For nearly three years now, I have had a love-hate codependent relationship with D&D. In short, I can't live with it, but I can't seem to live without it, either. When I come back to it after a break, I feel rejuvinated and excited by this old comfortable friend I know so well. But after a couple weeks, all the old irritants come back, and I'm driven away to some other gaming system thread... until I eventually come crawling back again.
I have come to think of "z20" as describing the history of this abusive relationship, including all my attempts to change d20 (rather than love it the way it is). It includes Drudge, mini20, d20house, etc.
Hyperbole aside, it is time to review z20 (again) to see what I'm trying to get out of it. What is my goal here? Is z20 meant to be a simple tweak of d20? A conversion of d20? Or a whole new system simply inspired by d20? I'm hoping that, if I can decide what I want out of it, I can then move past the tensions it's causing in my design work.
z20 is not meant be a whole new system--though it often seems to drift in that direction. There are other existing systems I could use if that was my goal. But instead I want to retain all my existing d20 content. Basically, I'm too invested, with hours and years of learning and a number of existing storylines and worlds defined in terms of D&D. I can't easily let it all go. (I would say zilch has been strongly inspired by d20, but compatiblity was never a concern there, and so zilch is largely separate from z20... except that now it is starting to feed ideas back to into z20.)
But z20 is not a simple tweak, either. It has gone too far for that. I've tried to throttle things to back to this level as d20house--which approximates a relatively normal level of house rules or the degree of changes made by Pathfinder.
So, if z20 is more than just a tweak, but not a completely separate and independent system, that means it's a conversion. It is a kind of bastardization: no longer the old d20 system, but not a new truly system with a life of its own either.
Other such hybrid/conversion systems already exist--such as True20 fantasy or Microlite20 (both of which have served as inspiration). So why not just play these then?
Mainly, because I don't feel the conversion goes far enough to capture all the content. Microlite20 actually caused the revival of z20 and serves as its core. But, while it simplifies characters--attributes, skills, feats, etc--it doesn't simplify the rest: conditions, special abilities, spells, magic items, monsters. This is frequently a problem: a d20 conversion system essential streamlines the first half the Player's Handbook, but neglects to do the same for the second half (the spells) or the other two core books.
And, I've come to realize, it's not really the character sheet that's my problem. Yes, it takes a long time to develop a character. But 1) this is usually fun in and of itself and 2) this is relatively minor investment in terms of a campaign that will take months or even years to play all the way through. Simpler characters really only help for one-off games or similar quick start situations with new players.
Instead, my problem is with the modifiers, the numbers to track, all the little details that are going on during play: basically, the reason it so often takes 3 hours to play through two minutes of combat. And this is not easy to simplify because of how entangled all these rules are. Monsters rely on all the special ability rules and spell-like abilities; spells rely on the possible character conditions; the combat rules inform spells and conditions and feats. Simply touching one of these systems ripples through all the others.
Another insight I've had is that a "conversion" is a temporary state, not a finished system. If the conversion is not completed, then it is simply an elaborate tweak--which is worse than the original system in terms of quick use. Even if the conversion ultimately simplifies the rules, it must still be applied on the fly. Each rule lookup now requires the DM do the lookup in d20... and then apply the conversion (hopefully without also having to look up the conversion rule). This is why I prefer finished system documents where all lookups need to be directed to only a single resource.
But, if I apply the necessary conversions throughout the system, I end up with a new system! Any additional d20 material must undergo the same conversion to be used. Furthermore, this is a massive undertaking. I'd have to touch every monster and the over 600 spells in the core rulebooks. While I've thought that some of this could be automated, it is really just not worth the effort. This much effort could instead be spent loosely converting existing material into a completely new/alternate system.
In short, keeping z20 compatible with d20 is only useful if the content can all still be used without conversion. But, since all the rules are form an interdependent system, more than a few tweaks breaks the system or makes it a new, incompatible game.
I've now slept on this, and I think the conclusion is clear. z20 is essentially a new game system, but it does not offer enough new or exciting differences from d20 to make it worth a lone-man translation of all the core content. I can think of z20 as Zludge for d20: an assortment of modular rules, sort of like Unearthed Arcana on steriods. As such, much of the work I've done could rollover into any future work I do on a new fantasy or generic rules-heavy RPG.
But I think my time and effort would be better served by searching for (or even developing) a new system unfettered by vague d20 "compatibility" or "equivalence" constraints. I could then translate only the necessary content of my world--a handful of characters--rather than all the d20 core content.
Therefore, my current plan is to shelve z20 indefinitely. I may be able to use the work for later Zludge Prime efforts. In the mean time, I'll play my existing d20 lines through to their ends (or at least to a good conversion point) as d20. I'll probably still poke at zilch, since that has a neat boardgame aspect to it. But, between d20 and zilch, I don't see a real need for a third fantasy RPG in my life. My game system design efforts would be better spent elsewhere.
For the curious: This is where z20 stands now.
Showing posts with label mini20. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mini20. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
History of z20 and Zludge
As the last couple posts have hinted, my z20 project has been quietly resurrected, despite earlier posts suggesting this is a doomed endeavor. I started wondering at this--where did z20 come from? How did I get here, and where do I think I'm going?
However, in digging for the answer, I found that z20 is intricately tied to the history of Zludge. Pouring through my archive of Sent email messages to S. and B., I was able to reconstruct the following chronology:
Jun 2007: I become intrigued by Fudge and Fate 2.0 (effectively a specific flavor of Fudge). Fudge in particular is filled with good ideas, but in a very "...and here's another good idea" style, leaving the GM to roll these ideas into his own perfect system. I start my own Fudge derivative named Zludge: a mixture of Fudge, Fate, d20, and GURPS ideas.
Jul 2007: I finish an early version of Zludge largely shaped for a sci-fi campaign (including psi rules, for example), though still intending to be a largely universal system.
Dec 2007: After repeatedly being frustrated by the slow rate of D&D combat--particularly the modifier tracking and rule details--I consider a possible simplification project. Zludge comes to mind as a base, and so I begin a document to blend Zludge and d20.
Feb 2008: The Zludge-d20 project grows beyond a simple hack document and becomes its own system: Drudge.
Mar 2008: After playing around with Animal Ball's Instant Game, one day S. and I just sit down and play a rules-lite system I come up with in an hour based on bare-bones Zludge. Originally named Fluff, this soon becomes Fluffy.
There are now three flavors of Zludge going: the lite Fluffy, the original Zludge (which I start calling Zludge Prime), and the relatively rules-heavy Drudge. The idea comes to make Zludge a roll-your-own system. However, instead of just being a jumble of ideas, it would be a system of clearly-defined, compatible modules. GMs could define a "zenome" document for their particular instance of Zludge that would specify which rule modules they are using. Thus, the rules could be lite or heavy depending on GM preference or the particular campaign. Furthermore, when I found a good mechanic idea in another system, I could port that single idea into the framework of Zludge, thus being able to experiment with small pieces here and there while still keeping the bulk of my gaming system constant.
I begin surfing more and more RPG test drive rules and indie RPG system for neat ideas.
Apr 2008: I start this blog, whose name is even inspired by Zludge.
Jul 2008: Fluffy (and its basically synonymous incarnation Huffy) sees some action on a long car trip with B. in a Heavy Metal Atomic Wasteland campaign setting. (Sadly, this never got documented properly here on SludgePit.)
May 2009: After 18 months of work (not 15), I call an end to Drudge. Essentially, Drudge had wandered too far from d20 to be at all useful. It would have been easier and faster to just completely reimagine the d20 content in a Zludge system. Intrigued by True20, I instead consider a d20-True20 blending named z20.
Jun 2009: I essentially realize the differences between True20 and d20 are too minor to be bothering with a synthesis. In short, I'm simply bastardizing d20 without significant advantage. I decide to end z20 in favor of d20house, which is just a handful of house rules for d20 and an digital DM's screen to speed play.
Aug 2009: I discover Microlite20. This is d20 streamlined! I think my own strength is streamlining--making simpler rules that are still effectively equivalent to the source. But I suck at actually trimming and drastically cutting away the fat (and even some of the meat, if necessary). Microlite provides the core I've been looking for.
However, there are a number of things I don't like. For instance, the core rules are so lite and streamlined, but the equipment lists are so long and detailed, spells are still straight from d20 (and so too detail-oriented), translated monsters have no special abilities at all--essentially just attack bonuses, AC, and hit points. In short, it feels like a hodge-podge.
I start pulling Microlite20 into a single document and tweaking what I don't like. Of course, I find myself adding a lot of old Drudge ideas, etc. It grows beyond the Microlite core, so I call it mini20.
Sept 2009: mini20 has stopped being even "mini". But it seems to also be close to my original goal way back with Drudge: a lite version of d20. In short, its the d20 that I always wanted to play. I resurrect the name z20.
So that's how I got here. As to where I'm going... maybe in another post soon I'll talk about some of the things I proud of in z20, and see if I can ever answer that still-haunting question: "Why convert or change d20 in the first place? Why not just play d20 as is, or else start a new system from scratch?"
However, in digging for the answer, I found that z20 is intricately tied to the history of Zludge. Pouring through my archive of Sent email messages to S. and B., I was able to reconstruct the following chronology:
Jun 2007: I become intrigued by Fudge and Fate 2.0 (effectively a specific flavor of Fudge). Fudge in particular is filled with good ideas, but in a very "...and here's another good idea" style, leaving the GM to roll these ideas into his own perfect system. I start my own Fudge derivative named Zludge: a mixture of Fudge, Fate, d20, and GURPS ideas.
Jul 2007: I finish an early version of Zludge largely shaped for a sci-fi campaign (including psi rules, for example), though still intending to be a largely universal system.
Dec 2007: After repeatedly being frustrated by the slow rate of D&D combat--particularly the modifier tracking and rule details--I consider a possible simplification project. Zludge comes to mind as a base, and so I begin a document to blend Zludge and d20.
Feb 2008: The Zludge-d20 project grows beyond a simple hack document and becomes its own system: Drudge.
Mar 2008: After playing around with Animal Ball's Instant Game, one day S. and I just sit down and play a rules-lite system I come up with in an hour based on bare-bones Zludge. Originally named Fluff, this soon becomes Fluffy.
There are now three flavors of Zludge going: the lite Fluffy, the original Zludge (which I start calling Zludge Prime), and the relatively rules-heavy Drudge. The idea comes to make Zludge a roll-your-own system. However, instead of just being a jumble of ideas, it would be a system of clearly-defined, compatible modules. GMs could define a "zenome" document for their particular instance of Zludge that would specify which rule modules they are using. Thus, the rules could be lite or heavy depending on GM preference or the particular campaign. Furthermore, when I found a good mechanic idea in another system, I could port that single idea into the framework of Zludge, thus being able to experiment with small pieces here and there while still keeping the bulk of my gaming system constant.
I begin surfing more and more RPG test drive rules and indie RPG system for neat ideas.
Apr 2008: I start this blog, whose name is even inspired by Zludge.
Jul 2008: Fluffy (and its basically synonymous incarnation Huffy) sees some action on a long car trip with B. in a Heavy Metal Atomic Wasteland campaign setting. (Sadly, this never got documented properly here on SludgePit.)
May 2009: After 18 months of work (not 15), I call an end to Drudge. Essentially, Drudge had wandered too far from d20 to be at all useful. It would have been easier and faster to just completely reimagine the d20 content in a Zludge system. Intrigued by True20, I instead consider a d20-True20 blending named z20.
Jun 2009: I essentially realize the differences between True20 and d20 are too minor to be bothering with a synthesis. In short, I'm simply bastardizing d20 without significant advantage. I decide to end z20 in favor of d20house, which is just a handful of house rules for d20 and an digital DM's screen to speed play.
Aug 2009: I discover Microlite20. This is d20 streamlined! I think my own strength is streamlining--making simpler rules that are still effectively equivalent to the source. But I suck at actually trimming and drastically cutting away the fat (and even some of the meat, if necessary). Microlite provides the core I've been looking for.
However, there are a number of things I don't like. For instance, the core rules are so lite and streamlined, but the equipment lists are so long and detailed, spells are still straight from d20 (and so too detail-oriented), translated monsters have no special abilities at all--essentially just attack bonuses, AC, and hit points. In short, it feels like a hodge-podge.
I start pulling Microlite20 into a single document and tweaking what I don't like. Of course, I find myself adding a lot of old Drudge ideas, etc. It grows beyond the Microlite core, so I call it mini20.
Sept 2009: mini20 has stopped being even "mini". But it seems to also be close to my original goal way back with Drudge: a lite version of d20. In short, its the d20 that I always wanted to play. I resurrect the name z20.
So that's how I got here. As to where I'm going... maybe in another post soon I'll talk about some of the things I proud of in z20, and see if I can ever answer that still-haunting question: "Why convert or change d20 in the first place? Why not just play d20 as is, or else start a new system from scratch?"
Sunday, September 20, 2009
z20/Omri: Death of Myrksog
After a 3 month break, S. and I got in another Omri session today. Omri and party managed to find and slay Myrksog the bugbear; details appended to the "Myrksog" section of The Amazing Escapades of Omri Buckle & Co.
We played using z20, which is what I quietly renamed mini20 to earlier this week (thus effectively reviving that old obsession). I had drawn up some crude character sheets a couple weeks ago. They worked well, though I need more room for gear and maybe less room for tracking spell effects. I still haven't found the best way to track spell effects--how much the GM should track and how much the player should be responsible for, and how to note it in either case.
We played a little more than 2 hours, which is quite a bit longer than our normal goal of 1 hour, but it seemed to move along pretty well.
As usual, I forgot a few details here and there--such as the miss chance for shadowy light, especially when characters without lowlight vision moved away from the torch-lit area. But that's pretty minor.
I used poker chips to track hit points and spell points and that worked nicely.
z20 grapple rules worked well--there was a significant amount of grappling happening, all without GM pain! S. also used the "Heroic Exertion" rule that I came up with just a day or two ago in order to turn a failure into a success on the last blow against Myrksog. This made for a much better story (rather than trying to chase Myrksog down into some tunnel, and maybe even seeing him get away). The exertion also left me with a karma point, which I already have plans for. (Bwahhahahaha! <--Evil GM laugh.)
A couple z20 alpha test notes for myself: While I really like being able to choose from the whole spell list, it does means spellcasters can do almost anything. I think more specialist spells would be a good way to encourage focus/customization. Imposing limits on spell selection would mean more rules (so I'd rather not do it), but I may still give it some thought. The number of spells cast felt about right though.
There were some other d20 features lost in the adaptation. For instance, without feats, Jimmy doesn't have Rapid Reload anymore and now takes a turn to reload his crossbow. Also, Solomon Jack isn't very "bardy" in terms of game mechanics. Again, not sure what I want to do about that.
Not having to track squares and attacks-of-opportunity was nice. Overall, z20 flows pretty well, though it still takes a pretty hefty amount of time just adding up various modifiers. (Admittedly, there were 9 combatants involved.) I don't think I'll make any changes on any of those until after a few more game sessions.
Overall, a great evening--fun story and good feelings for the z20 game system. Maybe soon I'll be able to successfully end this 2 year obsession with streamlining d20!
We played using z20, which is what I quietly renamed mini20 to earlier this week (thus effectively reviving that old obsession). I had drawn up some crude character sheets a couple weeks ago. They worked well, though I need more room for gear and maybe less room for tracking spell effects. I still haven't found the best way to track spell effects--how much the GM should track and how much the player should be responsible for, and how to note it in either case.
We played a little more than 2 hours, which is quite a bit longer than our normal goal of 1 hour, but it seemed to move along pretty well.
As usual, I forgot a few details here and there--such as the miss chance for shadowy light, especially when characters without lowlight vision moved away from the torch-lit area. But that's pretty minor.
I used poker chips to track hit points and spell points and that worked nicely.
z20 grapple rules worked well--there was a significant amount of grappling happening, all without GM pain! S. also used the "Heroic Exertion" rule that I came up with just a day or two ago in order to turn a failure into a success on the last blow against Myrksog. This made for a much better story (rather than trying to chase Myrksog down into some tunnel, and maybe even seeing him get away). The exertion also left me with a karma point, which I already have plans for. (Bwahhahahaha! <--Evil GM laugh.)
A couple z20 alpha test notes for myself: While I really like being able to choose from the whole spell list, it does means spellcasters can do almost anything. I think more specialist spells would be a good way to encourage focus/customization. Imposing limits on spell selection would mean more rules (so I'd rather not do it), but I may still give it some thought. The number of spells cast felt about right though.
There were some other d20 features lost in the adaptation. For instance, without feats, Jimmy doesn't have Rapid Reload anymore and now takes a turn to reload his crossbow. Also, Solomon Jack isn't very "bardy" in terms of game mechanics. Again, not sure what I want to do about that.
Not having to track squares and attacks-of-opportunity was nice. Overall, z20 flows pretty well, though it still takes a pretty hefty amount of time just adding up various modifiers. (Admittedly, there were 9 combatants involved.) I don't think I'll make any changes on any of those until after a few more game sessions.
Overall, a great evening--fun story and good feelings for the z20 game system. Maybe soon I'll be able to successfully end this 2 year obsession with streamlining d20!
Monday, September 14, 2009
Adventurers: Embracing the Cliche
I started working on mini20 again this weekend. I also went to my local gaming store to browse around for a bit, as I've been feeling a bit dry when it comes to good story ideas. I looked through the bargain bins of old 3.0 and 3.5 OGL adventures and the like, but didn't find anything very exciting. For most of them, I thought: "Hmm... same old, same old--adventures come to town, find trouble, and so need to clear out a dungeon."
But I realized later that I'm being snobbish: adventurers clearing out dungeons for wealth and glory is the very essence of D&D! I've realized the same thing when reading pulp stories by the likes of Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert E. Howard, and H.P. Lovecraft: yeah, this stuff may not seem particularly original today (especially after it's been rehashed and imitated in fiction and film for decades), but the stories are still damn exciting! And a sort of lite, fast, almost beer-and-pretzels dungeon-crawling campaign is exactly what mini20 is supposed to be good for. That's what's so great about using genre and cliche: you know what you're getting into, you know what the background assumptions are, and you can just jump straight into the action.
During this morning's shower, I considered this further and realized that the concept of the "adventurer" is key. Indeed, the adventurer concept is at least as important to the fantasy roleplay genre as magic and exotic beasts.
What I mean by the adventurer concept is that the fantasy world has areas of darkness and danger. These could be great tracts of wildness or simply the creepy-crawliness of the city sewers. These places are dangerous because of the foul beasts that dwell there, but are frequently well-stocked with gold and treasure accumulated by said beasts. The common citizen fears these dark places, but is willing to hire independent contractors to deal with them when the irregular need arises. Thus, in the fantasy setting, there is actually a well-established career of "adventurer". That is, the citizen of a fantasy setting should think "I need to hire an adventurer for this" as readily as they might consider hiring a plumber or a blacksmith. Sure, adventurers might not be thick on the ground--particularly since the fresh, eager, inexperienced novices are the most likely to be picked off--but their rag-tag bands are easily recognized in the fantasy world when they do show up. In such settings, there's nothing strange at all about a local striding up to such a band in the inn, tossing a pouch of gold coins on their table, and offering to hire them for an odd job.
Thus, the adventurer is an independent problem-solver for hire: mercenary, detective, explorer, spelunker, and exterminator all in one. Starting out, of course, they serve as simple caravan guards, mercenaries, and message-carriers. Some may fall from the path, becoming little more than highwaymen, brigands, freebooters, and grave-robbers (and thus giving other adventurers a bit of a bad name, though also employment to deal with their fallen colleagues). But those that do make it, and that strive for noble altruistic ideals as much as for buried wealth, become heroes, revered throughout the land: part war-hero and part rockstar.
But I realized later that I'm being snobbish: adventurers clearing out dungeons for wealth and glory is the very essence of D&D! I've realized the same thing when reading pulp stories by the likes of Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert E. Howard, and H.P. Lovecraft: yeah, this stuff may not seem particularly original today (especially after it's been rehashed and imitated in fiction and film for decades), but the stories are still damn exciting! And a sort of lite, fast, almost beer-and-pretzels dungeon-crawling campaign is exactly what mini20 is supposed to be good for. That's what's so great about using genre and cliche: you know what you're getting into, you know what the background assumptions are, and you can just jump straight into the action.
During this morning's shower, I considered this further and realized that the concept of the "adventurer" is key. Indeed, the adventurer concept is at least as important to the fantasy roleplay genre as magic and exotic beasts.
What I mean by the adventurer concept is that the fantasy world has areas of darkness and danger. These could be great tracts of wildness or simply the creepy-crawliness of the city sewers. These places are dangerous because of the foul beasts that dwell there, but are frequently well-stocked with gold and treasure accumulated by said beasts. The common citizen fears these dark places, but is willing to hire independent contractors to deal with them when the irregular need arises. Thus, in the fantasy setting, there is actually a well-established career of "adventurer". That is, the citizen of a fantasy setting should think "I need to hire an adventurer for this" as readily as they might consider hiring a plumber or a blacksmith. Sure, adventurers might not be thick on the ground--particularly since the fresh, eager, inexperienced novices are the most likely to be picked off--but their rag-tag bands are easily recognized in the fantasy world when they do show up. In such settings, there's nothing strange at all about a local striding up to such a band in the inn, tossing a pouch of gold coins on their table, and offering to hire them for an odd job.
Thus, the adventurer is an independent problem-solver for hire: mercenary, detective, explorer, spelunker, and exterminator all in one. Starting out, of course, they serve as simple caravan guards, mercenaries, and message-carriers. Some may fall from the path, becoming little more than highwaymen, brigands, freebooters, and grave-robbers (and thus giving other adventurers a bit of a bad name, though also employment to deal with their fallen colleagues). But those that do make it, and that strive for noble altruistic ideals as much as for buried wealth, become heroes, revered throughout the land: part war-hero and part rockstar.
Monday, August 17, 2009
mini20: Tensions in RPG design.
Last week, I stumbled across Microlite20, which is a very pared-down incarnation of d20. I find that, while I'm ever seeking simplicity, I have a difficult time actually hacking large swatches of a game system away. I make only little snips here and there, always minding backwards-compatibility (or at least equivalency) with the source material. In contrast, Microlite20 reminds me of pruning in the tropics: you can cut all the branches off, leaving only the stump behind. And instead of this killing the tree, it grows back as lush and beautiful as ever in 6 months.
That said, there were a few little quibbles I didn't like, so I set about tweaking it a bit. This did turn into putting a few things back in (in reduced form). The result is mini20.
Like I said, a large portion of my week went into this (despite having other more pressing projects!). I even drew up some hand-drawn character sheets and converted S.'s Omri line to mini20. However, we didn't get a chance to play this weekend; instead, we got drunk on pizza, beer, white wine, and 70s TV Wonder Woman. I woke up a few hour later, a little hungover, and started thinking about the project.
As this blog demonstrates, I seem to be constantly hacking on various game systems, yet never seem to reach a satisfied conclusion. These are some of the tensions I've identified in the past 24 hours:
DMing vs Design. DMing is a live, dynamic, social activity. While the game is underway, quick decisions are called for and the game moves ever forward. Design, on the other hand, is a largely solitary activity, where the resulting document can be reiteratively edited until perfect.
I'm coming to realize that DMing actually scares me. I think that's why I keep falling back to design, in this vague belief that the perfect RPG system will make for flawless, perfect DMing.
Rules vs Rulings. On the heels of the previous point, some systems provide tomes of specific rules. The advantage here is consistency and a crutch for the DM; the down-side is that then the DM has to recall or look up the specific rules at game-time. The alternative is to provide a simple system for the DM to make rulings on: to apply a modifier or make a call at game-time, and then move on. There are no lookups involved here. The downside is that the DM needs to manage making fair, consistent rulings, along with all the other game details going on at the same time.
Desiring a lite system, I want rulings; but being a little fearful of screwing up as a DM suggests more established rules. In short, rules compile all the possible rulings into rules before the game starts. But of course it can never be perfect: some situation can always arise not covered perfectly by the rules, requiring adjudication (ie, a ruling).
Game vs Story. On the one hand, an RPG is a game: characters are bought, described, and balanced in terms of points. There's a simulated world with clearly defined possible actions (skills, powers, etc.) On the other hand, especially these days, all of this is supposed to serve only as the underlying foundation for a story. (I would argue that, in the past, dungeon-crawling was more of a simulation/game than a story.)
Character detail vs simplicity. So, in terms of the game/simulation, we need character modeling. The more detail and customization possible in terms of the rules, the more stats, rules, and preparation time needed. Otherwise, character details are left superficial to the rules--which often does already happen with roleplaying details. Also, if too simple, there's no way to differentiate different characters and abilities--like different fighting styles, a smooth-talking con man vs an earnest likable diplomat, etc--in terms of the game world itself.
But in terms of story, it is frequently not the numbers and die rolls that determine the ultimate course of the story, but in-character decisions made by players based on the "superficial" personality traits of their character. This suggests that if story is the goal, simplicity and letting the game aspects take a backseat should work just fine.
Complete System vs Hack Document. This is my personal preference: when hacking on a system, I tend to want a single finished document that describes the resulting game, rather than simply producing a hack/errata-like document that lists the changes to make to the underlying system. I should really try to get over this, since it takes a lot more time to do it this way.
So, in conclusion, I'm not sure if mini20 is a good idea or not. It could just be more mental flailing around on my part, largely due to my failure to resolve the above tensions and decide exactly what the hell I want from my gaming system.
That said, there were a few little quibbles I didn't like, so I set about tweaking it a bit. This did turn into putting a few things back in (in reduced form). The result is mini20.
Like I said, a large portion of my week went into this (despite having other more pressing projects!). I even drew up some hand-drawn character sheets and converted S.'s Omri line to mini20. However, we didn't get a chance to play this weekend; instead, we got drunk on pizza, beer, white wine, and 70s TV Wonder Woman. I woke up a few hour later, a little hungover, and started thinking about the project.
As this blog demonstrates, I seem to be constantly hacking on various game systems, yet never seem to reach a satisfied conclusion. These are some of the tensions I've identified in the past 24 hours:
DMing vs Design. DMing is a live, dynamic, social activity. While the game is underway, quick decisions are called for and the game moves ever forward. Design, on the other hand, is a largely solitary activity, where the resulting document can be reiteratively edited until perfect.
I'm coming to realize that DMing actually scares me. I think that's why I keep falling back to design, in this vague belief that the perfect RPG system will make for flawless, perfect DMing.
Rules vs Rulings. On the heels of the previous point, some systems provide tomes of specific rules. The advantage here is consistency and a crutch for the DM; the down-side is that then the DM has to recall or look up the specific rules at game-time. The alternative is to provide a simple system for the DM to make rulings on: to apply a modifier or make a call at game-time, and then move on. There are no lookups involved here. The downside is that the DM needs to manage making fair, consistent rulings, along with all the other game details going on at the same time.
Desiring a lite system, I want rulings; but being a little fearful of screwing up as a DM suggests more established rules. In short, rules compile all the possible rulings into rules before the game starts. But of course it can never be perfect: some situation can always arise not covered perfectly by the rules, requiring adjudication (ie, a ruling).
Game vs Story. On the one hand, an RPG is a game: characters are bought, described, and balanced in terms of points. There's a simulated world with clearly defined possible actions (skills, powers, etc.) On the other hand, especially these days, all of this is supposed to serve only as the underlying foundation for a story. (I would argue that, in the past, dungeon-crawling was more of a simulation/game than a story.)
Character detail vs simplicity. So, in terms of the game/simulation, we need character modeling. The more detail and customization possible in terms of the rules, the more stats, rules, and preparation time needed. Otherwise, character details are left superficial to the rules--which often does already happen with roleplaying details. Also, if too simple, there's no way to differentiate different characters and abilities--like different fighting styles, a smooth-talking con man vs an earnest likable diplomat, etc--in terms of the game world itself.
But in terms of story, it is frequently not the numbers and die rolls that determine the ultimate course of the story, but in-character decisions made by players based on the "superficial" personality traits of their character. This suggests that if story is the goal, simplicity and letting the game aspects take a backseat should work just fine.
Complete System vs Hack Document. This is my personal preference: when hacking on a system, I tend to want a single finished document that describes the resulting game, rather than simply producing a hack/errata-like document that lists the changes to make to the underlying system. I should really try to get over this, since it takes a lot more time to do it this way.
So, in conclusion, I'm not sure if mini20 is a good idea or not. It could just be more mental flailing around on my part, largely due to my failure to resolve the above tensions and decide exactly what the hell I want from my gaming system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)