I have this piece of paper in my desk with three game design axioms written on it. I can't remember where I copied this from. Google search leads me to BX Blackrazor for the first one, and that's no surprise. But I can't find where I got the other two from. I assumed they were also from JB, but I haven't found them on his blog anywhere. I've had them in mind as I'm working on both Flying Swordsmen 2E (expect delays) and OSR Modern (play testing starts tomorrow).
Here they are:
Axiom #1: Good game design only incorporates rules integral to game play.
Axiom #2: Good game design requires rules that set clear objectives for players.
Axiom #3: Good game design rewards behavior meeting the objectives of play.
Trying to track these other two down gets me things in groups of three like: Laws of Function/Immersion/Balance, Goals/Rules/Voluntary engagement, Mechanics/Gameplay/Experience.
I also find a lot of the game theory stuff that I was reading a few years back, like Juul, Crawford, Salen & Zimmerman, etc. But I can't find where I got these other two axioms.
Regardless of where they came from, I'm trying to design OSR Modern with these principles in front of me.
What is the bare minimum of rules systems needed for this game? (Axiom #1) Some that I have more or less worked out and will be testing include: combat, NPC interactions, chases, shopping for gear, crafting/creating/upgrading items, dealing with security devices.
Some that I have been working on but haven't completed include: investigation, computer hacking, vehicle stunts/combat, being wanted by the law.
I think that may even be too much, but for now I've got simple systems for the above list and concepts for the below list.
But do these set clear objectives for play? (Axiom #2) That's something I'll start investigating tomorrow. It will depend on the PCs the players create, and which systems we test out that they react well to. In addition to gaining levels for the better combat/ability boosts, each level gained comes with an opportunity to improve the abstract wealth level, so that may be enough to encourage adventuring play. We'll see.
What I envision as objectives of play: action movie stuff (rescue hostages, get revenge, infiltrate and exfiltrate strongholds, car chases, bombs, etc), detective/spy stuff (gather information, work sources, search crime scenes for clues/leads, etc.), and car/chase stuff (competitive driving, vehicle combat, running from the fuzz, etc.).
Maybe I'll end up focusing it just on the action movie stuff in the end, as that's probably the biggest inspiration. The detective/spy stuff and the car stuff also seem like they would be fun for play. However, that may muddle the game objectives.
Are the various actions listed above rewarded in game play? (Axiom #3) Well, combat, chases, and NPC interactions, and security devices can award XP based on the opposition overcome (I have a bunch of stock NPC types, animal opponents, and locks/security systems with XP values). But for chases, at least vehicle chases, I'm not sure if just using the opposing driver's XP value is good enough reward.
A few actions, like creating or upgrading gear, provide their own in-game reward, but I may find a way to award XP for that sort of thing as well. Shopping provides its award with whatever gear has been purchased. I don't see the need to award XP for shopping.
Computer hacking and gathering clues/leads both need a system of how they work developed (I have sketchy rules for both), and what sorts of awards (XP or in-game) they will provide.
Being wanted should provide additional challenge (higher chances to be noticed, hassled by law enforcement, or even actively hunted down). I have the levels set, but I'm still sketchy on how they impact character actions and how to model raising or lowering them. I think these will definitely motivate play (axiom #2) but pretty much the reward would be limited to lowering your "heat".
I have a placeholder "challenge" award system in the book to cover the areas that don't yet have their own set XP reward mechanics done, but it's vague and wishy-washy and really too mother-may-I for my tastes. It's a stopgap for play testing, and I hope to get more concrete rewards for each element of game play from these test sessions.
Maybe I'll find out I don't need all of these systems, and I can simplify my games. Maybe my players will want more. We'll see. I'm looking forward to the test tomorrow to see how it goes.


No comments:
Post a Comment