PORTAL: A Spankin' New Roleplaying System

 

Welcome to PORTAL (Player Oriented Roleplaying: Timing, Action & Lucidity), a universal roleplaying system ready to be adapted to whatever your imagination can come up with. It's a system which strives to strike a balance between roleplaying and gaming.

I started my roleplaying career like many, with Second Edition AD&D, with all its tables, THAC0 and number crunching. Somewhere along the way, I noticed I was spending more time being a D&D accountant than I was having fun roleplaying. For several years it was what I used, because it was what I had. It was fun. More fun than not roleplaying at all, anyway.

Eventually, Third Edition AD&D came out which simplified the math a little, but ultimately suffered from the same problem. Things weren't streamlined enough for me. I had this crazy idea that the rules of a game should facilitate the game and the player's enjoyment of it. The rules shouldn't be the game in and of themselves. How novel.

This eventually led to my complete hatred of dice; I set out to find a system of roleplaying that didn't use the nasty things. After many months of searching, I found there was no such thing. Not on the whole of the Internet. I amassed over 200 pages of different systems, and all of them used dice; some used more dice more often than others, but they were still there.

All this searching taught me that what I hated wasn't dice at all, but math. I was always good at math; I just never found it fun. Many systems used too much math to determine every little detail of what could and couldn't be done in the system. If I wanted to do math for fun, I would have been an accountant. I loved imagination and freedom. This eventually led me to The Window: a system that was less a roleplaying system than a philosophical set of concepts which facilitated roleplaying.

I was not alone anymore. The Window was driven by character and conflict, not dice rolling and number crunching. Combat was part of the plot instead of the entirety of the game. Above all, The Window was about telling a good story, and not letting the rules get in the way of that. I had finally found the system I'd been searching for.

I used The Window to finally turn some of my own settings into playable games. I got my group together and started to play, and found about half of my group hated it. I found two distinct types of tabletop roleplaying game players: those who mainly focus on character and story, and those who focus mainly on mechanics and system: "Roleplayers" and "Gamers." At the time I was solidly in the "Roleplayer" camp, so part of the group divided, and we went and used The Window in our games.

We soon discovered that our "Gamer" brothers had something going. We found the lack of structure that we loved so much was leading to misunderstandings which slowed the game down, making it less fun. We started altering the system and came up with a set of house rules that we liked, although it had two or three different variations, depending on who was running the game.

Those games concluded and I got back and played in a few games with my "Gamer" group. This reminded me of all the things I didn't like about gaming: lack of control over your character, having decisions forced onto your character due to dice rolls, severely limited actions in the game compared to realistic situations, having characters run by the GM... the list goes on. Things weren't cooperative enough. There were, on the other hand, many things that were good about the "Gaming" system of doing things. Everyone was on the same page, misunderstandings were at a minimum, things were very balanced by design, and there was an even playing field. Nevertheless, the focus was far too much on playing and mastering the game system, and not nearly enough on playing and mastering your character.

I was also tired of the GM having all the answers. How could someone else know my character better than I did? Players might not have all the answers, but they do know what they're doing, and deserve some credit in the cooperative process that is roleplaying. They collectively do just as much work as the GM; in many cases completely handing over their precious character to the GM to use as they see fit. Sometimes even expanding the game itself.

I wanted to come up with a system that had enough structure to make "Gamers" happy, but focused enough on character to make "Roleplayers" happy. There were a lot of gaming systems out there, and there were a few role playing systems out there. What I wanted was an RP&G system, a "roleplaying & gaming system." This started with altering The Window, but it soon became apparent that what we were playing was no longer The Window, but a unique creation of our own. Over time, the structure of the system changed and matured, coming up with better and simpler rules. Much of this process was verbal agreement, and was never actually written down. I have now decided to put it all together in writing. This is an RP/G system, a structured way to create and play dynamic characters in engaging stories driven by an easy system that provides enough structure to keep everyone balanced and on the same page.

The Basics

What PORTAL is:
A system with necessary structure
A system based on character and story
A universal system
A "bare bones" system
A common sense system
A system that gives power to players

What PORTAL is not:
A beginner's system
An armory or general store
A physics engine
A combat driven system
A skills and powers list
A setting or sourcebook

PORTAL lends a necessary amount of structure to the process of creating and playing unique characters. I say "necessary" here because, in my experience, a certain "critical mass" of structure is needed to make players and storytellers happy. Without some structure, the process falls apart, but structure for structure's sake limits creativity and interrupts narrative. PORTAL is founded on the belief that any good roleplaying game should be based on character and story, not dice rolls, charts or math. Dice should be tools that help tell a good story, not ends in and of themselves.

PORTAL is a universal "bare bones" system that can be easily and seamlessly molded around any genre, any setting, any story, allowing the Storyteller to focus on telling their story, not on mechanics, charts or numbers. There is no setting here. The best stories come not from predefined settings, worlds, or characters, but are collaboratively told by the storyteller and the players, using their collective imagination. This system is designed to work with users' original ideas in a way that allows them to focus on developing story and setting without worrying about the system. There are no charts or tables of equipment of any kind in these rules other than in examples, because a good roleplaying game should be more about story than about getting cool stuff. Not to say cool stuff is bad; quite the contrary, it can be a wonderful motivator for players, but since cool stuff should help facilitate telling the story, there is no set chart on it here. There are no skills, or powers, or feats, or abilities lists in PORTAL. Players and storytellers come up with better ideas than even the most comprehensive list could ever include. Lists do nothing but limit creativity, so it isn't found here. PORTAL is a common sense system which lets players and storytellers make their own choices about how to act in a situation; a system that refuses to pigeonhole creativity for the sake of ease, balance or structure.

PORTAL is not a beginner's system. If you are new to roleplaying, this might not be the best place to start. This might be right up your alley, but if you don't have some experience with a more structured system, you will likely have trouble with PORTAL. This is especially true if you want to tell a story using PORTAL. If you're unfamiliar with storytelling a more structured system, you will likely have trouble storytelling PORTAL. PORTAL puts its players above any book or rule, respecting that they know what they're doing. PORTAL puts true power and responsibility in the hands of its players.

PORTAL doesn't pretend to have rules for every possible interaction conceivable by Newton. A lot of what makes roleplaying fun is the stuff that breaks the rules of physics; like magic, superpowers, miracles, and technology. PORTAL does have an action resolution system, but it's much broader than physics. Likewise, PORTAL isn't driven by combat. In good stories, combat is just another scene in the story, not the story in its entirety. Although combat is necessary (and fun) in roleplaying, it shouldn't be the focus of everything that happens. Although much of PORTAL deals with combat, the driving idea is combat should be dealt with the same way as everything else.

PORTAL is by no means a new idea. As was said earlier, many of the ideas presented here are based in part on other systems that have been around for years. The underlying philosophy has been thought of by many people in many places at many times throughout the thirty(ish) year history of roleplaying. PORTAL is simply one take on these older ideas presented here for ease of use.

Philosophy


The root of PORTAL is a series of philosophies I came upon in my search. I picked up and used what felt right and left what didn't. Where there was nothing, I fit what I knew to be true. The following are a set of ideas I feel are important to all roleplaying, regardless of what system you use.

The RP&G 9 Commandments
1. An RP&G should be fun. This one should go without saying, but isn't the goal of any game, roleplaying or otherwise, to have fun? If an RP&G isn't fun, you aren't doing it right. This goes for players and storytellers alike; fun for everyone is the first and most important goal of roleplaying.

2. RP&G systems should be simple and fast. A system should be simple to use and easy to understand. The fewer charts and numbers the better. The harder it is to learn a system, the harder it is to have fun with. The KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) mandate is a good rule for everything, and games are no exception. The faster a system is to use, the more transparent it can be, reducing interruptions to the flow of the game and the narrative of the story.

3. Character should be most important to an RP&G. Without good characters, an RP/G wouldn't work. Characters should therefore be well thought out, well rounded, and well balanced. Time should be spent on making original and unique characters, not sets of numbers with a name at the top. Make a background for your character; make them real and believable. Personality is not determined by a character's abilities; rather, their abilities are determined by their personality. Characters should be created accordingly.

4. Players should play their characters responsibly. Nothing kills a good game faster than a player who suddenly decides they're God. Roleplaying isn't about egos or power trips; it's rarely even about personal glory. Respect the limits of a character; they're there for a reason. Stay in character while playing the game, and play the character ahead of playing the system. After all, it is the whole point of a roleplaying game.

5. Storytellers should cooperate with players. A character's creator understands their character better than anyone else. Storytellers should work with this fact, not against it. Players should be allowed to make their own decisions for their character, both while creating it and while playing it.

6. An RP&G should be realistic. The system should be as realistic and consistent as possible to its setting, allowing users to make realistic decisions for their characters. This level of realism should be reliable, not changing partway through a story or varying for different characters.

7. Good story should be the goal. The goal of an RP&G should be to tell a good interactive story. Anything hindering that process isn't needed. The more things get in the way of the story, the less engaging it will be. Be they systems, players, storytellers, mechanics, or anything else, if it doesn't help tell a good story, it doesn't belong in a good RP&G.

8. Game elements should be described, not numbered. In good stories, things aren't represented by numbers, they are described. Bill doesn't have a dexterity of 18, he has a sharply honed dexterity from his many years training as a pianist. Kate doesn't have a charisma of 25, she has a smoldering appeal that gets the attention of everyone in the room. Things should be described with words first. Then numbers should be assigned to the description for use in the system. This also includes a description of the character and their background. Remember, abilities come from personality.

9. Special effects should help the story. The definition of special effects will vary from one setting to another, but the truly extraordinary should be special and awe inspiring, not boring and routine. Good stories have arcs; anticipation, climax and resolution. Special effects are great for a climax, but do little to tone things down in a resolution. If every fourth event in a story is truly extraordinary, it looses credibility and becomes taxing on players and their characters, who need some downtime too. Make sure anything truly extraordinary is there to help tell the story, not just to be cool.

Player Oriented Roleplaying

PORTAL stands for Player Oriented Roleplaying: Timing, Action, and Lucidity. So what does all that mean? One of the biggest philosophies that led to the creation of PORTAL was that the player is always right. In many ways a storyteller should be there to manage and direct the players' stories, more than to tell their own.

Far too often my character was mandated to do or not do something because it fit a scenario the GM had laid out. As a player, this really irritated me. In the real world, how would I feel if a retail clerk said I had to buy jeans instead of a shirt because it fit the plan they had set out for the store before I walked in? Real people would never put up with this kind of abuse; why should characters?

Player Oriented Roleplaying means trust that players know what they're doing. It means cooperative storytelling. It means that each player acts like a node, expanding the setting with their character, background, and personal play experience. Player Oriented Roleplaying embraces this idea, working with a player's idea of what they want to do in the story, not against it.

Timing

Timing means just that: what time things happen. One of the most important functions of a roleplaying game is determining in what order things happen. Like somebody famous once said: "Time is the universe's way of making sure everything doesn't happen all at once." Roleplaying games need to have a system for dealing with time for the same reason: to make sure all hell doesn't break loose around the gaming table. The problem lies in managing time realistically, without dragging it out.

I found many systems had very arbitrary rules in place to manage the flow of time. To a point, any time management rule is arbitrary; after all, time itself is. The random, dice-rolled initiative was an oversimple, unrealistic rule for determining timing. I found the vitality system much better. With it, people can get tired, rest, overexert themselves, or collapse, which is a much more realistic way to deal with timing. It does demand more responsibility of the player, which is probably why it's used so infrequently.

Action

The other big function of a roleplaying game is action resolution and a representation of chance in a character's experience. This should allow for actions as free, open, and creative as players can imagine. To limit actions available to a character limits the creativity of the player, and dampens a story's realism. Dice rolls should be simple and kept to a minimum.

PORTAL aims to be as simple and straightforward as possible, while still lending enough structure to the process to put everyone on the same page and avoid disagreements. This doesn't mean a list of possible actions that everyone can take in the game system. If a player is creative enough to invent some new and interesting way to use a character's skill in cosmetology to avoid being assaulted by a mugger on the street, great.

Lucidity

As mentioned many times in this chapter, PORTAL is designed to be as transparent as you the user want it to be. Feel free to change any rule that does not fit your goal in telling your story. PORTAL is designed with the guiding principle that users know best. In your use of the system, strive to keep the system in the background and focus on the flow of the story. Above all, have fun. Do whatever you need to have an entertaining time roleplaying.

I know that many of you out there have been chomping at the bit for a system like PORTAL. Unhappy with the overly restrictive systems? Think d20 has cornered the market and there's nothing better out there? I thought this for a long time, and my search online confirmed that if you want something done, you do it yourself. So I wrote my own system. I am first and foremost a roleplayer, but like many, I have gamer tendencies, so this system is perfect, striking a balance between the overly structured and the completely open. If you like living on the gaming fringe, this is for you.

Check it out at http://www.lulu.com/content/818803

Take back roleplaying from the big megacompanies and support the system written by a gamer, for gamers.

Kudos on creating a system to answer your needs and wants.
You mention that you weren't able to find any systems which don't use dice, even after scouring the internet....errm, Amber Diceless?

In addition, you mention that lists of skills/feats/options limit your available actions and stifle creativity. I disagree somewhat, as written down choices can be excellent springboards for original ideas. Also, see here:
http://www.gamegrene.com/node/786

[3E D&D] eventually led to my complete hatred of dice; I set out to find a system of roleplaying that didn't use the nasty things. After many months of searching, I found there was no such thing. Not on the whole of the Internet. I amassed over 200 pages of different systems, and all of them used dice; some used more dice more often than others, but they were still there.
Are you sure about this? Diceless RPGs have been around since Amber which was first published in 1991 and is still big enough to support its own conventions. There are also a whole lot of free diceless systems. Some of these may have sprung up in the past six years, but since many of them seem to be Amber variants it seems unlikely...

Those games concluded and I got back and played in a few games with my "Gamer" group. This reminded me of all the things I didn't like about gaming: lack of control over your character, having decisions forced onto your character due to dice rolls, severely limited actions in the game compared to realistic situations, having characters run by the GM... the list goes on.

As my wife said when she was playing, "The rules are there to ensure that everyone gets to participate." I've often argued that the singular focus on role-playing, or more aptly, the dismissal of rules, ends up having the opposite of the intended effect on controlling your character. When rules are codified, they can be anticipated by the player and used in ways that are not necessarily expected by the referee, and actions are less likely to be countermanded by a ref, or by another player. If I know that I can do a jump/spin attack at X level that will have Y effect in combat, I can attempt to influence a tactical situation in a way that I can use that attack. But if these kinds of things aren't written down, then my proposal happens at the whim of a GM. This doesn't give MORE control to the player – it gives less.

I was also tired of the GM having all the answers. How could someone else know my character better than I did?

I'm not sure what you are saying here. In the games you played, did the GM deprotagonize your characters – ie tell you what actions to take as well as arbitrating whether you succeeded or not? That's sounds like a bad GM – not an unsatisfactory system. The role of the GM in most rpgs is to facilitate play by presenting a scenario and allowing the players to engage it through their characters. While you may "know your character" – I'm not sure what benefit there is – play, game, or otherwise – in knowing the scenario as well. Unless – as in, say, Vampire LARP – the external scenario is somewhat unimportant – and the whole point of the game seems to be about player interactions, conflicts, and intrigues at the table, independent of any external scenario. For example, a movie like Reservoir Dogs, is that kind of thing, where the gunfights and robbery serve only to facilitate the character conflicts. Having played LARP – which is a diceless role-playing game – I see how some people could enjoy that. Talking to those people, I was always struck by how self-reflective their character focus was. Ask them what happened in the game, and they couldn't tell you two things about what was happening – only who they are, and how they react and how others react to them.

An RP&G should be fun. This one should go without saying, but isn't the goal of any game, roleplaying or otherwise, to have fun? If an RP&G isn't fun, you aren't doing it right. This goes for players and storytellers alike; fun for everyone is the first and most important goal of roleplaying.

Of course it should be fun. That's like saying a movie should be entertaining. The trick is in figuring out what's fun, and then making that happen.

Players should play their characters responsibly. Nothing kills a good game faster than a player who suddenly decides they're God. Roleplaying isn't about egos or power trips; it's rarely even about personal glory. Respect the limits of a character; they're there for a reason. Stay in character while playing the game, and play the character ahead of playing the system. After all, it is the whole point of a roleplaying game.

It may be the point of roleplaying and improvisational theater, but I don't necessarily think that is the whole point of a role-playing game.

If the character does not fit the flavour of the game, then you can have a problem. The problem with such an open ended "philosophy", if I'm reading this right, is that the rules are there because various imaginations around the table do not always agree on what happens next. I remember, as an adolescent, playing a kind of cops and robbers/paintball sans the paint shooter. Instead, we pointed and said "bang" – relying on an honour system to determine whether or not we hit a target – whether or not they were in range. The results were predictable despite our best intentions. We jumped and jinked as if we really were being targeted, but ultimately – the only uncontestable aspect of the game turned out to be in stalking and surprising. Everything else was a negotiation or an argument.

Storytellers should cooperate with players. A character's creator understands their character better than anyone else. Storytellers should work with this fact, not against it. Players should be allowed to make their own decisions for their character, both while creating it and while playing it.

I don't always agree with this. Players should not make characters that will be deliberately disruptive or irrelevant to the setting, characters which demand that everyone else try to figure out reasons why they would adventure together. And while a character's creator may understand their character, there is more to most games than a character. If the goal is to have fun - what of fun that results from overcoming an external and difficult challenge? Is a Storyteller seen as uncooperative if the plan doesn't go off without a hitch?

Good story should be the goal. The goal of an RP&G should be to tell a good interactive story. Anything hindering that process isn't needed.

Then it isn't much of a game - role-playing or otherwise. It's improv - unscripted drama.

The more things get in the way of the story, the less engaging it will be. Be they systems, players, storytellers, mechanics, or anything else, if it doesn't help tell a good story, it doesn't belong in a good RP&G.

Again – one person's idea of a good story can often be quite different from another, and when someone attempts to DM an outcome from the player's chair, it can get extremely problematic. For example, in Return of the Jedi, the fleet arrives to find the Death Star shield still active, and the generator well-protected. All is lost! How might the players react? And yet that plot point is precisely the thing that makes the story entertaining. A player is not in a position to arbitrate their own victory conditions.

I've had heated arguments with players who aspired to that kind of "my story is king" purity, where they resented what they perceived as an intrusion into their victory scenario. The thing is, in most good stories, or in ALL good stories, things don't always go the way the hero envisions it, and their heroism is demonstrated in their adaptability to the new situation. If you are playing a game, as opposed to simply enacting a narrative somewhat passively, then the players CANNOT pre-determine their own victory conditions in that manner. What is the role of surprise in doing something fun?

One of the biggest philosophies that led to the creation of PORTAL was that the player is always right. In many ways a storyteller should be there to manage and direct the players' stories, more than to tell their own.

And what if you have more than one player and they don't agree?
Is it fun if a player is always right? Is it fun even for that player, let alone everyone else?

Far too often my character was mandated to do or not do something because it fit a scenario the GM had laid out. As a player, this really irritated me. In the real world, how would I feel if a retail clerk said I had to buy jeans instead of a shirt because it fit the plan they had set out for the store before I walked in? Real people would never put up with this kind of abuse; why should characters?

There is ham-fisted GMing. But then there are also lazy players who sit there and demand that the GM come up with something to entertain them. I prefer that both sides agree that they are there for the same reason, and that they are generous with each other. I've seen players, the moment they realize there might be an "out of bounds" area – dive straight for it to leap the wall and make the GM scramble – completely ignoring the more fertile ground ahead of them. Come on – that's just a bullshit way to try and make the GM into your chump. It has more to do with a metagame power dynamic than anything with the story. There are some points where everyone can realize they are all eating the same Cheezies, and that everybody has a responsibility to support the setting. That doesn't mean intentionally breaking it or pulling back the curtain to expose the GM.

Wow!

While I applaud you having developed your game, it's not all that innovative. PDQ and RISUS both simplify mechanics and broaden character generation. GURPS and Champions are rules heavy with spectral character creation and development. Most of your complaints seem to be, as Nefandus stated, "ham-fisted GMing."

I do a lot of convention gaming and have thusly played a lot of different systems under a lot of GMs. Some were great fun, some sucked wind. Most that I did not enjoy could be repaired with a better GM. Very few could be made better with a system. Im not saying some systems don't blow, many do, but a poor game is seldom entirely the fault of the system in my opinion. I am somewhat of the opinion that your dissatisfaction could actually be with your group. With half narrativists and half gamers, how could any system fit.

What I heard in this article is "things didn't always go the way I thought they should for my character." Notice I did not say that "my character didn't always succeed." There's a difference. It sounds like you want the system to agree with the tragicomedy that is your vision for your character.

Additionally it irks me a great deal that this article is nearly identical to the sample pages provided by the link. This selection was fine for this forum, my actual suggestion is to change the sample pages so we can read a sample of the content writing rather than the forward. By presenting only the "manifesto" you are projecting an elitist image that says "If you don't buy this, you couldn't possibly understand the art of gaming."

And to my knowledge, only WotC/Hasbro would qualify as a megacorp. I am hard pressed to think of any other RPG companies not headed and creatively led by gamers.

I feel for you, Enigmagic. You've posted a plug for a 'Player Oriented Roleplay' system on a board that's mainly haunted by GMs, many of whom like to come here and have a good old moan about their players. ;-)

It sounds like an interesting system. I will reserve judgement until I've had a chance to follow your link and read more about it.

Well put LG.

I read the link, and it seemed to be more of the manifesto - a description of a system that someone would like - but without any description of how that system achieves its goals. I agree with Whataguy - I'd like to see a bit of the actual system. Until then, I'll comment on the manifesto.

I don't think most of us bitch about players, but we do draw on our experience to cite examples of what works and what doesn't. As it sits, I fundamentally disagree with much of whats in that manifesto:

1. Most of the issues the "system" is purported to correct sound a lot like poor execution, rather than a poor system. You can't correct poor refereeing with a new system.

2. Many of the problems he cites are a riff on "the story didn't happen the way I wanted it to turn out". I'm not sure where he's going with it - but it doesn't sound very much like there is any "game" at all in whatever activity he's proposing.

3. There is a definite elitist/artiste sentiment in there that's frankly annoying, and unwarranted.

4. Vampire LARP, and others, are already well-established diceless role-playing games with communities that seem to achieve much of what he aspires to. That said, it's certainly not a one-size fits all system. Certain characters and types of stories are far better suited for that system than they would be for tabletop gaming with a small group. I would be curious as to how his system differs from LARP, especially in the areas where LARP falls down.

The thing is, everyone always aspires to "Player Oriented Role Play". It's often problematic though, exchanging player choice (and the chance of an unsatisfying result) for narrative that anticipates the players' desires. One is a game with role-playing in it; the other is moderated storytelling - not really a game at all.

I've seen more than a few DMs try to cater through narrative to satisfy player demands - either fast-tracking their "character vision" or tailoring story actions to fit perfectly for the obvious goal. It's a short term fix that leaves players feeling a little unfulfilled and somewhat perplexed as to why - since everything happened the way they wanted it. It gets worse the longer it goes.

The problem is that even if the GM is maximizing her narrative control and flexibility to the benefit of players, it displaces the sense of challenge, of real conflict, of any real choice on the players' part. Sure, the GM can sadly shake her head and pretend to be worried or disappointed in what happens next, but in truth, everybody knows that nothing will happen that she doesn't want to happen. In a gaming social situation, that puts an asterisk beside every win, and it makes every loss a real personal conflict - "why did you let Bob live and make me die?". There is freedom for the GM and players in surrendering some control to the scenario and system, and frankly - to the players.

My comment doesn't necessarily apply to Live Action Role Playing games though, which are largely based on social maneuvering, with staged or semi-scripted events forming the backdrop and large groups of characters with conflicting agendas set loose into a single room. The engine for plot, in those cases, are the character interactions themselves - that's the whole game. The plot machinations are merely MacGuffins designed to give the players something to comment on. Not much of an external scenario to engage.

But a game of D&D, on the other hand, or Star Wars, or whatever most of the tabletops do - that's mainly a small group of characters engaging an external scenario. I think it tends to work best with a robust and consistent gaming structure to support player actions, requiring less subjective arbitration of outcomes from the DM.

Hey Nef, didn't it used to be Neph?

I would like to see more of the system too. The manifesto is nice, and makes it seem like a ruleset designed for someone else, but not me. I like a bit of game in my games.

While we've all seen bad GMs run bad games (regardless of system) and good GMs run good games despite a suboptimal system (often through house rules), I think a rules set that supports the style you want to play is bound to make the process easier. Different strokes for different folks, and all.

So if this is a good ruleset for what it sets out to do, then great. I don't think it is for me, and if Nef is Neph revisited, I am pretty certain it is not for him either :-).

OK, first off, in response to the comments here, I have decided to make this a public beta release. This was my original intent anyway. So go to the link and you can now download the system for free. The printed, coil bound edition will still be for sale, and by all means buy one and support the endeavor.

Second I will be updating the introduction to the book considerably to say what I actually mean. Did I have some bad DMs as an early roleplayer? yes. I think we all have. Is my main issue with the DMs? No.

A good system, at least in my thinking should be good to go out of the box without any serious alteration or need to alter and go outside of the rules to have a good time. I have one DM that I used to play with who was a gifted storyteller, he wrote some of the most amazing settings I have ever played. But he played D20 straight out of the box. He did mind you, invent some new classes and races and the like, but they were all within the D20 system. My issue with playing in his games, was that he took the rules completely at face value, and when you take D20 at face value, there are many actions that would be totally in character for my character to do, not because my character "didn't fit the flavor of the setting," but because the system did not incorporate or allow them. Much of why I did not like D20 was that it was essentially a videogame (of which there are a slew based on D&D) that was played on the table with dice as opposed to by pixels and random numbers in a computer engine. If I wanted to play Diablo, I would go and get on my computer. And much of what the D20 (especially the D&D and Modern books) system AT FACE VALUE facilitates is essentially the same. A limited table and progression of actions and spells that are allowed in the game. Hard edged levels that create specific paths for a character to take. And attack and defense ratings that ultimately reduce combat to a hack and slash game (once again, speaking completely within the rules).

What I am hearing from many of you is in order to be a good DM, you have to be vastly flexible with the rules, even be willing to think outside them. I have GMed a D20 game. Even I found that in order to be entertaining I had to stretch and at times totally break or disregard whole sections of the rules. A good system, at least in my thinking, should not have this need. And as far as PORTAL not being rules, and the idea that "the singular focus on role-playing, or more aptly, the dismissal of rules, ends up having the opposite of the intended effect on controlling your character." I have found to be untrue in my experience. I also say elsewhere in the article that indeed the beginning stages of the system were fraught with "disagreement and negotiation" (and BTW, like most human adults, I do not appreciate being diminutively compared to an adolescent playing cops and robbers) but we were all adults around the table who knew we were all there for the same goal and we worked through the negotiations and had better rules after. I say in the article that the "Gamer" group had many things going for them which aided in the game greatly. My aim with this system was to create a system that was open enough to allow for roleplaying, but have enough structure to incorporate the advantages of Gaming.

I am also reminded of when WotC bought TSR and released 3rd Ed. I seem to remember a SERIOUS backlash against it. It was so radically different than second edition. Almost everyone I spoke to hated it for the first several months to a year. Then after people played it and understood how much simpler it was, many wondered how they ever played second edition in the first place. Gamers are loyal to their systems. I understand that. I too am loyal to mine. I have been playtesting and revising this system for almost 5 years. It is not a piece of cabbit crap. I understand gamers' dislike of change. It is human and to be expected. All I ask is that now that the thing is FREE, to go check it out and respond with a rational, constructive critique. I appreciate you input thus far, you have brought up many good points which I am taking into consideration already.

Now that the WHOLE SYSTEM is available FREE for download, please give constructive feedback on the idea, as opposed to demeaning and argumentative comments on the difference in philosophy, which only one commenter seems to have understood and commented appropriately. (thank you John) If this seems like a system that isn't for you, you needn't play it.

In response to this specifically, much of what you are saying here is a differing set of "gaming beliefs" based on your personal experience. not to say others have not had similar experiences. For instance:

"I've seen more than a few DMs try to cater through narrative to satisfy player demands... It's a short term fix that leaves players feeling... unfulfilled and somewhat perplexed as to why - since everything happened the way they wanted it."

Since you say that you have seen DMs do this, I can only assume that you were a player in more than one game that did this. So what you mean to say there is "[a] fix that [left me]feeling... unfullfilled..." In my personal experience players and storytellers alike tend to have more fun when things tend to go decently most of the time. This is not to say the element of failure should be removed completely (and I say as much in the combat section of PORTAL) just that making things too challenging can cause issues.

Sometimes the system itself can cause issues with this as well. There was an evening when I was playing a gunfighter with special talent. It was the single worst night of rolling I ever had in my life. I rolled ones on nine occasions in the four hour session, three of which were sequential. I DID NOT have any fun that evening, I was ready to point the gun at my character's head and pull the trigger just to put the evening to an end so I could go home. Roleplaying games are no fun when things don't go at least partially like you expect them to. Humans are the same way with movies. We like life and the representation of it to be at least somewhat predictable, this makes us comfortable.

And just because I focus on narrative does not mean that I am saying to focus entirely on everything that a character wants, things are likewise no fun when everything goes off without a hitch. Some of the most memorable moments in my roleplaying career (with this system, I might add) were when characters screwed up, then somehow make a way out of it.

"...even if the GM is maximizing her narrative control and flexibility to the benefit of players, it displaces the sense of challenge, of real conflict, of any real choice on the players' part."

In my experience, this is not true at all. If the characters are sufficiently fleshed out, there should be more than enough conflict built in to the characters' to make the game real and challenging. And all GMs, regardless of system do exert control and flexibility over narrative.

"Sure, the GM can sadly shake her head and pretend to be worried or disappointed in what happens next, but in truth, everybody knows that nothing will happen that she doesn't want to happen."

Even in a gaming situation, most of the time, players know that very little will happen that is outside the GMs ability to deal with. GMs must direct the story and the action, as without the direction there would be no story. Much of PORTAL is still left up to chance. There are dice.

"In a gaming social situation, that puts an asterisk beside every win, and it makes every loss a real personal conflict - "why did you let Bob live and make me die?"."

This brings up a couple of points: first, there are no asterisks beside wins in my experience in gaming OR roleplaying. A properly run combat should give a sense of accomplishment to the players. If it doesn't you really are a bad GM, and the system is irrelevant. Second, who wants to kill characters? I have played in several gaming situations and roleplaying situations, and found that regardless of how it was handled, most people are attatched to their characters sufficiently, that when they die, it creates personal, player drama. Seems to me it is unavoidable. As a GM, I do try my best to keep characters alive and concious, because when you are dead or knocked out, the player is then bored for the remainder of the fight or evening till things can be resolved. And if things are resolved for that one dead character, it often puts the rest of the group on hold, which is just as bad. If you aren't playing, you aren't having fun, this I can say from personal experience.

"There is freedom for the GM and players in surrendering some control to the scenario and system, and frankly - to the players."

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, it sounds like you're agreeing with me. Players should be able to direct the story as much as the GM, because if each character has the ability to pursue their goals, they are going to get more out of the game as a player, because their character is going to progress more.

"...a game of... most... tabletops... [is] mainly a small group of characters engaging an external scenario."

Tabletop roleplaying need not be a group of characters engaging an external scenario. Much of good storytelling is based in character rather than scenario. And characters are going to get more out of the experience if the scenario relates to them in some way, rather than being completely external. I personally hate games that start off with a forced group of characters that have been forced to go on this quest in some way, be it monetarily,or dutifully, or whatever. Rather, I like games that bring up something in my character's past and throw it in my face and force my character to deal with it. And while much of this will sound like LARPing, I assure, you I have a serious distaste for LARPing and have never enjoyed it. I do not like the politics of the game.

"I think it tends to work best with a robust and consistent gaming structure to support player actions, requiring less subjective arbitration of outcomes from the DM."

This is all well and good, I'm sure it works better for you that way. My personal experience says that structure is necessary, just not as robust a structure as many systems require. Much of PORAL is far less subjective than this article has made it out to be, and I intend to revise this inro for future editions to clarify this. Please go and check out the system, in its entirety, as it is now available for FREE to download.

1. see comment below for my thoughts on system v execution.

2. I apologize if the article makes me out to be a disgruntled player who didn't get his way and therefore invented something that would. As I say below, much of my issues are less about that, and more about the lack of realism inherent in the systems that were available to me. It wasn't a question of things aren't going as I had hoped, and more an issue of I can't do what my character would actually do in this situation, so i have to do something close and less effective.

I assure, you there is much "game" to be had in PORTAL. This was one of my issues with The Window. There wasn't much game to it, it was almost entirely ideas on how to roleplay with a simplistic system thrown in to call it a system. It was roughly 20 pages, PORTAL is 84, much expanded.

3.Sorry. I am open to suggestions on how to correct that problem.

4.First off, I hate LARPing, as I said earlier. Though some of the ideals of LARPing I feel could greatly benefit tabletop roleplaying. It might well be that I am trying to bridge the gap between live action and tabletop. That would be wonderful. My motivation in writing this system was that none of the other "established communities" seemed to get roleplaying the way I really wanted it. So I decided to be a trail blazer and make my own "community." At the moment it is small, but I know there are others out there.

I agree, there are certain types of stories and characters that will fit PORTAL better than others. This is true for many systems and settings. That said, it does not mean the system is worthless as you seem to imply in previous posts. I encourage you to give it a look and see what differs from LARP, and see if I stand up where LARP falls down.

Enigmagic,
Thanks for making PORTAL available for free. I have now read it (if somewhat quickly) and see what you are getting at when you say it has "just enough" structure.

To me it seems like you really wanted to make a free-form set of rules that would be able to handle just about anything the participants wanted (in terms of story telling and player empowerment, etc) but did not want narration to be the be all and end all of the rules, so you came up with a structure that allowed for attributes, skills, gifts, success rolls, and for combat. And said - "tell your stories, sing your epics, here is an easle to stand your canvass on, and if you need to roll, here is an integrated rolling mechanic". Interesting.

On to the actual ruleset. 84 pages with big type and alot of white space, easy on the eyes, easy and fun to read, I liked the informal, conversational, style of the prose.

I am not sure I'd call it a fully functional RPG yet though. It is more of an RPG framework, not quite a toolkit, more of a bare bones outline for the gaming group to fill in.

For those who have not read it, the idea is first you develop a character, with a backstory and a rich personality. I liked the Q&A included in this section to help with the character generation. Then you spread around a bunch of character points among 9 primary attributes (3 each physical, mental, spirit) in keeping with the character concept, with for example 15 points in each for the character concept of "worlds most average guy"(10-20 being the average human range) from these a few secondary attriibutes are derived.

The attributes are interestingly described, it is clear that alot of thought went into this. The rules for timing, and actions, and movement all show some thought as well (and are written quite engagingly)

Then there are rules for skills, and abilities. They should each tie to a specific attribute, and start out with a broad groupings, narrower specialties, and specific skills/abilities (that there are 3 levels gets important later). The rules have no list of either and just hint at how they might work.

I think a couple of more fully fleshed out examples would have helped in the book. Like say a professer X school for superheros game, so one of the kids has fire powers, Broad category of FIRE, narrower of starting fires, controlling fires, unnatural fire stuff, specific skills to be learned at the school, but may include fire based flying, making walls of fire, throwing fireballs, lighting cigars, making pretty fireworks etc with some numbers thrown in for good measure. Similarly an example for skills would help too.

As to the rolling convention, it is all percentile, and you want to roll below your target number. If I understand the rules correctly, You get your target number by your score in the skill/ability you are using, if any, and the score in each of the more general skill sets up the chain, and your underlying attribute. You add them all together (as many as 4 numbers if you have a specific skill/ability that applies, but at least your attribute if you have no training in the area at all) to get your target number. Then there is the potential for modifiers, including taking your time to do it right (plus 10 per round spent in this manner up to double the unmodified percent, each such round spent is "taking 10"). then you roll. Again, some examples would have been really helpful.

If I understand correctly, it would work like this. Fireboy (in my example above) is alone in the school with birdgirl, when some bad guys show up. Fireboy wants to slow them down with a big wall of unnatural fire, so he and birdgirl can escape. Since he has not learned that ability yet, he only gets to add 3 numbers, his unnatural fire score, his fire score and his underlying ability score, at 15 each he gets a 45%. But since the security system warned them of the badguys approach, he can spend 3 rounds reflecting on his training and marshalling his chi (taking 10 3 times for a 30% increase to 75%). He makes his roll, and they flee to safety.

Since all the skils and abilities are left to the GM and players to create, it would take alot of work to run a game in PORTAL unless a sample skill and ability list becomes available. But the structure does seem simple and workable (assuming my examples are correct).

Combat looks a little more complex, but I just skimmed that section, so maybe it would become as easy and intuitive as the target numbers once I read it again.

Like I said, this is more of a rules set and some guidance you can use to build a game than a complete RPG (IMO) but for a group looking to build a custom game it provides a bit of structure.

Anyway, thanks for making it available, it was a fun read, and I could see how it would let you run a really customized game, as long as thee GM and players are all on the same page. I think some examples of how the mechanics work would help clarify things though. I also think a short list of skills and abilities would help make PORTAL playable "out of the box" for intermediate gamers. As it is now written, it is really for pretty experienced gamers who, as a group, know just what they want, and are willing to build it. Which is more work than I am willing to do as a GM, but with a good GM, I'd give it a go as a player.

I have now downloaded the system and had a brief skim through it. From my cursory inspection I'd agree with most of what John has to say above. It's not really a runs-out-of-the-box RPG, more of a set of mechanics. But then, it doesn't claim to be anything else, I guess.

Systems that focus heavily on roleplay as opposed to gaming or the third axis of simulation do suit some players, I'll readily admit. If you're the kind of person who'll watch a hollywood movie and enjoy it for the feelgood factor and the sensation of being in a 'comfort zone' where things turn out 'right', then a system that prioritises story over mechanics might well suit you, and there's nothing wrong with that style of play in itself, if everyone is happy with it.

If however you are the kind of player who can't get past all the irritating inconsistencies and lack of realism in hollywoood movies, who hates the fact that these films never let reality get in the way of the plot, and who prefers the way reality sometimes slips you a curveball and you want to see this happening in your game too - then you may want to see game mechanics and simulation take a stronger role in your games, because these things can create exciting plot dynamics as well.

I appreciate the point that no game system can perfectly simulate reality, and when you adhere to a system too rigidly this can itself lead to unrealistic situations. Thus the referee needs to exercise judgement and at times over-rule the rules where they have failed to model reality in a satisfying way. My own preference is for a system where you need to do this as little as possible (whilst still remaining within the bounds of playability). I like my default setting to be 'stick to what the rules say' and tolerate the occasional quirky failure to simulate reality, unless there is a strong and fairly unanimous feeling that what has happened according to the rules is very wrong.

Rules-lite gaming is OK for beer and pretzels sessions but I find that it falls down when you try to run something long-term (my present campaign has been running for 12 years but I've been gaming since 1976). You start running into consistency issues with referee judgement calls and this either leads to the game dissolving into arguments, or a totalitarian style of refereeing where the players just have to accept the referee's inconsistencies, or else you wind up writing loads of house rules.

Of course, PORTAL might work OK as a core system for this sort of thing - where the group gradually writes its own RPG based around the core mechanic. It's not the kind of thing I'm looking for at the moment as a 'total rules solution' but some people might find it useful. I wouldn't rule out ever using parts of it.

I'll finish by answering Enigmagic's question of 'Second, who wants to kill characters?' My answer to this is - 'Non-player characters who they've made enemies of, naturally.'

Thank you very much, John, I truly appreciate the comments and compliments. I have as we speak, a "Second Edition" list of things to change, and at the top of that list is to add examples with sample characters for all of the mechanics, as well as all of the character creation steps. I agree, I just wanted to focus first on getting the rules down, then go back and fit in examples later. I also have on that list several appenixes which are dedicated to genre guides for skills, abilities and gifts and flaws, as well as general character archetypes.

I am also in the process of putting together sourcebooks for the system, though it will be a while before any of them are finished. I personally have two settings I am writing, and others in my gaming group also have settings they are going to put together as well.

Once again, thank you for the considered response, I'm glad you like it. You could use it to play some other setting that you are already familiar with to test it out, if not thats fine too.

Thanks, gherkin, I appreciate the comment. To address your responses:

"Systems that focus heavily on roleplay as opposed to gaming or the third axis of simulation do suit some players, I'll readily admit. If you're the kind of person who'll watch a hollywood movie and enjoy it for the feelgood factor and the sensation of being in a 'comfort zone' where things turn out 'right', then a system that prioritises story over mechanics might well suit you, and there's nothing wrong with that style of play in itself, if everyone is happy with it."

I agree with you entirely. There are many who I have played with and under, who would fit that category, and are very pleased with the results.

"If however you are the kind of player ...who prefers the way reality sometimes slips you a curveball and you want to see this happening in your game too - then you may want to see game mechanics and simulation take a stronger role in your games, because these things can create exciting plot dynamics as well."

I believe upon a more in depth read of PORTAL, you will find that mechanics can take as strong a position or as weak a position as the group intends. The skill nesting system and the wound-based damage system in specific, are both designed especially to represent reality in a more realistic way than other systems I have played. And rolling targets and determining modifiers can be as detailed and math heavy as the group likes. If I am shooting a gun, from partial cover, at an armored opponent who is using serpentine evasion while approaching from a distance of 102 feet at 18mph, The system can deal with it all with numbers should you want to.

"I appreciate the point that no game system can perfectly simulate reality, and when you adhere to a system too rigidly this can itself lead to unrealistic situations."

I strive, with PORTAL, to make a set of mechanics that do not need to be bent or broken, because they are flexible and open enough to allow for the issues that invariably come up. PORTAL can be very specific, but does not need to be all the time.

"Rules-lite gaming is OK for beer and pretzels sessions but I find that it falls down when you try to run something long-term (my present campaign has been running for 12 years but I've been gaming since 1976)."

My god, have you ever started new characters in the campaign? Or are you all just gods by now?

"You start running into consistency issues..."

So you still play 2nd edition or have you adapted to 3rd? This would change consistency issues I would think.

"...with referee judgement calls and this either leads to the game dissolving into arguments, or a totalitarian style of refereeing where the players just have to accept the referee's inconsistencies, or else you wind up writing loads of house rules."

Two things here: I have had just as many arguments with rules-heavy systems like D20 and WoD, as I have with this system. The occasional argument around the gaming table is unavoidable. But a good system should keep them to a minimum. Also, house rules are not evil in and of themselves, much of this system started out as a set of house rules. If everyone around the table is there for the same goal, then it is less totalitarian and more benevolent dictatorship, and cooperative.

"...who wants to kill characters?' My answer to this is - 'Non-player characters who they've made enemies of, naturally.'"

Point taken. (although to clarify the question: "What GM wants to kill player-characters?")

I was not aware of Amber at the time of my looking, and although i did locate Amber in some small fashion on the net, it was not a system that i could make any sense out of from the tidbits that were available to me without investing in the books. and since the system didn't appeal to me, i saw no reason for it. The statement was in the article to make a point. And that was, out of the many systems out there, more than 99% of them i would say, use dice.

I agree that lists can be good springboards for original ideas, i plan to put appenixes with genre guides for skills and abilities, as well as equipment clarification and sample characters in the next edition.

see above.

PDQ is best known for Ninja Burger, and other light-hearted settings, and short campaigns. RISUS, also aimed at short campaigns, is a particularly humor oriented set of rules. Not what i am going for here. PORTAL is usable for long term campaigns. Since, character creation takes some serious time, it isn't terribly well suited to short, one-off campaigns like the two you compare it to.

See later post on my thoughts for GM v system issues. As is said other places it is less about the idea that things didn't go as planned for my character, and more that my character could not do character-appropriate actions within the rules.

I am very happy with my group, or rather groups now, as we have split into two groups that occasionally play together now. It was this split between my gaming group of half narratives and half mechanics that led me to the idea of making a system that catered to both. The group I currently play with is more narrative, though i do play more mechanics from time to time. I agree it is very difficult to make a system fit both groups. I say in the intro several times that this was the inspiration.

You are well within your rights to be irked, though now that the system is available in its entirety for free download, please read it and comment. I apologize for any elitist attitude, that is not the intent.

I think including examples in Portal 2.0 will make it alot clearer. And A skill/ability list for say a generic fantasy setting (skills like sword and horsemanship, abilities like magic spells. etc) would make it more playable "out of the box", and more play-testable too. The creation/documentation of enough skills/abilities to run a simple game looks like a lot of work to me(relatively speaking) so there is no way I'd be able to test drive the rules at all, even if my group got together enouh to try things like this out, which we don't.

2 more things on skills/abilities.

1 - I like the character sheet, which seems to imply that my nderstanding of the skill roll mechanics is correct, and includes lots of room for details

2- Did my example correctly describe how fireboy might make a wall of unnatural fire? And if he was successful, he might well be able to add that specific skill to his list to use repeatedly later, right?

Also, a brief discussion of combat:

I Like generic damage (with a death spiral is OK) more than specific mechanical damge effects (broken arm etc), but I like the way you deal with it in PORTAL. You identify the likely adverse effects, and then assume that the group will roleplay them appropriately, assuming that is the type of game they want to run. Just enough structure to hang the narrative manifesto on.

But it looks (in beta version 1) like the rest of combat is pretty much up to the GM and PCs to work out. Specifically, there are rules about defensive actions, in the order of play, and in vitality points, and in the critical success/failure discussion, and options to treat it as a contested roll, or just a success/failure, but what happens in a successful defense (which is expected to vary by defense type and defensive weapon vs attack and weapon type) is (as far as I can tell) left to the GM and PC to determine. Now if it is all determined before-hand, you have plenty of structure, if it is determened as it comes up, it starts to get less structured, and unless recorded less consistant. In either case it seems like a lot of work before play can occur, so a couple of examples, and maybe a default defense result (that gamers are free to change or ignore as they see fit) would be a good addition to PORTAL 2.0.

I'll have to reread the armor section, but when I do, I'll continue to post comments (meant to be contructive, not to nit-pick) if you are still interested in hearing them.

I am in the process of putting together a starter campaign, when I get it done, I will post it here at Gamegrene.

1-Thanks on the character sheet, though through some recent playtesting, I have seen that it needs some changes and additions.

2-Yes your example is exactly how the fireboy would create a wall of unnatural fire, and assuming he was successful, he would indeed be able to add it to the list of abilities for use later.

The fact that you correctly interpreted the rules from such a quick read makes me very happy.

On Combat: To me there needs to be a balance between a totally generic "hit point" system, and a totally realistic system of injuries. I strive to strike a balance as you say between the two with PORTAL. I agree that combat is in this version very unstructured, and that is on my list of revisions as well. The main driving force of the combat specifics are that combat should be driven by action and reaction, as opposed to attack or defense generalities. Therefore, combat is driven by skills and abilities, and detailed description, not a series of general hacks, slashes, parries, and blocks. Any suggestions on how to clarify and give that "neccesary structure" to combat resolution would be very welcome.

This is my understanding of the way combat would work in PORTAL, as described in the PDF.

Fireboy and birdgirl fled into the night, but unfortunately ran into SuperCollosalBadguy.

SCB is a large, strong, dimwitted thug who beats opponents into submission with a car, and is a fully statted NPC. He is overconfident and showey, and likes to use a car to get MASSIVE blunt force damage when he hits, which is often, because he is very skilled at the "Bash with Car" skill, however, cars are unweildy, so even with his great strength and skil he can only Bash With Car once every three rounds (low fire rate, as it were). Plus part of his overdeveloped sense of toughness and masculinity makes him unwilling to pound on girls, though he'll gladly pound on guys in front of girls. He intends to squash Fireboy and capture birdgirl (who does not fly away because she will not abandon Fireboy and is not strong enough to carry him.

Since SCB has a higher vitality he goes first and his action is to swing the car, attempting to squash Fireboy into the parkinglot. He expends a vitality point for his action (but will have two action free rounds after this as he waits to swing again) totaling his "BAsh with car" skill, "bash stuff" specialty, and "brawling" category plus his physical strength attribute gives him a target number of 88 or less. He rolls a 79 and potentially hits. Fireboy gets to react, without paying a vitality cost he defends with his acrobat skill (he used to be in a circus before coming to superhero school, his target number is 50, and he rolls a 9, a critical success, and a much higher margin of success than the original action. As a result of the huge margin of success and a crit, FB leaps totally out of harms way, and is unscathed (though perhaps a bit shaken up).

Since FB has no real combat skills, he uses his action to run away, and shouts to Birdgirl to fly off in another direction before SCB can swing the car again. End Combat scene.

Now I assume that this is how combat is to work, because there are not alot of details in the book yet. The timing, vitality, action and reaction, and skill tests are in there (thanks for confirming my understanding of the skill rolls by the way, I had to read that paragraph a couple of times to get it) as is the MASSIVE blunt force damage from a car (8d12 dam so cool I could not resist). But the effect of the dodge, and what skills to use, and the rate of fire, and how to interpret the margin of success, that was all made up by me.

The impression I get from PORTAL is that this is expected, and that the group, as they detail their characters skils and abilities, and equipment and strategies and stuff, will work all this out and detail it, and the GM will do the same for NPCs so that the combat round can play out just like I described. And If everyone does that - COOL. But it seems like alot of work to me.
On the other hand, for someone who finds their current game lacking, and would like to run combats like that one, and is willing to put in the up-front work to do so, this seems like a good outline to flesh out.

Let me know if I got it right.

Once again, i am happy that you interpreted the rules correctly as they are written. That is spot on accurate. And as far as examples go, i would humbly ask permission to use your Fireboy, Birdgirl, and SuperCollosalBadguy storyline for examples. That is great, and humorous, which a good example should be for memory.

As the rules are currently written, this is EXACTLY how combat should work. The thing that you bring up without really saying it in the last couple of posts is "If these sections of combat (timing, vitality, action and reaction, skill tests, and damage ranges) are so detailed, why not be more detailed in the other areas of combat such as attacking specifics and defending specifics?" To this i would respond, i have the idea of assigning example levels of attack actions and defense reactions / armor for the sake of that necessary level of structure. Every table in the rules is there for sake of example anyway, so why not have one for attacks and defenses? Also in this table could be the range of levels that would be added or subtracted in a given success range as well (other than crits which are automatic). I could well adapt this to abilities as well.

what do you think?

In response to this specifically, much of what you are saying here is a differing set of "gaming beliefs" based on your personal experience.

Of course it is. This is a discussion forum. As I'm not trolling, I'm not going to assume the stance and argument of a person who is not me. I'm sure you'll do the same.

In my personal experience players and storytellers alike tend to have more fun when things tend to go decently most of the time. This is not to say the element of failure should be removed completely (and I say as much in the combat section of PORTAL) just that making things too challenging can cause issues.

We're talking past each other here, and part of your statement about failure doesn't fit with what you say below, "As a GM, I do try my best to keep characters alive and conscious."

I've not suggested that things should be "too challenging". I've said that things should be "challenging enough", and that the challenge presented should be a real one – not just a show of one, narrated or played by the DM to give a phony appearance of risk. There must be a legitimate risk of failure in the task at hand and the overall goal. It's very easy and very common for a GM to fudge the system to force a positive outcome rather than let something bad happen at the table. I agree, things tend to be more fun when things go decently most of the time, but sometimes, including and especially in drama and in good stories, you need to go through the dark to get to the light. Sometimes Gandalf has to die fighting the Balrog, and Ben Kenobi has to get chopped by Vader, at least for this chapter – and the story is better in that it happened, even though the audience doesn't want them to die. It isn't really much of a story at all if things go the way they are planned. Failure, and the risk of failure, can be extremely valuable in a story in that it raises tension. You cannot have tension without risk.

It was the single worst night of rolling I ever had in my life. I rolled ones on nine occasions in the four hour session, three of which were sequential. I DID NOT have any fun that evening, [:]We like life and the representation of it to be at least somewhat predictable, this makes us comfortable.

The odds of that happening are obviously slim. As you said, it was a single night – the most notable of bad gaming experiences. A night of spectacularly bad rolling does not mean that the system is not somewhat predictable. "Somewhat" predictable leaves room for unpredictability. Obviously, on that night, something extraordinary happened that fell outside of the normal probabilities.

If the characters are sufficiently fleshed out, there should be more than enough conflict built in to the characters' to make the game real and challenging. And all GMs, regardless of system do exert control and flexibility over narrative.

Of course they control some of the narrative. My point is that to maintain a real challenge and an aspect of "game" as opposed to being passive witnesses, the GM must cede control in certain areas – such as the outcomes that result from certain player actions. The interventionist GM invalidates their choices and the consequences that result from their choices when he forces a victory. I agree at least in that a good GM could tilt the pinball table, to a degree, through his choice of NPC tactic or action, but the closer he gets to direct interference with the ball (ie the dice), the more he shows the "game" to be a sham.

GMs must direct the story and the action, as without the direction there would be no story.

GMs set up the scenario, but much of the story itself is the product of player actions within that scenario, and their outcomes. If the GM overrules the actions or outcomes as well, for either positive or negative short term effect (ie. to make the story turn out "properly"), then you have story (the GM's story), but no game, because even wrong choices or failure will still end up the same way. You end up with a GM "telling" a story that he thinks the players will want, rather than players "playing" a story in which there is a risk of failure. Players aren't playing – they are enacting the GM's story. This may seem "fun" until the moment you notice that you have no real effect on the story. I've seen this happen many times in different systems, different groups. Apathy sets in and people start missing games.

This brings up a couple of points: first, there are no asterisks beside wins in my experience in gaming OR roleplaying. A properly run combat should give a sense of accomplishment to the players.

There are many, if not most GMs, who favour giving the sense or more directly – the "appearance" of accomplishment in a combat. As I recall, this was even a directive in the old Star Wars RPG from West End games – "Let the players *feel* like they play a role in what happens." And it's the easiest thing to let it play out if it's going well, but what GM hasn't felt panic at a stupid move or just an unlucky roll, where things just don't go right for the players that day, and it looks like they might fail or die? Those are the situations show the difference between a sense of accomplishment and the actual thing. That's what I mean when I talk about the asterisk, and thus fine print (the GM fudged the numbers to let you win).

Second, who wants to kill characters?

Nobody wants to kill the characters. What they want – what the players and GM both want – is a sense of fun and accomplishment. That is a product of engaging a real challenge through the eyes of a character. A pre-requisite to that challenge and the taste of victory is a chance at failure. If there is no chance of failure, then it's just a story (and not necessarily a good one), not a game, and the players are passive witnesses who occasionally provide role-playing colour to a role, action, and outcome that is already fabricated by the GM.

I have played in several gaming situations and roleplaying situations, and found that regardless of how it was handled, most people are attatched to their characters sufficiently, that when they die, it creates personal, player drama. Seems to me it is unavoidable.

Of course it's unavoidable when a character's life or death depends on the arbitrary and subjective whim of the GM, who bent the rules yesterday but not today.

I have played in several gaming situations and roleplaying situations, and found that regardless of how it was handled, most people are attached to their characters sufficiently, that when they die, it creates personal, player drama. Seems to me it is unavoidable.

Just as with novels, when a beloved character dies or fails, it's disappointing – even heart breaking. That's not necessarily disengagement though, and a few times I've gone out in a blaze of glory – and that's a lot of fun too. But in a decent, fair system, where rulings aren't arbitrary or overly subjective – most players will realize that they have no quarrel with the GM. That's just the way the ball lands sometimes, and the GM can be just as upset as anyone.

As a GM, I do try my best to keep characters alive and concious, because when you are dead or knocked out, the player is then bored for the remainder of the fight or evening till things can be resolved. And if things are resolved for that one dead character, it often puts the rest of the group on hold, which is just as bad. If you aren't playing, you aren't having fun, this I can say from personal experience.

Dead PCs happen. I think players understand that this is a possibility, just as an injury can happen in football. That's a good time to start rolling a new one, or to dust off the back-up PC you brought to the game – knowing that such a thing could occur. If that's not an option, then how about taking over an NPC for a while, or even one of the bad guys in the fight? How's that for role-playing?

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, it sounds like you're agreeing with me. Players should be able to direct the story as much as the GM, because if each character has the ability to pursue their goals, they are going to get more out of the game as a player, because their character is going to progress more.

Right, but if, as a GM "you try your best to keep characters alive and conscious" – then you are usurping the choices (and consequences) the players made for their characters. This invalidates their choice and casts doubt on the game. Let the players make their own choices and see where it gets them. Plan a balanced encounter and let it play out.

Tabletop roleplaying need not be a group of characters engaging an external scenario.

True, but tabletop roleplaying *games* will almost always engage an external scenario- while pure role-playing might not. There are degrees to with intra-party conflict, drama, and/or role-playing will occur – but these are a product of setting and character bio – not much to do with the system itself. For instance, the Whitewolf games nearly always devise their character background choices to be at odds with other backgrounds, usually working toward cross-purposes. There's nothing in the math that requires it – it's a recipe for role-playing introduced in the setting. Others, such as D&D (core setting) don't really give you much info – but that doesn't mean it's forbidden or not supported by the system.

And characters are going to get more out of the experience if the scenario relates to them in some way, rather than being completely external. I personally hate games that start off with a forced group of characters that have been forced to go on this quest in some way, be it monetarily,or dutifully, or whatever.

Agreed, but this is NOT an aspect of the system – of any system. It's a product of the planning on the part of the GM and/or the players, tailoring a story hook to the characters. I've done it PLENTY in D&D, and I don't really get why anyone would think you couldn't do it there, or in any other system.

Much of PORTAL is far less subjective than this article has made it out to be, and I intend to revise this inro for future editions to clarify this.

I don't mean to sound like an a-hole here, but having read the system now, I was struck at how little it is different from pretty much any other RP system, except that it leaves certain things like skills hopelessly open ended and subject to abuse or unbalance, with certain things that seem codified, but with no apparent game effect (so why are they codified?). I can't possibly be the only one who sees this. I see GURPS and D20 dressed up in different clothing here, a percentile scale instead of 20 sided. There's modifiers, attributes, skills etc. It's all there still, and I don't see a reduction in math.

What I DO see, is a germ of an idea of a compendium of interesting RP advice that truly is applicable to any system, but that advice is not in and of itself a system. For example, the advice on character generation is decent beginners advice for any character generator to develop a bio. My group has gone a little deeper in technique by jumping past the questionnaire and literally acting out the life-defining scenarios in little postcard vignettes, or writing them as postcard stories. That kind of drama and writing technique, as it applies to RP gaming, is truly transferable and is sorely lacking in most RP games.

For example:
It should be mentioned that if a character is based around having a specific reputation, that should be taken into account by the storyteller when generating this number. Remember, character is more important than any number.

I've know players that would eat this up for breakfast. Extra goodies if I write a story about why I have it? Isn't it just as easy and sublime to write a story that fits the number you've earned? If concept is king, why not simply advocate the point buy system you've mentioned, and then gear the bio toward that? The idea I'm driving at in player balance is that everyone gets a chance to play.

Anything that can be learned over time can be a skill. The same skill might be defi ned slightly differently from one character to the next. Different people do the same things in different ways and with different focuses. The player and the storyteller define specific skill sets a character has based on the character's background, not according to some rigid list of possible actions in the game system.

The reason the action list is rigid is to prevent overlap. Surely, the dude who uses his "Whack with car" ability gets trumped by someone who gamed the system to take "Telekinesis" as his power, and not only repel the car, but also whack the offender with everything else. It's over before it began – not because the scenario was engaged, but because the skill comes in defining the powers broadly enough. It's a guessing game too – how much is enough? If there are multiple players, it must be balanced, or I don't get a turn.

I'd say open skills would be a step down from poorly defined skills with overlap, such as those in Vampire 1st or 2nd Ed. I recall repeated arguments in the '90's when the Ventrue financier would be outclassed in money by a hacker who decided to use Computer skill to buy stocks online. Classic example – both parties felt it would be kewl to make millions, but the undefined skills forced a conflict at the table. The Ventrue wasn't outplayed – he lost due to metagaming trickery.

I actually admire your aspiration here, but in execution, I see you getting all tripped up between devising a game system and offering RP advice. The closest "system" I've ever seen to what you aspire to here is Mage - from Whitewolf. That's because the the powers held by the PCs were reasonably corraled but open ended, it accounted for what are essentially "plot points" - a game mechanism for forcing a special plot item or power (similar to Force points in Star Wars) and the nature of their power was their abilty to mold reality to their own ends.

I do not appreciate being diminutively compared to an adolescent playing cops and robbers) but we were all adults around the table who knew we were all there for the same goal and we worked through the negotiations and had better rules after.

Cops n Robbers was not intended as a disparagement, but rather an accurate depiction of the same root problems that arise in any game with an excessive amount of subjectivity in success or failures. Adolescent or no - it was our intention to use the honour system and it broke down - not because we were young but because the system we devised was deficient in important regards.

I am also reminded of when WotC bought TSR and released 3rd Ed. I seem to remember a SERIOUS backlash against it. It was so radically different than second edition. Almost everyone I spoke to hated it for the first several months to a year. Then after people played it and understood how much simpler it was, many wondered how they ever played second edition in the first place. Gamers are loyal to their systems. I understand that. I too am loyal to mine. I have been playtesting and revising this system for almost 5 years. It is not a piece of cabbit crap. I understand gamers' dislike of change. It is human and to be expected. All I ask is that now that the thing is FREE, to go check it out and respond with a rational, constructive critique. I appreciate you input thus far, you have brought up many good points which I am taking into consideration already.

If this is an attempt to dismiss my opinion by painting me as cheering in a horse race, I'll spare you the trouble. I played D&D since the early 80's when the basic rules were in a softcover staple binding. I dropped them in a New York minute when 3e came out. I was simply a better game, and it solved many of the griping greefes DM lobbying that plagued us for years. I've also played other systems that appealed to me. This is not a question of loyalty.

OK, let me respond to this short and simple: We are not arguing system here, we are arguing a serious difference in DM and RP styles. You mention repeatedly that this is a game, first and foremost to you. If you notice the title, it says "Player-Oriented Roleplaying," not "Player-Oriented Roleplaying Game;" this should give you my focus. I am a roleplayer much more than a gamer. It only makes sense that this system would be geared that way.

Once again, you make some good points, but i must say that for you to say earlier that i have an elitist attitude is the pot calling the kettle black. I have done my best to address your issues in as genial a manner as I can. Which has been met by more elitist attitude from you. For the first two thirds of this post it didn't sound like you read the system at all, and the only reason i know you did read it is because you mention it. You have responded primarily to my difference in style and very little to the actual system that i have presented.

We are arguing philosophical differences concerning what we each find fun and effective. There will be no settling this, as the differences are irreconcilable, and that's fine; but if this is not your system, which it obviously is not, then don't play it and leave those for which it is their system in peace, or offer more constructive criticism, to which I would direct you to John.

as far as cops and robbers, the illustration failed to make your point any more effectively than it had already been made previously in the post and was unneccesary in my opinion. sorry to have taken offense, but all i have to go on are the words i read.

as far as d20 backlash goes, that WAS my personal experience, apparently i have a very different group of gamers and roleplayers than you associate with. This was not an attempt to dismiss your opinion, and since it was not posted in direct response to your post, but rather to all who had posted, i am hard pressed to see how you would see it as an attempt to dismiss your opinion in specific. Especially considering that the loyalty comment was not directed in any way to you, as you are not the one who had mentioned it. The bit about "sparing me the trouble" and just how long you have been gaming, is elitist, confrontational dick waving and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and frankly makes you come off as an insecure jackass.

Briefly:

I can only give my first impressions on this as I don't really have time to playtest, which I think is the only real way to assess a new system and make a fair judgement. Full time job, family, ailing parent to care for and already running an entrenched long-term campaign - 3.5e D&D FYI. I'd be interested to read the scenario you intend to post up here and if other people playtest it I will be interested to read their experiences.

I do appreciate that different people enjoy different styles of play and there may be a niche for PORTAL.

My god, have you ever started new characters in the campaign? Or are you all just gods by now?

An interesting illustration of how different people can get very different results from the same system. Perhaps the style of play you've experienced with D&D leads you to assume that godhood would be the natural result of a 12 year campaign. We have several 'generations' of characters in our campaign. The oldest generation (or the handful of survivors from that generation, shall we say) are around 15th-18th level now. The newest generation are presently around 3rd level. There are multiple story threads and not all of the characters know each other. Party lineups are mutable and frequently heterogenous in terms of levels of ability.

It works for us.

Good luck with your system. I will continue to read with interest.

Please use my examples all you want, as well as any other worthwhile contribution I might make. I'd imagine the other posters feel the same way, we would not comment at all if we did not want to help.
I get it, that combat is about choices, actions and reaction, and not about THACO or AC (not that there is anything wrong with THACO and AC, it's just different) and that the participants will work out the precise effects of actions and defenses and armor and skills and abilities, as well as the energy costs and whatnot associated with them (with the amount of rigor and documentation that they require for the game they want to play). But I think some examples would help - so I support your idea of an example table.

Maybe even a default rule (optional of course) that unless otherwise detailed (which important genre stuff would be expected to be) that a successful defense avoids half the damage, a huge success (say 50% margin of success, or maybe 50% greater margin than the other guy, avoids 75%. With participant decisions documenting specific cases that vary from this to give the game the precise feel they want, or to emulate a genre as they see fit.

Say in a swashbukling game, a parry eliminates 50% or 75% by default, but can eliminate it all by spending a vitality point per extra 25% you want a successful parry to eliminate (I'd want that spending declared up front, by the way). That way a very energetic (but somewhat less schooled combatant can temporarily hold their own against a wily veteran. So Musketeers have fast and furious flashing steel and clashing blades until one begins to tire, fails a defense roll, or rolls a crit. This would also allow questions of honor to be resolved by exciting duels to "first blood", a fun genre convention that might otherwise be hard to model.

Since your ruleset has got me coming up with all sorts of snippets of things to use it for, i think it succeeded in the goal of providing a basic flexible rule structure and guidance for a group to hang their specific creation on. But to hang that creation is a lot of work PORTAL is very bare bones and needs alot of input to make it a game.

And as Nef points out, it can become unbalanced during the definition phase (as characters abilities are defined) of course most games can get unbalanced during chargen through min-maxing or players with differing agendas - so PORTAL is not alone in that regard. And in all cases the problem is generally curable by good participants and a good GM. Which is why you correctly note that PORTAL is not for beginners, but more for experienced roleplayers. Especially those who like the Window, but want a little more in the way of rules.

Anyway, I think it is a good start, And I hope my comments help you improve it even more. I also think you might get more comments (both constructive and mocking) at a larger RP site, like say RPG.net. Though you might want to lurk there for a while first to get the hang of the place, it is somewhat unforgiving - there is alot of game design theory and practice discussed there, I think there is even a dedicated forum to it so they may be able to help you more than us.

One last thing. I naturally want examples and sample skills/abilities ad combat effects, etc. because I like that stuff built for me, rather than by me. As written now, PORTAL is designed for people who want to write all that themselves, not use someone elses. So you may want to put all the stuff for guys like me in an implementation appendix to show a possible implementation, but leave the core rules nice and general for the real story game designer types out there -who are really your target audience. Just a thought.

While PDQ is BEST known for Ninjaburger (a lighthearted theme) it is not by any rate the definition of the system, rather a worldbook that does a fine job of bringing people to their system. Check out Questors for more solid campaigning material. Additionally I compared your game to Hero and Gurps, but see no defense against those comparisons.

As far as your character not being able to do character appropriate things due to rule restrictions, can you give an example? Specifically a case where the system, not the GM, prevented a chosen course of action? Or do you mean like wanting your wizard to wield a sword?

That said, and mostly (there's one other bit which I will come to shortly) put behind me, I have read the, now free, document.

The Good: I found the mechanics to be reasonably solid and consistant. All in all a tremendously playable game. The skill tree format prevents a lot of double-dipping (I'm a barbarian-Pirate-Warrior, so I can get tripple bonuses for sword). The writing was clear and easily understood in a large easily read font. The open ended skill definition maintains flavors from games like PDQ and RISUS.

The Bad: There is easily as much math and dice as GURPS, and as both features are predominantly listed as problem areas for your gaming enjoyment, I find it rather hypocritical. While I understand not wanting to fill dozens of pages with skills and so forth, a short list of examples would improve the book greatly. Ditto for the equipment section. I don't think a brief description of a dozen armors is going to corrupt the idealism of this work.

The Ugly: Your editor might be getting paid too much. You compare this game frequently with others using the phrase "most games" where "d20 gmaes" would have been more accurate. You stated that you've amassed over 200 pages of gaming systems form the net. By my count this is 2 books, maybe. Additionally, you did not invest in the largest diceless game, becasue you couldn't find detail for free. Commandment #9 is only an ideal, it seems, as there are no references to non-number quantities or descriptions for attributes or skills. There are several blank pages which could be offset with a modicum of art. I am a tightwad and I don't want to buy a load of art, it this respect I do applaud your game, but blank space is worse. In the opening it is claimed that this is not a beginners system, yet the entire book is written as though it is.

The revolting: Your elitist attitude shows up as much in the book as in the manifesto and nearly as well as here in the forum. Claiming to be a Role-player more than a gamer implies that the 2 are somewhat mutually exclusive and stating that GAME is not a part of the title of your book does not make it not one. GURPS also does not include game, but no one argues whether it is.

Closing:
I think your system is good and solid.
I think your passion is greatly evident.
I think your position is a pretentious load of something I'd rather not step in.

Let's get a couple of things straight. You wanted to discuss the game, but instead posted a manifesto on playing style, and like it or not, that's where this thread and discussion started from. You responded to that, and I've responded to that argument. A discussion on that matter has resulted. Egads. Don't bug me for arguing philosophy with you rather than game, when that's what you've offered.

Later, you posted the beta for us to look at. I gave the courtesy of reading every line of it, and now I'm responding to it - as part of your beta. So give me some ever-loving courtesy back and deal with the "good points" I've offered rather than trying to make this into something it isn't. It's not because I don't "get it" and it's not because I don't like role-playing, and it's not because I'm tied to any other particular system.

Evaluating the system you've set up - *by your own criteria* - I just don't see anything new or revolutionary about it (as you've boldly proclaimed) , nor do I see anything particularly geared toward role-playing or story creation as opposed to simulationism or "gamey".

It's as if you've taken GURPS or D20 and trimmed back or thrown away the skills sections, so that that entire area and most tactical situations, are dealt with on the fly by the GM without a playbook. Is that a new system? It's pretty much the OLD system - D&D Basic edition circa 1980 or so. Amid that material is interwoven a mantra about "character being king" and appeals about the way people should play, but without anything material in the system. In fact, it's largely more of the manifesto weaved throughout, welded to a fairly standard RPG resolution finder and character generator. There's no focus there. If you took out the pleas to play the game in a certain way, what of the actual system would be distinguishable from the next one?

If you wanted to truly do a system or setting that was designed for role-playing and maximizing RP opportunities within a party, wouldn't you focus more on interface elements that dealt with plot mechanics?
As an example, what if you could purchase, as a player, a "betrayal" card, or a "malfunction" or "oversight" or "oversight" or "coincidence". Maybe the modifiers are "important" or "minor", or there is a choice over who or what they affect. Low level characters affect themselves, but higher levels can begin to affect the environent or ultimately the antagonists themselves. You play the card and the group picks up the story from there, explaining what happens. As in Mage, wouldn't the subject matter deal with the fabric of reality and its fluid nature? When you read Mage - which seems right up your ally here, what did you think? Let's see an expansion on story points (or Force points, or whatever) - to see how a player can exert raw force on the narrative - to make soemthing big happen, to force a success or a re-do, or to introduce a plot point. Let's see chapters devoted to plot archetypes, a nine act structure, and the rare talent of writing a story-based adventure without railroading players. Let's see player factions with conflicting viewpoints baked right in. Let's comb the acting and drama texts and pull out games and exercises to help us relay our stories in more entertaining and "playable" performances to the rest of our group, rather than writing encyclopediac tomes that we "keep secret" at the table to preserve our "sense of mystery." Let's switch out roles, so players at the table get to play multiple viewpoints, including the bad guys, or darker aspects of our own characters. Maybe we could try giving a rough plot outline to players or sketching out rough character arcs beforehand so players and GM are both on the same page for the kind of story they want to play out, without necessarily having the details filled in.

You see, I speak that language too, and I've actually done a lot of those things in play, with mundane "systems" without compromising the system itself in any way. Players have been moved, have performed, have applauded and even maybe a little verklempt. If you aspire to role-playing goodness, why make so much of the change from d20 to d100? In my mind, there's no difference there. You want to help introduce role-playing into what you see as a crunchy game? - that's great. I LOVE that. For inspiration though, instead of looking into other rpgs, take a few pages from other kinds existing creative intructional treatises - art, writing, music, acting - and see how THEY do it. It may not be a "system" that you come up with, but it may end up being a damn good book of exercises to help players and GMs expand their sessions beyond the basics. And if you DO want to build a system geared around plot and character, then why not truly GO there and abandon pretensions toward engaging an external scenario?

That's what perplexes me about why you diss LARP. I don't like LARP, but that's because for me, there's not enough game in it - but I recognize with that that people like different things. It should be right up your ally though, because it aspires to exactly what you've laid out. Character is king. It's nearly 100% RP. You can go a whole game without engaging an external plot point, while introducing many of your own with other characters. There are enough players that there's always something to react to, always someone gunning for you, or to ally with. There are no dice, just rock paper scissors. It's fluid, rather open ended, with diminutive to godlike ranges of powers (VAMP larp, that is). It would help me understand what you are shooting for a little better if you explain what your objection is, and how that jibes with your manifesto.

Sorry- surely you weren't referring to me then. Just all others who might have a similar opinion, but NOT me.

Dude, this is not about dick-waving. You set the stage when you pre-emptively outlined the people who would NOT like the game - beginners etc. Playing too many RPGs is not something I necessarily brag about, but if someone posts one asking what I think about their playing style and their system - which is what you did - but tries to nip criticism or discussion in the bud by dismissing everyone who doesn't agree with you as a beginner, or as someone who isn't playing the best way - then anyone who disagrees is forced to establish their cred right up front. I'm obviously not the only one who caught a whiff of this - as I was the second person to note the apparent 'tude in the posts.

Let me back up here. What do you WANT in posting this? What was your intention. Did you post this as an advertisement? Did you even want a discussion? Are you surprised?

Thanks for your considered comment. I really think we have gotten off on the wrong foot which has kept us from seeing eachothers' views clearly. I really like much of what you say here, and you make some very interesting points and have some really intriguing ideas. The reason that I have focused more on the "gamey" aspects of the system comes down to the idea that I was looking for balance. Essentially a game that roleplayers like myself would be able to work with more easily than some of the other rules out there. John said it well in a previous post: "a free-form set of rules that would be able to handle just about anything the participants wanted... but did not want narration to be the be all and end all of the rules, so you came up with a structure that allowed for attributes, skills, gifts, success rolls, and for combat. And said - tell your stories, sing your epics, here is an easle to stand your canvass on, and if you need to roll, here is an integrated rolling mechanic" This hits my idea on the head pretty solidly.

When you really get down to it, what makes one system different from another? It's all in the details really. Most systems have some kind of attributes, skills, abilities (be they magic, or superpowers, or mutations, etc), and most systems use dice of many kinds to do many different kinds of things. What dice they use is different, D20 uses d20s primarily, GURPS uses d6s, whitewolf uses d10s, but the two major mechanics of any system is a target number of successes on many dice or a target number on a single die. There's nothing new under the sun. D20 isn't all that revolutionary by your standards either. I am passionate about the system I have written, however flawed it may be, because it is a creative product from me. Most of us are pumped up about our own stuff, if we weren't, we probably wouldn't have written it in the first place. I say in the itnro that this is indeed not a new idea, but simply a fresh take on old ideas.

The system of "Plot points" and cards seem very similar in alot of ways to AMBER to me. And while i like amber every once in a while, the game has a tendency to leave a bad taste in my mouth due to that lack of challenge you were talking about. I just don't really like playing a god. I like the idea of the cards that the players can influence narrative with though, I will put that under consideration for an advanced mechanics and roleplaying section in a later edition.

Why not abandon pretenses of external scenario? because I like to engage an external scenario to a degree, and I like the flow of events to be driven by something external a good chunk of the time. I simply don't like being forced upon an external scenario in artificial ways, and i understand that that has more to do with GM than system.

The biggest reason for the change to a d100 is that it allows all targets to be percentiles, which are something that is instantly understood by almost everyone. We've all been in school and know how skilled an 88% is in class: a B+.

It may well be that the LARPing that I have done was with a terrible group of people. LARP always came off to me as a socio political experiment as much as it did a game. There just wasn't enough story to engage me. Although i like it conceptually, and as I have said earlier, i think there is much that tabletop can learn from LARP, it had a tendency to loose something in the execution. You might see my other article: "Physical Relationships" http://www.gamegrene.com/node/139 for further related ranting on this in the arena of online gaming. My main objection is that it has a tendency to get far too political for my tastes. Things get kind of "clicky" which could be a total result of the group i was playing with. My other big problem with LARP is more practical, and that is it takes a fairly large group of people to play it. I have a hellacious schedule, as do many of my friends, so its trouble to get a group big enough to play.

Is that what you were asking?

Hi John, it did indeed used to be Neph, but I had some problems awhile back when the forum registration changed.

I agree that a rules set that supports one style of play vs another is a good idea. I've even enjoyed Mage in the past, a rules set which I think supports this style of play. There were some problems with a player who was unable to join us in his thinking with that style of play though, and ultimately, we abandoned that game, but I don't necessarily think that was the fault of the system or the "philosophy".

In this case though, I just don't think PORTAL even comes close to doing what it aspires to do. I might be motivated towards a more conjenial tone in my criticism, but the way I'm reading what's there, it comes off as a condescending attack on gamesmanship being a lesser aspiration, while hypocritically not supporting the RP purist aspiration with anything other than a plain old randomizer + modifier, math-based system. It's the same thing I've seen a number of times in more detailed games, so what's the big deal? If I'm going to graft this thing onto a homebrew or existing setting, I'd want to see what it can do better than what I've already got.

I don't mean to sound so ascerbic, but when I read the post again, I'm just smacked with so much attitude in there that I don't feel compelled to varnish my criticism in sugar to spare the ego.

I have never said in this discourse that my way was better, and appologize if i have been implying it, which i seem to be somehow (which noone seems to have any suggestions of fixing, i might add, despite my requests). I am simply stating my differing opinions. I have not intended to say that any one way, mine or others, are better, simply different.

My intent was to put this to the world, to test the waters so to speak. I welcome discussion, provided it is productive, which many of your comments have been, just not all of them. No I am not surprised. I expected many to disagree with me. Feel free to post more discussion.

Thanks for your considered comment. I really think we have gotten off on the wrong foot which has kept us from seeing eachothers' views clearly. I really like much of what you say here, and you make some very interesting points and have some really intriguing ideas.

Thank you. Take whatever you need. We stole much of ours from some of our players' drama texts such as "games for actors and non-actors". A lot of my notions on building a good action scene come right from screenwriting, and I'm a writer, of sorts. At least I used to be.

When you really get down to it, what makes one system different from another?
I would quantify various kinds of differences. Flavor, Consistency/Arbitrariness/Logic, Balance, Speed/Momentum/Ease of Play are several areas where there are degrees of difference in the system. Some will be more effective – objectively – than others in certain areas. For example, take logic. 1st and 2nd edition always seemed arbitrary and subjective – with multiple ways to resolve an action, overlapping skill sets or irrelevant ones with no defined game effect. Sometimes roll high, sometimes low, sometimes using a Saving throw, while other times not. 3.5 was, objectively, a better system in this regard, in that it pared back the inconsistencies and streamlined the mechanics to allow for smoother, less ambiguous results from player actions.

D20 isn't all that revolutionary by your standards either.

I'm not concerned about whether or not it is revolutionary. All I need it to do is resolve the challenge. "Revolutionary" would change the way I play the game, or think about gaming. For me, LARP did that. Now, I don't like LARP, but it did show me a different way of thinking about games, and it opened gaming to a whole new group, providing a profoundly different experience from tabletop.

I say in the itnro that this is indeed not a new idea, but simply a fresh take on old ideas.
You'd better check the afterward in the PORTAL rules system. And, without trying to be mean here, it honestly doesn't seem to be a fresh take. It's a rules system, a generic one, but what's the "fresh" part? You've got a point buy character gen noted, same as d20. Skills, attributes etc. Is there a game that doesn't have these???

The biggest reason for the change to a d100 is that it allows all targets to be percentiles, which are something that is instantly understood by almost everyone. We've all been in school and know how skilled an 88% is in class: a B+.

But really now, I'm sure a d20 is already intuitive enough. 10 is 50%. Do you need more than that? The math comes mainly in the modifiers, not the base mechanic. That's what takes so long. Whether you roll percentile dice, 100 sided die, or a d20 is somewhat immaterial. And do you need that level of granularity to go to single percentages?

If I take your manifesto at face value, it just seems to are barking up the wrong tree in trying to address role-playing through dice mechanics. The entire RP excellence of the game seems to consist of pleading to players to not abuse the system and do things that would "unbalance" the game. That's not a system in itself.

Much of the RP activities that I outlined above worked perfectly in D20. All D20 is, is a basic system to resolve challenges. You've got the rule set, the scenario, the setting, the players, and that's enough for the game. If you want to RP, there's plenty of room in the margins, and you can make the margins of d20 as wide as you want them to be. That's really the place where RP shines there. It's not a fault of D20 that there's not much written on how to do RP – it's up for the players to bring their own. But I've seen few instances in D20 that were impossible to do. For example, just before we fought a dragon, the party camped and had a "last supper", knowing the likely wouldn't survive. We took a few minutes of game time to say or paraphrase whatever needed to be said. Now, you won't find that in the D&D rulebook, but that doesn't mean it isn't or can't be a part of the game, and it doesn't interfere with any aspect of the rules.

It may well be that the LARPing that I have done was with a terrible group of people. LARP always came off to me as a socio political experiment as much as it did a game. There just wasn't enough story to engage me. Although i like it conceptually, and as I have said earlier, i think there is much that tabletop can learn from LARP, it had a tendency to loose something in the execution. You might see my other article: "Physical Relationships" http://www.gamegrene.com/node/139 for further related ranting on this in the arena of online gaming. My main objection is that it has a tendency to get far too political for my tastes. Things get kind of "clicky" which could be a total result of the group i was playing with.

My sediments 'zactly :^)
I don't like it for those reasons either. Though the cliquish nature of the game is baked right in to the setting, to help foster conflict. The point of LARP is to drive the story through inter-character conflict, like a soap opera. In a game with a primarily external scenario focus, that kind of thing occurs in the margins adding spice or colour to the game, but it's generally a faux pas if it takes the spotlight AWAY from the external scenario, rather than adding to it.

"While PDQ is BEST known for Ninjaburger (a lighthearted theme) it is not by any rate the definition of the system, rather a worldbook that does a fine job of bringing people to their system. Check out Questors for more solid campaigning material. Additionally I compared your game to Hero and Gurps, but see no defense against those comparisons."

My apologies, although no defense is stated, because PORTAL is not terribly different from GURPS or Champions.

On my character not being able act as my character would due to system: Much of this would be related to the somewhat arbitrary nature of what can and cannot (and by cannot I do not mean forbidden, but rather, might as well not try, due to failure being all but inevitable) be done by given classes and races. And while 3.5 did fix many of these issues, they are still present. There are quite a few character types that cannot be portrayed within the rules, at least not without going outside them pretty seriously. There were other instances where it was an equal problem of GM and system, such as called shots with a pistol in D20 modern. If I'm a gunfighter and am aiming to shoot someone, I will be aiming at specific targets, and if I hit them in the head, most things are going to be dead from it. With the GM I was playing under, this was not necessarily the case, and i agree that this instance is bad GMing as much as anything.

The Good: Thank you for the compliments.

The Bad: Once I was done writing the system down and started playing it, I realized that there was indeed just as much math as in some of the other systems. The math in PORTAL i think, as you say, keeps things more open due to the skill structure. The process I was really referring to in specific was the transfer of numbers that is character generation for many of the systems i have played. (your defense is this number from the table plus this modifier plus armor, plus size, etc.) But indeed there is much math to be had, and I will be revising the intro (and likely moving it to an appendix) for future revisions to not be as you say, hypocritical. Point taken.

Examples are also at the top of my list for second edition. John has mentioned this in detail. And indeed, examples have not yet ruined the idealism elsewhere, and won't hurt it further.

The Ugly: Most games is inspired most heavily by D20, I will look to correct that issue, thank you for pointing that out.

Just to clarify: The 200 pages of RP on the net were mostly things that were between 20ish and 60ish pages. And the stuff that I found was not pirated, but rather information that was available for free, including GURPS Lite, Tri-Stat lite, and quite a few others i can't pull from memory at the moment.

I didn't invest in AMBER at the time because what little i found online, seemed to be a game that I wouldn't enjoy anyway. And indeed, now that I have played AMBER, it does leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Could you clarify your statement on Commandment #9? I think I see what you're getting at, but its a bit unclear.

The blank pages are at the end of sections, so the first page of the next section is on the right, as per almost all books. I have no art to put there as of right now, but plan to for the next edition. And i agree with you, too much art is a bad thing.

In order for any set of rules to be sufficiently clear, it will sound like a beginner's set of rules. And as I said earlier, i will be seriously revising the intro.

The Revolting: You are not alone in this view. I am not sure just how the book comes off as elitist, as it was not my intent in any way to make it so. I will be moving all of the manifesto and advice away from all of the rules, which i think will help. Any advice on how to clear up this problem would be greatly appreciated.

As far as being a roleplayer or a gamer, let me clear this up. I am a roleplayer a majority of the time, this is what i find to be most entertaining. This is NOT to say i am not a gamer ever, or that this is the only system i ever use. I have played many games of D20, GURPS, Whitewolf, FUDGE, FORGE, Window, HERO, Tri-Stat, and others; and I had lots of fun doing that as well. There is a time and a place for everything, even buckets of dice in exalted can be fun. The two are not mutually exclusive, although they do (just look at this forum discussion for example) tend to disagree with each other greatly. Indeed, I would say that the two are inextricably linked. It is difficult to game without roleplaying in the process, and likewise it is difficult to roleplay without gaming in the process.

Closing:
Thank you.
Thank you again.
Just because something is different, does not make it bad. And any advice on making future editions less pretentious would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again, John, you and I seem to be on the same page, at least for this discussion, which I appreciate a lot. actually, that default rule you mention is something that i was thinking about already, and will work with in playtesting in coming weeks.

I agree, PORTAL takes alot of work. But as you mention, there are those who prefer to make it all themselves (like myself) and there are those who prefer to have it all built for them (like you). This is not a problem in and of itself. And As I mentioned, I will be putting some setting on this structure soon.

Indeed things can get unbalanced, but the only way this can happen is if the storyteller is not working with the players to keep things balanced, which i mention the importance of in the line in question and later in the storytelling section. And as you say, it is not the system that makes PORTAL for more advanced players, but rather the openness of the structure that does, there is a lot of responsibility on the part of the group to keep things working.

I think i will wait till i get version 2 done before going bigger with this. It obviously needs editing to be less pretentious and elitist first.

Seems there is a rift here between 'gamers' and 'roleplayers' as I would define it. All due respect to everyone here and no offense intended. Gamers love the dice, the rules, the experience points, the numbers. The twists and turns don't matter so much as the cool weapons and experience. The roleplayers spend time creating the id and ego of a character, fleshing out an intricate backstory, and worry far more about what happens to their character as a person than gaining levels. I know these are over-generalizations and there is definitely a gray area between. Myself, I would consider myself a roleplayer, but I can appreciate the fun of gathering hordes of dice to role damage in Exalted. If you have a problem with the system, then what would you change? I find it fairly balanced, but not perfect, conceptually, at least. I agree that a system has to be played to truly be evaluated and plan to play-test Portal. Can't make many comments about the system until then.

I find it bold and exciting to create a new system, almost as exciting as playing a system. I create my own scenarios, often for existing systems, though usually creating a new magic system for the campaign. Why should I pay for somebody else's creativity when I have my own?

Some people play one game for years and love it. I'm not that kind. The longest game I've been in lasted 3 months. I find it more fun to play a game to completion, then play something else. World of Darkness for a few months, Exalted for a few, Portal, The Window, Nobilis, Silver Age Sentinels, maybe a couple I've made up.

Can't wait to see this system in action.

Seems there is a rift here between 'gamers' and 'roleplayers' as I would define it.

I guess it depends on how you define it. I don't actually see a rift.

I see a false dichotomy cooked up between two integral parts of the same activity, where some people might attempt to elevate their recreation into a sublime activity by pissing all over gaming. It's entirely possible and pleasureable to have both role playing and gaming in the same activity. In my experience, the more players attempt to dismiss the game aspect as being beneath them, to concentrate on their loftier goals, the more the activity devolves into arguments and apathy. The game is the skeleton on which the rest of it hangs - dismiss it at your own risk.

If we define roleplaying as "playing your character" and gaming as "playing the game" we run the risk of exactly the kind of conversation that's developed here. Some people don't like getting jam in their peanut butter while others don't like to get peanut butter in their jam. Unfortuneatly, when you're eating a PBJ, you don't have the option of complaining. You use either more or less of each, but that doesn't make it any less a PBJ. :)

Nefandus and I have argued over the fine points of how much of each to use in our sandwichs before, but at least we both agree that we love PBJs. He probably wouldn't eat mine, and vice versa, but we both make em and eat em whenever we can. LOL. He and I are actually good examples of what this topic is getting at...independant of system choice (we both use d20 and seem to like it) we have more or less "gaming" or whatever you want to call it inherent in the campaign. (remember our dispute over OOC knowledge Nef? I do...rather fondly in fact).

SO I suppose my question to the OP is this (and I'm not being smarmy...I'm honestly curious): are you trying to reinvent the PBJ, or is this a whole new sandwich? It seems like you were aiming for a whole new sandwich and ended up using peanut butter, bread, and jam....then called it The Manhattan JPB and thumbed your nose at those who wondered if they could get crunchy instead of smooth.

Good point, though I see it the opposite way, illustrating the rift.

Saying the game is the skeleton on which everything hangs (to me) is like saying proper grammar and spelling is the skeleton on which a novel hangs, though the story is the skeleton.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you are on the other side of the gaming coin from me. To me, roleplaying isn't exactly sublime, though I have had some sublime moments in roleplaying, and I cherish those. I don't see anything wrong with that. It would be intriguing to be in a game with you, Nef.

I know your comment was directed at Nef, but I'm that guy at the party that jumps into the conversation and then walks away after making an out of context comment. LOL.

In a story, I honestly believe that the grammar and spelling *is* the skeleton on which it all hangs. If I have a hard time reading it, or if punctuation misleads me, or if it just doesn't make sense, then the story itself falls flat. Likewise in roleplaying games. *Which* system doesn't matter much, but a concrete system *does* need to be there...or else why bother with a system at all? We could just tell the GM about our successes, choose the most fashionable failures, and go home. We could do this via email, we wouldn't even need to show up. Collaborative fiction and creative anachronism are really great things...but they aren't roleplaying games. And if the goal is to remove the game from the equation...then why write a rules system?

That's exatly why I went back to dice-based systems after using a diceless system for a little while. It was less like a roleplaying game and more like me and the players telling a cool story; and that isn't why we get together each week.

I guess to sum up what I see as one side of this discussion; "games need rules, the rules need to work well, and if you aren't going to play a game you don't need rules for talking about fictional characters actions." That's called storytelling and is best done by one person over a group lest someone get left out or end the chapter in a way that makes the others cranky. LOL.

Why are we talking about two sides? Having a tight game mechanic does not diminish the role-playing possibilites. A loose game mechanic does eliminate the ability to model actions without being arbitrary.

Where is the advantage of the loose mechanic? Speed? Simplicity? Playability? Why not make a tight mechanic that is fast, simple, and playable?

What you focus on is just that, focus. Let's make our PBJ with good peanut butter, fresh bread, and tasty jam. If you have a great system here Enigmatic then you have tasty jam - focused on the Role-play potential.

I know what you are going through. There is nothing that sucks more than staying up late at night to codify the "bandaging skill." You get sick of skills long before you get into the B's. Skills are an example of how the system is going to work. The RPG that I developped is modular -- you can replace the any skill with one of your own design without changing the game.

A rule system is like a car. You don't know anything about it until you take it for a drive and find out where it can take you.

Here is my gamers mandate -

www.epicfantasy.net/Mandate.html

I love the mandate, you and i have much the same ideals, but you have codified them in a much more effective and mature fashion, I applaud you. I would be interested in the details of your system, though i cannot find it available anywhere on your site at the moment.

I have also seen aspects of the discussion that brings in ideas about the limits that settings invariably have on systems, as they are linked. Keep in mind that this is just a mechanic, and as such it does not have any specifics save for the sake of example, in order to keep it open and adaptable. When sourcebooks impose a setting on these rules, or some further developed version of them, you will see much more specifics and limits and therefore what many of you are calling tighter mechanic. A system without a setting is loose, even D20 apart from ANY setting at all is very loose in its mechanic.

"In this case though, I just don't think PORTAL even comes close to doing what it aspires to do."

How about playtesting it and finding out for yourself if it does what it aspires to?

"it comes off as a condescending attack on gamesmanship being a lesser aspiration"

Something I have repeatedly asked for assistance in remedying, and you have yet to give any constructive advice on. Just attacks about the tone. Either let me know what i can do to fix it or move past it and look at the system that is there and critique it.

"don't mean to sound so ascerbic, but when I read the post again, I'm just smacked with so much attitude in there that I don't feel compelled to varnish my criticism in sugar to spare the ego."

I dont need sugar coating, but more productive criticism and less grandstanding and dissent would be appreaciated.

Could you clarify your statement on Commandment #9? I think I see what you're getting at, but its a bit unclear.

Apologies. I meant #8, demanding descriptors rather than numbers. Fudge, PDQ and the nearly forgotten TSR Marvel Superheroes use descriptors. Portal uses nothing except numbers.

I am not sure just how the book comes off as elitist...Any advice on how to clear up this problem would be greatly appreciated.

Remove the manifesto, or at least great heaps of it.
Remove references to how other games do things. It makes a statement of "Use this product because the competition sucks in this way." Tell me why PORTAL is good, not why anything/everything else is bad.

Just to clarify: The 200 pages of RP on the net were mostly things that were between 20ish and 60ish pages.

Even at 20 pages each, thats 10 items. hardly an exhaustive search.

Thanks for the comment. I am running a second beta test cycle before it will be ready for prime time -- which is why the "buy" button doesn't work (along with a couple of other "coming soon" pages -- like the source material database). I just figured out how to put up a forum this past weekend, but haven't gotten around to emailing the playtesters to tell them that it exists.

I found that without source material people feel lost with a system. So somewhere between my day job, evening business, and wedding preparations I have been trying to plug the holes.

I really like how clean your manual is with a simple layout. Good luck with it, I'll be sure to keep an eye on it.

You hit it on the head, i see a lot of people, even in this discussion, who seem to be lost without some setting to hang on the mechanic. And though i have plans for source material, it will be a while before any of it is done.

thank you for the clarification. you make a good point, though #9 is somewhat idealist as well. I will be revising massively.

I will be removing massive sections of and rewriting and retitling the manifesto, as well as separating all of the roleplaying philosophy and advice from the rules that i outline into a late section of the book. The internet research statement will be removed.;-)

I actually prefer rules that don't have any kind of setting, even an implied setting. Using d20 Modern as an example of this (despite the fact that the name itself implies a setting, or at least a time period) one can find that a tight mechanic doesn't need to rely on setting at all. Sure, you could cite the exsistence of d20 Future, d20 Past, etc. as proof that setting specific rules help someone understand the system and how to use it better, but I myself don't agree. I was using d20 Modern rules to run period campaigns (even a fantasy campaign or two) before any of those books came out and I don't find that the system or it's mechanical aspects have been tightened or improved by the publishing of those products.

Hmmm...a thought for you enigmagic. Have you perused the D6 system at all? They recently released D6 Action, D6 Space, and D6 Fantasy. Rather try to do everything with one rules system, or have one core system with add ons that are period or setting specific, they released three seperate books for three seperate genres of roleplaying so that players and GMs could choose what they would use and leave the rest. The system is the same in all three, and the fluff is built right in. That may be something to consider to stave off the "oh great, now I need these add-on products to use this effectivley" and the "this book contains tons of stuff I'll never use" problems that sometimes crop up with products as ambitious as yours.

Going back to the impetus for the original article and game, I think the focus on "systems" here is a march down the wrong road.

If someone wants to publish a game item that provides more fodder for role playing (outside of matters of GM execution), then the bulk of the benefit will come through the setting - not the game mechanics.

And rather than going all loosey-goosey with the setting and character generation - a kind of "be anything you want to be" vibe, you need to corral the choices into camps that might follow a common goal, but that will have conflicting views with each other. For my money, the Whitewolf Storyteller series has that part down pat - it's an embarassment of riches, with its allies and factions, viewpoints and secrets.

The restrictions, templates, philosophies etc are laid out to ensure that the players are in the same sandbox - that they have something to talk about, to agree with or disagree. You don't want to get into a situation where players have developed characters in isolation and they are totally irrelevant to each other or the plot at hand.

Granted, you could all sit down together and develop character and story concepts from scratch in a big jam session to make sure they fit, but that's not really a system or setting is it? I woudn't pay $5 for a book that just gives *advice*. I want a sense that I'm buying something, a sense that I can be reasonably assured that I can use it to put something together by myself and/or with the GM and have something relevant to the task at hand, that would fit with the rest of the group. For that, you need to put a fence on the playground and define what's what.

Nef, that kind of speaks to what I've been thinking all along as I've read this thread and finally commented in it. It seems to me (and this is just one persons observation, not a judgement) that the problems that PORTAL seeks to solve aren't actually things that a rules system or setting sourcebook *can* solve. They're things that the group has to solve for themselves, independant of what rules or setting they are using for their shared fantasy. The GM has to establish what is and is not allowed (rules, setting, background, etc.) and the players have to have constructive input on the process.

If it's an open feel rules system like PORTAL, where anything is possible for any type of campaign, then the onus is on the GM to establish with his players what type of campaign it will be and set guidelines for what type of charaters would fit best. Perhaps a chapter on just that topic would sit in the product better than a manifesto on different types of roleplaying. Coming from predominantly a marketing and sales background in my professional life I can honestly say that you have to know your market. I would guess that the people that would purchase PORTAL already are looking for a product of that nature and could potentially benefit far more from some advice on how to use it better than a chapter on why it's good. If they bought it, then they don't need to read about why they should buy it and why it's good. They already did because they already do. And they likely already agree with much of what you're saying in the manifesto, so you don't need to move it or pare it down...you might consider removing it all together and replacing it with something else that your end user will get use out of rather than something they can agree with over a coffee while they struggle with ideas on how to implement the rules system they have been seeking all these years and finally found...but where to start?

Maybe a section of examples showing how the rules could be used to establish the fence around the sand box that Nefandus is talking about for some of the more common campaign themes and genres that the system may be used for by the end user of the product. Perhaps something similar to the section on Campaign Models in the d20 Modern sourcebook. I know you don't seem to like d20 much, and seek to fix alot of the things that you see as broken or restricting about it, but you have to admit that they are obviously doing something right and learn from their successes while ignoring the things you view as failures.

All analogies about PBJs and sand boxes aside...my advice is to sell directly to your target consumer rather than try to make a product that does everything for every type of gamer. Nefandus likely won't buy your book due to the type of gamer he is. A chapter full of advice wouldn't entice him to buy, but I don't think he's the gamer you wrote this product for anyways so that's okay. I likely won't buy your book either, but for completely different reasons. For me, it's just because I've found an elegant simplicity to the d20 rules that many people cock an eyebrow at me for (d20? simple? wtf mate?), but it is what it is, yeah? I don't need to shop for new shoes because mine are perfect as they are.

Narrow the focus so that PORTAL does one thing really really well and your niche market will build itself. And if that one thing you're trying to do really well is give advice on how to run with a "rules-lite" system that is focused on character over game elements, then you need to accept the fact that only a sliver of the market are going to buy. But at least it'll be *your* sliver :)

Actually Scott, I'm pleased to say that the reasons we wouldn't buy the book are identical. I also admire the streamlining and simplicity of D20. What I've always said - and it's hard for a lot of people to understand, is that it's simplicity allows me to spend my energy on the margins, developing the "art" of the game, fleshing out encounters with drama, viewpoints, acting etc. there's just less time fighting about how to play, and more time playing.

I also have a marketing/PR background, and my analysis of the audience is this - people who aspire to greater feats of role-playing (as opposed to just gaming), will only buy something that appeals to their imagination. They won't buy a rules system - they'll buy the setting, the environment, an imaginative concept first. People like that will even forgive a crappy rules system if the concept resonates for them. Now, that's not to say that you shouldn't try to have a good system and a good concept, but as far as it goes with RP purists who might have money to spend - they aren't going to care about the system.

Look at the rise of Vampire, which did the impossible and brought a whole new group to gaming - two actually: women and the Goth/EMO crowd. It wasn't because of its D10 system. Whitewolf's product was generally poorly made and subject to rapid re-editing. Some products were so out there they were nearly impossible - anyone try Wraith, the Unplayable? But they appealed to the imagination, providing a world that people wanted to taste.

*shudders*...an ex-girlfriend bought me a copy of Wraith back in the day. That's not the reason she became an ex, but in retrospect it should have been my first warning sign. I still keep it as a reminder that not everyone that says they know you well really does...but I store it on a completely different bookshelf from the real gaming material.

Back to the subject at hand though...I think your analysis of the market is pretty accurate. Given that, wouldn't PORTAL actually appeal more to the people that are rules-heavy number crunchers due to it's lack of substance in a setting or flavor department? I'm sure that this wasn't the intention of it's author, in fact it seems to be the opposite of what he intended in the first place.

Does he still read this, or have the two of us d20 apologists set too harsh a tone?

Unfortunately, I'm saying PORTAL doesn't have a market. It's not rules-heavy, to the point of omission, so the subjectivity bar goes into the redline. Most rules heavy or rules-just-right people could approximate the same effect by simply omitting skills, or applying house rules to an existing system with less trouble than learning new. It's not really a new way of playing.

By the same token, its lack of a concept prevents it from appealing to the RP purists of a lot of Whitewolf ilk, who aren't really interested in systems.

Am I a d20 apologist? Maybe, though I really liked Earthdawn for some reason when I played it. I'm not much of a loyal consumer in these things. I'm not a "joiner".

Well, PORTAL has at least one good thing going for it.

It brought all the Gamegrene old guard out of the woodwork!

(Shame there's no sign of Cocytus, though)

Yeah, where is everybody these days?
:)

I do still read this, I just haven't had time to comment. somehow, knowing you guys are from a marketing background puts your comments in a much clearer light :-) I appreciate your thoughts on the market of PORTAL, and you are not the first to mention this to me. When it comes down to it, i made PORTAL because I "had" to (much as a painter paints because he has to), because it was a passion of mine, not because I wanted it to make me lots of money. So if it has no market, so be it. I will put it together with my setting over the next few months (or years) and maybe I'll see how it flies then.

Thank you for all the input, I have much to go on in my revision process, which i started yesterday.

I don't think your the strict definition of an "apologist". That's just a funny phrase I like to throw around...I've been accused of it by a few GURPS players out there. LOL. I get a kick out of it as an apology presupposes that there's anything to apologize for in the first place, :)

And enigmagic, you're more than welcome. I enjoyed reading PORTAL as much as any other new rulebook, and in fact I agree with alot of the things in your manifesto...just from a different point of view. I'd like to hear sometime about some of the d20 campaigns you were in that brought on this apparent resentment against the system. So that I can apologize for it. LOL.

I don't know, Nef, maybe there is no real "market" per se. But I think with a short list of sample skills and abilities, and just a little more combat and armore detail, it might have a little niche as a Grognard game.

Like Classic Traveller, or OD&D (but with rules that hang together better). You know more of a RPG kit, with enough rules to get you started and let the play be the thing. Just enough rules to build your game on - it would definitely fit in three little black books, or one 48 pg saddle stapled B&W book for that old-school game kit feel. I know I had no trouble thinking of rules applications that would strike me as fun, (though I suffer from too much gamimg lazyness to flesh out a whole set of skills and abilities and document the effects of combat, hence my recommendation that they be added).

While I don't think it will displace WoTC or WW or SJG in the industry, Enigmagic seems to have enjoyed creating PORTAL, his group (one hopes) enjoys playing it, and a few of us got to enjoiy reading it. All in all, a pretty good result for a hobby passtime.

LOL indeed. Mayhaps i will write an article that heads that direction... My D20 Disillusionment. Hmmm...

I suppose i am somewhat of a Grognard myself, although in a left field kind of area. Also, the printed version of PORTAL is already coil bound, for ease of use, and as you say lends itself to that Game Kit kind of feel. I will keep that in mind in the future.

I don't intend to displace any of the biggies, indeed it isn't really possible, but yes, i had fun creating it, and my group has fun playing it, and im glad that you enjoyed reading it.

keep an eye out for version 2 ...

"How about playtesting it and finding out for yourself if it does what it aspires to?"

Do I really need to taste a chicken to discern that it is not strawberry jam? As a reasonably good cook, I can tell by looking at the ingredients, roughly, what the end product will be because I'm familiar with how each of those ingredients and techniques tastes already. It ain't about the tone. I'm not sure how I could make it more plain to anyone though. What's there is a system of rules and numbers, similar to many. While I can tell you that doesn't translate into better role-playing, I can't solve your problem and tell you what to do to fix it. That's your job?

I've sprinkled loads of fertile opportunities to exploit, amid my criticism. Essentially though, that's not even my problem because I don't really perceive the problem you see. I don't see a dearth of Role-Playing in RP games.

I would advise that, before you take another step - you examine the rules for LARP, Amber, and the entire White Wolf line - especially Mage and Wraith the Unplayable, and see if there is a gap in there for you to fill. Mage, I think is a good one especially because it straddles the gap between meta-plot and narrative. Their powers deal with bending the fabric of reality, including what happens next. Their powers aren't defined specifically, just corralled by sphere and intensity.

The idea of seperating the manifesto from the rules is good. Also, since this is a system you want to build - you need to ensure that the carrots and sticks that help shape the play are inherant in the system. That means balance between players, and between players and GM, must be an inherant part of the system. You can't sweep that under the rug by asking players not to abuse the flaws by taking too much. I know - you don't view having these things undefined as being a flaw - but what exactly am I buying then, if not permission to leave something undefined??? To put it in other words, if I'm playing a D20 game and I find Feats restrictive, I don't need to buy Portal to tell me how to ignore the Feats in my D20 and customize my existing game, for free, without having to learn anything else. You can't sell the absence of a rule and call it a system. So, what that means is, if you are going to sell a system, you need to have one, and you can't promote the absence of mechanics as a tangible benefit.

On Combat: To me there needs to be a balance between a totally generic "hit point" system, and a totally realistic system of injuries.

Check Ryan Dancey's blog, where he posts a D20 variant on combat and damage because he's frustrated with the same thing you are. Dancey was intimately involved in the whole D20 movement.

Yeah, the Grognard angle might work here, if the joy is in making systems. I just keep trying to bring it back to the manifesto though, so it satisfies the stated need. But maybe it's the manifesto that's wrong ??? Maybe that's not a true articulation of Enigmagic's zeal here?

What do you think Enigmagic? You've now seen a few arguments that essentially tell you why some people think a rules-lite system does NOT necessarily lead to better role-playing, as opposed to gaming, and that goes right to the foundation. You've also heard a few points about what DOES work in enhancing the RP experience, largely irrespective of the system used. Do those arguments hold water?

Is this really about enhancing the role-playing experience and expanding the RP opportunities? Could it be something as simple (and complex) as the desire to create a system, irrespective of RP?

having read the rules a little, I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

I think part of the joy IS in making the system.

At least the skill and ability sub-systems.

I got the impression (from the solution) that insufficiently flexible skill/ability systems and mechanics were the issue that drove Enigmagic to narrative games, and that this system is GAMEY-er than a narrative game, but as my fireboy example demonstrates, remarkably flexible and expandable in terms of skills and abilities - but also containing a clearly rollable mechanic.

I am sure Enimagic will correct me if I am wrong, but I bet he and his group kept trying to make a wall of fire, BEFORE they had the specific training, and it never worked. Or maybe his swashbukler wanted to swing from a chandelier and could not. Often because the rules mechanics did not let it, only GM over-ruling would allow it. Of course GM ruling worked like a charm in a narrative system, but there was no mechanic and no rolling to support it, and the gamey half of the group hates that sort of gaming.

So he built a system to allow a mechanic to try all sorts of stuff, including potentially develop a new skill In PLAY, rather than after the session (see fireboy example). I think that inability to mechanically set a target for trying new stuff (that the character wanted to try) was the impetus for the rules. That and a desire for more descriptive combat, and a combat system where descriptions (actions and reactions in PORTAL-speak) matter. So the SYSTEM supports very descriptive combat (though still clearly defined mechanical resolution systems) and flexible skill/ability mechanics.

Assuming I understand the impetus behind the manifesto, the game mechanics really do support it quite well, even if the language it contains is somewhat unclear. Unfortunately the manifesto uses RP vs Game language, but what it is all about (IMO) is really a mechanical ruleset that allows for almost unlimited choice in PC actions and a descriptive combat, which also allows for lots of choices for the PC.

So great PC freedom of action, in and out of combat, within a gameable mechanic. I think that is how the manifesto and the rules are supposed to hang together.

It is not supposed to fix ham handed GMing, it is supposed to fix system limitations that constrain PC actions in ways his group does not want them constrained.

This raised a question in my mind...who here has had a character *try* to do something only to have the GM say you can't? Just as in real life, most rules systems I've read (including d20) don't disallow untrained action, they just limit your chance of success. Which is as it should be. (I'm referring to the example of a swashbuckler trying to swing on a chandelier and the GM overuling it) I can try to build a stairase and pass the roll easily, but if I tried to operate on someones heart I would fail miserably.

But, my GM wouldn't tell me I wasn't allowed to try.

Is this a common thing? And doesn't having rules that supercede a ham-fisted GM just put make up on the dog?

Hello.

Enjoyed reading about your PORTAL and some (must confess did not read ALL) of the comments others left.
I do believe, however, that D&D caters for, without further alterations, what you term "gamers" and "roleplayers" alike - provided you have a good GM and mature players. Now there's the rub....
:o)