Role Playing Games: The Rules
What I enjoy about role playing games is the opportunity to create a story, specifically the background and situation in which the story takes place. I don't get any particular joy out of creating rules. When I do it, I do it solely in order to support the feel of the game I'm running.
More to the point, I generally try to avoid creating rules if I have the option of using other people's. That being said, I haven't used a commercially published rules system in a game I've run since the mid 90's. Even before then I had a tendency to modify games.
So now that I've recently been introduced to some of the ideas used at the Forge, I've felt an urge to use them in one of my campaigns. Having looked over the rules of a few different game systems that come out of there, I'm inclined to borrow the core of Vincent Baker's conflict resolution rules from "Dogs in the Vineyard."
They require some modification to work though. I'm sure I could use them without modification, but there's a reason to modify. Dogs in the Vineyard's conflict resolution rules encourage a person to reflect on how far they are willing to go to win a conflict.
A conflict can move from words to fists to gunplay, but at every point there's clear point of demarcation, making it clear to the player that each escalation to a higher level of conflict represents a choice on their part.
While cool, Dogs is about the use and misuse of authority. My campaign isn't about that so the slow, building escalation might not quite fit.
Thematically then, what is the game I'm working on about? Primarily about a person's destiny. My goal is to have the game have a bit of the feel of Babylon 5. Those of you who watched it may remember Londo Mollari's struggle with his future. Despite having choices, his own ambition brought him toward a rather grim future. By the time he realized what that destiny would really be like, it was too late to turn back. By contrast, another character (Sheridan) also had choices. Though his led him to a future that wasn't entirely happy either, he knew he'd done the right thing.
I'm trying to create a game in which players can deliberately give their characters destinies to choose from. Mind you, they can also choose a destiny that affects very few people as opposed to one that changes the course of history. The question really is what they're willing to do to get there.
I've got a mechanism for this in the game. During character creation each player gets 5d6. The dice can be applied to one destiny or several (up to 5)--player's choice. During the game, these dice can be applied to any conflict. The player just has to explain how this conflict moves the character toward his/her destiny.
I'm not sure that the theme of the game needs to affect conflict resolution any more than that.
That being said, conflict resolution should create a feeling supportive of the game as a whole. That's something I'm still messing with in my head.
Comments
I've only recently read the rules for Dogs, so I wouldn't claim much familiarity with them, but I really like your idea of having characters choose their potential destinies. I think it could give a player character a focus (or collection of them) and create movement and struggle toward that focus. It might also serve to articulate to the GM the player's hopes and aspirations for their character. Anyway, great idea.
Posted by: Ed Hand | August 12, 2005 9:08 AM
Thanks. I'd hope for some kind of focus. I'm also hoping that at least one player will choose a destiny that the player would think interesting but that the character will fear. Thus we'd have the fun of having the player continually using the destiny dice while the character squirms as his/her fears come true.
I've always enjoyed it when GM's (or novelists) have the nerve to really put the characters through some real pain. Sometimes I'm one of them, but not nearly often enough.
It can make for gripping play.
Posted by: Jim Zoetewey | August 12, 2005 10:06 AM