The Forge Archives

Inspired by this thread over on RPG.net, I have thought of a wonderful puff-piece of a game to write:

That's Not an RPG!, the RPG

I think the way to do it is for each player to get a character (who will, in turn, be a player in the fictional gaming group), and for that character to have a randomly assigned set of skills:  ways of approaching an RPG that they are good or bad at.  So "Rules Manipulation" would be a skill.  I'm not sure yet whether social manipulations (like "Whining" or "Passive Aggression") should be skills, or whether they should be in-game actions that can make up for a lack of skills.  Each player's goal is to accumulate "Satisfaction" with the game.

Rounds would each be a session of the fictional game.  People can describe what happens, and how their character perceives it.

The goal (apart from raw silliness) is to give people some mechanics-structure insight into the way that social structures evolve and are informed by the desires and capabilities of the people at the table.  What issues do you think I particularly need to address?  

How high a level should creative agenda be described at (to support "Satisfaction)?  GNS strikes me as a bit too high, but I'm not sure where to break it down.

PvP the comic did a wonderful little story arc on this very idea.  Francis (the geek kid) creates an RPG where all the players play themselves playing an RPG.  Skills like Bluff DM and other fun ensues.

1) Wow. I just read the thread in its entirety. I like my Forge just fine, thank you very much!

2) Actually, GNS seems a pretty reasonable place to start, even if you do pitch it out later.
Say each 'player' has a certain level of each they'd need to satisfy- X Amount of Gamist tactics & looting, X Amount of Nar focus on issues important to the PC, X amount of world simulation. Too much of one results in other things (IE Lack of Attention, Disruptive behavior - OOC) while too little of one results in others (IE Pushing 'One Way', Disruptive behavior - IC)

I was mostly thinking that the group would have some way to all effect where the "Bars" for achievement in various arenas would be set.  You get a fixed reward for meeting a certain Bar, which is dependent upon how high the Bar is set.  Exceed it by one or exceed it by a hundred, you still get the same reward.

So people with the skills to (say) heavily Address Theme would want that Bar set very high.  People with less skills would want it set somewhat lower, and would want Bars where their skills are better set higher.

I small point, I admit, but one of the things I thought of when you mentioned this would be a feature of my gaming group:

A sort of one-upmanship in regards to book buying, dice collections, etc. occurs in my group. Bought the new book? Cool for a second, until someone comments on the reasons they didn't buy the book. Huge cube of dice? Cool for a game or two. Bought all the new miniatures? Then you've added to the game and its satisfaction for games to come (admittedly, not all groups are like this).

Also, food preparation or purchasing could come into play.

I hope this helps.

Dice and pizza and miniatures and giving people rides hom.  I think there's a central issue of "Appreciation" somewhere in here.

Effort + Appreciation = Satisfaction

Effort + No Appreciation = Frustration

And that, of course, also expands to things like "Making a killer tactical plan" or "Knowing the stopping power of every handgun ever made, sorted by caliber" or "Improvising a monologue worthy of a Shakespeare play."

The question becomes how to manage Appreciation as a resource such that people have to make meaningful choices about whether or not to Appreciate an action that another player's in-game-proxy puts forth.

Maybe each thing that someone does affects the tally of others.

One player always brings the latest books. 2 of the other 3 players increase their Appreciation by 1 (One player loves to read the new crunch, the other likes to see when others invest in the game they play). The last one, however, is jealous of that player and lowers their Appreciation tally by 1. Reciprocation is given, the original player with the new book gets for his action 1 Appreciation point due to good reciprocation (2 from players 2 and 3, -1 from player 4).

Does that make sense?

Yes, but I think there's more strategic/structural crunch to be added.

Because, in my experience, for example, very few people ever love crunch when they're bad at it.  They love new books and the crunch they bring because they are good at using such material.  So a player who brings in a new book has just increased the tactical options of the rules-skilled players, presumably at the expense of those who are rules-unskilled.

People (in my experience of roleplaying) often contribute extras to the game in areas that will primarily benefit them.  Like someone who is a compulsive immersionist sits down and writes up an immense background to the world, the culture, what types of clothes people wear, etc., etc.  That will help that person to achieve their goals.

Now if nobody else has that same goal... or they have the same goal, but their bar is so much lower that the lexicon of trivia is of no use to them, then they are (quite naturally) not going to appreciate it.  

In game-mechanics terms, if Player A puts something into the game that helps Players A and B achieve their goals, Player B is likely to appreciate it, while Players C and D are likely to not.

Does this (rough as it is) seem like a valuable addition to mapping mechanics onto the interpersonal dynamics of RPG groups?

Quote from: TonyLBSo a player who brings in a new book has just increased the tactical options of the rules-skilled players, presumably at the expense of those who are rules-unskilled.

So, without limiting what kind of input the player's character would have, you could say that they could bring anything to the Bring to the Table Phase, but that the effectiveness of said item is limited by the rank of the appropriate trait (e.g. bringing a new rulebook, say, a rank 3 to a Gamist group, could be fully utilized by Player 1, as he has a rank of 3 in Rules Lawyer, but would be only usable to rank 1 for another player as she only has a 1 in Rules Lawyer).

Quote from: TonyLBPeople (in my experience of roleplaying) often contribute extras to the game in areas that will primarily benefit them.  Like someone who is a compulsive immersionist sits down and writes up an immense background to the world, the culture, what types of clothes people wear, etc., etc.  That will help that person to achieve their goals.

This would also be reflected by what I added above. In the Utilize What's Been Brought to the Table Phase, everyone gets some time with the new rulebook, everyone is again limited by their Rules Lawyer trait - 1, say, since they don't have as much time with the book outside of the game night. When everyone's had their choice of what to play with during the UWBBttT Phase, they can make their choice as to what they'd like to 'use' that evening, and make a roll. Obviously, the player that brought the book would have the best chance of winning that competition, and would probably use his win to either a) cajole the GM to fit/retrofit his/her character with new or better rules or b) fool the group/GM with the 'It's in the new rulebook' explanation/gimmick.

Quote from: TonyLBNow if nobody else has that same goal... or they have the same goal, but their bar is so much lower that the lexicon of trivia is of no use to them, then they are (quite naturally) not going to appreciate it.

Thus, they would use their time during this phase to 'write up a new background for that NPC we just met' with the Research they brought to the table, draw a character sketch with the New Art Supplies, or create an encounter with the New Minis that'll rock their socks off, all of which would be made as a some sort of check or other rule mechanic after this phase.

Pitfalls seem to be that you wouldn't want stagnation due to the same thing brought to the table each time, or a lack of possible things for this phase. If this was one of many many phases then it might be okay to repeat or generalize it.

Quote from: TonyLBIn game-mechanics terms, if Player A puts something into the game that helps Players A and B achieve their goals, Player B is likely to appreciate it, while Players C and D are likely to not.

Maybe, then, their 'creations' are like 'creatures', and those creatures defend one character's Satisfaction (HP?) and likely to attack the other characters' Satisfaction. Maybe then you take a further step back, and actually have strategic combat? Hmm, maybe I should take a step back and re-examine.

Is it too early to start with specifics? I'm afraid that I'm being too general, or that my examples miss your desired gameplay.

The issue of appreciation and satisfaciton makes me think of a situation in a game I played a while ago...

There was this one player who definitely showed appreciation for any non-game things brought to the table (e.g. food) but was just so much dead weight once the game actually started. That was not satisfying.

Basically, and I don't know if this will end up too complicated, it's possible to be dissatisfied because the "wrong" people end up appreciating your contribution. It might be that they use it in a way you disagree with, or you just don't like them.

Quote from: TonyLBThe goal (apart from raw silliness) is to give people some mechanics-structure insight into the way that social structures evolve and are informed by the desires and capabilities of the people at the table.

Quote from: Selene TanBasically, and I don't know if this will end up too complicated, it's possible to be dissatisfied because the "wrong" people end up appreciating your contribution. It might be that they use it in a way you disagree with, or you just don't like them.

We know the game is going to have be complicated, in my opinion, due to the stated goal above. I believe that what you are introducing is a character mapping prerequisite for the system. Whether it will be, uhm, intrinsic (?), in that character types/traits/classes will indicate relationships with other types/traits/classes, or, extrinsic, with the players determining their character's map to the other characters, or maybe, to complicate things more, a combination of both.

TonyLB, were you thinking of devoted game groups only? Would pick up games, convention games, or the like be included as well?

Quote from: Aman the RejectedWe know the game is going to have be complicated, in my opinion, due to the stated goal above.

No we don't.  My Life with Master handles issues of greater complexity, and it's barely even got stats.

QuoteTonyLB, were you thinking of devoted game groups only? Would pick up games, convention games, or the like be included as well?

Just continuing game groups.  Whether or not they're "devoted" will become clear as the characters evolve in the game.

Quote from: TonyLB

Quote from: Aman the RejectedWe know the game is going to have be complicated, in my opinion, due to the stated goal above.

No we don't.  My Life with Master handles issues of greater complexity, and it's barely even got stats.

QuoteTonyLB, were you thinking of devoted game groups only? Would pick up games, convention games, or the like be included as well?

Just continuing game groups.  Whether or not they're "devoted" will become clear as the characters evolve in the game.

That's what I meant, is that the subject matter would be complex.

As to the continuing game group, I understand now that that would be the only way to truly see how these things develop over time. It might be interesting to send the gaming group to a con or other such event and see how they react to other gaming groups. Or maybe these could be handled off screen as an explanation for changes in traits or desires or the acquistion of new knowlege or materials, etc.?

Oh, that would be cool!

Like, Jesse and Brent have been having a great time doing dungeon crawls, while Emily is very frustrated because she never gets to roleplay.  Then they go off to a convention, and get a random grab-bag of styles, and Emily finds out "Hey!  You can do both if you back off on the tactics and make room for some other things."  

That throws the whole player dynamic out of whack, right there.

Okay, I think it's time to start brainstorming abilities of the characters (which is to say the players in the game-within-the-game).  What I'd like is for none of them to have inherently negative connotations.  "Munchkin," for instance, is talking about both a skill (mini-maxing, probably) and an attitude.  The skills we define, the attitudes emerge in play.  I'll end up selecting probably four of the best... but if there are more than four that I absolutely need, then there'll be more than four stats, and if I can get by with three then there'll be three.  I'll start:

Artistry
Socializing
Tactics
Minutia
Patience

Don't forget "Disposable Income," especially if "Bring to the Table" is going to be a central mechanic rather than a cute side item.