Pen'n'paper RPG idea

[Jackolantern]

I have an odd idea for a pen'n'paper RPG (aka a table-top RPG). It is rather different than most other RPGs, such as D&D or Vampire. It is somewhat of a cross between a traditional p'n'p RPG and a party game. Sessions will be on-going and continuing, like a regular RPG. However, it will incorporate various styles of play that encourage unique interaction, similar to a party game.

The setting and theme of the game are not important at this point. In fact, it could be set up to be a fairly generic system like GURPS. When a group starts a game, the first thing they will do is spend "role points" in various characteristics of their character. They can choose to spend points by taking positive characteristics (such as being wealthy land owner) or gain points by taking negative characteristics (such as being schizophrenic, incredibly foul-mouthed, or delusionally violent). These characteristics make up one of the only stats that each player has. The first play session is spent going around the group and each member chooses to take a negative or positive characteristic at a time, and each time one is selected, they must show how they are going to roleplay that aspect of their character. The GM should at least make a mental note of these. If a player does not adequatetly show the group how they will roleplay a trait, the group can ask them to take another pick. There will be many traits, ranging from simple ones to roleplay to very difficult traits to roleplay. Once all the characters are created and everyone is both satisfied with their character, and the roleplaying of traits of everyone else, the game can begin.

The gameplay is heavily focused on the roleplaying of each player. GMs should attempt to throw situations at the group that could be difficult for them to roleplay due to their traits, and experience points are awarded at the end of the session based on how well they roleplay within those boundaries established by their character. Optionally, awards of bonus experience can be handed out to players who made the session particularly fun, and even each player can optionally be given an amount of bonus experience to hand to another player as they see fit. Once the player gains enough experience, they can level up. New levels will allow the player to reach for higher "goals" (see below in combat).

Combat will be very unorthodox, where instead of using any kind of stats and dice to play, each combat is carried out through one of a number of mini-games. Before combat starts, each player writes down a "goal" on a piece of paper, keeping them hidden from everyone else. They hand them to the GM, who makes a determination based on that player's level if the goal is attainable in that battle. These don't always have to do with the battle at hand, either. A goal could be to steal something during the confusion (even from another player), impress a girl who is watching, get a good work-out, or learn something from the enemy. The combat mini-game could be anything from some type of gambling game, to charades, etc. The only requirements of a mini-game is that it be fairly short and there should be clear-cut winners with the ability for the remaining players to keep playing. The players play against each other, with the GM also playing. While the game is being played, the mid-game results can be interpreted by the GM as combat actions (i.e., a player rolling an 8 in craps could be considered a glancing blow). Whoever wins first gets their goal realized. After that, play of the mini-game continues, and the second-place winner gets their goal mostly realized. This goes on where each successive winner gets increasingly less of their goal realized until half the group has won. After that, all goals of the remaining players are discarded and the foe is defeated. If the GM happens to win first, then the foe has won and one of the players (determined by the lowest roll of a round of player dice rolls) is knocked out. Play of the mini-game then continues, and if the GM wins the game first again, it is considered another foe attack. All players, including the knocked out player, roll again. Whoever rolls lowest is knocked out, or if it is the player who is already knocked out, they are killed (although resurrection should be considered available in most cases).

It is kind of an odd idea, and I am not sure how well it would go over with players. Maybe it could find an audience among fans of improvisational theater due to its heavily focus on roleplaying. What do you think?

[Callan S.]

The first play session is spent going around the group and each member chooses to take a negative or positive characteristic at a time, and each time one is selected, they must show how they are going to roleplay that aspect of their character. The GM should at least make a mental note of these. If a player does not adequatetly show the group how they will roleplay a trait, the group can ask them to take another pick.

Augh - I have a real problem where someone judges if your playing your character correctly.

Don't get me wrong, wanting people to take playing out a character seriously, like putting in some thought into 'what would my character do in X situation'? Fair enough.

But someone else judging?

The worst thing I think is that it's actually THE MOST interesting part of most books or movies where the character BREAKS character and goes against his own previous values, because a situation is deemed by him dire enough to break them. Like when Bilbo could have stayed in the cave till he starved, if he really was such a shy hobbit, but he BROKE character and decided at this moment he should go and face smaug (with his ring on - he's not stupid!)

What I get with a GM approving character actions is that he'd tell the player off for trying to say Bilbo would go face Smaug - instead he starves to death and we focus on other characters as much as we would with any character death.

People really putting some hard thought into how their character would react - totally agree! Someone else policing them when they 'play their character wrong', totallly don't think it works at all.

Anyway, I've written too much...

[Jackolantern]

I guess I wasn't clear enough by what I mean by the GM judging the player. You give examples where the player's decisions are being judged. Instead, the player's acting is judged, and how they develop their character. The reasons why a player's decision on how to roleplay their character could be turned down is because they are not putting enough "umph" in to it. It is really meant to be more of a brainstorming meeting between the players intended to get their guard down and to make them come out of their shell. Player's decisions will never be judged as right or wrong (or of course, they shouldn't be, and the game text would make that clear). If a player acts their character at least somewhat consistently (even if their motives are not always consistent) and makes an effort to further their character, they should be awarded the base experience points. Any additional bonuses could be for players who make the session particularly fun, or for being helpful with other new players.

Obviously the game is not so serious that player's decisions should be nit-picked. The actual focus of the game is as a shared experience with the other players and as an exercise in roleplaying. This would be an attempt to move away from the rule-centric games that dominate pen'n'paper RPGs today that only seem to focus on "beating a session".

[Callan S.]

I'm not sure 'acting' is pivotal - if a player says yes, his character does go and set fire to an orphanage to get dark powers, he could just say it in his usual voice but it's still a 'Wow, his PC is that vile!' moment. Or so I'd think. Unless this is a game where you follow the clues the GM lays out to discover some bad guys plot, then more clues to foil the plot, and that's it and your - I don't know, acting out some sort of character traits along the way, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the clue finding? If so, fair enough.

This would be an attempt to move away from the rule-centric games that dominate pen'n'paper RPGs today that only seem to focus on "beating a session".

You might want to have a look at games like : The Riddle of steel, Capes, 3:16, Spione and possibly My life with master/dogs in the vineyard.

[Jackolantern]

Well, this is not a traditional RPG by any stretch of the imagination. It is a mixture between an RPG/party game/improvisational theater game. It would obviously be a niche product lol

[Corinthius]

I like the idea, not many games encourage the kind of depth in character and regulate them like this one would do.
There is a kind of similar thing we do in the theater, the "GM" would be our instructor in this case, and the players, well actors or actresses. We're given a bag which we choose a piece of paper, with a role on it, we're then given 2-3 minutes to try and get into character, if we can't we can swap it for another one.

We're then given a situation to start off with, and we have to progress on from there, "EXP" would be our "involvement" in this case, because we get points awarded based on whether or not we can adapt to improvised situations and get out role to become apart of the "story".

There are 5 stages to the practice, The beginning, the positive, the negative ,the positive OR negative and then the end.
When you start off, the "GM" or in this case, our instructor will give us a situation, the person with an "S" on their piece of paper starts.

We then progress onto the "positive stage" where we must become positive within our role, this stage can last as long as 10 minutes or as little as 1 minute, it all depends on what happens. Whoever then become "negative" initiates the "Negative stage", they must act this way with good reason, and can't just start being negative randomly unless it's dire to their role (A drunken poor man for example ) The person who can initiate the negative stage earns points and so forth.

For example; A Tavern owner greets his customers, they begin talking about the rumors of a deadly disease going around town, one man will explain how his wife came down with it, while another man will explain his brother also came down with it only last Monday, the first man will then explain how that's a coincidence considering his wife came down with it last Monday, (this gives the Tavern owner a chance to initiate the "negative stage"), the Tavern owner then jokes, "perhaps your brother was messing around with his misses, after all we never have coincidences in this town" - and so on

I know it's not exactly relevant, but I thought I would share it anyway ^-^

Once again, I like the idea

[Jackolantern]

Thanks! And yes, I loved playing theater games when I was in an acting troupe, which is kind of where I got this idea. Sort of a way to bridge between a more traditional story-based RPG that RPG players are familiar with, and an improvisational theater game.

[hallsofvallhalla]

I love this idea! You have some excellent ideas in there and I totally see this working.

Augh - I have a real problem where someone judges if your playing your character correctly.

Don't get me wrong, wanting people to take playing out a character seriously, like putting in some thought into 'what would my character do in X situation'? Fair enough.

But someone else judging?

isn't that what GM's are for? Someone must judge. Do we not judge characters actions on the TV screen? People's fascination with TV has caused them to be expert judges of others characters.

The worst thing I think is that it's actually THE MOST interesting part of most books or movies where the character BREAKS character and goes against his own previous values, because a situation is deemed by him dire enough to break them. Like when Bilbo could have stayed in the cave till he starved, if he really was such a shy hobbit, but he BROKE character and decided at this moment he should go and face smaug (with his ring on - he's not stupid!)

He never broke character, this was always his character, Gandalf sensed that in him since day 1. No one ever truly breaks character. If they do something out of the ordinary then that is part of their character. When someone role-playing breaks character it is exactly that. They have broken the character they are portraying. It is not realistic and should be judged as wrong.

Take movies today, Directors have a horrible time portraying true life feelings and characters. They are causing the actors to break character which causes a break in the movie. For instance, any scary movie where the Evil person is killing someone and the person who should be running in fear is standing there watching. Or if they hear a noise outside so they go investigate, even if the news i blasting about a murderer being loose. That is breaking character and is truly a rip in the fabric of the story.

What I get with a GM approving character actions is that he'd tell the player off for trying to say Bilbo would go face Smaug - instead he starves to death and we focus on other characters as much as we would with any character death.

if the character sheet has a trait (which it would because of him ever going with the dwarves in the first place and how he sneaks up on the trolls, and dealt with the spiders) that states "brave in dire situations" then the player would be playing in character.

[Callan S.]

isn't that what GM's are for? Someone must judge. Do we not judge characters actions on the TV screen? People's fascination with TV has caused them to be expert judges of others characters.

If two people judge it differently, who's judgement comes first? Unless your saying everyone on the planet judges in the exact same way?

So who's judgement comes first? Why the GM, when he's not playing the character - is he in real life a better person than the player? I would say no.

I understand you could get a twelve year old player playing a character and says he poops in the corner or something, just to gross people out. I grant that.

But actually there are alot of mature people who are quite capable of playing a character without the GM holding their hand. Indeed the GM just gets in the way.

It's a matter of rules - if the rule is 'The players judgement on his character comes first' then that's how it is for that game - I'm not trying to tell you you have to play this way, instead if you can see that's the rule and you don't like it, cool, you wouldn't play that game.

Though I don't know why - you seem quite mature enough for your judgement of your character to come first.

He never broke character, this was always his character, Gandalf sensed that in him since day 1.

I judge him as having broken his character. Between us, who's judgement comes first?

But as I said, I'm cool with him breaking character. In fact it's primarily what made it interesting about the books - the little hobbits repeated giving up things they held dear and to be their normal life. Perhaps 'broke character' sounds too rough. Perhaps 'Gave up their old life, to various degrees'

No one ever truly breaks character. If they do something out of the ordinary then that is part of their character. When someone role-playing breaks character it is exactly that. They have broken the character they are portraying. It is not realistic and should be judged as wrong.

This is just contradictory. So if Tolkien was playing with you and says his hobbit goes and faces the dragon and the GM says 'no, you broke character!' you'd say he broke character?

What's the difference between Tolkien authoring the characters actions in the book and him authoring his characters actions in a game?

Unless you don't want players to author their character actions in that way - in which case, okay, you don't want to play that way. Some people do and it's fun. In this type of game, the player is the characters author and his judgement comes first. If that sounds frightening, that's what makes it even more fun (much like skydiving sounds frightening but is fun for it).

[hallsofvallhalla]

i can set you up with some of the best Pen and Paper RPG players in the world. Take away a GM it becomes a crap fest real quick. Things like munchkin disease always gets in the way. You must have rules and you must have someone keeping people to those rules. A GM should never stop a player from crapping in the corner, only add consequences if he does "The bartender gets mad and attacks!"

It is the same way with Tolkien, would you have read the book if after Bilbo accepted the Dwarves offer of going to the mountain it said "Bilbo flies to the mountain at light speed and kills the dragon then comes home to a Pipe."
Of course not, there were consequences to his actions and Tolkien(the GM) made it so.

If two people judge it differently, who's judgement comes first? Unless your saying everyone on the planet judges in the exact same way?

Hence why I said you must have a GM, someone must have the final decision. There are a billion results from one action, everyone different, the GM decides which happened. The GM never controls the character but offers results and consequences for actions. It is the laws of the world that shape our actions and character.

So who's judgement comes first? Why the GM, when he's not playing the character - is he in real life a better person than the player? I would say no.

Is the cop who gives me a ticket for speeding better than me, maybe so, maybe not. Has nothing to do with the fact I broke the law. He judged the situation and made a choice that my character will make me follow.