Kairos Creative

The last week...

2006-06-14T14:42:00.000-05:00

Man, I have really fallen down on the job posting around here. I'd like to say it is due to really serious reasons but I think I'll just be truthful. I've been playing Diplomacy online. I admit it. From time to time I just get on the Diplomacy kick and have to play a lot. Still, the time spent on that game hasn't been completely wasted. I got to thinking about how a great boardgame like Diplomacy might help a designer in creating good RPGs.

1.) It is possible to create complex gameplay without having a complex system. Diplomacy's actual system is very simple. There are only 3 kinds of things a piece can make; move, support and convoy. Each of these can be summarized in a single sentence and the whole game can be taught to an utter novice in 15 minutes. However, the gameplay that results from this very simple system is incredibly complex.

2.) Conflict embedded in the system is more effective than conflict attached to or imposed on the system externally. Diplomacy places the win/lose condition in such a way that forces players into fun and interesting conflict with each other. How many times have you sat down to play and RPG and after creating your characters you discovered there was no impetus to actually do anything? The GM is then required to "hook" your immobile characters into motion somehow. This is a sign of bad game design. The simple act of engaging the system ought to force players into conflict and situation. Systems that do this well are Burning Wheel, The Shadow of Yesterday, Capes and Sorcerer. We all know about 20 games that don't do it at all.

3.) Reward cycles will trump social pressures. There is a good bit of social pressure in Diplomacy for most people to keep their word and treat with others fairly. After all, most of us are not sociopaths. However, the reward system and win conditions encourage a certain amount of lying, cheating and stabbing your ally in the back... then kicking him when he's down. Guess what happens 9 times out of 10. Yeah... your ally is removing the dagger from between his shoulders. Social pressures might encourage a certain style of play in RPGs but if the system in use actually rewards another style guess what happens. Yeah... social pressure be damned. I'm doing what the system rewards me for doing. That's why we, as designers need to make sure that our systems actually reward the styles of play that we're looking for.

Anyway, that's enough ruminating for the moment. I've got to go see if I've kicked Germany out of Denmark yet...

Adventure Game Engine: Part 1

2006-06-02T22:08:00.000-05:00

Last year at GenCon I played in a really fun D&D dungeon crawl tournament. I know that the hip thing nowadays is to get all starry-eyed over Story Now and really buckle down and make sure your games delve into deep thematic play. Hey! I'm cool with that. I love those games. But sometimes... I really just want to get the group together, make some kick-ass adventure characters and get our game on. I want nasty monster encounters, devious traps and enigmatic riddles! I want the DM to try to kill us within the confines of the adventure module. If we get to the end and complete the module, it was because we had skill and guts. If not, maybe we'll fair better next time.

"You can just play D&D for that!" Someone points out. Well, yeah... but while D&D does a credible job at that style of play, I find that it is weak in some areas and really relies far too much on GM fiat is certain places to make it consistantly satisfactory for me. (Please, let's not debate how wonderful D&D is or isn't. I LIKE D&D. That's not the point.) So, I'm designing at game that will deliver cool, adventure-style play. Here's some of my design goals (in no particular order):

GM's should play an adversarial role for the Players. Think of this a cooperative competition, like in sports. When playing tennis, you might be best friends with your opponent but you've agreed to come together and within the framework of the rules of tennis and strive against each other with all your skill and talent. If your opponent doesn't give it his best, you feel cheated. I want the GM's to have rules that support them taking off the kid gloves and really pushing against the other players. I should note that I'm not certain that all the GM tasks will rest with one person for this game. I leaning that way but I could see some pretty fun stuff arising from a Polaris-like arrangement where each player is the GM for one of the other players. This certainly merits some discussion.
The game should revolve around Quests. Quest being my term for "Whatever goal the player has for his character to accomplish." Quests could be as simple and generic as "Get the Magical McGuffin and take it to the King." to something a bit more complex and (I think) interesting as "Find the traitor in the Palace." The adventures were what really made those dungeon crawls fun. Remember The Tomb of Horrors? Remember Against the Giants? What about Keep on the Borderlands? The modules themselves became classics and we used to make characters specifically to go on those adventures. I want to capture that feel but take the adventure off it's rails and add some cool player empowerment that really let's the GM take it to the players. The reward cycle ought to be intimately tied to the whole create and complete the Quest process.
I want non-combat oriented characters to be just as viable as combat. This means that whatever conflict resolution system that I design needs to be just as interesting and fun for social and magical confrontation as it is for combat.
The magic system should be engaging and fun. I want it to have a unique (or at least interesting) flavor to it, not just "you memorize these spells today."
Given the previous two points, I still want a combat resolution system that kicks ass. Let's get real. Sometimes hacking your opponent into small chunks is the RIGHT answer. Violence may not solve everything but it sure can be a fun way to solve some things. The combat has to sizzle. I'm looking hard at Sorcerer, Burning Wheel and The Shadow of Yesterday for inspiration here. I think these games really so some stuff right when it comes to killin shit.
Neato equipment is a requirement. Gear can't just be handled in a vague way. It's a staple of this type of gaming and it's fun to have cool stuff for your character. I probably need to tie this into the reward cycle tightly.
Dice are cool.

These are my current design goals. It's not a completely definative list, I'm sure but it's what I have at the moment. I'll add to it if I come up with more stuff. Also, I'm not just talking in a vacuum here. I actually have a rough (almost functional) set of rules written. It's still in plain text and very scattered in organization at the moment but this discussion isn't just theoretical. There really are rules already on paper... um, well, saved on my hard drive anyway. I'll get to posting more specifics in the near future.

My boy's first sting...

2006-06-01T20:17:00.000-05:00

Well, my 2.5 year old son got his first bee sting this evening. Whee. He handled it pretty well. I squashed the little bastard bee flat. He won't be stinging my son again.

Character Sole-ownership

2006-06-01T14:59:00.000-05:00

Over on Vincent Baker's Blog, http://www.lumpley.com/, he raises some very interesting questions about character ownership in role-playing. My very brief paraphrasing of his point is that 1 Player owning 1 Character doesn't underlie RPG Systems, instead it is created/supported by Systems. Thus, it is quite possible to create a functional RPG where 1 Player controls 1 Character isn't the assumption.

I agree with him.

Vincent deals primarily with Story Now type games when theorizing on his Blog. (This is my interpretation of his posts on this thread: http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=159. If this isn't so, he's welcome correct me.) However, I think that his statements about character ownership have interesting things to say about play with other agendas. I'm specifically interested in Step On Up. Can you have effective Gamist play and break the character ownership assumptions that are inherent in most traditional RPGs? What problems arise from breaking those assumptions and what solutions can we come up with to handle those problems? What new and interesting vistas of play does this open to us?

I don't have answers to these questions yet. I'm just putting them out there as things I'm mulling over. As things take a more coherent shape in my mind, I'll post them. Until then, feel free to comment on my questions with your own views. We can certainly discuss it.

For those who don't recognize the terms "Story Now", "Step On Up" or "Gamist" in relation to RPGs, head on over to http://www.indie-rpgs.com and read the "System Does Matter" essay. The Forge has lots of cool role-playing stuff going on.

Balance of Power: CharGen and Mechanics

2006-06-01T09:35:00.000-05:00

Character Creation

Character creation is very simple. Each player should write a couple of short paragraphs about their Character. This should not be long and shouldn't be incredibly detailed. It should contain the most important aspects of what makes the Character interesting or unique. From this story, the Player then picks 6 Traits and 2 Convictions that he feels are the most important parts of the story and notes them on the Character Sheet. Finally, the Player divides 12 points between the Characters Physical, Spiritual and Mental Attributes. No Attribute may be higher than a 6 or lower than a 1.

Mechanics

The core of gameplay is the Conflict Resolution dice mechanic. This mechanic revolves around Conflicts. What is a Conflict? Conflicts occur when a Player's goal for his Character is opposed by another Player or the GM. When this happens, a Conflict is created and resolved in the following steps:

Setting Stakes: Every Player involved states their overall goal for the Conflict.

Spending: Each Player involved goes in turn, spending Power to add and modify dice.

Roll Them Bones: The dice hit the table and the winner is the Player with the most successes.

Resolution: Narrate the results and reward Power.

Setting Stakes

Each Player who wants to be involved in the Conflict takes a turn to state their overall goal for the Conflict. While each Player has the final say in what their goal will be, everyone is generally welcome to offer suggestions and comments. Every Player must have a goal in the Conflict and every goal should be in opposition to at least 1 other goal involved. If a goal isn't in opposition to any of the other goals then there really isn't a "conflict" there to resolve. The goal then automatically succeeds. If a goal is identical (or nearly so) to 1 or more others, then Players have the option of Grouping which is discussed further below. Grouping is highly encouraged, if possible, in Conflicts involving a large number of Characters.

Spending

Once Player goals have been set, it's time to start spending Power to purchase dice and activate Traits. The Player who called for the Conflict begins this process and is given the title the Calling Player. Each Player, starting with the Calling Player and then proceeding to his left, gets to make one Conflict Action as long as they have Power to spend for the Action and wish to take it. Each Player narrates the Action into the game as they take them. Then play proceeds to the next Player to the left. This rotation continues until a Player opts to pass on his turn and not take an Action. At that point, play proceeds until it gets back to the Calling Player and then it stops.

Action: Cost

Purchase additional dice: 1 Power / die

Activate your own Trait: 1 Power

Activate another Player's Negative Trait: 3 Power

The following rules govern Conflict Actions.

Power goes to the "pot" for whichever goal it is spent on.

Only 1 Action may be taken during a Player's turn.

A Trait may only be activated once per Conflict.

Power spent on activating Negative Traits goes immediately to the affected Player.

Players may gift a Power to another Player once per Conflict.

On the first turn of a Conflict, each Player must purchase at least 1 die for each of their goals

The maximum number of dice that may be purchased per goal is the value of the governing Attribute for that Character.

Activating a Positive Trait moves the dice pool up the size ladder.

Activating a Negative Trait moves the dice pool down the size ladder.

Groups

Grouped Players are different enough to merit their own mini-section here in the rules. Grouped Players pick 1 Player to be the leader of the Group. That Player's Character then becomes the baseline for determining the maximum dice that can be purchased. The number of dice is still limited by the governing Attribute but for a Group the maximum is the value of the Attribute of the Group Leader plus Â½ (rounded up) the value of the value of each of the other Character's in the Group.

Dice Pools

Up until this point we have talked about dice pools but haven't discussed what type of dice we are using. This game uses 4 types of dice; 4 sided, 6 sided, 8 sided and 12 sided. The default size is the d6. Moving up the size ladder means to go up to the next larger dice size; like from a d6 to a d8. Moving down the size ladder means to go down to the next smaller size; like from a d6 to a d4.

Roll Them Bones!

Once the Spending phase is complete and all the dice pools have been finalized, each player rolls the dice pools of the determined number and type for each goal that they have. Each die that comes up a 4 or greater counts as 1 success. For each goal, the Player or Group that scores the most successes wins the Conflict and accomplishes their goal to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the roll as compared to the losing side.

Also, before rolling the dice, Players declare whether their Character is operating under one or more of his Convictions. The GM determines whether it is reasonable and successes are added or not.

Resolution

After the dice have been rolled and the successes for each side have been calculated, play moves to the resolution phase. The winning side uses its successes to purchase Wound Traits for the losing side or Reserve Power. Then the losing side may use their successes to negate Wound Traitsreceivedd in this Conflict, purchase Wound Traits for the opposing side, or buy Reserve Power. Finally, the winning side may use any Reserve Power they just purchased to offset Wound Traits purchased by the losing side.

Wounds, if purchased, must be related to the action that would have caused the wound. A Conflict that is a sword fight could generate physical wounds like "Cut on shoulder." or "Broken arm." Whereas, a Conflict that was a heated debate would cause Wounds like "Filled with self-doubt." or "Dazed and confused."

Action: Cost

Purchase Wound Trait: 1 success / Trait

Negate Wound Trait: 1 success / Trait

Purchase Reserve Power: 1 success / Reserve Power

Once all the Successes have been used the winning side narrates the resolution of the Conflict keeping both the Scope of the Conflict and the Wound Traits that were purchased in mind.

Taking a Character out of play with Narration.

Characters, both PCs and NPCs, can die, have their brains fried, or be turned into toads during the course of the game. The question is, when are these drastic narrations that would essentially remove a character from play allowed? The answer depends on two things: the number of Wound Traits accumulated and the type of character involved. Each kind of character (Feature, Named, and Extra) has a different threshold for the number of Wounds they can take before being vulnerable to removal.

Extras can be removed after 1 Wound Trait.

Named Characters can be removed after 3 Wound Traits.

Feature Character can be removed after 5 Wound Traits.

If a character ends a Conflict with more than their threshold in Wound Traits, even if that Player won the Conflict, the opposing side can choose that the character is removed from the storypermanentlyy. The winner(s) of the Conflict still get to narrate HOW this happens but they are constrained that the character must somehow exit the story in the immediate future. The type and number of Wound Traits taken should be a guide for this Narration. If an Extra takes a Wound in a swordfight, then he should probably be narrated as being killed or incapacitated during the fight. If a Feature Character has 3 "Wracked with Self-doubt" Wound Traits and then collects 2 "Badly Cut" Wound Traits during the same swordfight, perhaps he kills the Extra but loses his faith in his mission during the process and wanders out of the story to deal with hs self-doubt.

Simple Resolution

Sometimes you aren't going to want to go through the full-blown Conflict Resolution system in order to adjudicate an action or goal. Let's say that Bob wants Brogan to break through a stout door or seduce a barmaid. The GM probably isn't going to want to come up with Attributes and Traits for these items when they aren't horribly important. In this case, he has two options.

If it is really, really unimportant and you (as the GM) aren't invested in the outcome, just say "yes" and go on. OooooohÂ that's difficult.

If you feel (as the GM) feel like it is important enough that the Player needs to be challenged in it but not enough to go through the full Conflict Resolution system, then use the Simple Resolution system below.

In the Simple Resolution system, the player simply states his goal and puts 1 Power for it into the pot. The GM can let it go at that (and collect the Power)or can put a Power of his own into the pot to negate the Player's goal. At that point, the Player can either accept failure (and collect the Power) or pay another Power to activate an applicable Trait. If he does this, the Player succeeds and the GM garners the Power. The GM cannot block the action past this point. At any point during this process, the Player or the GM may call for the Full Conflict Resolution system. If this happens, the Power in the pot is returned to the people who put them there and the Conflict is resolved normally.

Convictions

Convictions are statements about what a Character believes to be true or important. They are philosophical issues in nature. While "Great swordsman" is a fine Trait, it isn't a good Conviction because it doesn't explain "Why" the Character would want to be a great swordsman or to what use he would put is skill as a swordsman. Examples of good Convictions are:

Might makes right.

Family is of primary importance.

My word is my bond.

Duty, Honor, Country

Death before dishonor.

If you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin.

Balance of Power: Goals and Definitions

2006-06-01T09:20:00.000-05:00

This is the last project I was working on. I've stopped development (at least for the moment) for a variety of reasons. I'm posting the rules here a.) so that they can be easily referenced if need be in future posts and b.) in case someone actually is interested in playing the game and needs the rules. Enjoy...

Why develop this game?

Truthfully, "Just because I felt like it." would probably be reason enough but it isn't a very interesting answer to the question. While reading the many interesting threads over at The Forge, I ran across a suggestion by one of the posters (I think it was Ron Edwards but don't hold me to that.) that many neophyte game designers tended to take on projects that were just too damn big for their experience level. These designers had this desire to create this perfect and innovative system that incorporated all these wonderful features but the design ultimately failed when the work ended up being far more complex and difficult than expected. The suggestion was that all new designers would benefit from designing a few journeyman projects before trying their defining creation. The lessons learned in putting together a simpler but workable system would pay off when trying to put together the larger project.

This is my journeyman project. It probably isn't hugely innovative. It's probably not the next big thing in role-playing circles. It's probably not going to supplant Wizards of the Coast or White Wolf as the big boys of gaming. What it is, I hope, is a workable, playable and fun system. Only time will tell if I succeed or not.

My Design Goals

I didn't design this game in a vacuum. I had some goals that I wanted the system to accomplish and I've worked to achieve those goals. Playtesting and critique by more experienced designers will tell me if I've achieved those goals. Here's a short list.

I'm looking to create a game that supports Narrativist play with some Gamist underpinnings with regards to resource management.

I want it to be generic and customizable in regards to setting.

The system should be simple enough to learn in a single session and then be able to play essentially without reference to the written rules. I guess this would make it a part of the Rules-Lite or Minimalist camp.

I like the traditional role divisions of player and GM. However, I do want to clearly define the GM's role, limit his power, and avoid the old "Rule Zero" punt put into many rules texts.

I like dice. I like different sizes and shapes of dice. I like tossing a whole handful of them onto the table and listening to the gentle music of the clatter they make rolling across the wooden surface. This game will use dice. Many of them. For no other reason than I like them.

Plagiarism is good for the soul.

I committed many acts of theft in the process of making this game. I admit it. Mostly I did this because many of the talented game designers that I've read have much better ideas than I seem to have. I'm going to try to list all the games that influenced this design. I'll probably fail. Hopefully, the designers of these games will feel that imitation is the highest and most sincere form of flattery and won't send hit squads out to my house to beat me to death with hard-bound editions of their game texts.

The Pool by James West. Character creation and Traits are lifted almost whole cloth from this game.

The Shadow of Yesterday by Clinton Nixon. I loved Bringing Down the Pain. Hell I love this whole game. The conflict resolution I use is highly influenced by TSoY.

Universalis by Frank Mazza and Mike Holmes. Power as a resource came from Universalis tokens.

Capes by Tony Lower-Bausch. It's hard to say how this system influenced the design directly but it's affects are felt all over the place.

Pace by Fred Hicks. The whole GM power is limited by in-game currency came from here.

If you see more games that this design reminds you of, let me know. I probably just forgot to include them. I'll remedy the situation.

Definitions

Power:: Pool of points used to buy dice and activate Traits. Power starts as the sum of all the character's Attributes each session. The GM has Power also. His starts as the sum of all the Players' Power scores each session. Power is represented by some small item like pennies, glass beads, or poker chips.
Attributes:: Characters have 3 Attributes that describe how proficient the Character is in a general area of Conflict. Attribute values range from 1 to 10 and put a limit on the number of dice that a Player may roll in a Conflict governed by that Attribute. The Attributes are customizable to reflect whatever setting the Players choose. As an example, this text uses the following 3 Attributes throughout: Physical, Spiritual and Mental. These are by no means the only Attributes that can be use. Consider them more like default values that will work generically.
Traits:: Short descriptive phrases about the character. These phrases should highlight the things that make that character unique, highlight personal relationships, indicate important skills or belongings, or add color to the character. Traits may be used in a positive or negative manner. Traits can be activated during Conflicts to slide the dice up the Difficulty Scale. Traits can also be activated during Conflicts by a Player's opponent to slide the dice down the Difficulty Scale.
Convictions:: Short philosophical statements about what the Character believes is important or true. When the Character is acting directly in accordance with one or more of his Convictions in a Conflict, he get +1 automatic success for each Conviction with which he is behaving in accordance. A Character may never have more than 3 Convictions. It costs 10 Experience to add or change a Conviction.
Reserve Power:: This currency is used to increase a Character's Attributes or to add/remove Traits or to give as Gift Power to other players. It costs Current Value X 2 to increase an Attribute. It costs 5 Reserve to add or remove a Trait. Reserve is gained by the Player using Successes in Conflicts to increase it at a 1 for 1 ratio. Reserve may be spent at any time the Player chooses.
Wound Traits:: Each character has a set of Wound Traits for each Attribute. Wound Traits are automatically activated when the character participates in any Conflict that is governed by the corresponding Attribute. It costs 1 Reserve Power to remove a Wound Trait.
Feature Characters:: Characters that are central to the currently story arc. All PCs are by definition a Feature Character. Feature Characters also include major villains or allies with a central role to the story.
Named Characters:: Characters that are not central to the current story arc but are important enough to have names and individual personalities. Henchmen to the major villain often have this status.
Extras:: Characters that are extraneous or disposable within the story arc. Stormtroopers, Red Shirts, and other 'stock' characters that the PCs and major villains routinely mow down like so much cannon fodder are all examples of Extras.

Up and running...

2006-06-01T09:07:00.000-05:00

Welcome to Kairos Creative's Weblog!

Over the next few days, I'll be putting up details about the project I'm currently working on. I'll also put up my last project, even though I still consider it rather incomplete. It's development influenced my current game design quite a bit so having it to refer to won't be a complete waste of time. Once that gets done, we should be up and running.

Until then, God bless you and hope to see you around.