Creativity is hard!
Nov. 10th, 2005 01:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Hey,
So I'm working on an RPG. I'm hoping to have it ready for GenCon next year. I'm not talking about it a whole lot yet since I want to try and have some sort of alpha-kit finished for people to look at. But I do feel compelled to mention one or two things right here and now.
According to Johnathan Tweet, there are three ways to resolve the question of "do I hit the orc?". These include:
So the game I'm working on has a great deal to do with resources -- and the choices we make about using those resources. So I was thinking that it would be good to have a game based around Karma. You'd get resource points and you could just spend them to succeed at various tasks.
It turns out that this is a lot easier said than done. The games that I know of that lean on Karma resolution are Amber and Nobilis -- two games about Godlike beings where death isn't exactly a show-stopper. My game deals with a more mundane reality and Karma becomes much less interesting. "Can I succeed?" gets reduced to a binary "yes/no" situation. I tried adding some tweaks to it, but it didn't get past the fact that you would only succeed at things you could afford to buy with Resource points. Everything else would cream you. Strangely, in many ways this produces a very "realistic" game. Can I outrun a horse? No. Can I take on 10 guys all at once? No. But you only get an interesting game when the PCs can beat the odds. Maybe not always, maybe not often, but they do.
So I'm back to a Fortune system. Specifically, you spend points to buy dice for a pool. You can buy d6s or d10s. If you've got a ton of points you can easily outspend the other guy and get so many dice he'll (probably) never stop you. If you and the opponent are even close to each other, you can pull off an upset. You can buy lots of d6's or gamble on a few d10's. The point being that if you want to win the contest, it's possible for you to do so, even if your resources aren't quite as good as the other guy's. In Karma, that's something that generally can't happen.
I've just now considered the idea that you might be able to have a Karma-based game where a poorly ranked underdog could beat a nigh-invincible champion. Imagine if your stat or resources or whatever translated into a chess piece (or set of chess pieces). If your stat is high you get extra pawns and pieces and if your stat is low, you may only have a few pawns. So you setup and play a game of chess. There's a chance that the underdog can still come out on top. However, this is obviously an incredibly cumbersome way to play. A die roll is much faster.
Speed is the other issue that I'm considering as I go through all of this. I'm considering it on two fronts. First, I want to make sure that the "handling time" (from deciding what the conflict is about to determining who won) is fairly short. Nothing is worse than 15 die rolls to figure out if you hit the guy. As it stands, I'm a little worried that it might take too long to hash out at resolution. It's not terrible, and it needs some heavy playtesting, but I feel like it might be a bit long.
The second speed issue is that I've got a system of rotating "antagonist". Saying I've got a rotating GM is a little strong. Basically, players go around the table and the person opposite them runs the opposition they face on their turn. Right, so something I look for in RPGs is the ability to let the GM quickly manage the opposition. The key is to have a way to streamline the system used by the PCs so the GM can generate similar game effects without having to make all the choices that, for an individual character may be interesting, but for large groups of characters (or for ad-hoc individuals) would be tiresome or slow the game down. The game is a lot more fun for GMs when they can quickly react to the screwball things that PCs do and keep the game going. With the "antagonist" duties rotating around the table, being able to pare down the effort in this area becomes doubly important. Time you waste in getting set up to resolve a challenge is time that you're not playing and it's time that's not being spent resolving the challenge and moving the spotlight around the table until it's your turn to go.
My concern here is that I may have actually sped it up too much and now problems will either be too trivial or too huge (the opposition will constantly outspend the PCs by such large margins, probability can't help them any more). It's really hard to find a good balance.
Bleh. Anyway, more as it develops.
later
Tom
So I'm working on an RPG. I'm hoping to have it ready for GenCon next year. I'm not talking about it a whole lot yet since I want to try and have some sort of alpha-kit finished for people to look at. But I do feel compelled to mention one or two things right here and now.
According to Johnathan Tweet, there are three ways to resolve the question of "do I hit the orc?". These include:
- Fortune: A random element plays a crucial role in determining the outcome. There may be a lot of modifiers and such, but at the end of the day, some randomizer is used in determining success. Pretty much every game does this.
- Karma: You compare two stats. Higher stat wins. Classically, this is Amber. I can't think of any other games off-hand that use this system, although I'm sure there are a few. Nobilis is another one although it uses a few tweaks to disguise it.
- Drama: You go with what would be more interesting. This is normally the domain of GM fiat, or Freeform group consensus. For example, when the dice show that a PC should've died, often a GM will "fudge" it and just say the PC survives because that's more fun that having the PC die. Aside from Theatrix, I can't think of a commerically published game that relies on this, although it's a resolution method that frequently happens in games as outlined above. Oh wait, Polaris has a back-up Fortune method but is primarily Drama.
So the game I'm working on has a great deal to do with resources -- and the choices we make about using those resources. So I was thinking that it would be good to have a game based around Karma. You'd get resource points and you could just spend them to succeed at various tasks.
It turns out that this is a lot easier said than done. The games that I know of that lean on Karma resolution are Amber and Nobilis -- two games about Godlike beings where death isn't exactly a show-stopper. My game deals with a more mundane reality and Karma becomes much less interesting. "Can I succeed?" gets reduced to a binary "yes/no" situation. I tried adding some tweaks to it, but it didn't get past the fact that you would only succeed at things you could afford to buy with Resource points. Everything else would cream you. Strangely, in many ways this produces a very "realistic" game. Can I outrun a horse? No. Can I take on 10 guys all at once? No. But you only get an interesting game when the PCs can beat the odds. Maybe not always, maybe not often, but they do.
So I'm back to a Fortune system. Specifically, you spend points to buy dice for a pool. You can buy d6s or d10s. If you've got a ton of points you can easily outspend the other guy and get so many dice he'll (probably) never stop you. If you and the opponent are even close to each other, you can pull off an upset. You can buy lots of d6's or gamble on a few d10's. The point being that if you want to win the contest, it's possible for you to do so, even if your resources aren't quite as good as the other guy's. In Karma, that's something that generally can't happen.
I've just now considered the idea that you might be able to have a Karma-based game where a poorly ranked underdog could beat a nigh-invincible champion. Imagine if your stat or resources or whatever translated into a chess piece (or set of chess pieces). If your stat is high you get extra pawns and pieces and if your stat is low, you may only have a few pawns. So you setup and play a game of chess. There's a chance that the underdog can still come out on top. However, this is obviously an incredibly cumbersome way to play. A die roll is much faster.
Speed is the other issue that I'm considering as I go through all of this. I'm considering it on two fronts. First, I want to make sure that the "handling time" (from deciding what the conflict is about to determining who won) is fairly short. Nothing is worse than 15 die rolls to figure out if you hit the guy. As it stands, I'm a little worried that it might take too long to hash out at resolution. It's not terrible, and it needs some heavy playtesting, but I feel like it might be a bit long.
The second speed issue is that I've got a system of rotating "antagonist". Saying I've got a rotating GM is a little strong. Basically, players go around the table and the person opposite them runs the opposition they face on their turn. Right, so something I look for in RPGs is the ability to let the GM quickly manage the opposition. The key is to have a way to streamline the system used by the PCs so the GM can generate similar game effects without having to make all the choices that, for an individual character may be interesting, but for large groups of characters (or for ad-hoc individuals) would be tiresome or slow the game down. The game is a lot more fun for GMs when they can quickly react to the screwball things that PCs do and keep the game going. With the "antagonist" duties rotating around the table, being able to pare down the effort in this area becomes doubly important. Time you waste in getting set up to resolve a challenge is time that you're not playing and it's time that's not being spent resolving the challenge and moving the spotlight around the table until it's your turn to go.
My concern here is that I may have actually sped it up too much and now problems will either be too trivial or too huge (the opposition will constantly outspend the PCs by such large margins, probability can't help them any more). It's really hard to find a good balance.
Bleh. Anyway, more as it develops.
later
Tom
no subject
Date: 2005-11-10 06:51 pm (UTC)I would like to see your system before offering critiques, because I've got a thousand questions about how these points of yours are distributed and how you can spend them and whatnot. Shadowrun and Star Wars d6 both have a mechanic where you can buy more dice for your pool, but you always have a pool to start out with. Is it like that?
Also, as a player, I'm not wild about a system that would constantly force me to be optimizing and second-guessing.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-10 07:21 pm (UTC)-The Fortune/Drama/Karma trichotomy comes from Tweet's game Everway, actually, in which all three are used as game mechanics. Everway is highly recommended, and can be had fairly cheap on eBay.
-One of my concerns about such "resource" mechanics is the way the force players to make metagame decisions. An example I used once is the PC who is doing research now, and knows she might be in a swordfight later. Becasue she wants to hoard resources for the life-or-death fight, she doesn't put a lot of effort into the research. In reality, this might not make much sense. There are ways to minimize this, such as by having mental resources be separate from physical resources . . .
-If one can buy both d6s and d10s, pricing them correctly in terms of resources is tricky. A d6 averages to 3.5, and a d10 averages to 5.5, so you'd have to price them at 7 points and 11 points, or else one type would be always better than the other . . . or do you have something in mind I haven't thought of?
-One way to allow PCs to occasionally beat the odds is to use exploding dice, like in Shadowrun. When you roll a die, if you roll the higest number, you roll again and add, recursively. This allows for occasional extraordinary results.
-Have you considered, instead of either spending points (fixed) or buying dice (random), a hybrid system? Have them spend points, and then add a fixed die roll (2d6, say) to the points spent? Thus, if the PC spends one point, and the NPC spends five, the NPC will usually win, but the PC still has a chance.
-You can even allow people to make an "extra effort" by spending points after both sides have rolled, but the victory points cost more . . . E.g., they both have spent and rolled, and the PC has lost by 3 points. If she had spent an extra 4 points before, she would have won, but to make an extra effort, she will need to spend twice as many points now . . .
-To speed up opposition play, borrow a page from the Buffy games, and give mooks "fixed rolls" or "fixed spends". In Buffy, the good guys get to roll 2d6 (or whatever), but a mook doesn't roll; his result is always 7. Similarly, your mooks might not get to "manage" resources; instead, they always spend 1 point, or whatever is appropriate for their CR.
-I look forward to seeing this game! Let me know if you want me to cast my optics at it.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 03:17 am (UTC)* Yeah, Everway was neat. No real core story though...
* There are a couple of resource pools. So you don't have to hoard up points. But there are a lot of short-term/long-term items to think about. And that'd intentional. It's not, stictly speaking, metagame, it's a character choice about dealing with crap now or working towards a better future.
* Current pricing for dice is a bit borken, but it's a somewhat intentional borken -- diminishing returns and all.
later
Tom
no subject
Date: 2005-11-10 07:21 pm (UTC)Kind of like a dealer for cards?
Go You!
Writing a RPG!
Got a publisher?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-10 07:36 pm (UTC)you'd think I would have asked this question...
Mischevious Grin
Date: 2005-11-10 08:37 pm (UTC)Well...
How much has he talked about it?
I mean, if it's not being told to you, you are not pondering on it...
*I would make a bet on this, but I am broke*
Besides my betting on his talking would be all snarkified anyway.
-In a fond snarky way-
-Really-
*wink*
Re: Mischevious Grin
Date: 2005-11-10 08:51 pm (UTC)I understand one word in ten of gaming stuff, which might be why it never occured to me to ask about publishers. Hmmm... of course, I'm writing a novel, and *I* don't have a publisher either.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 01:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 03:18 am (UTC)Yeah, but those distributor fees to get into the Shops are going to be killer. ;)
later
Tom
no subject
Date: 2005-11-10 07:51 pm (UTC)TORG has a card system. Players accumulate cards from a shared deck. The cards can be played to alter the outcomes of actions. For example, a PC with a few "opponent fails" and "automatic success" cards stands a chance against that "undefeatable" champ.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-10 07:57 pm (UTC)We are awesome.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-10 07:59 pm (UTC)-That would be the Ghostbusters RPG, actually. No, really!
no subject
Date: 2005-11-10 08:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-10 10:35 pm (UTC)you may want to separate "resources" from "karma points" or whatever. I'm agnostic as to which system is 'better'...
but if the game is about not starving in the wilderness, or whether you can plow a field before winter, or whether you have a rifle and can easily raid another town... then have a robust (not necc. detailed) "resources" system.
Depending on game style, it could be super-detailed (long lists of equipment with prices and indications of exchange rates and times to produce raw materials etc...) or it could be more casual (you have a Weapon with Quality. you have 10 points of high quality food... etc)
You might want this part of the game to be Karmic (ie... you succeed or fail at planting yoru field or making it across the desert based on your ecconomic investment... plows/horses... water/camels... etc)
... while making combat random, possibly modified by quality of equipment (karmic resources)...
no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 04:14 pm (UTC)Get your hands on a copy of Greg Porter's Epiphany. Karma plus resource allocation is very productive design territory.
In Epiphany, a character goes into a conflict with a number (less than 10) that represents his relevant advantages. All conflicts are opposed. The player divides his advantages between attack and defense and throws out his fingers to display how he's apportioned them, with the right hand being "attack" and the left hand being "defense." The GM does the same. The result is interpreted, based on comparison of player attack vs. GM defense and GM attack vs. player defense. So it's possible to achieve total victory, total failure, or degrees of success with consequences, all from a combination of Karma plus resource allocation.
Paul