Dec 9, 2014 5:36 pm
Ilvaria is an RPG system I have been hacking together because of my game here on Gamer's Plane. It seems appropriate to share the design process and results with everyone here. The game itself is a mash up of two of my favourite systems: Wushu and Mouse Guard (which is based on Burning Wheel), with significant modifications (the core mechanic is from Wushu, and a lot of the sub-mechanics are inspired by Mouse Guard - but most of the system is my own).
In this first post I'm going to lay out the design goals, in future posts I'll discuss how the system has come together in light of those goals. Feel free to comment on and/or discuss as I go!
Entry 1: Design Goals
When you sit down to design something it is valuable to start with your goals. Then, as you develop the system (or whatever it is you are designing) you have something to aim at which will direct your efforts. This often starts with an answer to the ultimate why question: why design this?
Ilvaria was developed out of a desire to have a robust, narrative driven system that was suitable for play by forum games. I was getting frustrated with Savage Worlds in the context of the play by post game because every time the mechanics of the system showed up the roleplaying and narrative slowed to a halt while we dealt with the dice. Then, the system got out of the way and we got back to rich narrative development. So why design a new system? Because I wanted a system that didn't feel like it was getting in the way, but instead a system that provided a genuine scaffold for the narrative and story. My first step was to go over a bunch of RPG systems and evaluate whether the mechanics supported, or got in the way of, the narrative and to figure out what made them succeed and fail in this regard. This led me to my design goals:
1. Narrative Driven Gameplay
The primary aim of Ilvaria is to provide a system where everything drives the narrative forward, and the narrative is the focus of attention. All of the core mechanics are fueled by the narrative, or put (some) constraints on the narrative (but, mechanics never determine the narrative - there's always room for creativity). The mechanics are a scaffold for narrative and story telling, and so the narrative and story telling must always be at center stage. Furthermore, nothing can stop the narrative. Failure, in Ilvaria, is just success with a consequence.
2. Flexibility
I am aiming for a couple of different degrees of flexibility, all of which are achieved through treating the conflict resolution mechanics as 'ingredients' that get mixed together by the GM to create a particular obstacle or conflict. What flexibility does this provide? Well, first the system is minimal. I am aiming for the smallest set of mechanics to cover the broadest range of circumstances one could encounter in an RPG. I do not want a chase mechanic, a combat mechanic, a social mechanic, a hacking mechanic, a crafting mechanic, spell casting mechanics etc. Instead, I want as much as possible to be covered by each individual mechanic - the conflict resolution system should generalize (to all forms of conflict and obstacles - from combat to investigation).
The second kind of flexibility is for the GM. I believe that the best possible mechanics for a given conflict or scenario are those which bear a strong analogy to the scenario they are intended to represent (RPGs tend to do a great job with combat mechanics in this regard). By designing the system so that encounters are made from a set of ingredients picked by the GM, the GM is able to design an encounter that bears an analogy to what the encounter is supposed to represent. So, while investigation and combat encounters are both built on the same core mechanics, the actual parts the GM includes will help make the investigation feel like an investigation (because the danger is passive, and Plot Twists are built into the encounter) and the combat feel like combat (by using Active Threats).
3. Tough Decisions
I design board games with my free time, and a good board game faces players with tough decisions. I want to implement that in my RPG system as well, because I find making tough decisions fun. For Ilvaria, since the focus is on narrative, the decisions should that are tough should result in interesting narrative developments. To achieve this, the character advancement system forces players to make a tough decision: optimal play vs. character advancement. Players are forced to make sub-optimal decisions (mechanically speaking) in order to advance the character. For example, learning a new skill requires making an Unskilled check - which is at a lower success rate than using an existing skill. But, character tier is determined by the rating of the character's skills and skills have a max rating of 5. So, if you want to advance in tier, then you need to learn new skills. Learning new skills requires you to make an Unskilled roll (which is less likely to succeed than a skilled roll). This means that characters are always trying new things, developing new talents and facing challenges in new ways. The theme is repeated throughout the whole system: "gaming the system" tends to result in interesting narrative (which ties back to the first goal).
In this first post I'm going to lay out the design goals, in future posts I'll discuss how the system has come together in light of those goals. Feel free to comment on and/or discuss as I go!
Entry 1: Design Goals
When you sit down to design something it is valuable to start with your goals. Then, as you develop the system (or whatever it is you are designing) you have something to aim at which will direct your efforts. This often starts with an answer to the ultimate why question: why design this?
Ilvaria was developed out of a desire to have a robust, narrative driven system that was suitable for play by forum games. I was getting frustrated with Savage Worlds in the context of the play by post game because every time the mechanics of the system showed up the roleplaying and narrative slowed to a halt while we dealt with the dice. Then, the system got out of the way and we got back to rich narrative development. So why design a new system? Because I wanted a system that didn't feel like it was getting in the way, but instead a system that provided a genuine scaffold for the narrative and story. My first step was to go over a bunch of RPG systems and evaluate whether the mechanics supported, or got in the way of, the narrative and to figure out what made them succeed and fail in this regard. This led me to my design goals:
1. Narrative Driven Gameplay
The primary aim of Ilvaria is to provide a system where everything drives the narrative forward, and the narrative is the focus of attention. All of the core mechanics are fueled by the narrative, or put (some) constraints on the narrative (but, mechanics never determine the narrative - there's always room for creativity). The mechanics are a scaffold for narrative and story telling, and so the narrative and story telling must always be at center stage. Furthermore, nothing can stop the narrative. Failure, in Ilvaria, is just success with a consequence.
2. Flexibility
I am aiming for a couple of different degrees of flexibility, all of which are achieved through treating the conflict resolution mechanics as 'ingredients' that get mixed together by the GM to create a particular obstacle or conflict. What flexibility does this provide? Well, first the system is minimal. I am aiming for the smallest set of mechanics to cover the broadest range of circumstances one could encounter in an RPG. I do not want a chase mechanic, a combat mechanic, a social mechanic, a hacking mechanic, a crafting mechanic, spell casting mechanics etc. Instead, I want as much as possible to be covered by each individual mechanic - the conflict resolution system should generalize (to all forms of conflict and obstacles - from combat to investigation).
The second kind of flexibility is for the GM. I believe that the best possible mechanics for a given conflict or scenario are those which bear a strong analogy to the scenario they are intended to represent (RPGs tend to do a great job with combat mechanics in this regard). By designing the system so that encounters are made from a set of ingredients picked by the GM, the GM is able to design an encounter that bears an analogy to what the encounter is supposed to represent. So, while investigation and combat encounters are both built on the same core mechanics, the actual parts the GM includes will help make the investigation feel like an investigation (because the danger is passive, and Plot Twists are built into the encounter) and the combat feel like combat (by using Active Threats).
3. Tough Decisions
I design board games with my free time, and a good board game faces players with tough decisions. I want to implement that in my RPG system as well, because I find making tough decisions fun. For Ilvaria, since the focus is on narrative, the decisions should that are tough should result in interesting narrative developments. To achieve this, the character advancement system forces players to make a tough decision: optimal play vs. character advancement. Players are forced to make sub-optimal decisions (mechanically speaking) in order to advance the character. For example, learning a new skill requires making an Unskilled check - which is at a lower success rate than using an existing skill. But, character tier is determined by the rating of the character's skills and skills have a max rating of 5. So, if you want to advance in tier, then you need to learn new skills. Learning new skills requires you to make an Unskilled roll (which is less likely to succeed than a skilled roll). This means that characters are always trying new things, developing new talents and facing challenges in new ways. The theme is repeated throughout the whole system: "gaming the system" tends to result in interesting narrative (which ties back to the first goal).