31 October, 2011 at 4:51 pm (game design)
One GM, bunch of players. Players may not get to play the same characters every session.
Characters are, for example: Hunter, Moon, Wolf, Spider, Woman. Those work as both names and descriptions – Moon is exactly and only that, a moon.
(So no, you can’t play Conan the barbarian. You can’t play Conan. You can play [the] Barbarian.)
Player characters have contracts with other characters (player and non-player alike). Contract has value at most +3. Characters may also have oaths, with value -3 or more.
When player character tries to get another character to do something, player rolls 2d6+contract (with that character). E.g. Wolf wants Forest to provide bountiful meat for its young. Man wants Star to guide him home. Spider wants to catch Sun in its web. Soldier wants her Gun to slay her enemies. So, roll this whenever you want to do something to someone or want someone to do something.
- On 10+: They do it if you promise to do something later; +1 contract when you fulfill that promise, -1 contract if you don’t. You may deny the deal at no cost.
- On 7-9: They do it if you first do something for them; +1 contract if you do, -1 contract if you cheat. You may deny the deal at no cost.
- On 6-: They may or may not do it, and make a demand. If you do it, +1 contract; if you don’t do it, -1 contract.
When player character wants to use the power of another character, the player rolls 2d6+contract. This is serious magic – roll to run as Hare, shine as Sun, burn as Flame.
- On 10+, +1 contract and the power does what you wanted.
- On 7-9: Select one. A: The power works as desired, but -1 contract. B: The power works mostly or almost as desired, but there are complications. C: The power is of no help at all, but +1 contract.
- On 6-: -1 contract and the power is of no help at all.
At the end of a session, each player character goes through the other player characters. Tell them to mark +1 contract if they helped you and kept to the spirit of their agreements with you, and -1 contract if they hurt you or wiggled out of agreements with you. You may tell them both, neither, or only one, according to their play.
If contract has value +3 and it increases, then instead set it to be +1 and get a permanent power. E.g. Flame never hurts you, you can see through darkness as if the Sun always shone, your sense of smell rivals that of Dog.
At any point, any player character may swear an oath. The character can no longer be played by the GM at all, ever. When player select their characters, they must always first select the oathsworn ones. The oath starts at the value +1. Player character can swear several oaths (though make sure they are genuinely different).
If player character breaks an oath, the player takes it off the character sheet and they get -1 to all contracts, current and future. This stacks. The character still needs to be selected first when players pick their characters.
When character accomplishes something major in accordance with their oath (i.e. gets closer to fulfilling it, or acts as a paragon to all who aspire to follow the oath), +1 oath.
At the beginning of each session (where the character is in play), -1 all oaths.
When player character uses their inherent strengths to make their oath true, roll 2d6+oath. E.g. Knight has sworn to rescue Prince and faces Dragon in fair combat.
- On 10+: Everything goes fine or there’s complications and +1 oath.
- On 7-9: Choose: There’s complications or -1 oath and everything goes fine.
- On 6-: Choose: Break your oath or -1 oath and it all goes wrong.
If oath has the value -3 and would decrease, the character instead leaves play, quickly and in a miserable way.
If character ever completes an oath, then they leave play. Check the oath’s value.
- -3 to -1: They live their life miserably after.
- 0: And none know what became of them.
- 1+: And they live happily ever after.
- Higher than highest thus far: And they live in extreme bliss ever after. The player has serious bragging rights. Keep score.
When character leaves play, that particular character can never be played again by anyone.
14 September, 2011 at 9:53 pm (game design)
Suppose you have a specific experience or method of playing and then build a game so that it reliably creates that experience. Or maybe you play a game in certain way and want others to be able to do so, and to accomplish this you rewrite and possibly redesign the game you are playing to be accessible to outsiders in the way it is to you.
On the other hand, suppose you play in a certain way and build or tweak a system so that it supports you as well as is within your reach. Maybe you even write the results and publish them. (It might be called a fantasy heartbreaker or a set of house rules.)
The second method is not geared towards creating legible documents. The text is generally incapable of teaching the method of play that works so well for the designers. The first method requires very much writing and thinking that is mostly wasted effort if you are simply designing for your own play.
Levels or skills should advance when they are used, but Basic roleplaying (Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, etc.) makes it awfully slow, while Burning Wheel’s approach requires inelegant tables and book-keeping and system mastery.
The idea is: For each class or skill write a list of fictional actions.
So, for fighter in old school game:
- Fight a superior foe
- Fight against superior numbers
- Protect an ally in combat
- Avenge someone close to you (kill the orcs who burned your father’s farm, say)
- Recover an ancestral weapon or piece of armour
- Use an ancestral weapon or piece of armour
- Recover a weapon or piece of armour of legendary status
- Use legendary equipment
- Slay a beast of legend
- Lead an army
- Survive a siege
- Be the master of a company of mercenaries
- Conquer a castle
- Establish a stronghold
- Keep a stronghold
Whenever an action is accomplished, mark it.
Once you have marks equal to next level or rank, erase all marks and increase the level or rank by one.
Note that the list includes things that fighters do, and likewise people who do those things are fighters, to some extent at least. At low leves fighter only need to fulfill their role in the party, while at high levels they need to build a legend of their own and influence the world in order to advance.
As a further bonus, this gives a nice way of estimating NPC strength. See how many things you mark, and that is an upper bound for their level. How many things they certainly have marked at the same time? That’s the lower bound. Lord of a castle in an area of constant warfare certainly has led an army, survived a siege and kept a stronghold at the same time (so level at least three), but may also have conquered a castle, led mercenaries, protected an ally in combat, fought against superior numbers and against a superior foe and avenged someone close (so at most level nine).
It is easy to change the conditions and at the same time change what fighters are in the setting, and who are fighters in the setting.
For further complexity, training: Obviously it could be yet another action. But maybe it is automatically erased when the character stops training. Otherwise, better action would be to train under famous/more skilled/legendary master.
Or consider: Add some actions that depend on character race or alignment.
Or: Have players build the list when starting play, or adding a new entry at the beginning of each session, or when someone levels up that class or skill.
There’s some limitations, of course. You would not want to do this in a game system with huge list of skills, or then you would have to have each character only develop a handful at a time.
Skill reduction can be handled like this, too. Write one action, or several actions, or absences of actions. When they are marked, the player has the option of reducing the skill or class level in question. If the players opts to do so, then they get some compensation equal to the marked actions and the marks are erased. Some tokens, say.
Similar rules: Magical items in Earthdawn (IIRC), keys in Solar system (the reduction is buy-off), this thread about Dungeon world.
In other news
I’m running two Amber games at Tracon (if there are players – last year it was an anime convention with some roleplayers huddling in a corner) and maybe giving away some rpg and maybe fantasy books I no longer use.
There has been several updates and one playtest of diceless/nopaton, which now lives on Google docs. It is still in Finnish. The major change is that now there are some principles for playing it. And there is rotating player (and hence game masters, sort of).
I developed the ideas of previous post a bit, cleaned them up, and wrote them down in Finnish. It is not done yet. It is free of copyright, so do whatever you will with or to it. Here’s the link: diceless
WordPress does not allow uploading .tex or .txt files, so if you want the .tex source for the PDF, feel free to ask. You can then recreate the PDF with LaTeX and easily modify it, change the appearance, remove the aesthetically unpleasing hyperlinks, or whatever you want to.
I also have two other PDFs that may have content of interest. I have not really worked on them for a while, and if I do so, it will include rewriting and in case of the old school project redesign from scratch. The projects are scifi material for Solar System (in Finnish) and yet another attempt at old school system (in English). Links: huomisenvarjot and OSrpg. A fair warning: The writing and presentation are horrible. These are more first drafts than anything else.
As previously, the .tex and .bib (bibliography) files are available on request.
Now I’m off to meet relatives and then to Ropecon, where I’m running one throne war of Amber diceless and one town of Dogs. Back online after a bit more than a week.
This is an idea for a method for world creation and for playing a preferably high-powered fantasy rpg. This is rambling and overtly detailed, but the idea was making my sleep difficult so I had to write it somewhere.
Consider, how in Amber diceless, there are four attributes (psyche, strength, warfare, endurance) which correspond to different arenas of conflict – though endurance is more of a supporting attribute, but let us ignore that for now. Since the attributes are auctioned from a common pool of resources, balance between them is not a great problem.
Consider computer strategy games, real-time or not, with fantastic creatures. For example: Battle for Wesnoth, Heroes of might and magic, and Warlords & Warlords battlecry. (Various iterations of each, naturally.) Typically they have various factions which are often tied to races/species or cultures. The factions have certain mechanical tendencies. In Wesnoth drakes breath and resist fire and are individually tough, orcs rely on hordes of damaging units while elves fight and move exceptionally well in forests and have strong archery. There are also thematic trends. In Warlods battlecry, dark dwarves have war machines and magical technology, demons have summoning and souls, while orcs have aggressive and simple units.
Suppose there are at least three players and maybe a game master (not counted as a player here). I’d like to have four or five players for this. Each player selects one theme or venue of conflict or something similar. This could be: warfare, beauty, horse, runic magic, dream, faith, water, thunderstorm, cunning, politics, candle, sword, economics, alien technology, mutant, spider. There are constraints on this, but they are soft and social. Group can and should discuss what sort of elements they want – consider that everyone select an animal, or a Greek or Chinese element, or some form of magic, or maybe a tarot card or horoscope. Or just have a chaotic soup and see what emerges.
The selected elements are the attributes all characters have. Now each player needs paper for character sheet. There’s an auction for each attribute. For the order of attributes, determine randomly or as follows: Each player selects a number between one and hundred. First auction the attribute associated with the second highest number, then the third highest, …, and finally the highest.
The auctions happen pretty much as in Amber diceless. Each player has hundred points. The player whose element is auctioned does not participate in the auction, while every other player does. First participants each make a blind bid. These are listed and public. Any bid after this must exceed the highest bid thus far. 99 is absolute maximum bid, while 0 is the minimum. If there is chaos, proceed as follows: The lowest bidder first has an opportunity to bid higher, than the second lowest bidder, and so on until everyone has had an opportunity. Then repeat until done. All bids are binding. If players do not use all their points, or bid in excess of them, they get corresponding amount of good or bad karma or fate or luck or stuff (use whichever term has not been selected by any player as an element). Optionally, you can allow upping the attributes in secret, up to the number of points equal to any higher bid minus one.
For each attribute, calculate the total number of points bid on it (so whatever the player who selected that element bought is not included in the total). Sort the attributes correspondingly. The attribute with the highest total is the most relevant, and so on.
Now you need an empty paper for a map. A4 or A3 should be quite enough. The player who selected the highest attribute starts by drawing some place that is the center of her element roughly in the middle of the map. It could be a kingdom, a mountain, a forgotten and ancient statue, crashed alien spaceship, or some other reasonably evocative location. The player names the location and gives a brief description of it, thereby explaining how it relates to the player’s element. This also further defines the element – consider: Fire as the element, and the location is a city with its citizens fiery of nature and red of complexion, or the location a lonely mountain that occasionally spews forth liquid fire, or a huge forest through which fires often run. Each gives a very different view of the element. Take another paper, write the element in the middle of it, and write down some of these associations (or use a list instead of mind map).
The other players do the same in order of their attributes, always selecting some large empty area of the map (consider established locations and edges as not empty and stay some distance away) and telling what place there lies and how it relates to their element. There are few limitations: Anything associated with one element can’t be associated to another. E.g. if quick thinking is associated to fire, it can’t be associated to speed (with fire and speed as elements). For each element again take a paper and use it for a list or mind map.
Now, for each attribute, rank all player characters. The one who selected the attribute is always first and must use corresponding points (at least highest bid + 1 points, that is). The ranks, not the points, are used for resolution most of the time, but more on that later.
The lowest ranked player character gets some vulnerability or weakness or curse related to the attribute – the nature of this should be discussed by at least the player who selected that attribute and the player whose character is involved. Write new stuff on the relevant attribute page as thus required. Examples (format: attribute – weakness): Warfare – crippled, faith – marked as evil, insect – small and fragile, politics – never accepted as honest, candle – cursed to turn to stone in sunlight. The second lowest ranked character has no special power or vulnerability. As for others, it depends on the number of players.
If there are three players, the first ranked gets one perk or benefit or blessing or whatever related to the attribute. If there are four, first rank gives two benefits while second rank gives one. If there are five, second and third rank give one, other as before. In case of six players, fourth rank gives nothing particular, others as before. Perks should be discussed among the involved players or everyone in case of first ranked characters. They can be special powers (consider e.g. trumps in Amber, magic in various fantasy settings) or extraordinary physical capabilities or networks of contacts or items of power.
At least now, but earlier if the inspiration strikes, players should tell who their characters are. Typical stuff – description, some bits of history perhaps, some mannerisms, some beliefs and goals, friends and enemies. So on. The character may or may not have ties to the locations. To help in character creation, players (and GM) should decide on the power level of play. The easiest way is to set up the number of points that most people have. If it is 10, then player characters are quite powerful, like the gods in myths of ancient Greeks. Something like 100/(number of players) + small bonus would give very competent player characters, while larger bonus would reduce the competency. Hundred points for everyone would make players characters ordinary in terms of stats, and anything above that would make player characters below normal. See resolution below for details.
Using the map, fractally
To start playing, select some spot from the map. Go with consensus, have the player with the highest karma decide, take median of x- and y-coordinates of the established locations, or act as follows: Let the player who selected the least influential attribute select a spot, and then have the player with next least influential attribute either (1) move it halfway towards the location she established or (2) move it directly away from the closest established location, exactly doubling the distance, then go through rest of the players in the same order. The result may be an unestablished location. Or possibly have every player select one location for their character.
Whenever player characters come to an empty place on the map, check how far away it is from the elemental locations established in character and world creation. For our purposes, there are three possibilities. The simplest is that one of the elemental locations is clearly closest to the new location. Then the related player describes and draws the new location on the map. Slightly more complicated: There is only a minor difference in distance between two elemental locations. Then whichever is closer dominates – the player may choose to either describe or draw and name the new location. The other involved player does the other thing, of course along the lines established by the first one. If two elemental locations are equally far away, then use the ranking of the attributes to and go as per previous point. If more than two are involved, then divide the tasks further.
You can use a similar method for drawing maps of smaller locations, such as those on the map. First, establish order of the attributes by distance of this location to the elemental locations, breaking ties by dominance order of the attributes if required. Second, have the player related to the first attribute place something related to that and in accordance with the description of the location on the map. Have everyone do this. These are the new elemental locations on this map. For space between them, use the previous rules. Zoom in as necessary.
For resolution I think the Amber diceless would work fine. If some event is left unresolved by common sense, then check if it relates to some attribute. The mind maps or lists are helpful for this. If the issue is included, then use the relevant attribute. If there are several that could be used, then check whichever is dominant (use either the global ranking or the geographical methods – I’d be inclined for the latter and getting rid of the global attribute ranking altogether, since it seems cumbersome), and add some related word to that attribute’s list or mind map.
Once the dominant attribute is determined, proceed as in Amber: There is a ranking of attributes established by the players. Any NPC either follows it or has rank zero (above highest player character – this is not recommended to be the case), half ranks (between the player character ranks), and one entire rank for those that are below all the player character ranks. Higher rank eventually wins a conflict, unless there is something to tip the odds. Half a rank of difference requires only minor contribution to overcame, while each complete rank of difference requires one significant factor. These judgment calls should be done by the game master or by uninvolved players or by consensus. Aggressive or defensive tactics and feints (and whatever equivalents) count as significant circumstances, as do smart decisions in general. Edge in karma implies extra opportunities for making decisions and in particular retreating.
To add a new player, have that one know the previous elements and select a new one. The player then spends points on all or some of these, possibly changing their dominance order, and is ranked as others are. The player character gets one good perk on their attribute and nothing from others. Players draws to a new part of the map or large unclaimed territory far from the others – consider adding a new A4, for example. That player describes the location as normal and is then ready to play. The new attribute should be written down as the others were.
At some intervals players are allowed to shift points from pools to others. I’d go with one point per session, but it might be more meaningful to move five points every five sessions, or whatever. The pools are: particular attributes, karma. Further, change can happen in play: Some ritual or training might allow moving points, maybe even in powerful manner. Being exposed to new source of influence (see adding players, above) may or may not allow immediate transfer of points. This is up to the fiction and game master or consensus or the player associated with the new attribute.
I would not allow character development in the form of adding points, though that might be reasonable if there are entities with more points than the player characters have.
Cool powers and trinkets and curses and affiliations to groups may be gained and lost in play. Maybe karma can be allocated to a particular item or group, if someone wants to.
In an auction, players should bid most on what they find interesting and evocative (it will tend to become useful), and less of what they don’t feel intellectually comfortable with (if something is emotionally or socially uncomfortable, deal with it by talking and aborting or going on with it in spite of that, knowing you can trust the other participants). Having your attribute first in the auction is a benefit, since in that case you know how much you must spend on it – the others must guess.
You can have GM participate in character and world creation, or decide who is the GM after creating characters, and use the GM’s character as an NPC.
You can have each player establish something about the setting before drawing anything on the map, in the same order. These should relate to the attributes the players selected, and be such as – this world is a huge network of caves, people here have skin the colour of copper, birds are divine, there are dinosaurs.
It is reasonably easy to use this as a world creation and detailing process and playing by some completely different rules. By converting the attributes established here to some other system one can even use the characters generated herein as sketches for characters in some other system. Or they can be used as gods of the setting, with the elemental locations their holy places and centers of power. Cosmology and world creation in the same deal.
The fantasy genre is almost arbitrary – it is an easy and well known basis for many roleplayers and allows for varied elements.
Anyway, this is completely untested, so use with care, or steal ideas with abandon. I like the mapping mechanics.
In most roleplaying settings there is something I call here fantastic: Something the players are not familiar with.
Lovecraft mythos, sword and sorcery, horror in general, LotFP’s products (this post of mister Raggi inspired my post), stories where characters discover that they (and nearly only they) have some strange powers, Stalker and Praedor.
Most of the setting is normal, non-fantastic, and typically draws heavily from the real world (present state, history, or low-key scifi). There fantastic is something that breaks the normal setting – it works with completely different principles, if any.
Glorantha, Zelazy’s Amber, Nobilis, Carcosa, Tékumel.
These settings are fundamentally different from our reality. They work by different principles, and what is exotic and fantastic to us might be common and usual for residents of these worlds, and vice versa.
A setting where the fantastic is assumed can be explored to find out how it works, and supposing the setting has sufficiently interesting premises, this can be good play. A roleplaying game is a good medium for such an exploration because it allows many people to contribute and further allows several issues to be explored.
Settings with fantastic principles can also make certain dramatic issues very explicit and easy to treat via gaming. Sibling rivalry and broken families are good subjects behind any game set in Zelazny’s Amber where the amberites are played, as almost everything that happens can be traced back to some family member (at least by the first five books). This is also the justification for fantasy and science fiction as vessels of serious literature.
Settings where the fantastic is something exceptional are usually easy to understand (of equal difficulty to relevant setting minus the fantastic, assuming the fantastic is not the player characters, in which case there is more complexity). Unnatural makes sense as a concept. The fantastic creates interesting situations (in both senses mentioned above).
For short I would recommend a setting that is not entirely fantastic, simply to make learning it not a problem. A setting common to everyone would of course work, too.
The third way
There are also so-called fantasy settings where the assumptions are like those of the real world and yet where there is little uncanny even to the residents of the setting. This is the vanilla fantasy setting, which to me has no value – fantasy without the fantastic has no reason, no justification, and provides no interest. I’d love to hear from anyone who disagrees, since I almost certainly am missing something.
Two friends were visiting me and we talked roleplaying, so I figured we might as well try a thing that’s been on my mind.
Design goals: To have a game that is easy for everyone to get into, but so that a longer campaign can be set up in the process or created in play by stringing a series of scenarios together.
- Set up a strong vision for a game world. Have people contribute, ask questions, answer them, so on. If there is glitches have someone (the GM, probably) take creative responsibility for the whole deal. Someone, again probably the GM, should write down details like names that would otherwise be forgotten. We had a city somewhere in the future where the rich built their homes above those of the poor. Eventually the poor were living in sewers where rubbish and prisoners were also thrown. This was iterated a number of times, but still it is the poor ones who keep the city living by using all that is thrown to them.
- Set up a goal. GM should have a few ideas ready, but if someone makes a more interesting suggestion, go with it. This should not take too long. We had a sick person in the underworld who needs a medicine that you can’t get but above.
- Players create characters who are motivated by the goal. They should be pretty freely adding detail to the goal. Also, and this is important, name the characters. We had the sick person being some sort of prophet and spiritual leader with unknown motives and the characters were a cybernetic, still approximately human, mercenary called Zack and a wanderer secretly from the city above, called Nils. Both had their own motives for trying to save the leader.
- Players state one question about their character that they would like to know an answer to. We had: What is Nils willing to do and believe to live a thousand years? Can Zack become the master of his own life?
- Players state a question about one other player’s character that would like to learn. We had these being restatements of the original questions though with different emphasis: Does Nils really want to live forever? Does Zack even have a mind of his own (or he a mere follower)?
- Physical descriptions of the characters until everyone has some sort of mental image of them.
- Are the characters in order? Everyone interested in at least their own character and have some sort of image about the other characters?
- Does everyone have something about the game world?
- Brainstorm how the mission could be solved. This is quasi-play in that people should be getting comfortable with their characters and brainstorm about how the goal could achieved. The game world should be getting some flesh around the bones at this stage. GM is free to participate. End this stage when there is at least one viable plan that could work.
- GM should now have a a list of questions about the characters that the players are curious about, a strong vision for the world, and knowledge about what the characters will be doing. GM should think some obstacles to show how fascinating the world is and some situations somewhat related to the questions. Don’t try to push all that in, but do add it to play when natural.
- Right now, you should have a game world, a situation going on and a bunch of characters ready for action with a rudimentary plan. So go at it. Play.
Since half the goal is to prepare for Solar system play and create characters, we added some rulesey bits. When characters tried to do something with risk and interesting consequences, players rolled three fudge dice, summed, added two if the characters was very good at it and 1 if the character was good, else only the roll. Positive result was success. GM was free to give a bonus or penalty dice or two if situation warranted it. I went pretty light with the dice, saying yes much of the time. Players might want to keep track of what their character is good at.
So, you have played and probably answered some questions that were posed – at least the goal should be resolved to one direction or the other. Most of the questions about the characters are probably not answered (unless you had lots of time and very focused and aggressive play, in which case you might want to use a more focused rules set to help with it), and that’s okay.
Talk a bit. Are the unanswered questions still interesting? Did any new questions arise? We had a few new ones.
Now, supposing there still are unanswered questions about the characters and supposing you want to make Solar system characters out of them, here’s what you should do. Select skills as normal, though you have made many of the choices in play. Assign resource pools as you will. Turn questions into keys so that the question itself is the buy-off condition. The ways the key gives experience should be inspired by the question and the play. For example: Is Zack merely a killer? 1 xp – kill someone out of necessity , 3 xp – kill someone when other methods would have been sufficient, buy-off – the question is definitively answered.
I imagine that after each session of play there would be reflection and some of the questions would be noticed to have been already answered and probably new questions posed. It doesn’t really matter if the questions are answered affirmatively or with a negative answer, as long as they are answered.
Why have such a prologue?
Many players, especially those less used to roleplaying, often have trouble starting to play, so the prologue is a situation where characters and the world are fleshed out and play starts slowly. Further, there is a clear purpose and motivation to go for that, which hopefully reduces the barrier of entry.
There is this phenomenon where players create characters, start playing them and notice that the character actually is quite different from what the mechanical bits would say, or maybe the game world is quite different from what they imagined. A prologue mitigates this effect by having the player play the character and only then create the mechanical description in detail.
Additional bonus is the episodic nature of play. You can have a self-contained prologue, then maybe different players, another linked situation that builds on the previous one, and soon you’ll have a vibrant world and a fair number of interesting characters. My gut feeling is that the prologue format becomes restrictive and abrasive if used with established characters and setting, but maybe not. A quick pass through the list might very well be useful even in longer games.
Thus far there’s been one impromptu session, so obviously further playtesting is in order. One particular issue I’d like to focus on is if players should ask genuinely new questions about each others’ characters (which might create too much clutter but also inspire new ways of looking at the characters) or if they should refine the questions the players themselves posed, which would make them sharper and enhance a shared sense of what the characters are about.
Theory post. It’s been a while since the previous one.
Fruitful void is a concept for designing and analysing games. Let us take some roleplaying game and assume it has rules. Fruitful void is something the rules do not cover, but point towards.
With D&D 4e rules give you plenty of maneuvres in combat so that significant number of them are interesting, but the rules do not tell which one you should use. There are characters whose powers can work well together, but the rules do not tell how to use the powers so that the synergy benefits manifest. Dogs in the Vineyard is about judging people, about how much violence one is willing to use to do what is right and about faith. There is no faith attribute (that judgment is for the players to make), there is no rule telling that you must use violence and there are no guidelines about what judgments are appropriate. That’s up to the players. Old D&D gives lots of tools for dungeon delving – combat ability, spells, items, henchmen – yet there is no skill for making tactical and strategic decisions. Those are up to the players. Burning Wheel has involved rules for fighting (in melee, with ranged weapons, with words) and lots of other rules that make other parts of gameplay or story move fast. And when fighting the player must script actions – high numbers on character sheet are not sufficient. The tactics and what one fights for are up to the players.
So: Fruitful void is the space a game leaves for players to fill, and towards which the game points players. The concept applies well to focused games and less well to GURPS or (certain) games which get out of the way. The concept applies weakly to games that take a life of their own (which, I reckon, is related to getting out of the way). The comments on Anyway relating to the subject are worth reading.
Lever as a concept was introduced by d7 just a while ago. Lever is some mechanical tool a player can use to affect the fiction. Skills, powers, aspects, so on.
I think these two concepts are related in more than a single way.
D7 uses diplomacy skill in D&D 3rd as an example of a lever ill placed: It negates all negotiation by skipping it with a single skill roll. That is bad if you want to have a game where negotiations are central. Point: Levers can certainly kill a fruitful void by bypassing it entirely. Consider: Play modern D&D, but instead of using the combat rules simply add a fighting skill and resolve all combats by rolling it. Not much point in playing modern D&D that way, is there?
Levers can skip boring parts of gameplay. This is what many skills in BW do. This is one way of seeing diplomacy on D&D 3rd. Of course it is also possible to handwave those bits away, but often the rules are useful.
Using levers can be the fruitful void. This is 4e. There is much GM advice on building interesting combats, which simply means that there is no universal best tactics – add environment factors, terrain, varied enemies with special powers and so on to change which tactics are functional and to what degree.
The decision to pull or not pull a lever can be in the void. Tactical version: You have one sleep spell per day. Use it now or later? Dramatic version: You can summon demons, but they demand a high price. Whichever version: You know magic, but there’s a chance it goes horribly wrong whenever you use it.
I’m sure there’s more. An exercise for readers.
Imagine a new continent, dark and great woods, vast swamps, magnificent mountains. Imagine a fleet arriving, people landing, making their homes and building cities, roads and farms. That was a few hundred years ago.
Imagine a small village of mostly woodcutters, with wolves and bears and wolverines and other beasts charging at night, slaughtering all the men, women, children and even domesticated beasts. Roads lost at spring as they were quickly overgrown by saplings and thorny bushes. Imagine a castle swallowed by vines almost overnight. Imagine witches and fey-things stalking the great woods, preying on lone travellers. That was a few dozen years ago.
Now villages are circled with iron fences, roads secured with signs framed in iron and travellers moving in large groups. Patches of forest are cleared, from between the settlements, but on the border there is little to do but hide within the circle of iron. People are afraid of strangers, for they may be witches or worse. They are afraid of bandits and raiders employed by the other nearby lord who would be glad to annex a village or two.
Even more afraid are people of the wardens. They are youngish women and men, usually between 15 and 35 winters with average around 20, walking from one village to next, always wearing their silver-decorated cloaks and blades of iron. They always move in groups, watching each other at least as carefully as they watch the villagers, always looking for any sign of corruption, searching for heathens and witches. They are rarely found, so mostly they concern with other arguments between villagers, making their so-called fair judgements, often favouring whoever houses them and offers the finest food. Some are mere thugs in cloaks of silver, but the righteous ones are most dangerous.
This is a story about the wardens.
Some are young nobles or acolytes of the Wheel. Some are killers or other criminals given training and a chance to redeem themselves. Some have been hurt by the forest and wish to hurt it back. Most are desperate people with few other choices.
They are taught doctrine and rituals to drive away evil spirits. They know a bit about laws and lay of the land. They can use a sword or some other weapon of their choice. They know how to survive in the wilds. They are strangers set to keep the border safe for decent, weaker or common people (depending on whom you ask). Some have been trained by retired wardens, and they tend to have more hands-on knowledge and experience, but the church frowns upon their folksy rituals and attitude.
To create a warden, first select one upbringing: Noble, priestly or random thug. Next, select training: In monastery or by a lone warden. No training is also an option, but not a recommended one.
There are three means of violence: Iron (which is to say: physical violence), silver (attacking the mind and self-esteem) and wheel (faith). They are rated numerically so that there are seven points total divided between the three, all positive, none more than four. Noble upbringing indicates silver of at least three, priestly or wheel at least three and random thugs have iron of at least three. Those trained by lone wardens have one of three corrupted; reduce the selected attribute by one, and increase, as appropriate, one of the following three by one: Claw (corresponds to iron), poison (as silver) or shroud (as wheel). Those with no training only have six points, maximum of three, upbringing-related attribute two or three.
Characters have three traits: One should be related to upbringing, one to training or lack thereof and one is not restricted. The corrupted should have one trait related to their corruption. Traits can be positive or negative, but ideally they are both. At most two strictly positive and at most two strictly negative traits are allowed, but less are recommended.
Example traits: Strong, lame, zealot, coward, tidy, rich, kid, old, branded a killer, wolf-slayer, miracle-worker, witch-sniffer, fine iron maille, well-provisioned, lone wolf, bird-speak (a corrupted trait if there ever was one), silver tongue, charming, determined to find the one-armed man who killed his wife, amnesia, pious
Wardens gather some experience along the road or in their training: Untrained wardens start with three, church-trained with four and warden-trained with five wises. One should be related to upbringing and to training, if any. Corrupted may have one relating to the woods and how they received their corruption if they happen to know about it. Same wise can be selected many times, though generally speaking twice is much and thrice certainly sufficient.
Example wises: Tracking, merchant-wise, road-wise, peddler-wise, dryad-wise, lynx-wise, Rooksbridge-wise, clergy-wise, herbalism, winter is coming-wise, bridge-wise, troll-wise, bandit-wise, bribe-wise, horse-wise, mending, foraging, hunting, leadership, accounting, etiquette, family secret-wise
In play there is one GM and others play wardens who move as a group. When the wardens have no particular direction they are heading to, and even if they do, GM should have a number of encounters ready to play and a village or a farm where everything is not okay slightly more ready. Encounters: Travellers (especially mistrust-inducing ones), beasts, strange locations. Encounter is good when the GM can’t predict the reactiong of the players and their characters. Villages and farms: A situation where people have been wronged and there are at least two people blaming each other who are could be judged responsible by the players’ wardens. (See, for example, Dogs in the Vineyard for better guidance.)
Wises are used to set up favourable situations, find NPCs, maintain equipment and generally to not solve conflicts. Wises can no longer be used when conflict is on or directly at hand. Mechanics: Player tells what she wants her warden to achieve and how the warden will go about achieving it. GM can say yes, ask for a suitable wise, or say no, according to the difficulty of the task: trivial, challenging or impossible. In case of a challenging situation, player names a wise, then GM sets the difficulty: 1 is standard use of the wise (lord-wise to get an audience with the local ruler), 2 is difficult use (tracking to find where the wolves came from after it has snowed), 3 very difficult (merchant-wise to find out that one of the locals is a captain of certain merchant ship hiding from the king). +1 difficulty if the wise is not directly related (leadership to threaten someone to silence), +2 if there is only a tenous connection (family secret-wise to prepare against an assassination). Player rolls number of dice equal to the value of the wise; each even result indicates a success. If number of successes equals or exceeds the difficulty, then whatever was attempted succeeds. If not, GM comes up with an interesting complication related to whatever was attempted.
There are some subtleties in use of wises. First point: There must be actual action taken before the dice can be rolled. You don’t get to roll dice for trying to remember if there are any relatives living hereabouts; you do get to roll if you are asking around for them. This is so that the GM has easier time coming up with complications and that the game moves forward. Second point: Say there’s this lynx that has been killing cattle and even lone people. Say a player wants to track the lynx to its lair in the cellar of a particular witch. Say the GM has decided that the lynx lairs under a large boulder upon a certain hill, which is certainly not in the cellar of the witch. Player sets the task to find that the lynx lairs in the cellar and GM says that it won’t do, but finding its lair is lynx-wise 1. Say the GM has detailed the entire family inhabiting a certain farm and player wants to use merchant-wise to find an old business partner who has retired there. GM can say its merchant-wise 1 to find out something about the relations these people have to merchants (even if it is that there are none, but preferably something useful). General principle: GM may widen the scope of a roll if there are pre-determined facts that make the original intent null. The GM may also choose to let the dice fall as they may and ignore the pre-determined plans if necessary, but this I can’t recommend as an actual rule.
Iron, silver and wheel are used to hurt others and avoid harm: suppose two characters are quarreling. If they are trying to demoralise each other or destroy reputations or such, roll silver. If physical violence is used, roll iron. Wheel is for those trusting the heavenly Wheel. Iron trumps silver, wheel works against either.
Mechanics proper: For silver against silver or iron against iron, both sides roll number of dice equal to the relevant attribute. Sources of bonus dice are outlined later. Every die showing an even number is a success. If both sides get an equal number of successes, then both take harm equal to the result. If one sides beats the other, then the beaten takes the difference in harm while the beater takes one harm. Against the vile forces of nature can wheel be rolled directly; it works as detailed above in this paragraph. Against anything else use the following procedure: Roll as above. If wheel gets more successes, then the number of successes (and not merely the margin of success) is takes as harm by the blasphemer, while the faithful takes no harm. Wheel usually does damage as silver, but this varies by GM and player fiat and description of the events. If the faith is not strong enough, which means that it does not exceed the opposing successes, then it comes to nothing and the blasphemer deals harm as though the opponent had used iron or silver but rolled no successes.
Wardens have two wound tracks, one for iron and other for silver. Iron track has length equal to iron plus wheel, silver track length equal to silver + wheel (so two is the minimum while scores above six are exceedingly rare for humans). Other creatures and corrupted wardens have tracks calculated in different ways; in particular, corrupted wardens tend to be somewhat weaker in terms of tracks. To take harm of given level means that the particular box in the relevant wound track is marked. If that box is already marked, then the next one upwards gets marked instead. If there is nothing to mark, then the character is out of play, permanently. There is a way out: taking consequences. When player is about to mark the first box (of either track), the player can instead opt to take a minor consequence. Minor consequence is a temporary trait (like furious, hungry, hurt knee): It persists for the scene it was received in and for the next scene, or until removed in fiction. Major consequence can be takes instead of taking level 1 or 2 harm: It is temporary trait which persists for the session it was received in and for the next one, or until removed in fiction, which should not be trivial. Permanent consequence can be takes instead of harm of level up to four. It is a permanent trait and works as they do. Given character may only have one minor and one major consequence at a time.
One can get bonus dice to rolls by various means; in fact, it is even recommended. But first, a player may invoke a trait to get in trouble (or automatically fail a roll before even rolling). This is a good idea because by doing so one gets a token. Tokens can be used to invoke traits before rolling dice – each token allows activating one trait to get one bonus die. Given trait can only be used once per roll. So: traits may give any number of bonus dice, if managed with care. Circumstances are another means of getting bonus dice: Favourable circumstances is one bonus die, highly favourable means total of two bonus dice. Guideline: Using a wise successfully earns a bonus die, using three or more wises to set up a situation earns two.
Above a single instance of hurting someone else is described. In play there is further structure around it. First, there must be a situation in the fiction where another entity can be attacked. Usually these come from first trying to negotiate or avoid overt conflict in other ways. If one ends up harming others, dice are prepared. The others being harmed can give in, take the harm or fight back; in the first case, there is no need for dice, while in the second case the abuser rolls dice and deals harm but takes none, while in the third case an opposing attempt to harm the other is made as above. After dice are rolled and fiction described, assuming nobody is out, then everyone can continue, someone may give in or stop resisting. Repeat as long as necessary. Note that conflicts never force anyone to do anything; they simply hurt people.
In group conflicts both sides select one champion who rolls and takes harm. The champion with better reinforcements gets bonus dice. Others besides the champion may take damage instead of the champion if their players so decide. The champion has no power to stop them.
Wardens change. This happens naturally in play and rules exist to make the process more explicit and to smoothen it out. Warden changes according to the impression other players have of the warden. The way a warden is played has a significant role in shaping the impressions. Play well.
First a few more words on the structure of play. After a significant situation has been sorted out – for example, a villageful of problems dealt with or a long and eventful journey done – wardens gather around a campfire or in the hall of some friendly lord and tell tales of their exploits. The frequency of this event determines the pace of the game. The following happen in order.
Experience makes warden more formidable: They learn a bit about the world around them. Each player may have or may now fix three wises to improve or open. Other players (including the GM) decide what the warden has learned most about. That wise gets a check for advancement. When the number of checks exceeds the current value of the wise, all checks are erased and the wise improves by one (unlisted wises have value zero).
Some wardens are crippled in their travels, while others grow strong and powerful. For each attribute the character has check if there are traits which point at the attribute having higher value: For iron, examples are strong, bloodthirsty and serpent-slayer. If the number of positive traits exceeds the value of the attribute, then it increases by one, but some traits are lost along the way. Namely: Of the positive traits named, number equal to the attribute’s value before the increment must be removed. One additional trait must be removed – this can potentially be any trait, though the player should not remove traits with too much dramatic potential. Likewise, for each attribute higher than one, check if the number of negative traits associated with that attribute at least equals the value of the attribute. If so, the attribute will decrease by one. Total of traits equal to the attribute before decrease are lost – one can be chosen freely, while others must be of the negative traits named. Attribute can both increase and decrease, which simply amounts to bunch of traits lost. The purpose of this rule is to clean the list of traits once a while. It is smart to remove traits that are rarely used and to keep those that are often in use. Note that temporary traits count towards attributes increasing and decreasing. Yes, even minor consequences. The campfire counts as a scene.
Wardens are shaped by their actions. For each warden, other players decide one trait the warden receives. This is something the players judge, not the characters, mind. Do make judgments about the rightness and wrongness of the warden’s actions.
I am not yet quite satisfied with these rules. They have not been tested. There are some fiddly bits that are likely wrong or suboptimal: starting values of everything (I might go with 7 attribute points, 3 traits, 4 wises for everyone as the other seems to be pointless detail), harm thresholds of consequences (1/2/4 are the current ones; 2/3/4, 1/3/5, 2/3/5 might also work; making the first one a 2 would be less punishing of hurting others; I might actually go with 2/3/4) and the maximum number of consequences (one minor and major per wound track, maybe).
Sources and inspiration
A song of ice and fire by George Martin. Particularly the watch.
Dogs in the Vineyard by Vincent Baker. Particularly the dogs.
24 June, 2009 at 8:43 pm (game design)
The fairly new blogger zzarchov raises several issues over at Unofficial games; his solutions may not be the best (I tend to prefer less rules-intensive ones) and issues are not relevant to all playing styles, but they are generally worth thinking about. There are free games available at the related website. I haven’t looked at the games yet, mostly due to lack of time and one being in a .exe format and hence requiring WINE to work, given my free operating system.
I wrote a post about using some skills explicitly for setting scenes. The Dane (I think) Morten Greiss responded in his native language; those of us not fluent must resort to butchering it with poor translations, alas. The key points do come through. Morten’s idea is that any skill can be used in starting conflicts, but then the same skill can’t be used to resolve the conflict it started. I think it is pretty excellent an idea. Also, in the comments there’s talk about running freeform and more scripted games using this technique.
Olorin posted his roleplaying history and linked to the other Finnish ones we’ve seen thus far. Further, there’s meta-edition wars! That is, Olorin explaining why all the edition warriors are fucking idiots (there’s bit of depth there).