So I've been playing around with some ideas inspired by Universalis, and some of the stuff I learned from designing Dungeoneer. Basically an RPG with a specific win goal.

I think the unique character of RPGs is that they are infinite games, there is no "end" to the game. As opposed to any other kind of game - card, board, etc. that has a specific goal to win it. Of course RPG's do have win goals in the sense that there are objectives to complete, but they are only points in the development of the characters.

When designing Dungeoneer my idea was to create an rpg-like experience on cards. As development proceeded I came to realize the rpgs and card games are oil and water! You cannot create "general interpretive principles" in a card game and expect it to work. This is because card games motivate players to stress the rules to the point of breaking in their aim to win. Thus rules must be clear and finite. The more permutations of a mechanic you allow, the bigger design headache you have until the game becomes unmanageable - you simply cannot account for every interpretation a rule may have. So the more narrow you make a rule the better.

RPG's on the other hand work their best when rules have broad general principles that can be applied to a wide variety of circumstances. This works because you have a referee that has the power to render a final interpretation on a rule. And this leads me to Universalis - which has a clever mechanic that solves the need for general principles, through defining story traits that you purchase from your pool, and edges toward the finite requirement of other game types - you can practically "win" a game of Universalis through "strategic" use of the story traits.

So I want to make a Dungeoneer RPG. Literally. But it will have a clear win goal. If you haven't played Dungeoneer, the idea is you try to be first to complete 3 Quests to win the game (or you can just kill everyone else off). What I want is a situation where one player is the GM ("Dungeonlord" in Dungeoneer speak) who creates an adventure, his win goal is to kill off all the characters. The players each have a character ("Hero" in Dungeoneer speak) and their goal is to be first to complete 9 Quests (which makes their hero 10th level - each completed Quest gives your hero a level).

In many ways this would be more like the original idea I had for the game - a finite rpg.

The games that immediately spring to my mind as finite are Matchmaker, My Love for You is Way Out of Line, and My Life with Master. So it's not a super-new concept (I've tried taking the same goal into a couple of horribly unfinished designs) in RPGs, but certainly under-represented.

I'm sure there're more, but those are what I think of off the top of my head.

I don't own it, but I know Rune is something much like this, so you might want to check it out.

If the GM's goal is to kill players, you'll need to very tightly control his powers. Rune handles it in a nice way, in that the GM gets reward points for injuring the characters (bringing them close to death even), but loses a lot for actually killing any. So it's a balancing act on his part to decide how hard he can afford to make it. He gets points to use in the creation of his dungeon, and the reward points translate into these, allowing him to throw in more interesting stuff.

Jasper wrote:
If the GM's goal is to kill players, you'll need to very tightly control his powers.

Jasper wrote: If the GM's goal is to kill players, you'll need to very tightly control his powers.

Hmm, I don't know.

td wrote: The true goal of the GM is to insure everyone is entertained.... But the stated win goal is to "defeat all the heroes".

tldenmark wrote: So I've been playing around with some ideas inspired by Universalis, and some of the stuff I learned from designing Dungeoneer. Basically an RPG with a specific win goal.
(snip)
In many ways this would be more like the original idea I had for the game - a finite rpg.

The game I'm working on right now, Shangri-la has recently moved into a closed-game format. Characters have "Quests", and by fulfilling individual steps in that quest they can open more doors...and by completing the ENTIRE quest, they've managed to fulfill their whole reason for being in the game, and get removed from it.

Hey, Thomas.

In what way would your RPG be different from your card game? That is, Dungeoneer appears to work. What are you trying to do with an RPG version of the game?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Hey, Thomas.

In what way would your RPG be different from your card game? That is, Dungeoneer appears to work. What are you trying to do with an RPG version of the game?

Hmmm.

Why not simply tie the Treasure to the monsters power level.

15 points worth of monsters, requires 15 points worth of treasure. One could come up with all sorts of niggling rules about how much of this treasure is "on the body", "in the lair", or "just there for the taking"

I believe Rune had a system that worked along these lines.

Valamir wrote: Hmmm.

Why not simply tie the Treasure to the monsters power level.

15 points worth of monsters, requires 15 points worth of treasure. One could come up with all sorts of niggling rules about how much of this treasure is "on the body", "in the lair", or "just there for the taking"

I believe Rune had a system that worked along these lines.

Hmmm.

Well, IIUC the main differences you'd outlined are the ability to make your own cards.

My gut is telling me to advise you to consider carefully what you wish to do with this. I don't think I need to point you to the Fanatasy Heartbreaker essays in the Articles section. But all you've mentioned here is something that would add to the card game. And what's wrong with a card game?

tldenmark wrote:
Interesting and very simple solution. The problem is the GM could simply provide 15 points worth of Potions of Blandness rather than that great big 15 point Sword of Hiny Kicking. I sure would hate it to turn into a complicated requirement system with lots of exceptions and must-haves.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Hmmm.

Well, IIUC the main differences you'd outlined are the ability to make your own cards.

My gut is telling me to advise you to consider carefully what you wish to do with this. I don't think I need to point you to the Fanatasy Heartbreaker essays in the Articles section. But all you've mentioned here is something that would add to the card game. And what's wrong with a card game?

tldenmark wrote: There is a certain chunk of this RPG I've failed to mention, and won't mention for sometime until I'm much closer to publishing it. This chunk is, I believe, quite innovative and pushes the envelope in terms of design. I hope to have it at this next Gen Con.

damn, is everybody doing stripped-down dungeoncrawl games these days?

I'm working on one that's more of a just-for-fun thing (I plan on playtesting it in a MOO.) I doubt I will be selling this one, just distributing it as a freebie, because I plan on concentrating on selling games with specific settings. this one is more generic. however, everyone else working on dungeoncrawl games might want to see one of the mechanics, since you might find a similar approach useful for your own work.

I was inspired mainly by Rune and Fungeon. Rune looks fine, but the pointbuild system for building dungeons seems too intensive for my tastes. Fungeon has a simpler approach, but I wanted something just a tad more elaborate... so it occurred to me to use the Donjon idea of allowing Find Trap rolls to invent a trap where none existed before, or Find Secret Door to find a secret door, and so on.

so what I settled on was a resource management system. character "stats" would be Level plus three spendable resources: Health, Stamina or Magic (this could be made more elaborate, or stripped down to just Health.)

the dungeon, in contrast, has a Depth stat and a Risk resource. there's one other resource, Gold, which starts at zero and would mainly be a score tracker, although it could be spendable in a town.

the idea is that players can choose to increase their dice pool for an action by adding points to Risk or spending points from Health/Stamina/Magic. Health and so on can only be regained in specific ways, while Risk can only drop by spending it on traps or monsters. if Risk stays high, it causes wandering monsters and a boost of a monster's effectiveness when found (monster effectiveness = Depth + (Risk/10)).

so: you are about to enter a room. you choose to listen at the door and roll a dice pool (starting with just 1 die in the pool,) trying to hit a fixed target number; since you listened for a monster, there *is* one -- with an effectiveness = Depth + Risk/10 + your successes on the dice pool. you can boost your dice pool by subtracting 1 from Risk for every die you add; taking more powerful monsters from time to time thus guarantees that Risk doesn't go too high.

you know there's a monster, but the door is closed. by saying "I pick the lock", the door is considered locked -- and you can increase your dice pool this time by increasing Risk (because you are taking longer) or decreasing Stamina (because you are doing something exhausting) or Magic (casting a spell) or Health (there was a minor trap). searching for a trap on the door first works like listening for a monster, increasing the value of a trap by decreasing Risk.

those extra successes that you are earning can be rolled into other dice pools, including the search for treasure. I don't have all the details worked out for my particular approach, but I'm sure you get the idea.

of course, what we should be doing is offering help to Thomas, but without any idea about what his system is, the best we can really do is say "here's what I've beend doing" and leave it at that. if you find this helpful, Thomas, feel free to adapt it to your own approach.

talysman wrote: of course, what we should be doing is offering help to Thomas, but without any idea about what his system is, the best we can really do is say "here's what I've beend doing" and leave it at that. if you find this helpful, Thomas, feel free to adapt it to your own approach.

talysman wrote: damn, is everybody doing stripped-down dungeoncrawl games these days?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Hmmm... intriguing. I can respect your not wanting to tell us, but it does make constructive criticism difficult.

tldenmark wrote: What I'm trying to get at right now is the core idea of a finite RPG. A VERY competitive finite RPG. And a game like that really requires fine balancing to achieve that elusive fun factor.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: In my thread, a perspective on roleplaying, I defined roleplaying thus:

• roleplaying is an activity that primarily takes place in the shared imagined space
• the in-game or imagined elements may be used in terms of what they are

Your examples of "clusure" look to me like attempts to communicate information about the imaginative space, enhancing the portion of that whhich is shared among participants.

Shreyas Sampat wrote: Your examples of "clusure" look to me like attempts to communicate information about the imaginative space, enhancing the portion of that whhich is shared among participants.

Sorry, Thomas. I agree with Shreyas that your Closure is just illustrating communication about the shared imagined space.

So condensing the enormously satisfying campaign experience into an evening of gaming seems to me a good endeavor.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Sorry, Thomas. I agree with Shreyas that your Closure is just illustrating communication about the shared imagined space.

So condensing the enormously satisfying campaign experience into an evening of gaming seems to me a good endeavor.

This bit has me puzzled. I don't get how this goal is possible.

tldenmark wrote: So what I'm talking about is dividing your character's career into 3 distinct eras beginning his heroic career, becoming an "epic" hero eventually becoming "legendary". Then retiring him or her. In the mechanics of this game taking your character from level 1 to level 10 within the span of a 6-8 hour gaming session.

(Parenthetically, I think your term "closure" is directly parallel to "shared imaginative space", and will use the latter if I feel any need to do so.)

Why the assumption that the entire "lifetime career of the character" has to be laid out in play?

How do you feel about "snapshot in time" games, that take characters (that may already be at a point where they are mid-to-high-level in D&D terms) and run a short, presumably satisfying story for them? It seems to me that your competitive, finite dungeon game would make a lot of sense run as a "lets see who can kick the most butt in this dungeon", and much less sense as a campaign game with overarching storyline.

IOW, I am not sure whether we are talking about a competitive card game or a roleplaying game at all.

Shreyas Sampat wrote: IOW, I am not sure whether we are talking about a competitive card game or a roleplaying game at all.

Thanks for the clarification. Now I have to go and think.

tldenmark wrote: Closure, in the way I use it here, was well defined by Scott Mcloud in his famous "Understanding Comics" book.
It's the space between panels that comics "happen" - when the reader's imagination is engaged and brings the comic to life.

tldenmark wrote: So what I'm talking about is dividing your character's career into 3 distinct eras beginning his heroic career,
becoming an "epic" hero eventually becoming "legendary". Then retiring him or her. In the mechanics of this game
taking your character from level 1 to level 10 within the span of a 6-8 hour gaming session.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: making a suppliment that will work with the cards to make a more "full" roleplaying experience or function on its own as an RPG. However, even as a standalone, it will be a very closed or finite RPG. The exact nature of this is a little difficult to parse, partially because part of it he's not ready to share yet

Are you sure you want a GM?

You could do something like the Lord of the Rings boardgame where everybody plays to beat the game.

Here's a question:

What is the role of the GM?

So far you've said that the GM will design the adventure, which, I think, means they design the adventure cards.

I could see this expanding the card game but with each player spending X number of points on their characters and then designing a quest with the same number of points. The quest cards are then shuffled and the players play that way.

So beyond designing the adventure (cards), what does the GM do?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Here's a question:

What is the role of the GM?

So beyond designing the adventure (cards), what does the GM do?

tldenmark wrote: During the game the GM gets to 'run' the game. Though the way it works this responsibility is spread across each player's turn. Since I think GM's have to work WAY too hard in an RPG.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Before the game, you could easily have the players each make up four things there. So what, exactly, does the GM do to "run" the game? What responsibilities are being distributed and what are left? Could the ones that are left also be distributed?

tldenmark wrote: What 4 things could players make up?

The GM acts as referee (makes rules calls), performs the encounters, lays out the map. Role-plays the NPC's, etc.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

tldenmark wrote: What 4 things could players make up?

Maps: "gameboard"
Quests: things for players to do
Perils (Encounters and Banes): things for players to encounter
create and/or design their character.

The GM acts as referee (makes rules calls), performs the encounters, lays out the map. Role-plays the NPC's, etc.

Ok, it's getting a bit heavy for our purposes here. Let me change tactics

Is there any reason to have a GM instead of in one way or another delegate this responsibility amoung the players?

Thomas:

As a RPG consumer, I like the idea, and I've actually been working on something similiar (see this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9844). Basically, I was working on a home-brew system that uses cards partially for mechanics but mostly for atomosphere, as well as simplified and streamlined storytelling on the part of the GM.

I would like the GM to be able to create a plot by choosing/creating cards that relate to settings and challenges. My thinking was to emulate a movie rather than a book, if you get my drift. The typical RPG is heavy on character development and role-playing, but I wanted to encourage a session with a bit more momentum and action, without completely discarding the role-playing elements. Basically, a storyline could be resolved in 2-3 hours of playtime, and a characters "career" might last a few session. Characters would gain experience/levels by completing quests and by adhering to their motivations.

I do own Dungeoeer, and it was the partial inspiration for working on my own system (BTW, a request from my wife and daughter in terms of Dungeoneer .... we need more female characters).

Unlike dungeoneer, I wanted to avoid a dungeon crawl with distinct rooms, etc. A underground lair might be a location in the story, but it would consist of perhaps a couple of distinct areas and related challenges. In this way, again, it's like a movie ... For example, in LOTR: FOTR the journey through Moria has some distinct set pieces (Balin's tomb, the escape, the bridge, etc.) that could be defined as settings and challenges, while keeping much of the mundane travel and such compressed or "off screen".

I realize that these ideas are probably anathema to most role-players, but they appeal to me, which is why I was working on a home brew.

So, there is an interest in the sort of game you seem to be thinking about, at least from me. I think it would serve as a nice bridge from the "boardgame" feel of dungeoneer to more of a true RPG, and--as you said--you've got some built in resources in the form of the existing Dungeoneer cards (by the way, your art on the Dungeoneer cards is quite lovely--I am envious of the fact that you are a skilled game designer as well as an artist).

I'd be interested in hearing more about this system as you work on it. I may decide to give up my struggled on my own version in favor of yours ;)

smc wrote: As a RPG consumer, I like the idea

smc wrote:
I would like the GM to be able to create a plot by choosing/creating cards that relate to settings and challenges.

smc wrote: I do own Dungeoeer, and it was the partial inspiration for working on my own system (BTW, a request from my wife and daughter in terms of Dungeoneer .... we need more female characters).

smc wrote: (by the way, your art on the Dungeoneer cards is quite lovely--I am envious of the fact that you are a skilled game designer as well as an artist).

smc wrote: I'd be interested in hearing more about this system as you work on it. I may decide to give up my struggled on my own version in favor of yours ;)

tldenmark wrote:
If this was available in a $15 softcover book you could order online (and pay the S&H on) could you see anyone purchasing it? What about if it required a computer, printer and Adobe Acrobat? And you had to fill out templates on the computer, and cut out cards?

tldenmark wrote:
Why thank you, but I don't think much of my game design skills. I look at what some of those CCG designers, and greats like Jonathon Tweet have accomplish and am humbled. I'm an artist, with a curious game design hobby. :)

I don't have any problems with the proposition. Just the other day I checked out how much it would cost to have 200 B&W cards printed at my local kinkos-equivalent and was quoted £37 and pennies. Fair enough, thats a significant proportional expense, but a serious "build-your-own-game" model may be so strong that that this is a worthwhile expense.

On the principle of the thing...

Heres what I'd like to do. I'd like to have cards that are rather like the L5R cards for locations, like the Stronghold cards, so that the players and I can just sit there and hang out, checking out the cards, and sorting few out and saying cool, I want go here, cool, this is a good/bad looking critter, lets have a bit of that, etc etc, so that I have player buy-in from the get go.

The tricky part is building a theoretical model for how to take these things and use them in actual play. For one thing, I'm also going to want a second set of cards with all the REALLY cool evil critters so I can keep them secret for the mean while.

What I'm looking at is a synthesis between player selection/creation and the GM's "interpretation" of that information. Furthermore, I want as much of it as possible to occur on the tabeltop via props, and to be colour-heavy. So cards and maps are the business.

the whole point of having these props is so that you can find a card and give it to the players and say "you see THIS". And this means that from the metagame perspective, play must move from card to card to card in a systematic manner. The "continuous real time" mode in conventional RPG is not necessary, just habit IMO. A scene based system would accord more directly with the practical requirement to move from card to card.

Edit: all of which is to say, I don't think the dichotomy between Finite and Infinite necessarily applies; the intermediate case is a related sequence of Finite games, an episodic structure.

2nd Edit: One thought I've had in this direction is a mode of play that is explicitly centred on specific moments in the viewpoint characters lives. this seeks to obviate both real time play and the conventional party mode as follows. You could conceivably have a game in which the characters are, say, the counts of Blois, Berry and Anjou, and ALL actual play that happens at the table is explicitly presumed to occur during those occassions when the three characters are a) in the same place and b) working together. They can have any kind of off-screen conflicted relationship they like; part of the point of the story would be to explore how people get along with hated enemies when they must. So while we are in actual play, even though the characters are conflicted, the social contract explicitly requires they cannot bump each other off becuase the background hatreds are essentially there to provide colour and grist for the creative mill. The actual play of the game will be functionally cooperative regardless of the characters personal agendas. To do this you might effect say three occassion in the course of 40 years, for arguments sake, in which actual play will occur, and fill in the remainder of time as backstory prior to each new event; but each "scene" in this structure would constitute its own Finite game. I even speculate this might produce a Sim/Nar congruent game.

smc wrote:

tldenmark wrote:
* Casual gamers who have always been interested in RPG's, but have been intimiated by the cumbersome rules and the "geek factor" of doing dramatic voices and that sort of stuff.

* Former RPG'ers who just don't have the time to devote to preparing and running a typical game (i.e. a D20 game), but still want to enjoy some of the social aspects and atomosphere in a RPG-lite.

* RPG'ers who want to introduce friends, family etc. to the hobby.

* RPG'ers who want an alternative system that woulkd be good for last minute games, pick-up games, etc.

I think this list perfectly sums up the gamers I was thinking of.

I too fall into some of these categories. I love RPG's, just don't have the time to play. Or when I do have time, my gaming group doesn't. We manage to get together only a few times a year now, and it seems to be less each year.

I think there's a large demographic of age 25+ gamers out there looking for a game like I'm describing. But I think with the cards it's also "hip" enough for a younger crowd.

smc wrote: Well, I don't want to come off as a fanboy, but don't sell yourself short. Dungeoneer is pretty darn ingenous, and if there's another game designer out there who is as talented with a paintbrush, I'd be surpised. I am a jack-of-all-trades (writer, artist, gamer) and master of none, so I'm envious (and frankly, it makes me hate you just a bit ;) )

I look forward to your future work.

contracycle wrote:
the whole point of having these props is so that you can find a card and give it to the players and say "you see THIS". And this means that from the metagame perspective, play must move from card to card to card in a systematic manner. The "continuous real time" mode in conventional RPG is not necessary, just habit IMO. A scene based system would accord more directly with the practical requirement to move from card to card.

It's funny to think that the last post to this thread was 20 Feb 2004 at 23:16, and now nearly ten months later all this discussion and speculation is a reality in the newly published Dungeoneer RPG.

Reading these old posts some of the ideas were spot on to what the product ended up being. But some of the ideas, such as point-based character creation did not become a reality. It's something far superior I think. There are no points to keep track of, just raw scores.

td