First of all: hello!
Ron, who very generously backed my first (sadly failed) Kickstarter, graciously invited me to the forum to discuss my games and game design. I've been reading over the different posts here for the last several hours, and I'm blown away at the thoughtful and eager support.
So, I'd like to highlight a current project that I'm working on. This was a side project for a few months during the final editing phases of my first game, Forge of Valor (the failed KS), and I think that it is more highly focused and more inline with my current, modern design goals.
If there is sufficient interest or encouragement (perhaps from Ron) I'll make a different thread and post up the entire manuscript for Forge of Valor.
But, in the meantime, I'd love your feedback on Honorbound. I think some of you may have already seen it posted at SG, but I'd like to present it to any new folks here.
Quick primer:
Design goal: I wanted a system that explored characters acquiring strength through acting within a set code of ethics or morality.
Basic system: d6 dice pool, with players earning and spending Honor Dice (HD) as part of their pool. Once HD are spent, they are gone forever, and new HD must be earned through honorable action. What is and isn't honorable is a large part of the text.
Basic setting: characters are members of the Order of Fasann on a Dyson Sphere-esque world that has suffered a great calamity and devolved technologically back to that of roughly 14-15th century Earth. The Order of Fasann follow the Tenets of Honor, and look to uphold some semblance of sanity and dignity in the chaotic and brutal society on Sasara.
Link:
You can read the entire manuscript at honorboundrpg.wordpress.com (http://honorboundrpg.wordpress.com). It is only about 6k words.
Thanks for anyone who takes the time to comment or read. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to post. I'm looking for criticism and refinement, so have at it.
Hi Ben, and welcome! We can hold off on Forge of Valor but I'd like to talk about it later for sure.
So far, and this is totally preliminary, I'm interested in how fixed the morality-impact seems to be in your game. Or maybe the word is "reliable" or "known." The mechanics make the decision whether to keep to it non-mysterious: you know for sure that if you go against your tenets, you drop a die, and if you stick by them, you get one. A similar issue in Sorcerer is handled instead by a roll - the increase or decrease in Humanity (which is measured in dice, so it's similar) is not guaranteed per action, merely potential (50-50) every time.
Do you envision situations in which the decision to break the tenets isn't merely pragmatic, but literally in ethical disagreement with the tenets for this moment? In your example, the guy tricks his opponents with a lie, but speaking as if I were that person at the table, I might shrug and say, "Just this once, because otherwise I'll probably die and not be able to do real justice down the road at all." I'm interested in whether you foresee, or would GM toward, or would otherwise welcome situations in which I, the player, would decide that the tenet is not merely impractical at the moment, but literally wrong. Or are you envisioning instead that the player strive hard to uphold the tenets as fundamentally right?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 19, 2014, 02:25:03 PM
Hi Ben, and welcome! We can hold off on Forge of Valor but I'd like to talk about it later for sure.
Hi Ron, and thanks, that sounds good!
Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 19, 2014, 02:25:03 PMSo far, and this is totally preliminary, I'm interested in how fixed the morality-impact seems to be in your game. Or maybe the word is "reliable" or "known." The mechanics make the decision whether to keep to it non-mysterious: you know for sure that if you go against your tenets, you drop a die, and if you stick by them, you get one. A similar issue in Sorcerer is handled instead by a roll - the increase or decrease in Humanity (which is measured in dice, so it's similar) is not guaranteed per action, merely potential (50-50) every time.
I think I decided to go with the known/fixed/reliable aspect simply for fluidity of play. The GM is largely tracking when characters violate or observe Tenets, and must make note of it each time. Because of this, I don't want to throw in another stumbling block in which the character has to roll or has some kind of chance to lose/gain an HD.
Also, there is a bit of a player/character dichotomy here, in which the player knows that they're going to lose a die, but the character only feels that slight guilt and lack of confidence due to breaking a tenet. The benefits for breaking it might outweigh the loss of the character's faith in him/herself.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 19, 2014, 02:25:03 PMDo you envision situations in which the decision to break the tenets isn't merely pragmatic, but literally in ethical disagreement with the tenets for this moment?
Yes. Especially such as Forsaking a Tenet, in which the character knows that s/he is going against everything that they know simply so that they can survive or succeed.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 19, 2014, 02:25:03 PMIn your example, the guy tricks his opponents with a lie, but speaking as if I were that person at the table, I might shrug and say, "Just this once, because otherwise I'll probably die and not be able to do real justice down the road at all."
And that is where the interesting RP comes into play, I think. Characters would have to weigh the "greater good" aspect against how strictly they will adhere to what is right. Where do you draw the line? I imagine that Fasann Monks would have debated this very conundrum for centuries.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 19, 2014, 02:25:03 PMI'm interested in whether you foresee, or would GM toward, or would otherwise welcome situations in which I, the player, would decide that the tenet is not merely impractical at the moment, but literally wrong. Or are you envisioning instead that the player strive hard to uphold the tenets as fundamentally right?
I can see both. I think that the default tone and goal of the game is to create characters that have been thoroughly trained and truly believe in the Tenets. Over time, as the corruptness of Sasara starts to twist them, and they need to have some grey-area wiggle room, they may begin to question their teachings. This makes them less likely to gain HD, but more likely to gain a dishonorable act bonus. They're sacrificing long term advancement (the observance of all ten Tenets without violating one in order to improve) for short term, immediate gain.
But, I think that you could easily make a character that acted with both honor and dishonor. Characters can choose to have Stains at creation, and I've seen it done where players use that to their advantage. Since having a Stain on a Tenet precludes that Tenet from counting against your HD pool, you sort of get it as a freebie to cheat against your code.
In one of my playtest sessions, a character elected to have a Stain on Courage and Purity. He attacked from stealth, lied, cheated, and did everything he could to win (heavily violating courage and Purity) but because they were already Stained, they didn't detract from his pool. Otherwise, he was pretty dang adherent to the Tenets.
Does that answer your question? I feel like you're digging at something a little more fundamental but I'm not quite sure what.
Hi, Ben. From my reading it seems like the GM has a lot of discretion, e.g. which skills apply, what the difficulties are, what sort of situations the PCs face, etc. And you have this bit of advice:
QuoteDon't be too stingy with giving out Honor Dice. On average, characters should replenish more HD in a scene than they spent, especially if observing their Oathsworn Tenets. If characters get low on HD and continue to engage in conflict-driven Scenes, it is very likely that they will become Injured or suffer other Consequences (which is fine, but leads to a lot of dead or crippled characters.)
Are you expecting the GM to use the amount of HD the players have as a sort of thermometer to guide the decisions they have discretion over (e.g. "he's low on dice, maybe I should make this a low difficulty roll..." or "she's got a lot of dice to spare, I think I can have an entire angry mob of villagers try to run her out of town rather than just one disgruntled farmer...")? I'm trying to figure out how the consequences player mechanical choices feed into the larger system, for example whether there's supposed to be a "save your dice for when you really need them" element to playing.
Quote from: Dan Maruschak on June 19, 2014, 10:30:23 PM
Are you expecting the GM to use the amount of HD the players have as a sort of thermometer to guide the decisions they have discretion over (e.g. "he's low on dice, maybe I should make this a low difficulty roll..." or "she's got a lot of dice to spare, I think I can have an entire angry mob of villagers try to run her out of town rather than just one disgruntled farmer...")? I'm trying to figure out how the consequences player mechanical choices feed into the larger system, for example whether there's supposed to be a "save your dice for when you really need them" element to playing.
Hi Dan!
Good question. No, I'm not expecting the GM to really monitor the
expenditure of HD, only the acquisition. So, for instance, if a character went into a scene with only 3 HD, the GM isn't supposed to go extra easy on him/her. Instead, the character is going to have to be extra clever, determined, or tactical to complete the scene without Consequence.
So yes, there is sort of a resource management element to it, but I don't want people to try to "bank" HD for too long. I played around with having a maximum amount of HD that a character could store, or some sort of refresh/reset in which case characters would lose all of their HD (such as after a night's rest), but that felt too mechanically oriented and fiddly for me.
So, for now, characters can accumulate and earn as many HD as they'd like. I think the highest I've seen in playtesting is about 15. Bear in mind, characters are still able to make their "base" roll, even without HD. Sometimes, if they are using the appropriate and effective equipment, this base roll can be 2d6. If they have some reason to have a tactical advantage (such as attacking from a better position, or using some kind of leverage over a social opponent) they get another 1d6. So, characters with 3d6 base have a pretty good chance (80% roughly I think) of at least 1 success on an Average skill (4,5,6 roll = success.)
Also, characters can always either Forsake a Tenet or commit an Act of Sacrifice and they get to end and narrate the Scene. One particularly cool time was when the party was in a heated battle against some mercenaries who were hired to kidnap a bunch of kids from an orphanage so that they could be used as slave labor (eeeeviilll!! I know...), and during the fight, nearly everybody ran out of HD.
One of the characters, who had an Oathsworn Tenet of Righteousness, decided to commit an Act of Sacrifice and concluding the scene. He allowed the lead mercenary commander to impale him with his sword, then used the opportunity to kill him. He stood there, sword through his belly, for a moment as he commanded/intimidated the rest of the leader's men to put down their arms or they would be killed as well. They promptly surrendered, and he promptly collapsed.
He was barely able to survive, but several of his Skills were degraded a step.
Tl;dr: there is some resource management involved, but I don't expect the GM to monitor player HD pools in regards to Difficulty. I expect players to actively seek out reasons to acquire new HD and use their HD efficiently.
So far, Dan and I and others reading this are in "feel it out" mode. I'll presume to speak collectively for a second, in that we don't really know what kind of designing is going on in front of it. So the questions are more investigative, less precision-strike analytical.
Given your answers, I'm seeing something I really like. You're designing based off of real play. When that's happening, I have very little to do, or at least, a lot of the stuff I often ask or analyze isn't necessary. As long as you write down whatever techniques worked out best in play, then you're in the vanguard of quality design.
Here are some thoughts which do apply at this level/quality of design.
1. Is play outstanding, or merely adequate? Don't lowball yourself. "Adequate" isn't good enough. Are you surprised at how good it is? That should be your benchmark for what's working.
2. You've described the setting clearly but a little abstractly. What do clothes look like? Faces? Buildings? You don't need much (and too many game texts go overboard), but enough so that situations in play can be vividly described. Which brings me to situations ... how are they generated? Why? Think about your process of putting characters into situations, and getting them to "pop," as rules that are just as technical and crucial as rolling dice to resolve actions.
A couple of useful threads:
Reduced enjoinment playing RPGs (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php?topic=30197.0) - skip to the second page, the first is all over the place.
Need information for my Alyria session (http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=1943.0) - really old but I think you might like all the Alyria material in that old forum, and this is a good start.
[From the Ashes] Tetsubishi and Vin Weasel do some mushrooms (http://indie-rpgs.com/adept/index.php?topic=272.0) - more recent; see especially the dialogue about setting, scenarios, and the motorcycle centaurs.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 20, 2014, 09:58:20 AM
So far, Dan and I and others reading this are in "feel it out" mode. I'll presume to speak collectively for a second, in that we don't really know what kind of designing is going on in front of it. So the questions are more investigative, less precision-strike analytical.
Makes perfect sense, and this is the type of thought-provoking discussion that I want. Sadly, too many of my playtesters and friends are more about the fun and less about the nuanced details and purposes of the system design.
QuoteGiven your answers, I'm seeing something I really like. You're designing based off of real play. When that's happening, I have very little to do, or at least, a lot of the stuff I often ask or analyze isn't necessary. As long as you write down whatever techniques worked out best in play, then you're in the vanguard of quality design.
I'm pleased! In order to continue modeling off of play, I need more play. Sadly, with my day job and limited stable of playtesters (around 10 folks) this is becoming increasingly difficult. Any interest in running a playtest session Ron?
QuoteHere are some thoughts which do apply at this level/quality of design.
1. Is play outstanding, or merely adequate? Don't lowball yourself. "Adequate" isn't good enough. Are you surprised at how good it is? That should be your benchmark for what's working.
Hmm, I like to think that it is outstanding, to the point that there was a lot of emergent strategy and brand new players to the system taking to it as if they were pros. To me, it comes across as very intuitive and easy to empathize with the character. That natural desperation mechanic of running out of HD and wanting to act dishonorably is real and tangible.
Is that good enough? I don't think so. More refinement is necessary, to be certain.
Quote2. You've described the setting clearly but a little abstractly. What do clothes look like? Faces? Buildings? You don't need much (and too many game texts go overboard), but enough so that situations in play can be vividly described. Which brings me to situations ... how are they generated? Why? Think about your process of putting characters into situations, and getting them to "pop," as rules that are just as technical and crucial as rolling dice to resolve actions.
Ah yes, setting details. I'm a monster at writing settings, it's my one true love. But, the prose that I have here for Sasara is just a quick sketch of my initial thoughts. I have literally thousands of words on the subject, but I plan on writing the finalized setting from the perspective of the Fasann Monks, and how their chroniclers are trying to understand the world and its people
QuoteA couple of useful threads:
Reduced enjoinment playing RPGs (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php?topic=30197.0) - skip to the second page, the first is all over the place.
Need information for my Alyria session (http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=1943.0) - really old but I think you might like all the Alyria material in that old forum, and this is a good start.
[From the Ashes] Tetsubishi and Vin Weasel do some mushrooms (http://indie-rpgs.com/adept/index.php?topic=272.0) - more recent; see especially the dialogue about setting, scenarios, and the motorcycle centaurs.
Very interesting reads! I read through most of it, but I'll be back to more thoroughly digest it soon.
If anyone else is interested in playing, I'm open to running one-shot playtests over G+ or similar. If you'd like to try running it with your own group, please do and post your play report.
If you are interested in Legends of Alyria the entire game is posted (with a Creative Commons license) here: http://alyria.blogspot.it/
I'm also interested in hearing more about how the GM is supposed to set up situations, but mostly in a more higher level way having to do with the morality and moral content than in terms of low-level details about the setting. I get the sense that the game is aiming to be about some morality, and seems to be tapping in to some classic deontological/consequentialist stuff, but I can't figure out how it's all meant to cohere together yet.
Quote from: Dan Maruschak on June 21, 2014, 07:57:15 PM
I'm also interested in hearing more about how the GM is supposed to set up situations, but mostly in a more higher level way having to do with the morality and moral content than in terms of low-level details about the setting. I get the sense that the game is aiming to be about some morality, and seems to be tapping in to some classic deontological/consequentialist stuff, but I can't figure out how it's all meant to cohere together yet.
Hi Dan, sorry for the delay in response.
I'm not sure I understand. Due to the character's adherence to the Tenets, they are motivated to go out and mete justice in an unjust world. The GM, in this case, is largely reactive. The GM just places elements that the characters would find dishonorable/repulsive/in need of retribution, and off they go.
In the thirty or so hours of playtesting that I've had (admittedly not an enormous amount), I've never had a party sit on its hands. Maybe I'm doing something automatically as a GM that isn't clear in the rules.
Can you give me an example of what you're looking for, or expand on your question? If you mean simply how do GMs hit that right note of morality without sounding preachy, I don't know. I'm not sure I haven't done that as a designer, really.
QuoteIf you mean simply how do GMs hit that right note of morality without sounding preachy, I don't know. I'm not sure I haven't done that as a designer, really.
Are these things that you want the game to do? Things you
don't want the game to do? Things you're indifferent to? I can't tell. I'm finding it difficult to articulate questions that don't read as loaded. I don't want to tell you how you should design your game.
Quote from: Dan Maruschak on June 23, 2014, 09:02:56 PM
QuoteIf you mean simply how do GMs hit that right note of morality without sounding preachy, I don't know. I'm not sure I haven't done that as a designer, really.
Are these things that you want the game to do? Things you don't want the game to do? Things you're indifferent to? I can't tell. I'm finding it difficult to articulate questions that don't read as loaded. I don't want to tell you how you should design your game.
Sorry, obviously I'm not being clear. I think my quick responses are doing me a disservice, but at the moment they're all I have time for.
So: I don't want the game to come off as preachy. I want people to believe that a society could have developed these Tenets of Honor as a distillation of all of Earth's/humanity's common conceptions of goodness and justice. So, I want suspension of disbelief, but I'm not trying to indoctrinate people.
The kind of tone that I
want to create is for the player to empathize with a character who has sworn an oath to uphold a very strict code, and the difficulty of adhering to that code in a world that is so dark and brutal. I want grittiness with hope. Hard questions to be answered. Is it better to lie now, violating Purity, to ensure that more innocents are not harmed?
Thanks for sticking with me through this, appreciate it!
I've been reading through Dogs in the Vineyard, and I see where my content is bereft of any color in comparison. I will continue to work on it and expand upon the existing text, rewriting what is necessary.
Some quick things I think are needed:
- better explanation of the GM's role in creating problems, NPCs, and moral conundrums
- expand upon the relationship between the Order and Sasara
- overall just add a lot more color and depth to the text and world
I'm really appreciating the dialogue here, so feel free to poke me or ask more questions. Even problematic or loaded ones, as it were.
In those threads I linked to, I suggest looking for our emphasis on evocative details in play as opposed to raw setting description in text. The difference is between (i) feeling like there is a wonderful setting while you play, and feeling it become richer as you play; vs. (ii) a massive indigestible compendium which the GM is desperately trying to enforce upon those who aren't feeling it at all, during play. Far too many game texts have descended forever into (ii) because the authors forgot about (i).
I have a possibly problematic question. Let me know if I'm seeing this properly: play hits its most dramatic, fun moments when the characters may well break their heartfelt moral rules based on the situation they're in.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the point of play is to break the honor-bound tenets; I'm saying the point of play is to discover when breaking them here and there seems like a viable option. For what it's worth, that sounds like a lot of fun to me, especially when playing "knight templar / martial monk" characters. I want to see if I'm at least on the right track before I go further down it and talk more about mechanics.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 26, 2014, 12:27:59 PMi]evocative details in play[/i]
Completely agree. That's exactly what I'm working on now.
QuoteI have a possibly problematic question. Let me know if I'm seeing this properly: play hits its most dramatic, fun moments when the characters may well break their heartfelt moral rules based on the situation they're in.
I think you are correct, in addition to saying that another fun element of play is simply being the heroes. That's not as interesting or edgy, but most of the playtesters (about 10 folks) just genuinely enjoying being a good guy and having a reason to continue to be a good guy.
But yes, I think that a clever GM attempting to create a believable version of the Order and Sasara would attempt to find ways to get the Monks to break their vows.
Just as a quick update, I've been feverishly writing and I think that I'm getting a much better grip on how I want the game to come across and to feel through the game text. I've decided just to commit fully to a conversational, one-on-one, "I" and "you" tone. This has made it easier for me to write, allowing me to essentially phrase things how I would when describing the game to a friend or a new player in a dialogue.
Here's the link to the current work in progress document. I've written about 7k new words in the last few days, most of it color/setting/pre game stuff.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11t3SDyDrpgvCb8_iYFcfWTzR6hxINgxPA52CnsTRwLk/edit?usp=sharing
I'd like you all to take a look and let me know what you think. This is a super duper pre alpha, no edits, and I am continuously changing things. Thanks again.