[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...

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.

Well put LG.

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

Yeah, where is everybody these days?
:)

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.

"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.

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?

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?