character trapped by his Virtue or Vice or in violent internal conflict with it.
Also, it was my stated design goal to overturn the generic "Kill things and take their stuff" gaming axiom, so I started with the reverse: "Heal things, and give them your stuff." So, that may be of interest to some folks here.
Anywho, I'd be very interested in the thoughts of anyone here, if they've taken a look at the game yet. I'm also intrigued by how DI would be classified in the GNS structure (but I might be on the wrong board for that), since I'm not totally up on the lingo you guys sling around here -- I lurk occasionally, and only post rarely. Still, I figure folks at the Forge would be interested in my little indie-game.
If so, feel free to reply. If not, reply anyway. :)
CU
On 1/30/2004 at 4:47pm, james_west wrote:
RE: My game: Dead Inside
Hello !
The most interesting/innovative bit of your game looks to me to be the virtue/vice system, but the preview looks to be more color and setting than anything to do with that. I'd be personally quite interested in how that works, if you'd like to tell us a bit about it.
I can tell right off that your game isn't designed to support gamism; the mechanic you do describe wouldn't well support interesting competition between players. I suspect that, if you don't know much about GNS, your game will have been reflexively designed as simulationist, with a premise of something like, "What does it mean to be lacking a soul?"
But the GNS bent to a design is about the actual rules, not the setting and color, so it's hard to know without knowing a bit more about the specialized rules you've designed where it would fall.
- Thanks,
James
On 1/30/2004 at 8:21pm, chadu wrote:
RE: My game: Dead Inside
james_west wrote: The most interesting/innovative bit of your game looks to me to be the virtue/vice system, but the preview looks to be more color and setting than anything to do with that. I'd be personally quite interested in how that works, if you'd like to tell us a bit about it.
Certainly! Some background, first:
* Each character has a Virtue and a Vice, an indicator that is normally descriptive rather than prescriptive of their internal drives; though they do become prescriptive during Virtue and Vice Checks... sort of. Soul Points are gained or lost in struggling with a Virtue or Vice Check through the accumulation of Cultivation Ticks (gain) or Decay Ticks (loss).
Virtue & Vice Check Flowchart
1. Set Difficulty Rank of Check (and if it's a Virtue Check or a Vice Check).
2. What the Character Wants to Do:
A. Avoid Virtue or Follow Vice: 2 Decay Ticks
B. Follow Virtue or Avoid Vice: 2 Cultivation Ticks
3. The Check Roll (complicated situation; Type Rank vs. Target Number)
Result:
A. If success, character can do what he wants to.
B. If failure, character must follow Virtue or Vice.
4. Why the Character Succeeded or Failed the Check:
A. No explanation: 1 Decay Tick
B. Reasonable explanation: 1 Cultivation Tick
C. Good explanation that fits with characterization and Backstory: 2 Cultivation Ticks
5. Portraying the Check Aftermath (How did this affect the character?):
A. No roleplaying of the Check Result: 1 Decay Tick
B. Good roleplaying of the Check Result: 2 Cultivation Ticks
6. Add up Ticks into Tallies, Circle, and award (or deduct) Soul Points.
Example: Kristov (Average [0] Dead Inside, Vice of Avarice) is confronted with a mystically-tempting (Good [9] Difficulty Rank Vice Check vs. Avarice) shot of the Whiskey of Life.
* Kristov doesn’t want to drink it (2 Cultivation Ticks).
* Unfortunately, he only rolls a 5 on a 2d6. His average Dead Inside doesn't give him any Modifier for good or for ill, so it remains a 5. He fails the Vice Check (5 < 9), and must follow his Vice.
* Kristov’s player says: “After a long, agonizing stare at the gleaming liquid, I pick up the shotglass. I say, ‘When I lost my soul, I searched for release and comfort in the bottom of a bottle. And here it is.’” (2 Cultivation Ticks)
* Kristov’s player continues: “I down the Whiskey as a tear runs down my cheek. When the last swallow is gone, I realize that I’ve just returned to my old habits, looking for something external to fill me up. I drop the glass, and before it shatters on the floor, I’m crying like a baby.” (2 Cultivation Ticks)
* GM adds up the Ticks into Tallies (1 Tally, with a Tick left over), Circles the Tally, and awards Kristov 1 Soul Point.
The core of the Soul Point reward system here is Asking Why. If a player doesn't have or can come up with a reason -- a good reason -- for a character action taken, they don't get any SPs. Also, if the dice "screw" your character, he can still come out ahead by coming up with a convincing rationalization or portrayal of this failure.
The idea here is to reward players for roleplaying rather than succeeding at in-game actions.
I can tell right off that your game isn't designed to support gamism; the mechanic you do describe wouldn't well support interesting competition between players. I suspect that, if you don't know much about GNS, your game will have been reflexively designed as simulationist, with a premise of something like, "What does it mean to be lacking a soul?"
It actually might be more Narrativist, if I understand the term correctly.
But the GNS bent to a design is about the actual rules, not the setting and color, so it's hard to know without knowing a bit more about the specialized rules you've designed where it would fall.
Okay, so from the above, how does the Virtue & Vice Checklist fit in the schema?
CU
On 1/30/2004 at 8:31pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: My game: Dead Inside
Chad,
I just wanted to let you know that this Virtue and Vice flowchart is very, very cool. I've already ordered the game - I did yesterday as soon as I saw "help people and give them your stuff" - but this chart would be a compelling reason to if I hadn't. Nicely done.
A question: is a tally 5 ticks? (It seems so.) And if so, how do you get a Decay tally? There's not a way to in your chart, especially not with verve and theme. I can get 4 ticks if I want to do something bad, and not describe it, but that's boring. If I'm going down, I want to for a reason.
On 1/30/2004 at 11:49pm, james_west wrote:
RE: My game: Dead Inside
Before you posted your description of virtue and vice, what I was unsure of was this; a lot of people have in mind narrativist goals, but then the rules they write to support them essentially don't.
I agree with Clinton; this set of rules in particular seems to be very nicely done, and very well supports your narrativistic goals; exploring human issues.
Incidentally, serendipituously I was thinking about the sort of topic you're addressing here a fair amount, right before I read your post. Kudos for making a strong stab at rules for a generally neglected area of role-playing.
- James
On 1/31/2004 at 12:46am, chadu wrote:
RE: My game: Dead Inside
Clinton R. Nixon wrote: I just wanted to let you know that this Virtue and Vice flowchart is very, very cool. I've already ordered the game - I did yesterday as soon as I saw "help people and give them your stuff" - but this chart would be a compelling reason to if I hadn't. Nicely done.
Thank you; I hope you enjoy it, and please -- let me know what you think!
A question: is a tally 5 ticks? (It seems so.)
Got it in one. The whole Tick -> Tally -> Circle concept is described elsewhere in that section.
And if so, how do you get a Decay tally?
Actively doing soul-rotting (read: bad) stuff. There's a list of guidelines that map out what constitutes actions and thoughts that lead to the diminishment of a person's soul. The list is syncretic, drawing from various philosophies, psychologies, and religions. There's also a list for soul-cultivation (read: good) actions and thoughts.
There's not a way to in your chart, especially not with verve and theme. I can get 4 ticks if I want to do something bad, and not describe it, but that's boring. If I'm going down, I want to for a reason.
That's a feature, not a bug. :)
Seriously, I thought that, given my concept of the game and the structure that I wanted to promote in the context of the game, that it would be a bad design decision to force folks to lose Soul Points through a GM-mandated Virtue/Vice Check. Soul Decay happens through the thoughts and actions that the PC chooses to take. So I arranged the flowchart and Ticks such that in-and-of itself, a V/V Check could not lead directly to Soul Point loss. However, if combined with pre-existing Decay Ticks, bob's yer uncle.
Thanks for responding!
CU
On 1/31/2004 at 12:50am, chadu wrote:
RE: My game: Dead Inside
james_west wrote: I agree with Clinton; this set of rules in particular seems to be very nicely done, and very well supports your narrativistic goals; exploring human issues.
Thanks!
But please note -- there are Kewl Powers, and monsters, and scary people in the game setting, too, so that heroic PCs can beat up on them and take their -- er, help them and give them -- well, whatever they want, really.
Kudos for making a strong stab at rules for a generally neglected area of role-playing.
That was the goal. I hope it's not too shiny-happy or too gloomy-angsty.
And thanks again!
Like I said, I'm very interested in what folks here at the Forge think about DI, since I tried to spend a lot of time balancing narrative control between PC and GM.
CU
On 2/5/2004 at 11:45pm, Rob MacDougall wrote:
RE: My game: Dead Inside
I played DI last night and enjoyed it, which actually surprised me a little. I feared it was going to be some kind of Wraith / World of Darkness heartbreaker (a la the fantasy heartbreakers discussed here from time to time). But I don't think it was. I've posted a fairly idiosyncratic review of the game over at The 20' By 20' Room:
http://www.20by20room.com/2004/02/chad_inside.html
On 2/6/2004 at 8:33pm, chadu wrote:
RE: My game: Dead Inside
Rob MacDougall wrote: I've posted a fairly idiosyncratic review of the game over at The 20' By 20' Room:
http://www.20by20room.com/2004/02/chad_inside.html
Maybe I'm a sadist, but I think I like the abuse-laden/WKRP one in your LJ better. :)
Thanks, Rob.
CU