Author: Paul (---.sympatico.ca)
Date: 07-18-2003 11:16
Hi Sergio,
I don't usually write much on this forum, but I just wanted to let you know that I've been reading your entire "design process" and have found it quite useful, especially your mechanics on "intent" as a part of a roleplaying system. This is a good idea you have here---developed more than any RPG has done in the past, and if it can be incorporated into a streamlined and 'playable' system, that would be a step forward I think in rules design (sure other games like Heroes have done similar---but not quite to the magnitude you present here)
I read the chapter "Travails and Misfortunes" where you describe the system of rules to be used in this game. You mention that you are struggling still, and given the ambitious nature of this system, I can see why it is difficult (your system is trying to be very accurate in combining real-life factors to determine outcomes of actions---but most RPGs are not true to real-life, so this is an ambitious attempt on your part!)
After reading through, it seems to me that your system "works" in the sense that it does provide an accurate assessment of factors and gives a reasonable chance for allowing all possible results to occur. However, the process of acheiving this strikes me as very convoluted. I think the complexity lies in the multiple layers of "abstraction" which players are forced to go through in order to resolve any action involving a reasonable risk of failure (i.e. all actions that are not assumed to be 'automatic').
If I correctly understand your "steps" to performing an action, a player must consider context, goal, task and performance--all of which are essentially modifiers to the final outcome. However, even though you describe these in simple enough terms, they each have their own inner-complexities, forcing players to break down their actions to a level of abstraction that seems to easily lose sight of its original intention (at least it does for me----in fact, even with your references to the examples of Mendes Pinto and the prince, I still found myself reading things over two or three times to make sure I understood how the mechanics were being exemplified).
I think you still need to delineate more clearly and simplify the areas of context, goal, task and performance (in particular, the Task rules have an additional layer of abstration: the concept of Task Points seems to me nothing more than unneeded complexity---couldn't quality and timing not be handled like everything else with bonus and penalty dice? Doing so would greatly simplify these rules).
I think you also need to simplify a lot of your headings: for example, you have Setting Goals, Commitment, Unknown Constraints, Surprise, etc...the chapter is very lengthy because there is a lot of these "complications"; and although they use the same basic principle of adding bonus or penalty dice, you give them their own tables, effectively treating them as separate entities. While that maybe technically true---presentation and clarity of these concepts would greatly improve by using one table and listing these as 'possible' complications which players/GMs can arbitrate as they see fit. So, rather than have a separate table for surprise, commitment, timing, quality and all the other things, just use one table, which all of these things refer to (sort of like this):
Degree of Modifier Bonus/Penalty Dice
Highly Favourable 1 or 2 bonus
Favourable no modifier
Unfavourable 1 or 2 penalty
Impossible No action occurs
With one table, you no longer need separate Commitment tables, Task/performance tables, surprise tables, etc. For example, on your surprise table, the "Motivated" row corresponds to 'highly favourable', your "ready" entry corresponds to 'favourable', and 'unfavourable' takes into account "surprised/alert" depending on situation. Finally, "clueless" is accounted for above with 'impossible' (i.e. character is paralyzed, sleeping, or simply unable to act).
Another example, Commitment: "passionate" on your Commitment Table corresponds to the above 'highly favourable', "committed" to 'favourable', "ambivalent/reactive" to 'unfavourable' and "inactive" to 'impossible' (i.e. character's feeling/response to situation does not allow action).
As I mentioned earlier, Complexity, Timing and Quality could also be taken into consideration as part of the above "Degree of Modifier" chart. This way, the GM and players can figure out all of these circumstances (timing/quality/commitment/performance, etc...) just by referring to one simple chart. And, you can have all of these factors in a simple checklist for players/GMs to scan over to quickly determine which ones might apply in any given situation during gameplay.
These of course are just suggestions (one way out of many) as to how you might simplify it---I just wanted to provide concrete examples as to what I feel makes your system very abstract and difficult to understand, and I hope these examples/suggestions help show this. As you've mentioned to others in previous forums, the presentation of the rules has definitely been your biggest problem, but keeping the rules as simple as possible will also greatly add to clarity. Anyway, I think you've got some great ideas, and I would like to see how this turns out. Keep it up!
Paul
|
|
