Hi everyone,
So, I could not think of a worse site to put this on. Hopefully good will come of it.

I couldn't sleep and decided to endulge myself. I came up with the Diceless Role-playing And Tactics System (D.R.A.T.S.). It is an answer to a problem I have had with stories and settings that I could not fit into traditional systems. It is a co-operative RPG in that the Groups is expected to have the same expectations and goals. It is meant to enable playing in inconsistant or difficult settings. I wrote it with Star Trek in mind so you get the idea.

It is short (4 pages) and includes a character sheet. I am very interested in your feedback and hope to add a number of other views to this creation. It is not a commercial product but merely a personal project.

Without further delay:
http://www.hinterwelt.com/dload/drats13.pdf544K

Thanks,
Bill

Having trouble downloading the file from the link. Couldn't you just attach it?

Try this.

Thanks for the interest,
Bill

Printing it out now, to read when my daughter takes a nap.

I kinda like it but think the presentation could be clearer.
I like most the method of setting up the story and revolving the moderator.  That could be used with or without the system of using action points to perform actions.

For the basics of moderator, premise, scene premise, plot point, you should start with clear definitions at the top than explain them as they come up, scene premise in particular is sort of thrown in.  I'd rename either premise or scene premise to lessen confusion.  Once the reader is clear on what's going on, then you can flesh out the details.

You also put the cart before the horse with characters, using stats before you define them.  I'd give an example group near the beginning to help with the walkthrough of the plot elements.

Another way to go might be to have the current moderator's character in the background.  Either way would be find but the flavor would be quite different.

One last thing, "However, in many stories there are exceptions that move the story forward.  To resolve this we need to look to cooperative roleplaying
systems."  This doesn't necesarily follow, it's only one way of dealing with it.  Example, Buffy RPG allows the gm to step in and screw with an actions results and then pay off the player with a drama pt for screwing with them.  It might be better to present the rules as a way of emulating a story line that goes problem - plan - complication - new plan - action.

Quote from: NicephorusI kinda like it but think the presentation could be clearer.
I like most the method of setting up the story and revolving the moderator.  That could be used with or without the system of using action points to perform actions.

For the basics of moderator, premise, scene premise, plot point, you should start with clear definitions at the top than explain them as they come up, scene premise in particular is sort of thrown in.  I'd rename either premise or scene premise to lessen confusion.  Once the reader is clear on what's going on, then you can flesh out the details.

You also put the cart before the horse with characters, using stats before you define them.  I'd give an example group near the beginning to help with the walkthrough of the plot elements.

Another way to go might be to have the current moderator's character in the background.  Either way would be find but the flavor would be quite different.

Much of this has been addressed. Attribute definitions in the front, definitions of terms up front, along with many other fixes.

Quote from: NicephorusOne last thing, "However, in many stories there are exceptions that move the story forward.  To resolve this we need to look to cooperative roleplaying
systems."  This doesn't necesarily follow, it's only one way of dealing with it.  Example, Buffy RPG allows the gm to step in and screw with an actions results and then pay off the player with a drama pt for screwing with them.  It might be better to present the rules as a way of emulating a story line that goes problem - plan - complication - new plan - action.

I disagree. This sounds to me like a GM Fiat solution to a traditional system. Essentially, the GM is saying, "Here is my vision. The story should drive this way". DRATS is more about the Group saying, "Yes, we could transport the hearts of every enemy into space but the moral framework will not allow it". My initial motivation for the system was about the Star Trek inconsistancies that crop up. Hand phasers that destroy buildings, Transporter technology facilitating immortality, the general technology that gamist players would extort by running it over and over again as their go to solution. Now, can this happen anyway? Yes, there is no magic solution, but I think DRATS goes in the right direction by pushing the gamist towards a group consciousness;i.e. the Group will tease him or outright stop him if he tries to use his phaser to cut down the orphans.

It is a difficult idea for me to get across and obviously I did not do a good job. For that I apologize. Hopefully the above clears it up some?

New version, 1.4
http://www.hinterwelt.com/dload/drats14.pdf

For the last point, I was just being picky about the logic of the wording.  It's of the form:
variations in universal laws are inherent in some genres.
Therefore, we need cooperative storytelling to model this.

You don't actually need it, it's just a nice way of handling it.  I think this is also a poor way of selling the system.  That's an abstract point and that's not the only thing the game is good for.  For one thing, it seems like it would be a very low prep and quick chargen game - that's a big bonus for pickup games.    

The rules seem really neat, but it took me two readings to understand the first time since I had missed things like scene premise.  I'll try 1.4 tonight.

Quote from: NicephorusFor the last point, I was just being picky about the logic of the wording.  It's of the form:
variations in universal laws are inherent in some genres.
Therefore, we need cooperative storytelling to model this.

You don't actually need it, it's just a nice way of handling it.  I think this is also a poor way of selling the system.  That's an abstract point and that's not the only thing the game is good for.  For one thing, it seems like it would be a very low prep and quick chargen game - that's a big bonus for pickup games.    

The rules seem really neat, but it took me two readings to understand the first time since I had missed things like scene premise.  I'll try 1.4 tonight.

O.k. I agree the wording can use work. I have had difficulty expressing this concept in the past. I will think on it and try to come up with a better phrasing.

And, just to keep in mind, this has not gone through my usual editors and the like so we may need to rewrite sections to make them clear. I just do not want to give the impression this is a polished manuscript.

Bill

It's pretty cool, which is why I'm bothering commenting on the writing.

There's nothing that I dislike, but I'm still unclear exactly how the high level plot creation stuff interacts with character abilities and task resolution.  Do you do all the scene generation prior to going about doing stuff, or can players announce tasks as soon as they think of them?

rule specifics:  I'm inclined to disallow having only one trait.  That leaves only one way for that player to get back action pts so they are going to be doing the same thing over and over which might get annoying.  Some of the flat action costs seem a bit high.  For example, hitting in combat would be 2-8 difficulty but piloting and stealth are both 10s.

Quote from: NicephorusIt's pretty cool, which is why I'm bothering commenting on the writing.

There's nothing that I dislike, but I'm still unclear exactly how the high level plot creation stuff interacts with character abilities and task resolution.  Do you do all the scene generation prior to going about doing stuff, or can players announce tasks as soon as they think of them?

I put the Round in purely to bring order to the discussion. I think we should add a part where players may speak up as the ideas come. Also, do you think we should rename Round to be Scene? It might clear things up a bit.

As for Scene generation, one of the reaons I called it Scene Premise is to emphasize just that, a premise. From there, the players can expand it. I should probably add in the Round definition that the Scene may be extended if the group does not feel one Round is sufficient to close it. So, in a round about way, plot points may be introduced at any time while Scene Premise to Scene Premise will flow the story along. This takes a certain awareness of the story as the game progresses requiring people to have good memory skills and interpret the plot.

Quote from: Nicephorusrule specifics:  I'm inclined to disallow having only one trait.  That leaves only one way for that player to get back action pts so they are going to be doing the same thing over and over which might get annoying.  Some of the flat action costs seem a bit high.  For example, hitting in combat would be 2-8 difficulty but piloting and stealth are both 10s.

Agreed. One trait, now that you mention it, would be a bit narrow. In the new character examples I have three. I do not think I want to put a max (although more than four might be difficult to portray) but it might be something to consider.

As for costs, since recovering AP is defined by the player and approved by the Group/Moderator, the potential to have a steady pool of AP is high. If anything, I would ant to raise the other costs rather than lower the fixed costs. However, I am open to being convinced on this point. Do you think we should lower the fixed costs into the 5-8 range?

If you want me to put your name in the contributors list either post it here, PM me or email me at bilbo AT hinterwelt DOT com.

Thanks again. I have been getting invaluable input here and at RPG.Net. Sad as it may be, this is the kind of thing I find fun and relaxing.

Bill

Hey, DRAT is cool!  My first comment probably says more about my enthusiasms than it does about your system:  

How come action point costs are based on events rather than the impact those events have on the developing story?  Walking across a tightrope might just be a cool but trivial cut-scene as my ninja sneaks into the castle, or it might be the crucial final test my young padawan faces before becoming a Jedi.  If it were me, I'd want those to cost different amounts.  

I wasn't clear on Premise and plot point creation - is this done in rotation?  So the eldest player just initiates the process, is that correct?  Can you add premise or plot later in the session?

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;238940Hey, DRAT is cool!  My first comment probably says more about my enthusiasms than it does about your system:  

How come action point costs are based on events rather than the impact those events have on the developing story?  Walking across a tightrope might just be a cool but trivial cut-scene as my ninja sneaks into the castle, or it might be the crucial final test my young padawan faces before becoming a Jedi.  If it were me, I'd want those to cost different amounts.  

I wasn't clear on Premise and plot point creation - is this done in rotation?  So the eldest player just initiates the process, is that correct?  Can you add premise or plot later in the session?

Well, we did it that way because AP are not supposed to be used on anything Trivial. AP are only used when characters will be doing something that has a meaningful impact on the story. If you are refering to having varying levels of as listed in your example: in this system it is left to the up to the Moderator of the scene. So in your first example I'd say the cost is an 8, but for the second one I would say that it should be atleast a 10.

The intent of the system was to let everyone at the table be the GM, so the Mod of each scene gets to make the calls.

For your second question:

The oldest person choses the Premise to start the game and becomes the Moderator for the scene.  A premise tells everyone what the scene is about. So you could say "Ralan's Jedi Trial @ X location", then the whole scene has to deal with Ralan trying to pass the trial. Once the Premise is set for the first plot point is chosen by the person to the moderator's left. So, the person to the mod's left intoduces their plot point " Masters Windu & Yoda appear to be arguing as you enter the council chamber"

Next player to the left: "The Chamber seems to be empty, Windu and Yoda are the only one's here, that's not good"

4th player: " As masters Yoda & Windu turn to look at you you notice that they have a holocam/projector in front of them."

Mod: Windu motions to Ralan to come forward "Come Padawan, we have something for you to see."

as you see everyone during this round got to introduce something to the scene. This premise would continue with the moderator still in control because the location did not change. Now when this scene resolves by say master Yoda sending Ralan on mission the Premise is over and a new one is selected by the next player, though it must stay within the story. Then things start over within the new premise with the person the new mods left introducing a plot point.

One part to remember is that there is an Adventure Premise and a Scene Premise. The Adventure Premise is chosen by the group and is the general starting plot of the adventure, " Find the Mandelorian traitor" might be an example of an "adventure premise". A scene premise is just the plot of the current scene, "gathering intell at Mos Eisley Cantina" might be the scene premise but it also must be connected to the Adventure Premise. In this case the characters are going to the cantina to dig up intel about ap possible traitor. So this scene premise was chosen by the oldest player. The next thing would be the player to the left introduces a plot point. Once everyone at the table has introduced a plot point or taken an action the round is over. Through plot points and actions the characters will gather intell and once they've finished and they decide to leave the cantina the scene and scene premise end. The person to the left is now the mod and introduces a new scene premise, perhaps their investigation revealed that a Mandelorian trader has been doing some shady business out of Anchorhead. The new mod set the new premise.

Mike really has the gist of it. In creating a rotating GM/moderator slot I was trying to keep the best of trad gaming and mix it with what I see are the elements that have intrigued players of GMless games (distributed authority, ability to affect environment).

I am, after all, a pretty trad game designer.

Bill

OK, gotcha, that makes sense.  So it's up to the current moderator to say "that's trivial, no AP spent, you just look awesome sneaking into the castle, what now?"

OK, next question, still in "challenging your assumptions from my crazy hippie game background" mode:  

If APs are only spent on actions or elements that are important to the story, why does the cost vary at all?

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;239204OK, gotcha, that makes sense.  So it's up to the current moderator to say "that's trivial, no AP spent, you just look awesome sneaking into the castle, what now?"

OK, next question, still in "challenging your assumptions from my crazy hippie game background" mode:  

If APs are only spent on actions or elements that are important to the story, why does the cost vary at all?

Costs of Actions in the story are also costs of extraordinary actions. That is to say, it is not just a plot point in the story or an element of the story, it is a reflection of the:
1. Effort exerted.
2. The difficulty of the task

This means we want to model a varying cost. At least, that was what I was shooting for. I also wanted a factor of the character's attributes playing in so if I am a big strapping soldier I would likely take a big PHY.

Now, I fully acknowledge and think maybe we should add come generic costs in. Essentially say something like
Cost-Description
1- Easy Task
3 - Moderate task.
6 - Hard Task
10 - Nigh impossible task

The specific numbers could be worked out but basically the idea of a generic task difficulty chart.

The downside to that is there are no Attributes associated so the players would need to assign them. If someone is seducing a guard is it Charism or Physical? Meh. Not impossible but I was trying for the codifying I mentioned in the GMLess thread.

Bill

Edit: In re-reading the rules and what I have learned on this site since I posted them, I don't think this would be considered an RPG. I do, but many of the patrons might not. Interesting.