The other day I made the following comment about a game I've been writing on and off in another thread:

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaMy particular concern on this matter centers around a game that I started writing 7 or 8 years ago. My work on it comes and goes in spurts, partly because I think, as it is currently written, it will prove a very difficult game to play. It's a story-telling game with strong roleplaying elements, where the assembled players essentially portray the roles of a group of people telling and listening to an unfolding story. It may sound a lot like The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, but it's really a lot more like Diplomacy. The key problem that causes me to shelve the project periodically is the degree of improvisation and creativity that I suspect is needed to make the game really -- and consistently -- fun.

I realised that I'm interested in getting opinions and suggestions from you lot, players (and designers) of games with a more traditional emphasis than I have in mind.  This isn't because I really want you to love my game, but because I think you might have some genuine insight into what's fun and what's not to which I've become a little blinded.  Previously I've hashed my ideas out on RPG.net, mostly with very like-minded people.  Amusingly, I tried to do the same on The Forge, but I was taken to task for simply presenting my design for review without posing specific topics for discussion framed in appropriate Forge terminology.  

So, here goes.  My game is supposed to capture the interplay and feel of members of a primitive society relating the myths and legends of their people.  It's not just about telling an entertaining story, but about building a reputation among a highly critical audience -- the reputation of the character being portrayed, and the reputation of the player telling his story.  The design goals that I had in mind were flexibility to deal with widely-varying power levels, simplicity for new gamers, roles for non-participants, an emphasis on player interaction and negotiation, and a codified system for rules-lawyering and/or modifier-mongering.  Now, tell me, did I succeed?  Is this sort of thing fun?  How could it be better?

The Players
The people playing this game are expected to be a group of greater than four people or so.  One will act as the GM, others will portray the focal characters of the story, and anyone else may act as an audience.  For clarity, I'll refer to the lead player as the GM, the players with characters as Players, and the whole assembled group of players as the Group.

General Game Play
The GM initiates play by framing the legend, asking the Players to relate the roles of their characters in the story's resolution.  There is no exact order in which the Players begin to tell of their character's actions.  Instead, the Player solicit the GM's attention when they wish to speak, and the GM calls upon them.  On occasion, the GM will call upon particular Players to expound upon the roles of their characters.

The GM guides the Players through the story by framing the tale and providing interesting plot hooks, perhaps by asking, "So, tell me how it was that fire became a tool for our tribe..." or "How did you avoid the great, hungry spirit that we all know to dwell in that place?" whereupon the Players begin to describe their characters' actions in relation to the story.  The Players have great latitude in determining the details of the setting, though they are practically limited by the consensus of the Group.  When the GM wishes to guide the story along the planned framework, he can interject by reminding the players of new events or obstacles and asking them how their characters dealt with them.

Trial
When a Player declares an action for his character that someone find sunbelievable or objectionable, any member of the Group -- another Player, the GM, or even someone just watching the game -- may assume the role of Challenger and demand a trial of the character's reputation.  At this point, the challenged Player may either reconsider his account of the event, or he accepts a trial of his character's reputation.

In the event that the Player reconsiders his account due to the expressed disbelief of any member of the group and voluntarily revises his account of the event, that Player takes a black token to add to his stature (explained in detail later), and the story resumes as usual.

If the Player opts for a trial, the GM takes one white token and one black and places into a bag, formally symbolising the beginning of a trial.  The challenged Player states his case in favor of his account, citing all of the applicable character reputations he can bring to bear on the situation, as well as any situational circumstances that happen to work in his favor.  He casts one white token into a bag for each such reputation and circumstance.  In response to the Player's claims, the Challenger may cite any faults, circumstances, or direct opposition that would work against the Player's account and casts a black token for each one.

Once both the Player and the Challenger have made their cases, play passes around the group.  All members of the Group -- again, any Player, the GM, or bystander -- are given the opportunity to cast either a white token for each of the character's reputations or circumstances in which they believe, or a black token for each that they doubt, including circumstances that they feel both the Player and Challenger overlooked, declaring them to the group.  Upon the cast of the last token, the challenged Player then reaches into the bag, drawing forth a token.  A white token indicates the character's success as described, while a black token indicates failure and the need to revise the account.

While the general occasions for casting tokens either for or against a challenger have been covered above, here are a few general guidelines to clarify certain circumstances for casting tokens.

Common Reasons for Casting White Tokens
•  In support of each reputation that the Storyteller has been able to invoke in his character's favor.
•  In support of each reputation that any player has been able to invoke to the disadvantage of the Challenger's position.
•  To emphasise the ease of the trial.
•  To show either support of the Storyteller himself, disfavor of the Challenger himself, or protest the need for the trial itself.

Common Reasons for Casting Black Tokens
•  In support of each reputation that any player has been invoked to the disadvantage of the Storyteller's character.
•  To emphasise the difficulty of the challenge.
•  To show either support of the Challenger himself or disfavor of the Storyteller himself

Degrees of Fate
After determining success or failure of the trial, the challenged Player keeps drawing tokens until he draws a token of the opposite color.  Note that each draw of a white token makes it more likely to draw a black token on the next draw, and vice versa.  When done, the last token drawn (the one of the opposite color from all tokens previously drawn) is discarded to the general pot, and the remaining extra tokens are collected in front of that character's Player for all to see.

The number of tokens drawn of the initial color represents the relative degree of success or failure.  With them, the Player must purchase a specific degree of success or failure.  The Player may choose to spend as many or as few of these tokens as he wishes.  However, after buying a given degree of success or failure, any remaining tokens become that character's (and that Player's) stature.  The varying degrees are as follows:

One token – Passing.  This sort of thing happens all the time and is barely worth mention.
Two tokens – Notable  While the result may have been expected, it was sound and definite.
Three tokens – Significant.  Surprising and out of the ordinary, given the usual expectations.
Four tokens – Decisive.  An event that makes the day or even the adventure.
Five tokens – Famous.  Something so rare, stories will surely be told of it a generation or more from now.
Six tokens or more – from the Legendary to the Mythical.  Beyond the mortal ken; the stuff of heroes and spirits.

After buying a given degree of success or failure, any remaining tokens become that character's (and that Player's) stature.

Stature
The ongoing measure of a character's relative success or failure, and perhaps more importantly his credibility, is represented by the accumulation of either white or black tokens as a result of challenge resolution.

Whenever extra tokens are accumulated as a result of a trial, they are matched against those already held.  If the tokens are of matching color, they are added to those already held – the current reputation for success or failure gains in stature.  If the tokens are of the opposite color, they are matched one-for-one with those already held and each two-color pair discarded until only tokens of one color remain.  Thus does a change in fortune build upon, diminish, or even reverse one's current stature.

Teamwork
The reputations and circumstances of all those participating in an action may be considered applicable to a trial.  When casting tokens, the Players of all cooperating characters may cite their relevant and pertinent reputations and circumstances.  Likewise, other members of the Group may cast tokens for or against any member of the cooperating group or the group as a whole.

Opposed Efforts
Where one or more characters oppose the actions of other characters, play is resolved effectively like any other trial.  The only significant difference is that the Challenger is represented directly by his character.  The Challenger cites not only the reputations and circumstances that work against the character in question, but also the reputations of his own character that work at odds with the other.  In essence, the Challenger's character represents a set of conditions that cast black tokens against the other Player's character.

Wounding
Wounds are both physical and emotional –- it's very likely that failure may "wound" the pride or reputation of your character.  They are represented in the form of temporary reputations.  The degree of failure in a contest will indicate the severity of the physical injury or the social stigma incurred.  For the duration of the temporary reputation, each one may incur a cast token in future challenges should any player be so inclined.  

In this game, wounds aren't really physical or psychological impediments as such to the being of a character, so they don't need to be tracked on a scale or pool.  Instead, a "wound" is a temporary reputation that reflects others' opinion that your character will be hampered or impeded in the future.  Their duration and effect are essentially arbitrary, lasting until other players stop casting tokens for or against the temporary reputation –- once they cease to believe that it should be affecting the character, they can stop casting in response to it.

Wounds are adopted by the Player as appropriate to the result of a failed trial.  In situations where the members of the assembled group would reasonably expect the Player's character to experience a lasting effect from his failure (such as being clubbed over the head, or gored by a wild beast, or shamed by breaking taboo), the Player will accept a temporary reputation to that effect.  The temporary reputation should be in proportion to the degree of failure.  Should the Player decline to adopt a reasonable wound, other players will likely line up to challenge his decision.

Death and Dying
As you may see, wounds in this game are accepted at the discretion of the individual Player, though strongly influenced by the expectations of the group.  As such, a character's death need only occur when the players of the game consider it both reasonable and desirable.

Ultimately, the death of a particular character is the decision of that character's Player.  When events and dramatic appeal suggest the demise of a character, the individual Playermust decide upon the mortal consequences.  However, the opinion of the greater Group may still hold unexpected sway over the decision.  A Player who ignores the likely and perhaps even rightful death of his character, insisting that the character survives and persists, may find members of the group continually casting against that character's favor.  The Group may even begin treating the character as if he was dead –- a wandering ghost.  In contrast, the declared death of a favored character may be met by the declarations from other members of the group that the character defies death, continuing to influence the story in spite of his fate, either in mortal form or in spirit.

!i!

I like the hell out of this. If you combined it with a lot of good beer, a roaring fire and the camaraderie of your fellows you could have a great collaborative storytelling experience. Whether this would match most expectations of what an RPG is, I don't know.
Have you thought about maybe using this as a meta-game within an already existing system?
You could have the characters be part of a large village or tribe - one that greatly values tall tales and the accounting of sagas.
The system you have would be a great way to keep track of the characters' rise and fall based on the quality of their reputation and status of Heroes of the tribe. We used to do something like this all the time in my Celtic-themed games. After the adventure was over, the characters went back to their village and regaled the elders of the tribe with their latest adventures.
This sort of thing would go into establishing their status in the tribe.
Anyway, I'm no theory wonk, so I'm kind of out of my depth here, but thanks for sharing your system here!

Thanks for your comments, Matt.  I appreciate the compliment.

Quote from: mattormegHave you thought about maybe using this as a meta-game within an already existing system?
You could have the characters be part of a large village or tribe - one that greatly values tall tales and the accounting of sagas.

In fact, I have, or I've at least considered a game to run parallel to it.  Steve Jackson's and David Brin's game Tribes is the game that I envisage for portraying the day-to-day, bean-counting existence of the tribe, while my game deals with the metaphysical aspects of the culture.  I suppose one could use just about any game -- boardgame or RPG -- for the down & dirty, corporeal adventures.

Initially, I had begun working on a much more traditional RPG for depicting prehistoric, "ice age" tribal life.  I'd had two or three goes at it, but I kept getting hung up on the fact that, when a game deals with the mundane lives of primitive peoples, the adventure all boils down to the inevitable Big Hunt scenario.  When I encountered Tribes, I realised that this aspect of tribal life really was best addressed in the form of a boardgame (and a very clever boardgame at that).  The conclusion I eventually came to was that what made the lives of primitive, tribal folks exciting was their legendry and mythology, how they'd gather together and tell each other the stories of how their culture came to be.  So I decided to screw the idea of rolling to see if you hit the sabretooth tiger with a spear -- I wanted everyone around the fire to vote on whether or not they believed your crazy story about your great-granduncle and then draw lots to let fate decide the truth.

One thing I didn't mention in my initial post was how characters would be created.  Basically, all Players simply declare the prominent reputations -- good and bad -- for their characters.  For the purposes of this game, a reputation is a simple statement about the character, but with no value or scale attached to it.  None.  The value of the reputation is determined by all players in attendance, every time you invoke the reputation as affecting the outcome of a trial.  So, if your character is reputed as being strong, you'd call him "Strong" or "Strong as a bear" or "The strongest man in the world!"  Whether or not the other players believe your character to be as strong as you claim will be scaled by the quantity and color of the token they cast for or against you when your reputation is called to trial.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAmusingly, I tried to do the same on The Forge, but I was taken to task for simply presenting my design for review without posing specific topics for discussion framed in appropriate Forge terminology.

Not to get too far off the topic, but ...the fuck?

Are you talking about this post over here, made over four years ago, where Contracycle (the resident batshit insane unhelpful dude before he was pushed out of the community for not being helpful) posted "out there" but otherwise quite understandable questions about the game, while Mike Holmes followed up with more sensible and helpful questions?

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=3677.0

Sorry, I'm not seeing where you're being "taken to task" for not being "framed in appropriate Forge terminology".  Can you please point out that part?

-Andy

Hrm, that'd be the one, Andy.  The fog of years had me remembering it differently.  For the record, Mike was being helpful, and it was elsewhere (maybe even on RPG.net?) that he explained to me that the reason my thread didn't receive more response on the Forge was because I hadn't presented my thread according to the format that they used to discuss specific design issues -- I presented it as a lump, then expected comments (which I've done again *le sigh*).  And you know, he was being helpful then, too.  So, "taken to task" was more like "taken by the hand".

I'm sorry for painting it as being more hostile than it was.  The irony that I was really referring to was the fact that such a "Forgey" game failed to generate any significant discussion at the Forge, not that I was run off with pitchforks.*

So, explanations and apologies in place, any comments?  I'm tempted to break out sections of the rules for individual discussion myself, but I've wanted to see what stands out to others as needing attention.  The primary concern that I have right now is, in what amounts to an exercise in cooperative story telling, will there be enough motivation for conflict and competition to actually drive the experience as a game?  On one hand, I'm telling players to tell a story together, but on the other hand I'm telling them to block each other by calling bullshit on one another.

!i!

(*Though, looking back on that Forge thread, maybe it was my crappy v-coding that chased people off. )

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHrm, that'd be the one, Andy.

Ahhh, yeah. No, your experience totally makes sense, and is an ongoing issue with... well, it's not so much "The Forge" as it is sites like these in general: Without specific questions asked, the only feedback that you could expect to receive (unless there was a really high-energy high-ambition crew of helpful onlookers) is "Hmmm, looks good." Which is mostly what people think, instead of type; it looks like no one is interested, but in reality a couple dozen people stopped by, thought "Hmm. Interesting", but didn't really have anything more to say than that.

As for me personally, I too do the same thing; I just don't have the time to help strangers (unless I have a light weekend or something, then I usually tear through about a dozen threads) until they've gotten really far in their design. It's basically because a lot of people have gotten burned by, say, Poster X posting about some cool idea, Posters Y, Z and A returning with solid feedback, followup questions, etc... then after a few days, Poster X drops off the face of the planet, never to pursue their idea again. Happens all the time, and there's no way to get around it, so it's always a gamble giving strangers feedback... This is the main reason I don't make a lot of time to help with designs (written by strangers) until the author at least put together a draft document - It shows me that if nothing else they're committed to following through and not as likely to disappear.

....

...

However, since I've bored you to fucking death with my A Comparitive History of Forge Design Topic Posting, the least I could do is actually give you some comments, Amirite?  

So here's a shotgun blast of questions that I had as I went through your design statement below:

* the reputation of the character being portrayed, and the reputation of the player telling his story  <--- Just curious, why the focus on this?  Also, why focus on both the player AND the character reputation? Just wondering your thoughts behind that.

* When doing narration, there's often the well meaning dude who just won't shut the fuck up and give others a chance to speak (always jumping in, even when not his turn, with an "I'll help him out with my mighty spear!" or whatnot). How will your rules (through suggestion, or actual "gamey bits") stop the game from becoming a talk-over-each-other thing?

* Also, what happens if people force trials upon each other at the slightest drop of a hat?  Like in Munchausen, the "tokens" are actual money, so there's usually less of a chance that someone will sit there throwing their money away.

* I like that the black/white tokens don't become "an absolute vote", but rather "a chance of increasing or decreasing probabilities" (by randomly drawing one from the pile).

* Having a success grid that says "X tokens = Y success levels/failure levels" makes it hard to play with fewer people.  If you have you and your four friends on a train and want to whip it out and play, there's a huge chance that you will never see more than 1-2 tokens of the same color drawn. This game has a higher chance of wild success and disasterous failure the more people that you have sitting around and playing. But the more people that you have sitting around and playing, the harder it's going to be to give everyone "face time".

* Maybe instead (continuing the above), that the player draws one token, indicating whether he succeeded or failed... Then he gets to guess, "White or Black"; meaning "Out of the tokens remaining, which are there more of? White or Black?"  If the guess is correct for a success, then the success becomes a "great success". If the guess is correct for a failure, then the failure is minor and was due to other conditions, not just the character's fault/lack of skill.  If the guess is incorrect for a success, it's just a minor success. And if the guess is incorrect for a failure, then it's a bad failure, usually due to the character's lack of skill, and his stature is punished accordingly.  
... but then again, this kind of thing might encourage players to not just vote "Is it cool or not; is the action easy or not", but rather, "Which stone should I drop in so that the player has a hard time guessing the correct answer?"

* Perhaps instead of my suggestion above, you give each player more "votes" if there are less players.  For 3-4 players, they can drop in 2 or 3 stones max, for 5-6 players they can drop in 2 stones max, and more and you can just drop in one. ?

* I like the stature thing.

* I'm not seeing where the reputation of the players themselves fits into the design... or is that a part of how they tell their character's story?

-Andy

Quote from: Andy KIt's basically because a lot of people have gotten burned by, say, Poster X posting about some cool idea, Posters Y, Z and A returning with solid feedback, followup questions, etc... then after a few days, Poster X drops off the face of the planet...

...



-Andy

No, no, I'm still here, and I've been formulating some pertinent responses -- I ran off copies of your post and have hastily hand-written notes in the margin and everything.  However, between work and fighting off a bout of bronchial pneumonia, I've only been able to devote what little brain I have left to bitching at RPGPundit.  You made a number of good points and I need to address them.  I'll try to get back to this later this evening.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNo, no, I'm still here, and I've been formulating some pertinent responses

Heh, no problem (and no rush on getting it all done by tonight, too). Just wanted to throw that out there to see if you were still around.

By the way, Andy, I've decided to address your comments over here on Levi's new forum.  In many ways, it seemed like a more appropriate venue, and I noticed that you're a member over there, too.

Thanks again for replying.

!i!