game: Project: Deep Blue -- Alpha

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I'm all for democracy, but I think the level of group decision making described in P:DB--A would make the game go pretty slow.  It's as if you had the group debate on the DC of any skill check in d20.  

Well honestly you'd only have to do it a little at the beginning of the game.

Once you set gound rules on what X can do, you wont have a debate every time. In fact it will be considerable faster than D20 combat mechanics. At least it seems to be. But thanks about the paired charicteristics that was Saints nod to Pendragon which uses some paired charicteristics in its concept. I like it, because it says right up front who your player is and you can really go from there into play.

[Entsuropi]

I've never had a chance to actually play a diceless game. But I can still see that it has advantages over the dice versions.

Of course, it might be less exciting without chance. But the systems I've seen usually have resource management - miracle points, or whatever. So you can actually put some surprises into the game, just not by using dice.

[Eagle Prince]

One or two example characters might help.  I think it is currently too locked into a certain game world.  Not that it needs to be so generic as GURPS, but at least as much as DnD or Mutants and Masterminds.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

The idea of the powers manifesting seems like a modern world theme, but I actually have a series of settings in mind. It would, for example, work with the TW(i)G setting with only minor tweaking. The concept ports well to a fantasy setting or to a supers game.

For Supers, the standpoint we wrote it from was originally a "real world" which diverges from our own only at the instant one of the characters gains a power. However, There's no reason at all you couldn't simulate DC or Marvel with this -- Characters there are always manifesting new powers or discovering they're a superhero suddenly, etc, etc.

For fantasy I'll admit that it isn't very good for a traditional high fantasy game. However, Vin from Brandon's Mistborn could easily be played out with this system: discovering new metals she could burn. You could also do this in a setting where there are pre-existing magic powers or in one where there are monsters but no one with any particularly amazing abilities besides the occassional really good warrior.

But I suppose I could sit down and set up a couple example of demo plays in two different settings.

[Lieutenant Kije]

If you interpreted "powers" as extraordinary abilities, and not necessarily magical or superhuman abilities, I think it could work alright.  It mightbe a tad awkward, but in a high fantasy situation it might work like this:

In a tense situation, the fighter suddenly masters the move he has been practicing at for the last few months.  Or in a tense situation (again) the wizard finally gets the wording right on that spell they've been trying to learn.

I guess the awkwardness comes from the "in a tense situation," which seems like the vehicle for power manifestation in P:DB--A.  Perhaps if the emphasis were placed less on "in a tense sitatuion" and more on "in a time of need."  That seems less urgent/desperate and more workable.  Or maybe I'm reading the stuff all wrong.  :)

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

no, that's the kind of thing we're looking to hear. Stress/tension/extreme need. The key is to enhance story telling, provide lots of opportunities for the need to be there. Probably, in a final release, we could have a whole section of a chapter dedicated to defining the "moment" when things can happen.

This is mostly the mechanics, but since a context/campaign advice/flavor/setting is next on the agenda, what you're saying are things we really need to hear.

[Skar]

I just read through this with an eye to playing it with my sons, 8 and 6 respectively.  I haven't really played any RPGs in the last 10-15 years so my opinion is probably suspect but the main problem I see is the dependence on fair play by the players outside of the game world.

What I'm trying to say is that making fair decisions by committee, as described, will tend to pull the players out of the game world and into conflict with the other players...  The conflict I'm talking about is the one where player A really wants to fly out of danger and player B has to choose, basically, whether to let him or not, by choosing a score that allows him to perform or not.  If they're working together, B is tempted to give him the power, if they're at odds, B is tempted to not give him the power.

I recognize that the problem can be solved simply by the players being mature and reasonable.  Essentially, they all have to be game-masters, and that, I think, will tend to pull them out of the story.

I'm interested in your take on the things I pointed out.  As I said, I haven't played for years so I'm probably missing obvious factors and/or solutions to those problems.  I want to know what they are.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Some interesting questions, to which I pose a few counter questions and a half answer.

The half answer is communication, which is the basis of all effective conflict resolution. Fairness in my experience is something that is unsatisfying if players have it forced on them, at any age. Its one of those things that people need to learn from either their peers or family or through the story. In addition, there are plenty of situations where "fairness" really isn't, or shouldn't be a factor. I find that collaborative storytelling and roleplaying is better at encouraging fairplay than the idea of a GM god. Players know what's fun, even at young ages, and typically they like to see everyone at the table having fun. Sure, this may branch out into conflict or over rewarding certain behavior at bad times but with a little deconstruction afterwards the experience can be a good one. Asking the simple question did you like it can answer scads of others or at least lead to solutions.
Your six year old may want elements in the story that you might not be aware of, and is likely to get left out or live in the shadow of the 8 year old, and likewise your 8 year old may feel railroaded by being forced to do stuff the 6 year old wants. One way of getting around that is by allowing everyone to have an influence in the story, while the other is to take firm hold of it yourself and try to anticipate and balance their desires. In the end you just have to decide what works for you. I really like the RPG.net thread where a father plays heroquest (the rpg) with his 5 year old. I dont have the URL but I bet its googleable.

Is pulling them out of the story necessarily bad? In our rpg experience it used to be that one person was in charge of the story, but this runs contrary to games kids play at that age (whether it be War in the backyard or one of those complete the story games). Maybe they can have a good time exercising the gm part of their brains, or at least maybe they'll learn to tell a good story. I think the best way to do it is to cast conflict as a scene, figure out the result and then tell everyone what happened. Which breaks the flow of the game a little, but IMHO no more than stopping to roll out combat in D&D. Im not sure that Im right though so Id be glad to hear any response on the subject.

2. I like the declaration (paraphrased here due to language filters) by D. Vincent Baker the writer of Dogs in the Vineyard. Basically it boils down to "Don't be a jerk!" Of course his other declaration is also "unless you want to say no say yes." Taken together the two ideas have some interesting implications on play I think. On the one hand, it basically says to be aware of other people and don't score points off their misery in the game and on the other it says don't limit the imagination of others unless you plan to make it a conflict. I like that.

I hope I made sense.

Do you have any suggestions that might make the system run better?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I don't disagree that the decision by committee approach has its problems. Jeffe and I designed the game for players like ourselves -- which inherently limits the types of players who would enjoy it. Essentially, it's collaborative story-telling from 1st Person POV rather than traditional role playing. We've tried to keep some measure of balance in the mechanics, but we have essentially sacrificed "fairness" in favor of the story/experience.

Thus the committee approach seemed the best way to equalize things. You get to tell your own story, and no one gets a "veto" per se, but others can intelligently object. It requires a great ammount of maturity in that approach both to deciding what YOU can do and what you'll reasonably object to. Younger players may have problems with this. The only fix without fundamentally changing the system is to be sure your discussions are extremely limited and have an arbiter (we haven't completely eliminated the gm). The player *very* briefly describe what he wants to do, and possibly a reason why ("I want to fly away and I can because I've had this sort of personality and I have this much Hubris"). Other players can make a statement just as briefly state conditions or counters. There shouldn't be much back and forth ("I can do this. nuh uh! Yeah huh!"). Then the arbiter finalizes it. The arbiter shouldn't be a player so he can be neutral.

Longer discussions would certainly be out of character and turn the game into an argument. No one wants that.

Anyway, that was how I was thinking going into the system design. However, I really would like ways to smooth out problems like this. It's not a game that would ever be as popular as D&D, but I definitely want the appeal to be as broad as possible. Do you have any ideas for how we can simplify decision making?

[Skar]

No suggestions as of yet.  I'll be thinking about it though.  Thanks for your responses.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

hey Skar,... you should read this
http://www.glorantha.com/support/na_yoots.html

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

Yeah... ok. So I completely missed this. What in the world is Steam Clockworks? And what is this Deep Blue? (I'm reading the article as you reply =P)

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Steam Clockworks is the gaming design company that E and I created...

its an offshoot of herbertlives productions... and an exercise in frivolity.

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

I haven't read over the entirety of this thread yet, but you should add to the other three traits the "middle-ground" as it were such as the first one has. The hubris-humility trait that is.

But otherwise I have only minor details that I think would be answered by a session of this played out or a character made.

Anyone up for trying this out some time?

Oh yes, Jeffe, I require that you sign onto aim if you are possible.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I cant, the library connection sucks....