This unnamed rpg, is my attempt to practice my design skills. Hopefully it is worth continuing. Here are my design goals:

• Have a 'feel' that encourages risktaking. (Anti-'death-spiral', rewarding pushing yourself)
• Mechanics that encourage and guide good storytelling. Even for groups new to the medium.
• Should try not to pull the player 'out of character'.
• Never force player or character action. Just encourage/pull.
• Symmetric Mechanics for social and physical conflicts
• Allow players to participate even when their characters can't (working on it)
• Keep cognitive load low during play.
• Have a bit of mechanical crunch that allows for differentiation/mechanics fun.
• Keep it easy to gm, and provide decent flow for doing so (working on it)

While it is incomplete (and I haven't gotten nearly as far on the intended setting), I think this revision the stage where I can show others. I would really appreciate comments, criticism, questions and suggestions (no matter how brutal)!


LINK TO DOCUMENT - Comments Enabled

Quote from: TheCutestWug;837707

• Have a 'feel' that encourages risktaking. (Anti-'death-spiral', rewarding pushing yourself)

Although I kinda like this (but probably would never GM such a game), it is in conflict with one of your other desing goals. "Should try not to pull the player 'out of character'." It is a bit dissociative rule, but not as much as say, D&D4 daily/encounter powers.

Quote from: TheCutestWug;837707

• Mechanics that encourage and guide good storytelling. Even for groups new to the medium.

Ok. Sound very vague, but ok.

Quote from: TheCutestWug;837707

• Should try not to pull the player 'out of character'.

My advice: forget Feats and Powarz and such. Attributes and skills are enough. Poker chips and other types of gimmicks are dissociative. Hell, even substracting Hit Points is somewhat dissociative!

Quote from: TheCutestWug;837707

• Never force player or character action. Just encourage/pull.

No stun, immobilised or other such statuses? Also in conflict with "Should try not to pull the player 'out of character'."

Quote from: TheCutestWug;837707

• Symmetric Mechanics for social and physical conflicts

I don't like social conflict mechanics. Social skills are alright as they are done to the NPCs. In my tables there is a gentleman's rule: never try to force other player through a skill, spell or whatever. Such behavior can be roleplayed though, using the tried and true power of "communicating with others".

Quote from: TheCutestWug;837707

• Allow players to participate even when their characters can't (working on it)

This I encourage very much. How are you planning to achieve that?

Quote from: TheCutestWug;837707

• Keep cognitive load low during play.

Yes!

Quote from: TheCutestWug;837707

• Have a bit of mechanical crunch that allows for differentiation/mechanics fun.

To my eye, this seems to be totally lacking right now. In what departments are you seeking to increase crunch?

Quote from: TheCutestWug;837707

• Keep it easy to gm, and provide decent flow for doing so (working on it)

Alrighty.



In conclusion: very incomplete storygame. Some storygames I like, like Fiasco (haven't played it though). Some storygames I don't like, like Fate or Apocalypse World.

To me, your game seems to be going into Apocalypse World direction. I didn't read the full 7 pages though, just skimmed it, so I could be wrong.

Thanks for the feedback. One of the main things I need to work on is how I explain things.

- So far as forcing player action, I should have probably rephrased that to removing narrative control. Things that are statuses ingame work, but not storygame narration mechanics, fate compels or similar.
- I don't want to focus on complete immersion. I think personally the feel of the game is a higher design priority. And so some disassociation to achieve that is acceptable. Hopefully I can minimise as much as possible though.
- I figure powers and similar are OK, so long as they have in universe justification, and gameplay is smooth enough to not break flow. The crunch should be in that area as well. The talents system is essentially the place where "class abilities" or mechanical differentiators go. The goal is to have them in pools, with one talent being a prerequisite for a bunch of others, and little to no crossover between pools.
- Current test is to have Out of scene players ask questions they want answered, offer challenges to the people in scene, and or make challenges harder in exchange for resources that can help the group. The tentative test settingnis one inspired by Indian, Chinese and innuit mythology. So flavouring as local spirits is something to be toyed with.


Thanks so much for the feedback. Even if the game turns out to be something not your style, I really appreciate your input. Can I ask why you like or dislike fiasco/fate/apoc world?

Quote from: TheCutestWug;837731Thanks so much for the feedback. Even if the game turns out to be something not your style, I really appreciate your input. Can I ask why you like or dislike fiasco/fate/apoc world?

No prob.

Fiasco I like, at least on paper as I haven't had a chance to play it. Friends of mine have played it, but they live in another town. I have given serious thought on bringing a similar intercharacter relationship creation to more traditional games.

Fate I dislike because of the Aspects and Fate Point economy. Apocalype World I dislike because I like to plan my sessions as a GM quite thoroughly, and A-World not only discourages it, but forbids it almost emtirely.

Also A-World puts more pressure on the GM to constantly coming up with something new, cool and relevant. Also, I really dislike the "Failing Forward" notion.