A boardgamey RPG

[Ariosto]

Fine explanation, Ridcully.

I get the impression Asmor's starting point was something like the 4e "skill challenge", which is designed basically to remove player skill (the essence of a true game) from the equation.

I can see how that particular exercise works for some people as an inducement to "narrative invention", so obviously it is not necessarily a mind-numbing waste of time. Try stripping that collaborative story-telling element away, though, just rolling dice to see whether you get X successes before Y failures ... probably not very exciting, eh?

 

[Asmor]

player skill (the essence of a true game)

Those are not really games in the applicable sense, any more than is a toss of a die.

With all due respect, the two of you have a particularly narrow definition of games, and it's a definition I would not personally agree with.

Games of chance are not only very much games, they're the most common games in the world and also the most economically-significant. Just take a trip to Las Vegas, Monte Carlo, or any convenience store in America (I don't think I've ever seen one without a full complement of scratch tickets and a lottery machine), not to mention restaurants and bars (Keno is popular at them, at least in Massacusetts).

Now let me be clear, I'm not a fan of gambling precisely because I find most of it to be particularly bland and uninteresting. But that doesn't mean keno, roulette, slot machines, craps, or even the children's card game War are not games.

Back on topic, my aim here was basically to replace skill checks with something more evocative. They still need to fulfill the basic function of skill checks, however, that of enforcing the character's "skill" rather than the players. There's certainly plenty of controversy on the topic of social skills, for example, but I'm of the camp that no matter how beautiful and eloquent a speech a player might give, if their character sucks at diplomacy he'd better make a hell of a roll to influence the king.

I also think that perhaps my first two ideas might not have been the best illustrations of the concept. Something else I'm working on is an idea for a lockpicking minigame, where the DM creates a random "code" and the player has a certain number of tries to arrange cards to match the code.

Back on the topic of the system in general, I've also been thinking about how I'd do characters. What I'd end up doing is having skills based solely on more general attributes (e.g. stealth based only on dexterity), and if a player trains in a skill then the game is fundamentally altered some way. A player trained in searching, for example, would add an extra success into the deck, or a player trained in lockpicking might get a free wildcard so they only need to match all but one of the cards in the code.

Finally, I do really like Mustrum_Ridcully's idea of adding in a resource for the players to manage, though I'm not really sure how I'd go about that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Fine explanation, Ridcully.

I get the impression Asmor's starting point was something like the 4e "skill challenge", which is designed basically to remove player skill (the essence of a true game) from the equation.

I think that was not the design goal, which is why I wouldn't write "designed to". Well, there is still some player skill involved, but it's very shallow: "Learn the trick of using your best skill modifier and to aid another". I don't think that was the intention and I think that is ultimiately what makes skill challenges underdeveloped and a design failure. Maybe not the worst imaginable, but clearly not up to the standards the game system achieves in other areas.

I can see how that particular exercise works for some people as an inducement to "narrative invention", so obviously it is not necessarily a mind-numbing waste of time. Try stripping that collaborative story-telling element away, though, just rolling dice to see whether you get X successes before Y failures ... probably not very exciting, eh?

Yes. If you don't add either a "risk/reward" scheme or attach narrative elements to each check, it is not very exciting. I think everyone that made skill challenges and found them disappointing did probably miss one or both of these features.

Games of chance are not only very much games, they're the most common games in the world and also the most economically-significant. Just take a trip to Las Vegas, Monte Carlo, or any convenience store in America (I don't think I've ever seen one without a full complement of scratch tickets and a lottery machine), not to mention restaurants and bars (Keno is popular at them, at least in Massacusetts).

But are they the reasons we play Roleplaying Games?

Back on topic, my aim here was basically to replace skill checks with something more evocative. They still need to fulfill the basic function of skill checks, however, that of enforcing the character's "skill" rather than the players. There's certainly plenty of controversy on the topic of social skills, for example, but I'm of the camp that no matter how beautiful and eloquent a speech a player might give, if their character sucks at diplomacy he'd better make a hell of a roll to influence the king

I don't really know how Ariosto defines it, but I think player skill doesn't have to be skill relevant to the game world. It can be skill in using the game rules. It is a player skill to find ways to get high skill modifiers. I think it just lacks the necessary depth, because you have already played the game part at home, most of the time, or the first time you learned the aid another rule or something like that.

I think for a good gaming experience, you want to have decisions during gametime that matter. These can be decisions made within the story, like asking the correct questions to the witness of a crime scene, or the decision to travel by boat instead of following the monster-infested roads. It can also be "rule" decisions, like using Scorching Burst instead of Ice Rays, focusing more on negating the trolls regeneration then on slowing their movement. All this in my eyes are player skill - pick smart choices within the game world and within the game system to achieve your goals.

Some games of chance even have allow for "player skill" in this sense. Card games like Poker have this very strongly. For many games of chance the only "Player Skill" might be not to play at all. In a lottery, "smart play" won't necessarily improve your chances much (and you will probably always end up losing more than you will ever win), but if you avoid common numbers, at least on the off-chance you win, you won't have to share your winnings with other people.

---

Finally, I do really like Mustrum_Ridcully's idea of adding in a resource for the players to manage, though I'm not really sure how I'd go about that.

To keep within the card game mechanics. One way might be to give the players a hand of cards on their own. A player can choose to add a card to the deck you draw from to determine success. The card might might be an extra chance for success. If the card itself is drawn, you get another random card back.

You might use the symbols or colors of the card to limit when they are applicable, or give them different effects when they are added to the deck or drawn from it.

Torg used (custom) cards to great effect in its game mechanics.
Most rolls where based on a d20 (reroll and add 10s and 20s, actual value determined by a look-up-table). Cards could be added to gain bonuses or rerolls. Cards where also used to determine initative, round-to-round effects on combat, and to help resolve Torgs equivalent of skill challenges.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The thing that strikes me is that cards are just another randomiser rather than dice.

Minigames in rpgs are (IMHO) generally unsatisfying unless they can add to the narrative.

It strikes me that the unsatisfying thing about skill challanges or even die rolls vs a DC are that they do not reflect how people really use skills.
It is a bit too binary, like many I was excited by the idea of skill challanges initially, the idea that the number of successes over failures could allow one the determine the degree of success of failure.
In practice it encourages the players to hunt for the best stat and aid another whcih works out a bit dry in the game. So I have reverted to my old way and let the players tell me what they are doing and call for rolls as I deem them needed.

I could see a use for cards that represent resources that can help complete a task or resources that can be spent narratively to allow the creation of such a resource.

 

[maddman75]

The trick to a minigame, imo, is making it an interesting game without an obvious best strategy. The best I've come up with was the research minigame for BtVS (link). While doing research is just a stat + Skill roll to get success levels, I expanded it into a larger system. (In CineUnisystem, you roll a d10 plus a skill plus an attribute. 9 is a basic success, with higher numbers equaling more successes. 9-10 is one, 11-12 is two, etc)

First, I defined success as discovering a Clue. This could be the weaknesses of a demon, the purpose of a ritual, or what have you. Clues had two properties, difficulty and obscurity. Difficulty reflected how much detailed knowledge one would need to find the answer. This was rated in the number of successes needed to find the answer. Obscurity was sort of like armor for the clue - for each point of obscurity the first success on a roll didn't count. So if a PC investigator rolled a 14 he earned 3 successes. But if the obscurity is 2 he only applies one to the total needed to find the answer.

The next part I stated that you can't simply have everyone roll Int + Occult and total it up. That's now how teamwork operates. There were a variety of options, and each PC that wanted to cooperate had to doa different one. They were named after events on the show for fun. So the main researcher would Get My Books, Look Stuff Up, while a second could Cross reference, adding his successes to the main roll. A third could Consider the Quantum Mechanical, rolling Int+Science or Knowledge to add successes. Each round of rolling took 4 hours game time, so one character could Keep it Organized to keep them from losing a success if they rest. And if you have no applicable skills, you can always Go for Donuts, giving everyone a +1 on their rolls for the round.

The final piece was the effect of narrative on the process. The Obscurity was flexible, and would vary depending on exactly what they were researching. For example, let's say that a witch is casting spells to turn people into mad wolves. At first, the character might assume the problem is a werewolf on the loose. Researching werewolves, the GM assigns an obscurity of 5. This makes success near impossible, because the players are barking up the wrong tree. After some more attacks and clues, they find that the transforming wolves don't respond to the full moon, and there are signs of rituals being done in their homes. They switch to looking for a spell that does this, and the GM drops the obscurity to 1. Still a bit of an obscure spell, but they're on the right track now!

Of course, Obscurity is secret information. They don't know that until they start rolling.

One of my players remarked that the system was 'like fighting, only with books!'. I think that should be the goal for a good minigame.

 

[Woas]

Like pulling out a MasterMind board for the player to solve to pick a lock?

Back on topic, my aim here was basically to replace skill checks with something more evocative. They still need to fulfill the basic function of skill checks, however, that of enforcing the character's "skill" rather than the players. There's certainly plenty of controversy on the topic of social skills, for example, but I'm of the camp that no matter how beautiful and eloquent a speech a player might give, if their character sucks at diplomacy he'd better make a hell of a roll to influence the king.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

@maddman75, an excellent minigame for BtVS, I like it because it reflects how research often goes.

 

[Asmor]

Like pulling out a MasterMind board for the player to solve to pick a lock?

Exactly! Except that I want to keep it restricted to things that most gamers can be expected to have on hand.

 

[Woas]

Exactly! Except that I want to keep it restricted to things that most gamers can be expected to have on hand.

What self respecting person doesn't own a copy of that game?

On a more serious note, I think the idea is cool and might work well in say a Duet style One Player - One GM game but fear that in a typical several player game, something like playing out a game of Mastermind when a character attempts to pick a lock might put too much light on that one player while the others look on an either distract or yawn.

But then again perhaps MasterMind in itself isn't the best example. A game of that can go very quickly in only a few moves or take the entire board (what is it, 15 chances?) and many minutes to complete. Unless the minigame is used as the main resolution system, elevating it to the main game basically it would seem difficult to have completely separate minigames for each scenario. Like how Dread uses a Jenga tower. The game could have easily used some sort of quick and easy dice system for the nuts n' bolts of the game for when characters were attempting actions that mostly effect themselves and the jenga tower for particular dramatic/horror/sanity situations.

 

[Asmor]

What self respecting person doesn't own a copy of that game?

On a more serious note, I think the idea is cool and might work well in say a Duet style One Player - One GM game but fear that in a typical several player game, something like playing out a game of Mastermind when a character attempts to pick a lock might put too much light on that one player while the others look on an either distract or yawn.

Precisely why one of the goals I laid out was to make minigames extremely fast to setup, play, and tear down in the middle of the game. I think it's okay to sacrifice complexity for speed, since the RPG itself should be providing all of the real mental stimulation.

Like how Dread uses a Jenga tower. The game could have easily used some sort of quick and easy dice system for the nuts n' bolts of the game for when characters were attempting actions that mostly effect themselves and the jenga tower for particular dramatic/horror/sanity situations.

That wouldn't really work. You need a lot of pulls to get the tower "primed," to the point where players are worried about toppling it with every new pull. In fact, the book actually suggests that GMs try to find excuses to encourage people to pull lots of blocks early on when the tower's still stable.

A typical game isn't going to have nearly enough "serious" moments for the tower to reach that state if those are the only times you make pulls.