Game Lacking Content and In Development

[F33]

I am not a professional, but I like to play games. I've played D&D and maybe too many RPG video games than my share.
Me and some friends wanted to play D&D a while back, so I began to come up with an adventure. Fairly soon, I became frustrated with all the complex and sometimes nonsensical rules. I like to think that I'm pretty creative, so I began to create my own game rules, abilities, creatures and world. My friends really like it so far, but it is a little lacking in content at the moment. Of course, you folks are the first people I thought of. The game is called Tricopia (Latin for 'Three Powers'), and I would like to hear some criticism about specifically the system mechanics, but any ideas are welcome. Also, ideas for content such as creatures, abilities or items would be very helpful.

Just in case you aren't interested yet, there's an ability to explode things.

Development blog: http://tricopia.blogspot.com/
File downloads: http://tricopia.blogspot.com/p/files.html

[Devon Oratz]

Just in case you aren't interested yet, there's an ability to explode things.

Totally cribbing this for my own advertising. : P

[Chris_Chinn]

Welcome to the Forge!

Lots of questions! 

Based on how States advance, it looks like characters start out mostly identical in ratings and as they grow, they become widely divergent.   That is, initially the difference between two characters in State scores is 1 point apart, but many levels later, someone might be at 20 while the other person is 0.

Which means after a certain point, some characters will simply automatically win rolls against other characters, and, success in conflict then becomes about making sure you make your opponent's have to roll one of their 0 States against something you're strong in, before they do the same to you.

Things to flesh out in the rules:

1. How does the GM pick which State to use in a roll?  For example, I could see situations where Peace, Patience, or Order all overlap- does the GM just decide?  Does the player have leeway?  This kind of thing is a pretty common problem with games that have a lot of close, but not quite identical stats/skills to roll with.

2.  How is XP earned?  How fast?  Are there specific activities/play behaviors that earn more XP?

3.  Tied to #2- what does good play look like for this game?  You get powers, you get tons of States to choose from - what are the characters doing?  What are the players supposed to be doing with the characters?

You don't have to answer these questions here, but these definitely need to be clear in the rules at some point as you go along.

Chris

[Callan S.]

Hi F33,

Have you kept the traditional design structure of, say, the GM decides when a skill roll is required for some fiction to become part of the game history, and the difficulty is decided entirely by the GM? Similarly with monsters/opponents, the GM picks when, which and how many, completely unrestricted in doing so?

What I'll say applies to a ton of RPG's: I suppose how I phrase it is when you read a book, like a fantasy novel, who's in charge of what happens? The author - as reader, your passive (well, you could decide the details for your own reading, like was her dress red or green, but otherwise your passive). Now, could an RPG be designed in such a way that it's the same as the book - one author, and a bunch of readers? What would such an RPG look like? Would it give the author the capacity to control utterly what opponents appear, when and how many? Or when a character in the story can do something or can't?

I'd grant in such an activity (I wouldn't call it a game), the other people could suggest stuff and the author might take it up. But I would call that suggesting, not playing.

Anyway, it applies to alot of games. I'm just airing the idea here in case it clicks with you or is useful in some way.

[F33]

@Chris:

1. Right now, I don't have any specific ideas about what State you would use for what situation. I wanted to steer as far away as I could from charts and graphs and try to inspire creativity in the players and GM. For instance, if you were trying to rally soldiers to fight, you would probably roll War. On the other hand, if you were trying to rally them to bake pies for inner-city children, you would probably roll Order. It's up to you, but the context should make it easier.

2. Right now, XP is only earned by killing things. The number after the creature's name is their level/XP gain. I suppose, though, XP could be earned by doing any number of things. Again, it's up to the GM, although the rules could probably include something on this.

3. I have only playtested this a handful of times, and they were all generic dungeons crawls. However, I purposely made the States flexible in what kind of situation they could be used in. War could be used in leading people into battle, or planning a naval attack on a rebellious country or even just impressing a general with your combat knowledge.

@Callan:

Hopefully, the GM and players can work together to create a story. The GM shouldn't make the game a linear hallway, but the players should also be involved on what happens in the story. If you want the story to be complex and intriguing, it will be. If you just want to explode goblins, then you can do that too.

[dreamborn]

Welcome the the wonderful world of game design.  Good luck, buckle in and hold on.

[Callan S.]

The GM shouldn't make the game a linear hallway, but the players should also be involved on what happens in the story.

I dunno, when I hear should and shouldn't I always just think "Well, if as author that's important to you...why not write a rule for it?". But by and large in most cases it always seems to be left to some sort of moral imperitive "You should do X, you shouldn't do Y!" and never codified into a mechanic? It's kind of like "This is SO important, were not even going to write a rule about it!"

This personal observation applies to alot of designs. Don't feel it's particular to you or anything. It also goes against alot of RPG culture conventional wisdom. But the forge has some tolerance for exiting that conventional wisdom, so I thought I'd post in case the perspective revealing in some useful way.

[F33]

That's a really good point. Although, now  that I think about it, why couldn't it be just about killing things? If the States are so versatile, why shouldn't someone just be able to play as they want? I'm going to take back my previous statement. The GM is free to do whatever they want. This is supposed to be a game!