An exercise

[Jack Spencer]

I was putting this in my reply to Jared's "Why Your Games Suck" thread, but decided it should be its own thread.

The reason all of your games suck is because you're just rehashing D&D (or GURPS or Hero or whatever game system you like, and they're more similar than anyone would care to admit) and passing it off as something new and original.

Let's get away from the acusatory tone I've gotten here and try something to broaden the horizons a bit.

Most games work like this:

The game has a set up of mathematical mechanics usually using a random factor, typically dice. The players have a character which is broken down into a series of numbers that reflect the character's abilities (how much they can lift, how fast they can run, and the like). In use, the player has their character attempt an action. The mechanics are slanted toward having the characters fail. Therefore, the mechanics are an obsticle to overcome either by an exceptional result on the random factor (i.e. a good die roll) or exceptional ability scores that tilt the chances in the character's favor.

Now, the question put to the panel is why?
Can a RPG not work differently? If so, how?

The above includes numerous suppositions about how a game can/should work. How the players prefer to play. How they want to interact with the game world and so on.

I'll admit I don't have all the answers for this one, which is why I'd like to see some intelligent discussion started here.

"Because that's how games are supposed to work and you're an idiot to think otherwise," is not intelligent discussion.

"I've always liked games that worked this way and can't for the life of me think of a different way of doing things nor think of a reason why anyone would want to," is intelligent discussion.

[Lost Cub]

Our games suck because we've been rehashing games we play and like. These games in turn rehashed older games, and so on, right to the notorious daddy, D&D 1st ed. So, we get experience, a very wargaming concept, in Vampire. Or weapons damage ratings, but without one-minute abstract combat turns to warrant them, in just about anything. Not to mention poor game designers who break their head over how to name X basic attributes in their new game.

The answer lies, not in making changes for the sake of changes or making cosmetic corrections, but in rellying purely on your setting(s), not other games, when designing your own. Don't try to make a space opera game which plays just like D&D, only with psionics instead of wizards, and lasers instead of swords. Think what it feels like to live in your setting, and tell it to us through mechanics, just as a poet might say it through rhymes and metaphors.

I know this is all vague and not very helpful but, hopefully, in bashing me, the rest of you guys will come up with something cool and useful.

Regards,

LC

[Charlequin]

Well. I think the answer to this question is heavily embedded in the industry's history, here.

I mean: RPGs spring from the metaphorical loins of wargaming. So what do we get right off the bat? The mindset "let's simulate unpredictable events in the world through random inputs!" And that mindset has continued on into pretty much every game that's followed.

Now, given that initial assumption, how many ways are there to go? You can either design a game with very "detailed" system, trying to simulate things very accurately, or you can go abstract, glossing over a lot of details for simplification's sake. These are the two key routes taken by most games -- it's quite easy to go through a stack of the games you find at your FLGS and throw 'em in two (or maybe three) piles based on this factor.

"Experience" is similar. The hobby comes from a wargaming background -- so the built-in approach to characters changing over time is slowly and methodically increasing skills by some formula for doing so.

Now, it seems to me that there should be all sorts of ways to vary these two assumptions (or a number of others besides) in RPG design.

Take the first. An RPG could easily be built upon a deterministic mechanic, based on player choice either within a constrained set of choices (possibly derived from previous choices made by that player or other characters) or a limited pool of resources (the "hand of cards" mechanic.) Some experimentation has already been done with non-numerical randomization, though from what I've seen it feels like it still needs some work....

Or the second. No game I know of uses a randomized character-stat altering method. Or even one that bases stat increase and decrease solely on the actions of the character. (In a game heavily into simulation, where all the actions of the character over even downtime might be at least reasonably described by the player and GM, this seems like it could work.) Or one that maintains a certain "balance" for each character, allowing you to improve skills but only at the expense of other character attributes (perhaps even "stress level" or "free time" for characters who are obsessed with self-improvement.)

Similarly, I've seen very little in the way of stylized-structure games -- most RPGs I've seen assume play will proceed in the standard, stream-of-consciousness, never-cut-away-from-the-party way. But a game could certainly be structured to alter this basic tenet of play -- mandating shifts in place, in time, or even just in perspective (possibly with very subtle but important effects), possibly tied to other gameplay mechanics or directly to the setting.

So. I feel pretty confident that there are lots of ways which RPGs could branch out from the standards of today. The question, I suppose, is whether any of them are worthwhile? Given the industry's trends, the majority of RPG players seem to have some subset of three goals: enjoyment through conquering challenges, simulating some manner of adventure fiction, and acting out interpersonal relations.

All three of these are handled quite well by systems in the range we're already well experienced with, and it hardly seems as if a revolution in system is necessary for even odd variants on either. The problem, I think, is that in order to sell someone on an idea that utilizes one of these very divergent RPG setups, you also need to sell them on a "goal" for play that differs from those the field is used to. This seems like the real reason so few leaps like this get made -- there are two barriers standing in the way of acceptance for a game that massively breaks away from the normal RPG paradigm, and in a hobby as small as ours, those two barriers are likely to lead to economic failure.

Not exactly an encouraging thought, I know. But I await someone with more temerity on the issue than I taking it upon themselves to prove me wrong....

[Lost Cub]

A. J. Gibson, in "Why your game sucks" thread, suggested Civilization RPG and SimCity RPG. Not a bad idea at all, actually...

Imagine that you're a god who can walk among people and do-godly-stuff, but your aim is not to beat the living crap out of other gods, but to rise and guide a nation of people.

Imagine that you play many key members of the same clan, throughout the centuries, and your actions, as a player, determine that clan's destiny.

The possibilities are endless.

Regards,

LC

[Jared A. Sorensen]

This is how I do it, YMMV. Strong opinions enclosed, handle with caution.

I think that once a person has started down the path of mechanics, s/he is doomed forever to churn out clunky games.

Case in point (and I should really be putting this in my journal, but what the hell?): my new game Sex & Violence.

First, I have no idea if it's good. But that doesn't concern me right now.

I was reading Frank Miller's "Sin City" and it hit me full on that I wanted to do a crime game, ala Sin City and the stories from one of my favorite writers, Andrew Vachss.

I spent about a day pacing, playing with cards, working on web page design and basically noodling back and forth. It all boils down to the two big questions. WHAT? and HOW? -- everything is secondary.

DEFINE YOUR SANDBOX. DO NOT BUILD A SAND CASTLE.

In other words, don't build a setting. Instead, allow a setting to be created (I like to build it with material gleaned from a source, like a book or song or movie). You tend to see a LOT of generic game systems and fleshed-out settings because both involve info-dumping of information (lots of char. creation rules, combat mechanics and funky dice rolling techniques...or pages and pages of background history, timelines and other stuff. They love maps, these guys). It's tough to do either *well* but any fool can pump out a bad game system or a game world.

The trick is integrating either one into an actual game with a purpose. Usually that purpose ends up falling into the classic D&D model (roam around and level up) or the sprawling, wander around forever and wait for stuff to happen model. I don't really enjoy either one, hence their inferiority. ;)

If I was going to give you all a homework assignment, it would be to build a sandbox for someone to play in.

[Lost Cub]

DEFINE YOUR SANDBOX. DO NOT BUILD A SAND CASTLE.

Jared, you hit the nail on the head with this one.

LC

[A.J.Gibson]

Originally posted by Charlequin
Well. I think the answer to this question is heavily embedded in the industry's history, here.

I mean: RPGs spring from the metaphorical loins of wargaming. So what do we get right off the bat? The mindset "let's simulate unpredictable events in the world through random inputs!" And that mindset has continued on into pretty much every game that's followed.

The whole random thing occurs for two reasons: the first is that if players knew success or fail was certain, it would impact their actions. You could get around this if you could keep all numbers secret from the players, but that'd be a pain. The second is that there a lot of minute details that impact any situation that are a pain to keep track of but have a cumulative impact that prevent the same situation from having the same the result every single time. A random factor simulates all these tiny factors that only simulationists really care about. Besides, since attribute ratings and the like are an abstraction, can you really expect them to be completely accurate anyway?

[A.J.Gibson]

Originally posted by Lost Cub
A. J. Gibson, in "Why your game sucks" thread, suggested Civilization RPG and SimCity RPG. Not a bad idea at all, actually...

Imagine that you're a god who can walk among people and do-godly-stuff, but your aim is not to beat the living crap out of other gods, but to rise and guide a nation of people.

Imagine that you play many key members of the same clan, throughout the centuries, and your actions, as a player, determine that clan's destiny.

The possibilities are endless.

Regards,

LC

I'm working on it. It's kind of tricky, but I'm aiming for something where a player can be an individual controlling a group of people or the group of people as a whole - as long as one person is part of the group, the group exists, even if it's not someone who has been there all the time. It won't be limited to civilizations, but also corporations, armies, religions, criminal syndicates, and gestalt entities. There will also be rules for an individual (i.e., a group of 1) to interact with the group (so now instead of a person having to role-play something like committing a crime, they can make a single roll against society to see if they can get away with it), and for determines the stats of an individual within the group or a sub-group using the stats the whole. It's pretty hard to do, actually, without producing something rules heavy. So far I have like 30 or so stats to describe a society adequately, although I'm certain Mithras can probably do it in 4 :)

[NPC Whymme]

Originally posted by Jack Spencer Jr
Most games work like this:

The game has a set up of mathematical mechanics usually using a random factor, typically dice. The players have a character which is broken down into a series of numbers that reflect the character's abilities (how much they can lift, how fast they can run, and the like). In use, the player has their character attempt an action. The mechanics are slanted toward having the characters fail. Therefore, the mechanics are an obsticle to overcome either by an exceptional result on the random factor (i.e. a good die roll) or exceptional ability scores that tilt the chances in the character's favor.

Now, the question put to the panel is why?
Can a RPG not work differently? If so, how?

I'd like to ask another question. Given that lots and lots of players actually like games that are shaped like in the description above, how can you maintain that they suck? Sure you can make an RPG work differently - look at Hogshead "New Line" games. And compare their sales to those of more standard RPGs.

We could turn the question around; given that so many people like the standard mechanics, is stating something like "This way of playing sucks! Let's make games that break all conventions!" not some kind of mental masturbation - in the way that you are more doing it to prove yourself, rather than cater to what other people actually want?

Mind, I myself am fully participating in this; I create my games in the first place because I like doing so. If others like to play them, that is a nice bonus, but not why I am doing this stuff in the first place. I would not go so far as to say "D&D sucks, because it follows the standard conventions of D&D", though. It is not my game, but I respect the preference of lots of others who do want to play it.

Whymme

[Jack Spencer]

Ok, Whymme. You called me on it and I appologize for the "your game sucks" comment. I was putting this whole thing in the WHy your game sucks thread, as I had said. I guess I got carried away and then I simply cut & pasted to make a new thread.

One of your statements strikes me, though.


We could turn the question around; given that so many people like the standard mechanics, is stating something like "This way of playing sucks! Let's make games that break all conventions!" not some kind of mental masturbation - in the way that you are more doing it to prove yourself, rather than cater to what other people actually want?


OK, twice in this you refer to people. Who are these people? Gamers. Naturally.

And this would be fine if the current population of gamers are the only people who would potentially enjoy gaming, but hypothecize that there are more potential gamers out there some of whom have tried the typical and didn't like it. For these people there needs to be something else.

Often have I seen and heard people say that we need to get new people into the hobby. I believe to significantly broaden the market we need to broaden what an RPG is.

All of this New Line's sales notwithstanding. This sort of thing takes time since no one, including myself knows how to sell these new games to these new people. New Line is sold in game stores. The people I'm after don't go into game stores. There's the problem.

The way it will work, I think, is that there is a population within the current hobby that would be interested in such things. These people will sustain these lines until more of our target audience get their first RPG experience, preferable with one of these games, and then what was a minor interest in a niche market will expand. The rate and level of expansion remains to be seen and it's just as easy to be optimistic as pessimistic. It will happen. It'll just take time.

[14thWarrior]

DEFINE YOUR SANDBOX. DO NOT BUILD A SAND CASTLE.

This is an intriguing statement.

In other words, don't build a setting. Instead, allow a setting to be created (I like to build it with material gleaned from a source, like a book or song or movie). You tend to see a LOT of generic game systems and fleshed-out settings because both involve info-dumping of information...

It's tough to do either *well* but any fool can pump out a bad game system or a game world.

I think I'm starting to understand your point of view Jared.

What you're saying is create a concept of action, purpose, and/or conflict to drive the game. Setting is secondary to that, and system tertiary to setting.

Am I close?

[Forum Administrator]

Originally posted by Jack Spencer Jr

OK, twice in this you refer to people. Who are these people? Gamers. Naturally.

And this would be fine if the current population of gamers are the only people who would potentially enjoy gaming, but hypothecize that there are more potential gamers out there some of whom have tried the typical and didn't like it. For these people there needs to be something else.

And here we come to the part of the program where Kuma's interest gets piqued. I've been doing some extensive research into this whole new-gamers-into-the-hobby bit, and doing a fair bit of philosophizing about it, and here's what I have to say (so far):

Getting new players into gaming will require dice.

I guaran-f*cking-tee it.

Look at what playing an RPG means - sitting around a table with other people imagining that you are someone else with a bunch of someone else's, who aren't the people you're sitting around the table with. Righto.

The trick of this is not to make some new RPG with gee-whiz-bang effects and new meta-playing standards. Getting people into RPGs has to start with the 'G', not the 'RP'.

And ask a hundred people to name a game off the top of their head (and exclude sports), and what do you get? Candyland. Monopoly. Trivial Pursuit. And a lot of Playstation titles. The common denominator? People associate 'game' with 'board game', not 'interactive storytelling'. The trick is getting people into a board game, that they'll play as a one-off, and then sucker them, however nicely, into roleplaying.

We're getting closer with Civilization: The RPG, and SimCity: The RPG, but we're not there yet. Why? Civ and SimCity are f-ing complicated games. They require multiple criteria to be met for each game decision; even laying $100 worth of water main can cause problems, and no one seems to have laid down the groundwork for handling what the AI in SimCity does for you. Someone's got to think of all that.

So go back further. Monopoly? That's closer to the mark. Most of the Monopoly variants out there deal with metagame issues, but it's not that big a step to go from there to making a variant of Monopoly that works more on diplomacy and wheeling-n-dealing rather than having someone land on your Boardwalk with 2 hotels.

And that's a step towards roleplaying. It's not D&D, it's not even Risus, but it's a bit closer to strategy and roleplaying rather than board gaming.

With all of this talk of creating new and exciting RPG products, you're moving the finish line AWAY from the new blood, not towards it. You're taking the stance that D&D, being the standard, is *more* rarified from average experience than say Jared Sorensen's Idoru, as an example. Folks, you have to get people comfortable with role-playing before you have them riffing on some avante-garde game. You have to make them take the imaginary step *into* the game first - then you can wow them with the Magic Kingdom.

[Mock]

Originally posted by 14thWarrior


...a concept of action, purpose, and/or conflict to drive the game...



A very insightful comment! For a game to be compelling, the characters must have a compelling role in the setting you establish. Nothing else matters if you can't bring yourself to care about the characters' problems.

[14thWarrior]

I believe we've struck upon a couple of good points concerning the perceived stagnation of the RPG Hobby.

The first is paradigm. Ever since the inception of RPGs, the hobby has carried a certain paradigm (namely the abstraction, usually mathematically, of character abilities and traits). The hobby has carried and nurtured this paradigm for so long that it has grown a kind of tunnel vision that has made it difficult to shift the paradigm. To analogize, you could envision it as a big steel roller-coaster; the RPG paradigm is the train on the coaster tracks, often taking interesting and exciting twists and turns but never leaving its track.

The second is attracting new gamers. The unshifting RPG paradigm could very well be a major cause of the hobby's trouble in attracting new members. Like a kid who's a bit scared of the big roller-coaster; potential gamers are turned away by perceived stigmas created by the current RPG paradigm.

Obviously the solution is to effect a shift in the RPG paradigm, to both allow us to break free of the current rut the hobby seems to be in, and to make selling RPGs as a hobby to non-gamers easier.

But how do we do this?

Step 1: Question the current paradigm and identify goals the current paradigm is not achieving. We're doing this by participating in this very thread. Cool.

Step 2: Identify the current paradigm, and its intricacies.

Step 3: Identify potential shifts in the paradigm that might facilitate achieving the desired goals.

Step 4: Cultivate the shift in paradigm by garnering awareness of the new paradigm, and its value.

Who's up to the challenge of forcing a paradigm shift? ;)

[Jack Spencer]

Originally posted by 14thWarrior


I think I'm starting to understand your point of view Jared.

What you're saying is create a concept of action, purpose, and/or conflict to drive the game. Setting is secondary to that, and system tertiary to setting.

Am I close?

Actually, I think he's putting system and setting in the same boat as both are easy stuff to churn out (and are often churned out badly).

WHat he's suggesting, rather strongly, is that you need to come up with a concept, or premise for the game which is the reason someone would play it. The system, or rules, will be tailored to support this and the setting, as it would be necessary, will be created during play.

The rules are forever tinkered with by GMs so they are not important, but the rules you make should support the premise you have chosen. A Soap Opera premise using, say d20 is not a good idea since the meat of what a soap opera is under d20 would fall under the "just role-play it" heading. That is, it gives you rules for all kinds of stuff, but not the stuff that's important for the premise you present. (It is possible to make rules that do support this premise under d20, but that would constitue making a more-or-less new system anyway and were getting away from the point)

Setting, on the other hand, is so much fluff. Some people use setting material. SOme people use it only as inspiration as necessary. Others simply make their own setting. Therefore, writting up a complete setting is essentially a waste of time for the game designer and bulks up the book by 200 pp. and creates a line of splatbooks to sell.

Actually, there are many levels to this and other things. When I was writing a column on Gaming Outpost, I was tinkering with and idea for a space adventure game. Some setting material is necessary to make your (my) space game unique. I'm not sure what my plan was then, but if I ever pick up that idea again I would probably keep the setting as vague as possible. Mapping out Known Space doesn't appeal to me. Especially since it's be a three-dimensional map on a two-dimensional piece of paper.

But I did have chalk outlines for various races and political bodies that the players would have to deal with. The rest would have to be filled in by the players themselves (or the GM, anyway).

If my space adventure idea lacked anything it was a premise. A reason to play. WHich means it would probably rely fairly heavily on the appeal of the setting or rules since what the game was about was just: You're in space. Do what you want.

A premise is an imporant item in game design, but that's not the purpose of this thread, said he wandering off-topic for a couple hundred words. The purpose is to think outside of the box on the system end of things so that when you do come up with a good premise you don't just tack d20 onto it (unless that's what it needs, of course)

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Originally posted by 14thWarrior


I think I'm starting to understand your point of view Jared.

What you're saying is create a concept of action, purpose, and/or conflict to drive the game. Setting is secondary to that, and system tertiary to setting.

Am I close?

"Look at the big brain on Leo! Correctomundo!"

I don't know if it's "right" -- but that sums up my whole approach to game design.

Which is tragically flawed, it seems, as people keep telling me my games are on the fringe and don't have the appeal of, say, a game that's been around for 25+ years. ;) Heh.

But yeah.

There seems to be two definitions of "setting" being used. I don't know which one is right, but here they are:

The first is the classic "World of ______" where you have a fleshed-out city/planet/whatever with NPCs and a timeline and maps and such.

The second is more of the sandbox model that gives you a basic framework. The Old West, a dystopian, futuristic city ("cyberpunk"), gothic horror, etc.

I think the second type of setting is much, much easier to do and do well than the first. I also think that the second approach will assist greatly in the creation of interesting premises, conflicts and even game systems. Because you have a focal point that can be used to drive the entire game.

Which is why it's so darn weird for me to see people playing a licensed game like STAR WARS and using it just as a type #1 setting. Droids, aliens, planets, history...but played out just like a game of Shadowrun or D&D or whatever. Star Wars as a type #2 setting is fantastic space opera/western pulp cliffhanger madness...the characters should be saving the universe from terrible threats, etc. (this is one of the reasons I don't like licensed settings).

So there you go.

[14thWarrior]

Jack, you've confirmed my idea that the premise is the most iimportant part of RPG design, according to the current RPG paradigm. That's cool.

However, getting back on topic of this thread, you stated:The purpose is to think outside of the box on the system end of things You've now confirmed that the RPG paradigm is what we are attacking in this thread, because 'thinking outside the box' is essentially developing a new paradigm.

I wonder if the system end of the RPG hobby is the only element of the paradigm that will be (or need to be) affected to truly effect a positive change.

[Jack Spencer]

Originally posted by 14thWarrior
Step 1: Question the current paradigm and identify goals the current paradigm is not achieving. We're doing this by participating in this very thread. Cool.

Step 2: Identify the current paradigm, and its intricacies.

Step 3: Identify potential shifts in the paradigm that might facilitate achieving the desired goals.

Step 4: Cultivate the shift in paradigm by garnering awareness of the new paradigm, and its value.

Bravo. The thread is back on track, in spite of my best efforts. ;)

The No Stats, No Dice, Just Background thread is a good Step 3 discussion, although it seems to have gotten away from what I'd want, but that's my tough beans.

Let's see if I can't question some paradigms.

Most RPGs have one player called a GM or something similar. Is this player absolutely necessary? Can a game be played without a single player running the show like this?

Boiled down, most mechanics use a pass/fail result. As in "I try to jump the gorge." *clatter of dice* Then "You made it!" or "You fell into the gorge!" What is another way to have mechanics work? (this one can get rather heady)

Is a random factorneeded in a RPG?

Do the player characters have to stay together in a group? How close to they have to be? Can they be in different towns, planets, dimensions?

Several of these have been answered by games on the market and a decnt proportion of the people here have probably played/read them. (more than I, I suspect) But this doesn't mean these aren't still good questions to be asked.

[Jack Spencer]

Originally posted by 14thWarrior
I wonder if the system end of the RPG hobby is the only element of the paradigm that will be (or need to be) affected to truly effect a positive change.

I sure that other paradigms will need to be questioned eventually, but that's a topic for another thread (hint, hint)

[Palaskar]

Originally posted by Jack Spencer Jr


Most games work like this:

The game has a set up of mathematical mechanics usually using a random factor, typically dice. The players have a character which is broken down into a series of numbers that reflect the character's abilities (how much they can lift, how fast they can run, and the like). In use, the player has their character attempt an action. The mechanics are slanted toward having the characters fail. Therefore, the mechanics are an obsticle to overcome either by an exceptional result on the random factor (i.e. a good die roll) or exceptional ability scores that tilt the chances in the character's favor.



I whipped together a game that breaks most of these rules. Strangely, it still bears a resemblance to some RPGs, like S, The Pool, and Amber diceless.

The game can be found at Novel rpg (http://meant2be.150m.com/44/novel/novel_rpg1.html)

There's still a bit of polishing to be done, like how many Story Points, Energy Pool, and the Traits the character gets, but the essence is there.

[Forum Administrator]

Originally posted by Jared A. Sorensen

There seems to be two definitions of "setting" being used. I don't know which one is right, but here they are:

The first is the classic "World of ______" where you have a fleshed-out city/planet/whatever with NPCs and a timeline and maps and such.

The second is more of the sandbox model that gives you a basic framework. The Old West, a dystopian, futuristic city ("cyberpunk"), gothic horror, etc.

I think the second type of setting is much, much easier to do and do well than the first. I also think that the second approach will assist greatly in the creation of interesting premises, conflicts and even game systems. Because you have a focal point that can be used to drive the entire game.

Easier =/= Better

The basic tenet of this approach is that Settings are Crap, which I don't agree with, although I too am gaining a stronger foothold on Jared's idea of a good time. Here are my basic problems with this take on game design:


There's nowhere to draw the line.
It takes 90% of the artistic endeavour of an RPG away.


Now, let me clarify my position. It's not that I don't like raw concepts for games - I created the Idea Mix-O-Tronic, after all, which is 110% about creating new and different concepts for games. I agree wholeheartedly that there should be a shake-up of the Power Fantasy foundation of most RPGs. However...

I would not go so far as to say I can take a concept, tack on 10 pages of concept-specific rules, and justify myself by saying I have created a whole game. One of the big fall-downs of the column "52 Pick-Up" was that it claimed to give you an entire game each and every week. It didn't. It gave you a concept and the root rules, but by no means did it always deliver a complete *game*. Advertising it as such meant a lot of flak and not much in the way of real creative drive (except for Goramunda, or whatever that Land of the Lost/gargantuan hybrid was) was created by the column.

I also don't mean to say that Jared's method isn't valid - it is. The problem is, if you're going to publish something with your name on it, it had better be longer than an HTML document.

Why? Because when you turn the game over and read 'batteries not included, make your own setting, sucka!', you're losing a significant percentage of your audience.

Why? Because despite what I would hope to the contrary, the vast majority of RPG players and DMs do not see themselves as the next Gary Gygax. They aren't going to commit the hours and hours of raw work necessary to create a finished setting, along with metaplots, plots and all the neccessary accoutrements out of your lofty concept.

Why? Basically, because they wind up with their own lofty concepts.

I look at all of the free RPGs out there that are 1 page of HTML and think 'yeah, ok'. I look at something like Wraith, which had a decent metaplot and some good atmospherics, and I think 'damn, I have a long way to go'. Setting, for me, is the reason that I'm writing the damn game to begin with. It's fine to come up with some dynamite concept and some rules, but setting is where it's at, man! Making unique characters, based on the character creation of my own making, is a real kick. Creating the locations, for me, is one of the biggest parts. Creating power struggles and agencies of power. Creating new societies and cultures.

Now what this means is that I am Mr. A-1 as far as Jared is concerned - a game player who will take his cool idea and packet of rules and run to the moon with it. Guess what - I, and the rest of the good folks here on RPG.net game design forum, are in the minority, even among the goers of RPG.net! Look at the number of views vs. the main forum - no contest. That means that the concept + rules game formula will spark a small fraction of a small fraction of an audience.

Which is why it's so darn weird for me to see people playing a licensed game like STAR WARS and using it just as a type #1 setting. Droids, aliens, planets, history...but played out just like a game of Shadowrun or D&D or whatever. Star Wars as a type #2 setting is fantastic space opera/western pulp cliffhanger madness...the characters should be saving the universe from terrible threats, etc. (this is one of the reasons I don't like licensed settings).

Star Wars is the absolute *worst* example of moving from a Type 1 setting to a Type 2 setting. People play Star Wars so they can be part of the Star Wars mythos. While I admit that it is possible to find new and exciting ways to use the Star Wars mythos, that's not what you're buying the Star Wars game for. If they *didn't* adapt all of the movies into gaming material, I would be *pissed*.

Taking Star Wars and doing funky things to it is not thinking out of the box. Star Wars the RPG *IS* the box. If you start thinking about a game in those terms, you're already halfway gone.

Similarly, according to this philosophy, the game, or the setting, really, that I'll call Alt Wars for the time being, would never see the light of day. Why? Because it's a setting, and setting is bad. So which is it going to be, create a meta-setting, alienate those who want the movie-related material, and then actively discourage the creation of alternate settings to the movie; or the game as-is, and let those with the motivation take Star Wars to the next level as they so choose, without the necessity of re-inventing the wheel on things like TIE Fighter stats?

*shrug*

[Mock]

Originally posted by Jared A. Sorensen


"Which is why it's so darn weird for me to see people playing a licensed game like STAR WARS and using it just as a type #1 setting. Droids, aliens, planets, history...but played out just like a game of Shadowrun or D&D or whatever. Star Wars as a type #2 setting is fantastic space opera/western pulp cliffhanger madness...the characters should be saving the universe from terrible threats, etc. (this is one of the reasons I don't like licensed settings).



Damn--that is exactly why I end up junking lots of game concepts: the type I setting might be fun to develop, but when, at the end, all I have is Shadowrun with droids, I figure why make the effort? Shadowrun already does it, and does it better, than my system will do--why recreate the wheel.

But how does one generate a type 2 setting that is sufficiently evolved to start having a gravitational effect on other good ideas? While I like the sandbox paradigm, personally, I don't think that "dystopian future" has the necessary critical mass to make something from. It requires something more, although I'm not sure what that is, or where you cross the boundary between type 2 and type 1.

How do you provide enough but not too much?

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Originally posted by Mock

But how does one generate a type 2 setting that is sufficiently evolved to start having a gravitational effect on other good ideas? While I like the sandbox paradigm, personally, I don't think that "dystopian future" has the necessary critical mass to make something from. It requires something more, although I'm not sure what that is, or where you cross the boundary between type 2 and type 1.

How do you provide enough but not too much?


That's a tough one.

I can only show you how I would do it, so that's what I'll do. :)

Take "dystopian future" as an example. Classic Blade Runner-ish, cyberpunky stuff. Style-wise we could go toward a noir feel (like Blade Runner) or anime (Akira) or Orwellian (Brazil)...but despite stylistic differences, the setting seems to always feature large, oppressive governments (or corporations, which act as governments, I suppose), urban sprawls and beat-down characters that are on the fringe of society.

The conflict that immediately jumps into my mind is between the group and the individual. Joe PC wants to do what he's doing (stealing stuff, skateboarding, broadcasting pirate radio, whatever) and The Man stomps his boot down and says NO. YOU ARE NOT FREE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT, ONLY WHAT *I* WANT.

From there you build your system, using this premise as a kind of North Star to navigate by. You could add cybertech, psionics, whatever...but it boils down to a simple and dramatic conflict that immediately hooks the PC. I'd also include instructions on how to establish a group of PCs as a "web" of relationships based upon their mutual status of outsiders...that way, if it happens to one character, the rest get involved because they NEED to, rather than just being (what Ron Edwards calls) the "many-legged beast."

Make sense?

[Forum Administrator]

Pump Up the Volume meets 1984. Woo hoo!

[Andrew Martin]

Palaskar wrote:
> The game can be found at Novel rpg (http://meant2be.150m.com/44/novel/novel_rpg1.html)

> There's still a bit of polishing to be done, like how many Story Points, Energy Pool, and the Traits the character gets, but the essence is there.

I think Story Points and Energy Pool need to be removed. They seem to have no correspondence to the game setting or character attributes. Also, why have a set number for Traits? Does this have relevance to the setting?

[MetaDude]

There is indeed a paradigm for using random means to determine the consequence of action. I'm not certain that this paradigm can be dismissed, however.

We only use random methods to determine the outcome of uncertain events. Most games have a "don't bother rolling" clause for absurdly easy or difficult tasks.

To determine the outcome of an action, we must examine all the variables involved - or we can lump them together. We can't examine ALL the variables involved in a combat manuever, so we turn to the latter option.

The effect of the variables is treated statistically, leaving us with a degree of confidence in success or failure. Certain variables that stick out may modify the confidence.

The problem is that you can analyze the hell of the odds, but you're still left with nothing but the chances of success. At some point, someone is going to have to decide whether the act succeeds or not.

We use random numbers as an impartial judge to make those decisions. However much we may try, most humans cannot reliably generate random numbers. In addition, human decisions on any action with a confidence near 50 will be debated by other humans.

Amber uses secrecy to provide uncertainty to the players, but it's not capable of dealing with real uncertainty. The success of actions in Amber are all predetermined.

The only other idea I can see is a voting system. Everyone would cast their vote, and the results would be tallied. The question is how to get everyone to strive for impartiality...

[NPC Whymme]

Originally posted by Jack Spencer Jr
Ok, Whymme. You called me on it and I appologize for the "your game sucks" comment. I was putting this whole thing in the WHy your game sucks thread, as I had said. I guess I got carried away and then I simply cut & pasted to make a new thread.

Don't apologise. I was not insulted or anything; I just wanted to show the other side of the coin.

OK, twice in this you refer to people. Who are these people? Gamers. Naturally.

And this would be fine if the current population of gamers are the only people who would potentially enjoy gaming, but hypothecize that there are more potential gamers out there some of whom have tried the typical and didn't like it. For these people there needs to be something else.

Often have I seen and heard people say that we need to get new people into the hobby. I believe to significantly broaden the market we need to broaden what an RPG is.

All of this New Line's sales notwithstanding. This sort of thing takes time since no one, including myself knows how to sell these new games to these new people. New Line is sold in game stores. The people I'm after don't go into game stores. There's the problem.

The way it will work, I think, is that there is a population within the current hobby that would be interested in such things. These people will sustain these lines until more of our target audience get their first RPG experience, preferable with one of these games, and then what was a minor interest in a niche market will expand. The rate and level of expansion remains to be seen and it's just as easy to be optimistic as pessimistic. It will happen. It'll just take time.

Well, there *are* new people in gaming already. People who don't play in wargame derivatives. The only reason why we roleplayers don't see them is that we say: "Oh, those people don't play wargame derivatives, so they are not part of our hobby." Check yahoo.groups if you want to, and search for 'cats' or 'friends'. You find lots and lots of groups devoted to the idea that everybody plays a character in the setting of that Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. or that emmy winning comedy series, and relates their character's actions in long posts to others, sees how others react, and reacts herself to it again.

This shared storytelling, sometimes moderated and sometimes not, has always existed, but took a high flight with the advance of the Web. It is something that lies close to our hobby, yet people are not working at building a bridge between the two. Maybe 'De Profundis' comes close, but I predict that it won't get much attention from our side (the RPGers) and none at all from the other side, since it is an RPG product sold in RPG stores. And besides, it is a horror game, something Cthulhu-like. People who play 'cats' or 'friends' are not into that.

That other side is not organised in the way that we are. If you like to roleplay, you will play several games during the time of your fanhood. You go to conventions, go to your FLGS, or hit the web and find that there is more than one RPG. The other side starts playing their game because they were impressed with 'cats' or are a big fan of 'friends', and they want to get a more intense feel of that world. They won't hop easily from a 'friends' game to a 'cats' game; they are 'friends' fans, after all, not 'cats' fans.

The two hobbies are related. But I have a feeling that the setting-hopping that is common at the 'derived wargame' side is not very popular at the other side. And that will make it difficult to get people from there into our games.

"You like 'Friends'. You like it so much that you even roleplay it. How about a game of 'Call of Cthulhu?"

I don't think that that would work. However, just creating a general sense of awareness that that is another form of roleplaying, that the two hobbies are similar (creating this sense of awareness in both groups) can have beneficial long-term consequences.

Whymme

[Palaskar]

Originally posted by Andrew Martin

I think Story Points and Energy Pool need to be removed. They seem to have no correspondence to the game setting or character attributes. Also, why have a set number for Traits? Does this have relevance to the setting? [/B]

I picked a set number of traits 'out of a hat' to satisfy the Beast of RPGs, game-balance. I didn't want people just taking a zillion Traits. I guess I could just make a note to that effect, that characters should have a 'reasonable' amount of Traits, agreed to by the group.

Removing Story Points and Energy Pool sounds good, but how would the resolution and storytelling mechanics work then? I don't mean to be rude, but Story Points, taken directly from There and Back, are the core of the Narrative rules. You know, the ones which allow a player to GM one scene and such?

Similarly, the Energy Pool rules, adapted from The Pool, are the essence of the task resolution mechanics. You bet energy from the pool on a task; you get one point for free, unless it involves you trait, in which case you get two. Unopposed actions and opposed actions which have the higher energy bet on them succeed.

As for the setting, well, um, this being an excercise and all, I didn't create one for the system ::ducks and covers::.

I suppose I could use my "Fifth Hour" setting. I've been working on this setting of a flat, disk-shaped world with a gigantic obelisk at its center.

The sun, mounted on a dome which is the sky, is always overhead, never setting, but orbiting at a fixed angle to the obelisk, creating a magical shadow which restores to perfect health all living things it passes over, and makes all non-living things not lit by light (usually fire) vanish.

All characters have access to shadow magic, which allows them to shape items out of their personal shadow, with the magical power being determined by the angle of the sun. Long shadows are weak, noon is the strongest, concentrating magical power.

The day is devided into two ten-hour halves, the eponymous 5th hour being noon on the first half and ante-noon (need a better name) on the second.

The real niftyness is that I go the extra distance to break fantasy cliche's. For example, humans (or as called in the game, Yu-men) are feared by most of the world as demon warriors. Vampires are sun-worshipping, blood-sacrificing, martial artists. Mummies are beautiful, wax-preserved bodies of esteemed elders with feathered wings. Elves are rude, somewhat clueless, spicy-smelling, but beautiful, with an earthy charm, and the most powerful shadow magic of the races. Skeletons are the apparently-dead rulers of the most powerful empire in the game. Giants are made of stone, with a forehead gem inscribed with a character bearing their magical name. Tree-giants (need a better, non-copyrighted name) are slow but mobile intelligent groups of trees separated by distance, with the power to transport others from one of their trees to another tree by teleportation. Dwarves are a dying race kept alive by tattoos and machinery of orichalcum, the only unliving substance that the Shadow of the obelisk will not destroy.

Further cliche'-breaking is that in the game, a sterotypical rule of thumb is "dark is good, light is bad." Light is associated with the unreleting sun Helios and his bloodthirsty vampire minions. Dark is associated with restful shade and the Dark Lady, Nyx, the Night, who long ago lost control of the world to Helios. Also, most races are "of color", that is to say, non-white and non-european mythos.

[Andrew Martin]

Palaskar wrote:
> I picked a set number of traits 'out of a hat' to satisfy the Beast of RPGs, game-balance. I didn't want people just taking a zillion Traits.

I think "game-balance" is a myth. It comes from wargames and board games. Game balance isn't present in books, movies, television, comics, and so on. It's simpler to just say to the player of a proposed character, sorry, this character is unsuitable because comic book superheroes don't fit the setting of Fifth Hour. And if you don't do it as the GM, your players will do it.

> Removing Story Points and Energy Pool sounds good, but how would the resolution and storytelling mechanics work then? I don't mean to be rude, but Story Points, taken directly from There and Back, are the core of the Narrative rules. You know, the ones which allow a player to GM one scene and such?

While these kind of concepts are central to these games, I don't think they're necessary. Why not have a look at http://www.agon.com/ergo/home.html and click on the link to "Starting to Collaborate" and "draft one"? They show how players can work together.

> Similarly, the Energy Pool rules, adapted from The Pool, are the essence of the task resolution mechanics. You bet energy from the pool on a task; you get one point for free, unless it involves you trait, in which case you get two. Unopposed actions and opposed actions which have the higher energy bet on them succeed.

I think it would be easier to compare appropriate descriptors, which can come from written character description, and spoken character action. This seems to be a more richer, and better character interaction.

> I suppose I could use my "Fifth Hour" setting. I've been working on this setting of a flat, disk-shaped world with a gigantic obelisk at its center.

The Fifth Hour setting seems interesting so far. I like what I see so far. Note how you've used descriptors to describe the races/creatures relative to your own standard and to describe the magic system. :)

[Jack Spencer]

Originally posted by MetaDude
We only use random methods to determine the outcome of uncertain events. Most games have a "don't bother rolling" clause for absurdly easy or difficult tasks.

To determine the outcome of an action, we must examine all the variables involved - or we can lump them together. We can't examine ALL the variables involved in a combat manuever, so we turn to the latter option.

...

We use random numbers as an impartial judge to make those decisions. However much we may try, most humans cannot reliably generate random numbers. In addition, human decisions on any action with a confidence near 50 will be debated by other humans.


Well, the exercise of this thread is to try to think differently about posible RPG mechanics, so based on your post, let me challenge you with this:

The types of actions you're describing here actually follows the model I started this thread with. Player/PC attempts action with the desire to succeed.

Now, suppose for a moment that you the player may wish your character to fail. It is possible if you're attempting to make an engaging story out of the campaign.

In fact, maybe even thinking along the lines of pass/fail is counter productive in this instance. There is a phenomenom out there called Fortune in the Middle which I don't understand very well.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is what you're demonstrating here is the asumption that the player wishes the character to succeed at any action attempted and the assumption that the flow of a game must be broken down into a series of attempted actions and a resolution.

ANd while there's nothing wrong with this, can there be another way?

[James Wallis]

Coming in late here:

Whymme wrote:
>>I'd like to ask another question. Given that lots and lots of players actually like games that are shaped like in the description above, how can you maintain that they suck? Sure you can make an RPG work differently - look at Hogshead "New Line" games. And compare their sales to those of more standard RPGs.<<

1. New Line is a film company. The game line is called "New Style".

2. Baron Munchausen, the first New Style game, is coming up for its third printing, is out in four foreign-language editions and has signed contracts for two others. How's your homebrew system doing, sport?

[Mock]

The conflict that immediately jumps into my mind is between the group and the individual. Joe PC wants to do what he's doing (stealing stuff, skateboarding, broadcasting pirate radio, whatever) and The Man stomps his boot down and says NO. YOU ARE NOT FREE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT, ONLY WHAT *I* WANT.

Make sense?

Perfectly. I figured it would be along those lines, using the classic literary conflicts (man vs. nature, man vs. man, etc.).

[Mock]

Originally posted by Jared:

The conflict that immediately jumps into my mind is between the group and the individual. Joe PC wants to do what he's doing (stealing stuff, skateboarding, broadcasting pirate radio, whatever) and The Man stomps his boot down and says NO. YOU ARE NOT FREE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT, ONLY WHAT *I* WANT.

Make sense?

Perfectly. I figured it would be along those lines, using the classic literary conflicts (man vs. nature, man vs. man, etc.).

EDIT: Apologies for the double post. Having some problems with the forums today...

[Jack Spencer]

Originally posted by James Wallis

Baron Munchausen, the first New Style game, is coming up for its third printing, is out in four foreign-language editions and has signed contracts for two others. How's your homebrew system doing, sport?

I guess this proves the point that there is indeed room for the different and it can be a success. Or, at least, it can have three printings and be published in four languages.

Stylin'. The Wheel is meant to be played in Chinese anyway. Pity I don't speak Chinese so I can write it the way it's meant to be ;)

[Mesa Virga]

Originally posted by James Wallis
Coming in late here:

Whymme wrote:
2. Baron Munchausen, the first New Style game, is coming up for its third printing, is out in four foreign-language editions and has signed contracts for two others. How's your homebrew system doing, sport?

I don't think Whymme was comparing New Style to his homebrew system, nor was he attempting to insult your products.

His point, I believe, was that the New Style games have thus far sold considerably less (per unit time) than the wargame derived "mainstream" such as D&D, D20 stuff or whatever. It can be inferred from this that the traditional type games are currently the most popular with the gaming public.

Matt.

[NPC Not Logged in at work]

Originally posted by James Wallis
Coming in late here:

Whymme wrote:
>>I'd like to ask another question. Given that lots and lots of players actually like games that are shaped like in the description above, how can you maintain that they suck? Sure you can make an RPG work differently - look at Hogshead "New Line" games. And compare their sales to those of more standard RPGs.<<

1. New Line is a film company. The game line is called "New Style".

2. Baron Munchausen, the first New Style game, is coming up for its third printing, is out in four foreign-language editions and has signed contracts for two others. How's your homebrew system doing, sport?

Definsive much? I think you took this the wrong way. Whymme was pointing out that radically different "innovative" mechanic based games don't sell anywhere near as well as, well, D&D. The fact the Baron Munchausen is in it's third printing and the D&D Player's Handbook is in it's second isn't very useful.

If you're still reading this thread James why not tell us why you publish games that push the boundries. Love of the art? A belief that they can be big? Pragmatically you have found an artsy niche in the rpg hobby and are happy to make money there.

[nadragul]

Warning: The Following is written with tongue-n-cheek.
So there are these different threads lately about how to make your system, or not to "name" your system, or to "define your sandbox," besides being annoying titles, they all seem to have a single resounding issue that (at least to me) does not appear to have even been fully addressed.
Yes you have one poster saying "take a look at X game and compared their sales," another getting PO'd because of it and still another that has an air of not elitism but just down right arrogance, inconsideration and rudeness.
The issue appears, at least to me, to be thus: (and I am by no means an expert nor do I claim that I have the best ideas)
1) The community is looking for new concepts
2) The community is screaming for new settings
3) The community is dying because of lack of new hobbiests (sp)
4) There are more "wanna be" designers out there with attitude than there should be.

Like my long dead pappy used to say: "To many chefs kill the stew." (or something along those lines) I would have to say the samething here.

Mr. Sorenson (whom I am not familiar with nor am I familiar with his games) states that we should not name our systems, should not create setting but allow settings to be created. Most of us disagree with this statement, but from what I have read Mr. Sorenson doesn't care nor is bothered by this, even though it alienates about 70% of the RPG population.

There are others that claim "generic settings" "suck." There are those that state use my system it works (System X comes to mind as well as does Andrew Martian's "S") but these are generic as well (Even though the authors of these systems have stated that they do not like generic systems).

All of this leads me to ask: What is wrong with a Single Unified Mechanic that can be used in any number of settings? If a company creates a single Mechanic (like the d20) and then goes on to use it with a number of settings what is wrong with that?

Is it lazy? No. It is forward thinking, creating a single mechainc that is easy to learn and that can be used in multiple settings or to allow Players to take a character from one setting to another without needing to re-write a character's stats is exciting or it at least should be.
This would allow the company to create a single set of skills for one game, then use them in another setting and allow them to remove unnecessary skills and add new ones for that setting. So when Joe Blow the Player is in one Setting (Super Heroes) and goes to play a Fantasy Setting with the same rules he needs to only famaliarize himself with what skills are in the new game, rather than having to learn a whole new mechanic of rolling this adding that, subtracting this to get that, etc.

Does this mean that the setting is a joke, a piece of crap or anything else. That depends on the setting not the mechanic. This leads to another issue that I am not sure many Designers are doing (perhaps they are, but I am not aware of it), divorcing mechanic from setting.

Now I am assuming that we all do this. The mechanic of course being the engine, and setting being the shell. If you have a single mechanic that works, why not adapt different settings with unique flavors in each that are heightened by the mechanic.

I have heard many "designers" state that each setting must have its own mechanic. I do not understand this. If you create a single mechanic that is used in all of the companies created settings, is this not a more equitable solution? You create a single mechanic that works in all the settings.

Now comes the question of GURPS. This is what GURPS attempts to do. However, their rules (which are very bulky and feel like dead weight) force a single mechanic in every situation. Well isnt that what I am saying. Yes and No. I am saying estabilish a single mechanic that is used in all your different settings to determine the random factor, combat, spell casting psionics, skill success or failure determination, etc., but with each setting modify the shell of each setting to reflect the setting working with the mechanic. GURPS enforces you have all these same skills in every genre, I am stating that you have a Mechanic with a few skills that are "generic" enough to be used through out the different settings: such as Attack Skill, Defense Skill, Hide Skill, Ambush Skill, etc. Then add new skills and remove unnecessary skills: For example - In a fantasy setting you may have Alchemy...take this out and Replace it with Chemistry for use in a Superpowers Game....You do not have Computers in Fantasy but do in your Space Opera Setting, add in a Skill: Computer OPs.

In each setting, however, you must roll low (or high but never both). Joe Blow is in a Fantasy Setting and has a PC named Nace Dra who wants to attack the big bad wolf. To do so he has to roll equal to or less than his attack skill (or whatever), if he succeeds then the big bad wolf gets a defense check that allows him to "dodge" the blow, so the BBW must roll beneath his Defense Skill (or whatever). If the BBW succeeds, then Joe Blow misses otherwise WHAM the BBW is hit.

Now change this to Space Opera and instead of using a Sword he is using Phaser. Guess what. Different setting, same mechanic, new fun, no hassles.

I suppose that I am rambling. But I just dont get why a few designers out there yell and scream about what the rest of the room looks like, but doesn't even go there themselves.

I suppose I am done, Flame on gents :D

Nadragul

[Mock]

originally posted by nadragul

why not adapt different settings with unique flavors in each that are heightened by the mechanic

Make damn sure the setting is heightened by the mechanic. An unwieldy mechanic can really hamper a cinematic game, and a simple mechanic will seem too kindergarten for a grim 'n gritty (to borrow a phrase) game.

I'll tell you what: you invent the Grand Unified Mechanic, and let us know when you're done. ;)

[Andrew Martin]

nadragul wrote:
> There are more "wanna be" designers out there with attitude than there should be.

I'm all in favour of new designers designing RPG systems. I just wish they'd do a little research first into the common systems that are available and use them if they're suitable. Only if the currently available free systems are not suitable, should they try inventing a better system.

I've been reading through the archives of the old forum on RPG.net, and I'm shocked and dismayed at how many times virtually identical RPG systems come up time and time again with completely different people proposing them.

> Mr. Sorenson (whom I am not familiar with nor am I familiar with his games) states that we should not name our systems,...

I agree with this, when the system is just for one game or setting, and never reused.

> There are those that state use my system it works (System X comes to mind as well as does Andrew Martian's "S")...

I don't have to claim any more. People who use S, simply say, "It works!". And that's such a nice feeling to hear that. :cool:

> but these are generic as well (Even though the authors of these systems have stated that they do not like generic systems).

My S system is designed to fit movie settings. That's why it seems generic! :) It happens to fit a wide variety of settings quite well.

> All of this leads me to ask: What is wrong with a Single Unified Mechanic that can be used in any number of settings?

Nothing wrong with that at all. My S system is unsuited for this though. I'm being serious. My system and, so far, all generic systems I've seen so far, are suited for human-like characters who have skills and attributes that can be measured, who sometimes fail, and can grow and improve.

When you want to play something like gods in a pantheon or Amberites, most generic systems, including my own S system will not cope with this.

I have high hopes that my Zero System rules will cope with a huge variety of settings, probably including things like gods and Amberites (maybe).

[nadragul]

Wow.... :confused:
Looks like Mock and his quick wit has beaten me to the punch again.

You know I am always impressed by the show of arrogance and sarcasam in these pages. MMMM....love it.....

However, I did say flame away. So what can I expect.

As for creating the One Mechanic to Rule them All.....I would never right one to rule your Setting or your Ideas. It looks to me as though the d20 works in that way, so why don't you send your ideas to one of the hundreds of new d20 companies and have them print it for you. Until then, what are you doing to further the community besides whinning?

With all respect....

Nadragul

[Mock]

I never claimed not to be arrogant. We've all got enough chutzpah to wade into these forums and throw an idea into the grinder; lots of people don't know enough--or have too much dignity, maybe--to bother with us.

In fairness, my comment was in direct response to your request to be flamed, so you asked for it.

I'm not particularly interested in getting in a pissing contest over how the setting and the mechanic go together, though. I happen to prefer that they combine to be greater than their separate parts, and I think that might be hard to do with a universal mechanic unless it was very flexible. On the other hand, a good GM probably won't have any trouble giving players a good experience, no matter what the system.

In the end, if I came up with a setting that screamed "play me in d20" I'd probably use d20. But if the setting, when converted into the d20 mechanic, lost something vital, I would either have to accept that it wasn't going to be everything I hoped, or move away from that mechanic.

(Of course, if I were really counting on making money designing these things, I would crawl through broken glass to get a publisher to print my stuff, and if that meant it had to be d20, so be it).

Flame is officially off. At least for me.

-Mock

[NPC]

I am very impressed with Mr. Martin.
I am glad to see how he explained his system (in very minor terms) and I must admit that he is very correct in his assertations (sp) to how his system works.

But I wonder if he would agree with me when I say that his system works best for those that want to use his system as they create settings for that system...thus it is a unified mechanic and that is what I am talking about.

We have designed a single mechanic that uses only two 10 sided dice to determine everything from damage to skill successes. Even the attributes are d100 based. There are no classes as it is a skill based game. We are in the middle of developing setting rules for 6 different settings. Using this one mechanic. Like Mr. Martin state, there is nothing better than than hearing Play testers tell it works and it looks good (before they dive into questions ;) ). So as for a single mechanic to rule your system. We would not force that on to you, however, you will find that using our system with our settings works great. In fact, the Settings are general enough to allow GM's to create thier own settings through our mechanics.

Our hats off to Mr. Martin.

Nadragul

[Andrew Martin]

NPC wrote:
> I am very impressed with Mr. Martin. I am glad to see how he explained his system (in very minor terms) and I must admit that he is very correct in his assertations (sp) to how his system works.

Thank you for your kind words. :)

> But I wonder if he would agree with me when I say that his system works best for those that want to use his system as they create settings for that system...thus it is a unified mechanic and that is what I am talking about.

That's OK. S is fine for creating any realistic or cinematic game setting based on action movies and TV. It's just not a really, really universal mechanic yet. It's a better replacement for Fuzion, Fudge, Gurps, D20 and so on for cinematic action and realistic combat settings, including skirmishes as well.

> We have designed a single mechanic that uses only two 10 sided dice to determine everything from damage to skill successes. Even the attributes are d100 based. There are no classes as it is a skill based game. We are in the middle of developing setting rules for 6 different settings. Using this one mechanic. Like Mr. Martin state, there is nothing better than than hearing Play testers tell it works and it looks good (before they dive into questions ;) ).

Be sure to publish it here or on the web! -- So I can ask if Fudge would be better. :D :)

> So as for a single mechanic to rule your system.

Actually, just to be really contrary, my "system", as it were, for Zero System is going to be a large number of different systems. :) I'm being serious! I'm not going the way of AD&D though, just have a whole heap of different dice and dice rolling conventions to handle different types and timing of actions. From simple actions, like picking a lock or jumping a pit might be, to long, repeatable, type actions like searching for information or repairing a vehicle, to determining visual range of obscurants, to more dramatic resolution (when a player or GM is temporarily tired and need some inspiration), and to handle interactions being PC vs NPC, and PC vs PC. Strange as it might seem, I'll be using a different system for each.

[Jack Spencer]

Originally posted by nadragul

4) There are more "wanna be" designers out there with attitude than there should be.

The "with attitude" part is the problem. Too many game designers have a "why doesn't everyone realise what a genius I am" mentality.

And yours truely is not immune to this, but I try my damnedest to keep it under wraps...unlike some people and you know who you are ;-)


All of this leads me to ask: What is wrong with a Single Unified Mechanic that can be used in any number of settings?

Well, the answer to this, and most of the rest of your post is nothing if that's what you're into. But quite a few of us are interested in something different.

A system can be specificly designed to go with a setting. Doing this is a matter of personal preference, just as wishing to have a single core mechanics to use with other settings is preference.

Most of your post was aimed at Jared, it seems. I don't know. I don't have anything personal against the guy, but he is passionate.

His statement about settings or not having any seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong, Jared) that usually a detailed setting in a game requires a lot of infor-dumping (his term) that the player have to plow through to find out about this setting. This is fine if you wish to do this, but in many cases, the players will simply make up their own setting. SO, instead of writing 200 pps for a setting that may not be used, simply give the players the tools needed to build their own setting for the game you've written.

This goes along with designing a system specific to the game. If the system more accurately reflects the mood/style/what-have-you of the game's premise, then it will help in the setting-building and maintain the premise that the game has. ANd it should do this better than a unified core mechanic. Or such is the theory or to make the core mechanic work in this regard, you'll have to change so much of it that you may as well simply write a new system.

To be honest, I don't know why you've posted all of this to this thread when it would've worked as its own thread.