TheRPGSite

This is a thing of beauty

Okay, I like that one. :)

Technically, that d20 is a die.  But you probably know that already...

Quote from: RedFoxTechnically, that d20 is a die.  But you probably know that already...

Yep, but nobody except pedants, grammar nazis and forum posters ever bothers saying 'die' instead of 'dice'. Plus 'die' just didn't work right and didn't feel 'punk'.

Quote from: GRIMYep, but nobody except pedants, grammar nazis and forum posters ever bothers saying 'die' instead of 'dice'. Plus 'die' just didn't work right and didn't feel 'punk'.

Last time I went to the bother of checking I found that die and dice are both acceptable now.

For those of you born after the original of this was produced, it's a riff off a legendary punk poster

Google image search is failing me - this is the best version of it I can find
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/now%20form%20a%20band.GIF)

(With thanks to Nighttime Animals Save the World and Unistat, both of which I egregiously rip off)

   Everyone starts with a d20, a d10 and a d6.

People start narrating what the hell happens.

When two people disagree on what might happen, they each secretly choose a die.  They then openly roll.  Whoever rolls higher gets their way.  Then the players swap the dice they rolled (so if I roll my d20 then you get it after the conflict, and if you roll your d6 then that's what I get in return).

That's the game.

Why wouldn't everyone always roll the d20?

'cuz you don't want to lose it in trade.  Like, say we both start out the game, with d20 d10 d6.  Now we get into a conflict, and you really want to win so you roll your d20. I'm okay with losing, but I'd like a shot at victory, so I roll my d10.  You win, we trade dice.  Now you've got 2d10 and a d6.  I've got 2d20 and a d6.  Suddenly I've got a lot more sway in our next conflict than you do.

Does that make clear why you wouldn't always roll your d20?

Ok, but if everyone rolls the d20, we just all trade D20s.


...


Indie gaming is confusing.

Everyone rolls the d20 only in those conflicts which everyone is desperate to win. In reality, this is only rarely going to be the case - some people will be totally committed to getting their way, while others will be happy to let things slide.

I am more concerned with how the system manages conflicts with more than 2 participants. Highest roller trades with lowest roller? Highest roller trades with 2nd-highest?

Guys, y'know, it'd be much more in the spirit of the thread if instead of trying to pick the first off-handed contribution to pieces, somebody made a second off-handed contribution.  Don't you think?

Yeah, but how much fun would that be.

Ok, here's my thing with this:

Why do people have to be constantly designing new games? I don't see the point. All that time designing these little pointless games is time you could be spending actually being part of the hobby.

There's a misconception that designers are "artists" (in the way that musicians are artists). Theyre not. Theyre just doing the intermediary step on their way to becoming salesmen. If they play at all they are probably playtesting. Or demo-ing. Or trying out a system by one of their fellow designers. The purpose being "here's what it would be like if anyone were to actually really pick this up". They are concerned with system, not content.

I have no idea why anyone would willingly choose the designer/salesman path over being simply a hobbyist. So this poster is confusing to me. Designers aren't like musicians at all, theyre like guys who create kazoos.

People who run games, who create adventures, manage campaign groups, write scenarios, and do it all week to week-- and are involved in the playing side of the hobby -- are the ones doing the real creative work.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhy do people have to be constantly designing new games?

1. Because it's fun.
2. To find new, better or more interesting ways of doing things.
3. To fulfil that creative urge to the best extent.

Quote from: GRIM1. Because it's fun.
2. To find new, better or more interesting ways of doing things.
3. To fulfil that creative urge to the best extent.

Because it's fun.. sure. But I just question how much fun it really is.
I mean, the actual gaming part, I get. That's totally fun. But game design? Is sort of a lonely fun. I guess it used to be more fun back when you could declare yourself an amateur psychologist and all. I hear that's turning out a lot less fun this year.

For point 2, my assertion is that the finding stuff, and making new ways for things to work..  is just work. Isn't it? Maybe I'm wrong about that. I wrote a whole system for racing chariots one time for a game. The fun part was when we actually used it.

And for the third part, I would concede it to a point. Amateur game design is a way (amongst many ways) to be creative. This ties back to your first point. If there's any fun in game design at all, it has to be in this.

But really, I want to put forth my hypothesis that the real creativity is not in the structures and systems, it's in the content. Thats the guys who sit down and make maps, or create a cast of characters or design scenarios or whatever. What used to be called "Setting design" (and is now pretty much just tossed aside, because "system matters soooo much") is where the real artists (freelancers, graphic artists and all those guys) pretty much live. It's very much out of vogue.

I see system and setting as part and parcel of the same intersupporting thing.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhy do people have to be constantly designing new games? I don't see the point. All that time designing these little pointless games is time you could be spending actually being part of the hobby.

I don't see the point in replying to threads in a Game Design and Theory Forum trying to convince people they shouldn't be designing games or discussing game theory. Wouldn't that time be better spent doing something else? :confused:

If nobody is designing games, then no new games get created - fine for you, but what happens when the current crop of designers dies? THINK OF THE CHILDREN, MAN! :O

-clash

Quote from: StuartI don't see the point in replying to threads in a Game Design and Theory Forum trying to convince people they shouldn't be designing games or discussing game theory. Wouldn't that time be better spent doing something else? :confused:

I'll break it out for you: My disagreement has to do with the origins of the poster:

In music, the entry level for creativity is having your own band. That's the point of the original poster. Also, although it remains unstated, that poster does not imply any kind of public consumption. When d. boon from the minutemen talked about there being a garage band on every corner, he didn't imply that they'd be out trying to sell records. This was about expression first.

But in roleplaying games, this doesn't follow. Designing a game is emphatically not the entry level of creativity. Also, I question whether designing a game is truly a creative path at all, rather than just the intermediary step onto becoming a salesman.

The entry level is consumer.
Part of the point of punk was the DIY ethos, and I think that's always been somewhat present in RPGs.

Some people make games and give them away for free.  

(I'm not saying game design is like punk.  That's someone else's argument. ;))

GRIM, Stuart:  Ignore the nay-sayer.  Design a game.  He can't stop you, or even slow you down, unless you let him.

If we're going with just the 3, why not a game of court intrigue, where the players are courtiers attempting to levy influence/push an agenda?  Each player prioritizes 3 attributes:  Wit (used to deliver a cutting remark or see through a nefarious plan), Station (used for political punch and to control what or whom is fashionable at the time), and Physique (how good you are at the equestrian arts, duelling, and the like).
 
So a courtier of great wit, middle station, but poor physique would have a d20 in Wit, a d10 in Station, and a d6 in Physique.  A courtier of average wit, great phsyique, but poor station (a landless knight or petty rural noble), would have a d10 in Wit, a d6 in Station, and a d20 in Physique.
 
Whenever there's a conflict, either the players (if contested)  or the GM (representing the other faction, though I suppose you could just as easily not have a GM) roll off, highest roll winning.  However, every time a player calls on an attribute during a session, it Taxes it, meaning a -1 to their next roll (for a minimum of 1).  (The body wearies, the station becomes undignified/weakened with too many favors asked/called in, and given too long without rest, the tongue stumbles).  Taxing should reset each session.
 
And that's it for that.

Zachary:  Rockin'!  I like the Amber-esque way in which any two people will likely each have a specialty in which they outshine the other ... so that some of the challenge (when you're just trying to win, as opposed to husbanding your resources for later victory) will be trying to frame a conflict in ways that play to your strengths rather than those of your opponent.

Quote from: TonyLBGRIM, Stuart:  Ignore the nay-sayer.  Design a game.  He can't stop you, or even slow you down, unless you let him.

Well, duh. I can't stop anyone. I'm just questioning the point of it.

I like when Tony starts to panic. :)

Zachary, this sounds like a damn cool idea. Just rewatched the TV mini series Elizabeth...so courtly intrigue is definitely one of the things my players want to do some time soon...although they want it set, either in Burma (Siam) or India...:D

Regards,
David R

Well, hey, I'm glad a couple of you like it.  Courtly intrigue is always fun...I always thought something around the time of Henry VIII be a blast.

QuoteWhy do people have to be constantly designing new games? I don't see the point. All that time designing these little pointless games is time you could be spending actually being part of the hobby.

designer as outsider and non game player??  OH, you might be thinking about that other site (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/).

Next up:  heading to the Blogs to ask people why they bother posting stuff...

QuoteNext up: heading to the Blogs to ask people why they bother posting stuff...

Well, the more accurate way of putting it, would be to show up at places where people are happily blogging and try to convince them that instead of blogging, they should be creating new types of blog software.

Wait, is that not getting through? That's my fucking point, right there.

QuoteBut in roleplaying games, this doesn't follow. Designing a game is emphatically not the entry level of creativity. Also, I question whether designing a game is truly a creative path at all, rather than just the intermediary step onto becoming a salesman.

Maw, fiddling with rules and making your own games is a part of the hobby. To continue the analogizing, you're busting in on a guy working on a terrain for his model trains and telling him he's wasting his time because Bill down the street has a great set of tracks already laid down. Hell, are you really saying that the people responsible for the hundreds of free games out there are have no relation to the hobby? (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/freerpgs/fulllist.html) It may be a different level of creativity from the table, but pure history shows this activity is indeed an inextricable part of the RPG hobby.

Stop being such a dumbass.

Maybe this is too complex for you guys. Analogies are stupid, so let's use them again.

A model train guy that builds his own terrain is analgous to a GM building a campaign. I'd never bust on that guy. He's an artist and a craftsman.

But I would totally bust on:

A guy that designs a new terrain manufacturing product for model trains (simulated gravel, guaranteed to make your train more psychologically safe, guaranteed not to traumatize you with sharp edges!), and advocates that other people give up their train sets to try their hand at the simulated gravel manufacturing process.. He also wishes to sell you bags of gravel for a nominal fee.

I'm willing to concede that the second guy is doing harder work. He may even make a buck or two at it. Heck, it is creative (in a way) to be a gravel manufacturer. There are elements of craft and art here, sure. But this guy is a salesman. He's selling his little bags of gravel, and he's selling the idea of the gravel being helpful.

And he doesn't compare to the first guy- the real craftsman. The first guy is already engaged with the train hobby.

I n the same way, I feel that exhorting people to "design a game" as a way to creatively engage the hobby is just silly.

I'll just drop it at that unless you guys want to keep arguing. I don't care if you disagree or not. I'm mainly still just clarifying because I feel like you don't understand.

Quote from: JamesVMaw, fiddling with rules and making your own games is a part of the hobby. To continue the analogizing, you're busting in on a guy working on a terrain for his model trains and telling him he's wasting his time because Bill down the street has a great set of tracks already laid down. Hell, are you really saying that the people responsible for the hundreds of free games out there are have no relation to the hobby? (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/freerpgs/fulllist.html) It may be a different level of creativity from the table, but pure history shows this activity is indeed an inextricable part of the RPG hobby.

Stop being such a dumbass.

By the way, I wrote two of the games on that list you linked.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBy the way, I wrote two of the games on that list you linked.

Which ones?  I've got a ton of free RPGs (legally) on my HD--maybe I've played yours!

Quote from: Abyssal MawBy the way, I wrote two of the games on that list you linked.

And you really don't think you were engaging in a creative aspect of the hobby?

I'm sorry, but that's a headscratcher to me.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstWhich ones?  I've got a ton of free RPGs (legally) on my HD--maybe I've played yours!

I don't want to reveal my secret identity!




...




Oh, ok. Pumpkin Town and the Nutcracker Prince. I wrote more and didn't save them (I think I found some old ones via the archive.org thingy too). Those two survived because they were both archived by other people. Notably for both of those, they were mostly settings and flavor and very light on rules, or took rules from elsewhere. They aren't that great. I did alot of art back in those days as well.

And to answer JamesV:
I really don't think it mattered much. I love creating content- I think that's the place to really do creative work, but I have found over the years that content creation is not really considered to be game design. "System does matter" basicly translates into "new ways of rolling dice is more important than content".

Quote from: Abyssal MawWait, is that not getting through? That's my fucking point, right there.

So, what, we should all be playing white box D&D?
Oh, wait, hang on, no, we should be playing fantasy wargames.
Nope, wait, that's not it, we should be playing napoleonic wargames.
Wait... no, um... chess? Checkers?
The Royal Game of Ur?

Grim:

People should all be playing whatever they like to play, regardless.

I am saying this:
Game design shouldn't be the primary focus of the hobby, and certainly not the creative entry point.

I'm saying that the notion that designing games is the "important creative part" of the hobby is actually false. It is neither as creative or as important as it is made out to be.

I'm saying that being actually engaged in the hobby is important.  

That's clearly a whole passel of opinion positions. I don't care if you disagree, but please understand them.

Well, I write games myself, so I'm biased.

But I'd say you have the creator of the field...
...they enable the creators of the games...
...who enable the people who run the games...
...who enable the people who play the games.

You can't play a game if a guy can't run a game.
You can't run a game without something to run.
You can't create a game within a field without the initial innovator within that field.

I appreciate what you're saying, but you seem to be bringing it out as anti creativity or innovation.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'll just drop it at that unless you guys want to keep arguing. I don't care if you disagree or not. I'm mainly still just clarifying because I feel like you don't understand.

Maybe you should only bust on on folks when they start behavin' like wankers (going on a one true way rant for instance), not when they are having fun talking about designing games.

Regards,
David R

Character sheet:

-------------------------------------------------------
"I'm really good at __________________." D20

"I'm really bad at __________________." D6



"My greatest friend or love is _______________" +/-D20

"My greatest rival or enemy is _______________" +/-D10

--------------------------------------------------------

Chargen: For good/bad, name anything you want, subject to group veto for wankery like "I'm really good at being the best at everything" or "I'm really bad at failing." For friend/rival, at least one should be another player-character. This need not be reciprocal.

All players take turns setting a scene. If a Player-character isn't in a scene at the outset, that character's player can have an entrance with the scene-setter's permission. Once the scene's set, everyone free-narrates what's happening, each player narrating the actous of their own PC, and freely sharing narration of any other characters. Free-play like this until a player objects to another's action, on behalf of their own PC or an NPC.

The player who called for a conflict rolls against the player taking action, with the appropriate character die if his PC is opposing. If an NPC is opposing, roll a D10; if it's the PC's friend or rival, roll a D20. Winner wins the conflict, and narrates how.

What to roll: default die is D10, roll D20 or D6 if the action falls under the character's "good at"/"bad at" respectively. Both subject to approval of both players in the conflict, with group arbitration in a deadlock. If the friend and/or rival are involved, roll the appropriate die. Add it if the friend/rival is supporting the character or is at a disadvantage, or subtract it if they are opposing the character/have the disadvantage.


There it is. A little over-explainy, maybe, I apologize.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorFor good/bad, name anything you want, subject to group veto for wankery like "I'm really good at being the best at everything"

Way back in college, I was making up a character for a friend who wanted to play, but didn't want to learn every single rule of Champions and when asked he said (roughly) "Why, my character is really good at being the best there is at everything!"

I replied:  "How about your character is really good at believing that he's the best there is at everything!"

"Even better!" my friend replied, a nasty gleam in his eye.  And boy, he worked that skill to death in the game that followed.

Good times, good times.  Thanks for the stroll down memory lane!

No prob! :D

Hmm.  False dicotomies and implications of dysfunction.

for someone who claims to hate the Forge so much, Maw sure reminds me a lot of them . . .

Which dysfunction am I implicating? I haven't been paying attention...

I'm just saying "Hey you! Become a game designer!" ain't that cool.

QuoteAlso, I question whether designing a game is truly a creative path at all, rather than just the intermediary step onto becoming a salesman.

:rolleyes:

Take the smug condescension to the Forge thanks.

Quote from: J Arcane:rolleyes:

Take the smug condescension to the Forge thanks.

What, that the designer path as it is now being advocated is just intermediary (and probably subordinate to) to becoming a salesman?  I actually, truly believe that.

And although I wouldn't restrict such a designation to the forgies, I think they'd probably admit it as well. Whether we're talking about "let me sell you my game" or "let me sell you my philosophy"; that's what we're really talking about.

In a way this is the pitfall of having "theory" be so prominent in what is supposed to be (and once was) an artistic community. In reality, forgie theory is just dogma. Everything-- or nearly everything-- is critiqued on the basis of how it does or doesn't meet the theory.

I'm not sure how you got dysfunction out of that, but I'm getting a feeling you want to pick a fight over it!

Kinda funny. I'm not sure where to go with that, though.

Look.

The best these guys can offer is design by committee.

Half the time I hear these little "vignettes" and they come across like stuff someone put on a brochure. Here, just reread this shit, for a second.

Quote"Why, my character is really good at being the best there is at everything!"

"How about your character is really good at believing that he's the best there is at everything!"

"Even better!" my friend replied, a nasty gleam in his eye. And boy, he worked that skill to death in the game that followed....

IT'S A FUCKING MENTOS COMMERCIAL.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI mean, the actual gaming part, I get. That's totally fun. But game design? Is sort of a lonely fun. I guess it used to be more fun back when you could declare yourself an amateur psychologist and all. I hear that's turning out a lot less fun this year.

QuoteBut really, I want to put forth my hypothesis that the real creativity is not in the structures and systems, it's in the content. Thats the guys who sit down and make maps, or create a cast of characters or design scenarios or whatever. What used to be called "Setting design" (and is now pretty much just tossed aside, because "system matters soooo much") is where the real artists (freelancers, graphic artists and all those guys) pretty much live. It's very much out of vogue.

Again:  :rolleyes:

More verbosely:  Just where the fuck do you get off implying that somehow game desin is "less creative" than anything else?

:forge:

Design a game?

But what if, like me, you find you're utterly lacking in the talent department? AND couldn't care less?

D-Does that mean I can't play?

That's me too, Pierce. Good thing there's people out there designing stuff I like.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityDesign a game?

But what if, like me, you find you're utterly lacking in the talent department? AND couldn't care less?

D-Does that mean I can't play?

No.

Any more than, as Maw suggests, designing precludes you from playing.

The relief!

droog, WTF is up with the Zizek sig? That's like twenty lines over the rpg.net limit. You ditch this now, or I'll channel Heidegger.

Actually, make that Hardt & Negri, the dynamic duo.

Hey, my last one was bigger and you didn't complain about that!

Quote from: J ArcaneAgain:  :rolleyes:

More verbosely:  Just where the fuck do you get off implying that somehow game desin is "less creative" than anything else?

:forge:

Where do I get off? I dunno. I'm just putting it out there. Disagree if you like, but it's my honest observation.

Here's a couple of facts:

Most of the Forgie game designs are actually cribbing off of each other hugely.

Most of them have many of the same mechanics, with only slight re-arranging.
 
Even in cases where they aren't directly taking the system of one game and adding or changing (which happens more often than you'd think), they hit a lot of similarities. Dice pools. "Conflict resolution". "Shared narration". It's pretty much design-by-checklist. There are a few people that are doing new and different things but.. ehh. I mean, the new and different things don't always work that great either.

The point is: new and different or old and stodgy or anything else, people who obsessively design game systems aren't actually doing anything really hugely indicative of artistic merit. I include my favorite systems in there as well.  

I kinda suspect thats the appeal for some of it; "Declare yourself a beat poet"

Quote from: J ArcaneNo.

Any more than, as Maw suggests, designing precludes you from playing.

I don't actually think designing necessarily precludes anyone from playing.

I do think that people who have internalized the dime-store psychology of the forge are on a one way trip out of the hobby. They are being trained to not play with anyone they don't know, and to not tolerate anyone who doesn't play "the same way". Many of them quit playing entirely (and they admit it. I mean, come one, I've seen the livejournal posts.) Many of these guys pretty much only get together once a year. Many go to the biggest gaming convention in the world and spend the entire time 1) playTESTING and DEMOing each others designs and 2) hanging out in the dealers hall. (By the way, I can tell you from experience: least interesting place to hang out.)

 Most of what they talk about is sales talk: which things are selling, and which ideas are selling. And who is buying.

Some of them are even stuck roleplaying over the phone (which is kinda funny to me for some reason). ah, but for an accident of geography.

Many of the guys who can actually admit to having not actually touched gaming in months are obsessive contributors to message boards like this one.
I mean, hey, I can admit I'm an opinionated crank, but I have had a weekly session for the last 6 years. My view? The Bitter Non gamer is a real phenomenon.

Anyhow, I look at this shit, and I think to myself "this is crazy" . "here's a dice, now design a game"? Fuck that. Why not just actually be part of the hobby?"

We don't need the brochures and the Mentos commercials.

I'm playing along, JArcane. I guess your'e trying to argue with me (?) or something, but your'e not really making much sense. What we have now is you make an accusation that doesn't reflect what I actually think, then I clarify myself.

I mean, geez, just ask.

My own data point is this: some years ago I was on the verge of losing interest in roleplaying altogether. I was bored. I'd moved interstate, and without my old-time group there seemed to be nothing keeping me in the so-called hobby.

Then I discovered a bunch of interesting games that propelled me into actively seeking people to play with. At this point I've met about twenty or thirty people and played with people I didn't know for the first time since 1982. I've got access to as much – more – roleplaying as I've got time for.

Just my story. I'm glad there's people doing stuff with games that meets my needs, or even stuff that doesn't. Personally I think it's more engineering than art, but the world needs engineers. I can't build my own motorbike but I like riding them.

Somebody's got to make the guitars, and I've seen some damn nice guitars in my (short) time.

Set the three dice in front of you.

d20 = Conflict points. Set to 10
d10 = Relationship points. Set to 5
d6 = Fate points. Set to 1

You spend ___ points to do _____:
Conflict: whoever spends more wins the argument, single blind bid.
Relationship: one to create a new NPC and have some relationship with him/her (hate, love, rivalry, family)
Fate: one to create one major plot point or otherwise massively guide the story in a certain direction.

You get ___points back by doing ____:
Conflict: Get 1 back everytime you shut up and let someone else talk.
Relationship: get 1 back everytime you form or permantly end a relationship with another persons NPC (fall in love with Bob's sister? Get one.  Kill her in anger and end that. Get one)
Fate: Everytime a major plot thread is finished, everybody gets 1.  Get one if everyone at the table really likes what you just did and feels like you deserve one.

Diceless gaming with dice, hooray story games.

CA:  Is there a differentiated "GM" role?  Or does everyone take that on by using the Fate points to throw in plots?

The relationship dice (particularly the way one earns them back) look to push it toward very Amber-like family relationships.  "Oh, you've got a girlfriend?  Cool.  I fall in love with her, then kidnap her in a jealous fit and exile her to an island of magic snakes.  Two points for me!" :D

What I think AM is saying is that "DIY game design" and "punk rock" aren't really parallel. "Punk rock" is a rebellion against consumerism, a challenge to people to entertain themselves instead of depending on socially-anointed "artists". Drawing a parallel between that and "DIY game design" suggests that people who play D&D are equivalent to people who just buy records at the store and never make music for themselves and their friends.

Elliot gets it in one.

Well here is my submission:

The Die TenTwentySix System:

Each Character has 3 abilities: Physical, Social and Mental
Assign one of these dice to each ability: d6, d10, d20

Each character has Hit Points equal to the maximum value of their physical die.
Each character has Sanity Points equal to the maximum value of their Mental die
Each character has Ego Points equal to the maximum value of their Social die

When two people enter a contest, the most relevant ability is chosen for both participants and they each roll their corresponding die. All dice are "exploding" and the highest roll wins. A tie means that no decisive victory was made this turn unless another character jumps in to help one of the participants.

Aiding another character adds +2 to their roll if you make the same roll and are no more than 2 points below their roll.

Combat: Combat is an opposed Physical roll. If the attacker wins, then their opponent suffers damage equal to the amount by which the attacker’s roll beat the defender’s roll.

Magic: Magic is resolved by an opposed Mental roll. If the attacker wins, they may determine some effect that the defender suffers (sees an illusion, is charmed etc.). Magic can cause the defender to loose hit points or sanity points equal to the amount by which the attacker’s roll beat the defender’s roll.

Social Influence: You can make opposed Social rolls to convince someone to listen to you, and another to convince someone to help you. If they are hostile you must first make a social roll to keep them from attacking you. You can also engage in social combat by debating and flinging insults. Social combat is resolved like physical combat except it is based off of the Social statistic.

Damage: When a character is below half their hit points they suffer -1 to all Physical die rolls. When they are at 0 hit points they are unconscious. They are dead at -5.

When a character is below half their sanity points they suffer -1 to all Mental die rolls. When they are at 0 hit points they are temporarily insane. They are permanently insane at -5.

When a character is below half their Ego points they suffer -1 to all Social die rolls. When they are at 0 Ego points they are dishonored and outcast. They become game designers at -5.

Exploding Dice: On any die roll, if you roll the maximum value on your die you can roll again and add the result to your original roll.

Note: I realize that this game is far from "ballanced," and would pobably work better with a d8 a d10 and a d12 instead of a d6 a d10 and a d20, but those were the dice I had to work with.