Outlaws of the Water Margin

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

That said, I'm sad for the Ease Factor going away (though I have mentally renamed it to TN because it's easier for me to remember it that way, and it seemed my players agreed). I liked it that you can reward solutions that are more likely to work with improved Ease, and that when you combine them with skill, it can make success automatic.

Looks like the Ease factor is not going away, since I probably won't be introducing much from the revised version save my explanations of how to play, which are a sort of halfway house between the average blah of the original, and the punk manifestos I published in imazine. I'll kind of miss the 'edge' mechanic (where the character with higher skill can optionally add the difference in scores to the degree of success), but it hasn't been properly tested, so unless Dave picks up on it, that one will go.

 

[AsenRG]

Looks like the Ease factor is not going away, since I probably won't be introducing much from the revised version save my explanations of how to play, which are a sort of halfway house between the average blah of the original, and the punk manifestos I published in imazine. I'll kind of miss the 'edge' mechanic (where the character with higher skill can optionally add the difference in scores to the degree of success), but it hasn't been properly tested, so unless Dave picks up on it, that one will go.

Eh, before you discount anything, let me tell you a story...
I was on a big forum, probably TBP, and reading through a thread that was something like "games you can't believe anyone has played". And then someone posted about a game named ZERO or something like it. Those details are simply unimportant and I only quote them for background.

So, as the author said, roughly:
"I wrote it as a joke and mostly forgot about it. That was fine until I received an e-mail from someone from Japan who told me that he and his group had played a campaign with it and were now considering a follow-up campaign. But before they started, he wanted to ask me whether we've got any plans for a second edition". He was presumably asking so they wouldn't have to switch it mid-campaign.

Now, as you can guess, the game written "as a joke" wasn't playtested. It wasn't even meant to be played.
But it "spoke" to somebody, and a whole group enjoyed it for years.

So, don't be too hard on your game, even if it wasn't playtested as thouroghly as you'd like to. If you have notes you can publish, do so!
And the people would be able to pick what they like from both. I can assure you, whatever you write, I would probably be adding some houserules from other systems, so it's not like you're responsible for any system issues I might experience. I just like to tinker!

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

I just like to tinker!

Yeah, and that's the issue here. The original game was 'playtested' (quotes because what I mean is, used in a real game) for ages. But I'm never satisfied with any set of game rules (possibly because I rarely use them as written anyway). It's not that I'm hard on the game, it's just that the very same impulses that made me write it in the first place continue to suggest changes.

If I can give other analogies: I'm in a couple of bands here, with one of them being an upbeat covers band. There's only two of us (Japanese live houses are tiny!) and I make backing tracks. But I'm constantly tinkering with them. Only a couple of weeks ago I discovered that the 'oo' sounds in Jesus Jones's Real Real Real were sampled from Back to Reality, by Real II Real. So I got Back To Reality, sampled the 'oos' and made my backing track that much closer to the original (still don't know what the wheezing, roaring organ-like sample is, though). Back in the days when I contributed to Lee Gold's venerable APA Alarums & Excursions, my zine had a different layout for every contribution, just because I liked playing with layouts, and experimenting with various styles from the history of graphic design. It's the same with game rules. In the immortal words of Vic Reeves: 'You wouldn't let it lie!'

But now I'm hoping that I can use the fact that I don't play any more to tame those impulses.

That person in Japan wasn't me, by the way!

 

[Silverlion]

We'd be willing to playtest, though it wouldn't be blind.

 

[TristramEvans]

Well, obviously I'm advocating simply finishing what you have from the near-complete earlier version and getting that released.

But there's no reason it needs to be an ending, If the itch still exists there's no reason not to then continue working on it at your liesure, for a 2nd edition or supplemental rulebook. If you then never complete it or lose interest, no big deal, Outlaws is still out there published in some form and can stand alone, but wether it's your final say on the system is up to you.

 

[AsenRG]

Well, obviously I'm advocating simply finishing what you have from the near-complete earlier version and getting that released.

But there's no reason it needs to be an ending, If the itch still exists there's no reason not to then continue working on it at your liesure, for a 2nd edition or supplemental rulebook. If you then never complete it or lose interest, no big deal, Outlaws is still out there published in some form and can stand alone, but wether it's your final say on the system is up to you.

Sounds good to me!

 

[Silverlion]

It makes sense to me as well.

 

[Voros]

They are pretty weird, though. I like those Shaw Brothers movies, but they sent me up so many dead ends in doing research!

The funny thing about the Shaw Bros. films is how little background is explained and how they just cover parts of the overall story, they clearly assumed (rightly no doubt) that their Chinese audience would be familiar with the characters and the overall arc of the story.

 

[TristramEvans]

OK, I've finished going through the pdf copy I have and these are the notes that I took:

So, from what I can tell, the first half of the document, up to the section on Magic is complete (barring some possible typos that I might not have caught)

In the magic section, I noticed only one part that might be worth a look:

“One type of item that does appear in the Water Margin is the talisman. Dai Zong, for example, knows
the secret of the Travel Magic Talisman, and as a result is able to travel at prodigious speed. Cloud
Script talismans can take various forms, and therefore resemble ‘magic items’. Binding spirits in items may also render them capable of magical effects.

That’s why there is no list of magic items in this edition of Outlaws of the Water Margin.”

The final sentence doesn’t seem to flow sensibly from the previous paragraph, and doesn’t gel with the previous section which describes Talismans.

That’s on Page 127; after this, the page #s change

The next chapter, “Games”, seems complete, though it trails off after the section on Motivation – perhaps could used a “Final Word” or as a place to import any advanced rule options or ideas you’d want to incorporate from your experience running the game or the later iteration of the rules.

The Beliefs chapter seems largely complete, except for the following elements:

on page 6 there is a list of Gods that look like they were waiting for descriptions

and on page 12, there is a list of rituals, where some have descriptions, others do not.

On Page 13, under the section Timeline, it looks like there was a note left for yourself

“CORRECT THESE DATES: GAO QIU INSTALLED IN 1101!”

The Society chapter appears to be complete for the most part as well, except that on the page marked 171, the sections on Outlaw Bands and Secret Societies are unfinished

The China Chapter seems to be the one that needs the most work.

The Geography section (page labeled 171) seems to lack an introduction or initial section before jumping straight into the sub-section travel.

Perhaps a map of China during the time period is in order?

The Page labeled 172 is a mix of unfinished sections

In the final chapter, Extras, on the Page labeled 185, the Countrymen and Aristocrats sections are unfinished, just as numerous of the Outlaw write-ups on the pages labeled 189-190

Then it’s just the last two pages, with Other Heroes, Villains, and Creatures. I know that you mentioned not taking any pleasure in statting up characters, in which case you might simply eject these sections, though it would seem somewhat of an omission to not at least have samples of several of the Outlaws, and more common animals.

ICould this Extras section maybe be ported to the Games chapter?

Then just an Index is needed, the page numbers fixed, and the table of contents accordingly.

However, I wonder if an appendix compiling any of the major tables from the game might not be in order, and maybe include the Pyramid of Skulls adventure from Imazine?

 

[TristramEvans]

Is there a reason we're avoiding video games inspired and influence by the source material?

For, what though? Like, the game doesn't really need new mechanics at this point, especially if the author's impulse regarding revision was primarily to get rid of or reduce mechanics

 

[TristramEvans]

To go back to my notes, one thing I considered the whole time I was reading was what would be the bare minimum needed to prepare this for publication?

Like, let's say (for thought experiment's sake - please don't read anything into this) this was a posthumous manuscript one came into possession of, and they wanted to prepare it for publication, keeping as much as possible the original author's intent - we're Christopher Tolkien dealing with one of JRR's unfinished books. In other words, dealing just with what's there, how little work could be done, adding or subtracting to create a finished, publishable game?

First off, let's assume pages 1 -127 are complete and finished. The only thing I'd do is leave off the last sentance regarding magical treasures (since it's simply reiterating the premise of the section stated upfront, and instead add to the final paragraph on Talismans that descriptions of several of these are found in the preceeding section.

The next chapter, Games, is complete as is. Take the characters and NPCs that do have write-ups already in the Extras chapter and move them here, in a section entitled "Sample Characters" or something to that effect. Leave out everything not complete - it is such a simple process to stat up characters in teh system already, it's simply not a noteworthy omission, it simply gives a quick guid for new GMs to refer to in the process.

Now, condense the remaining chapters - Beliefs, Society, and China - into a single large chapter: "China"

The Beliefs chapter - page 5, remove the sentance : "What follows are descriptions of the more important gods. You should remember that there is a veritable
multitude of gods out there." Keep the description of the Jade Emperor that follows, and then replace the list with: "There are a multitude of other gods, including: (truncated list), which the GM can research to add to their games as needed" ( a bit of a cop-out sure, but this is the post-internet age, that sort of info is at the tips of any reader's fingertips). Likewise, excise the section "Rituals" on page 12. A bit of a loss, but if a GM is thinking,, "oh, I'd like to include a funeral i my next session, again, they can specifically look that up.

Combine the sections "Year Names", "History" and "Timeline", on pages 12-15 into one; a timeline that starts with the mythical founding of China (keeping that description), and then goes through recent years, with their names, and significant events related to the Outlaws.

The next chapter, Society (now just a section of the larger "China" setting chapter, is complete, just remove the unfinished "Outlaws" and "Secret Societies:" sections. One can confidently assume everyone knows what an outlaw is, and the rules chapters already indicate their relationship (or lack thereof) with society. And GMs can figure out Secret Societies for themselves.

That leaves the last chapter "China", which I'd be tempted to move in front of the Society and Beliefs section. Actually, I kinda feel like it would be more sensible for it to go Georgraphy - Society - Beliefs, insofar as content.

Regardless, right under the section heading "Geography", I'd insert the map of China found on page "3" (proceeding page "172"). Then keep all the text on travelling from page "171" up to the first part of "172". Then ditch all the unfinished text on "172" except for the chart showing average speeds of animals/vehicles in mph and per round.

Everything else in the chapter is good.

Finish it up by fixing any spacing issues/page #s/revised table of contents, and then do an index.

Badda bing, badda boom, a complete and playable RPG ready for print.

 

[AsenRG]

To go back to my notes, one thing I considered the whole time I was reading was what would be the bare minimum needed to prepare this for publication?

Like, let's say (for thought experiment's sake - please don't read anything into this) this was a posthumous manuscript one came into possession of, and they wanted to prepare it for publication, keeping as much as possible the original author's intent - we're Christopher Tolkien dealing with one of JRR's unfinished books. In other words, dealing just with what's there, how little work could be done, adding or subtracting to create a finished, publishable game?

First off, let's assume pages 1 -127 are complete and finished. The only thing I'd do is leave off the last sentance regarding magical treasures (since it's simply reiterating the premise of the section stated upfront, and instead add to the final paragraph on Talismans that descriptions of several of these are found in the preceeding section.

The next chapter, Games, is complete as is. Take the characters and NPCs that do have write-ups already in the Extras chapter and move them here, in a section entitled "Sample Characters" or something to that effect. Leave out everything not complete - it is such a simple process to stat up characters in teh system already, it's simply not a noteworthy omission, it simply gives a quick guid for new GMs to refer to in the process.

Now, condense the remaining chapters - Beliefs, Society, and China - into a single large chapter: "China"

The Beliefs chapter - page 5, remove the sentance : "What follows are descriptions of the more important gods. You should remember that there is a veritable
multitude of gods out there." Keep the description of the Jade Emperor that follows, and then replace the list with: "There are a multitude of other gods, including: (truncated list), which the GM can research to add to their games as needed" ( a bit of a cop-out sure, but this is the post-internet age, that sort of info is at the tips of any reader's fingertips). Likewise, excise the section "Rituals" on page 12. A bit of a loss, but if a GM is thinking,, "oh, I'd like to include a funeral i my next session, again, they can specifically look that up.

Combine the sections "Year Names", "History" and "Timeline", on pages 12-15 into one; a timeline that starts with the mythical founding of China (keeping that description), and then goes through recent years, with their names, and significant events related to the Outlaws.

The next chapter, Society (now just a section of the larger "China" setting chapter, is complete, just remove the unfinished "Outlaws" and "Secret Societies:" sections. One can confidently assume everyone knows what an outlaw is, and the rules chapters already indicate their relationship (or lack thereof) with society. And GMs can figure out Secret Societies for themselves.

That leaves the last chapter "China", which I'd be tempted to move in front of the Society and Beliefs section. Actually, I kinda feel like it would be more sensible for it to go Georgraphy - Society - Beliefs, insofar as content.

Regardless, right under the section heading "Geography", I'd insert the map of China found on page "3" (proceeding page "172"). Then keep all the text on travelling from page "171" up to the first part of "172". Then ditch all the unfinished text on "172" except for the chart showing average speeds of animals/vehicles in mph and per round.

Everything else in the chapter is good.

Finish it up by fixing any spacing issues/page #s/revised table of contents, and then do an index.

Badda bing, badda boom, a complete and playable RPG ready for print.

This, except:
The chapters where you mentioned "removing unfinished chapters", I'd replace that recommendation with "condense the text to at least mention them and say a couple words, then mention that the GM could research a bit more as this isn't an exhaustive treatment. Given that the titular characters are outlaws, for example, they should at least get a mention in the book, for example! Same for the others.

In character generation, I'd remove the reference to "picking one of the heroes of Liangshanbo". Instead, replace it with "you can create one of the heroes of Liangshanbo and play him, if you want - this would probably give your GM ideas what your first adventures would be like".

But yes, after that the game is quite ready to print.

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

...and then he went silent for a few weeks.

Yeah, a pile of work to catch up on. But also I've been checking up with Dave Morris to find what changes he has made.

So far, the idea seems to be to slim things down a bit: not have such a proliferation of abilities (though there is always the option to have very specific abilities if players come up with them). Also rename them, dividing into generic and specific, and changing aptitudes to 'talents', which I am very happy with.

But I don't think there will be much fundamental revision. So I'm going to be feeding him your suggestions as well, and we'll see what we can come up with. I'll have to avoid being distracted by what I just spent the last 30 minutes doing, namely fiddling with the typography (it looks like I'll be going with a layout that I did when I made a Hero Wars version of the game).

Did you know about all these different versions of the game? Apart from the early rules (the 2D10 Top Flat system), there were versions done for Hero Wars, and also for Sorcerer ('cos I laid out the Sorcerer books). But sod it, I might as well go with my own rules now.

 

[TristramEvans]

A version of the Outlaws system adapted to the Hero Wars and Sorcerer games, or the other way around?

 

[Panzerkraken]

...and then he went silent for a few weeks.

Yeah, a pile of work to catch up on. But also I've been checking up with Dave Morris to find what changes he has made.

So far, the idea seems to be to slim things down a bit: not have such a proliferation of abilities (though there is always the option to have very specific abilities if players come up with them). Also rename them, dividing into generic and specific, and changing aptitudes to 'talents', which I am very happy with.

But I don't think there will be much fundamental revision. So I'm going to be feeding him your suggestions as well, and we'll see what we can come up with. I'll have to avoid being distracted by what I just spent the last 30 minutes doing, namely fiddling with the typography (it looks like I'll be going with a layout that I did when I made a Hero Wars version of the game).

Did you know about all these different versions of the game? Apart from the early rules (the 2D10 Top Flat system), there were versions done for Hero Wars, and also for Sorcerer ('cos I laid out the Sorcerer books). But sod it, I might as well go with my own rules now.

I have to confess that other than what Tristram shared here, I had no experience with it whatsoever. I like what I see though, and I hope you've seen that there's plenty of people here who are eager to provide such support or assistance as you need/desire to complete the project. I, for one would be very interested in any iterative versions you might have available to flip through, as well.

 

[AsenRG]

And I was thinking about the mysterious Edge rules that were mentioned and what they might be like...

My first guess is that they would be having some kind of Advantage/Edge that the players gain by successful combat actions? And that when you get enough, which should probably vary with the enemy's skill, the opponent can have Bad Things happening to him or her?

At least that's what I imagine when I hear "Edge rules", though I might be totally off-base.

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

A version of the Outlaws system adapted to the Hero Wars and Sorcerer games, or the other way around?

The Outlaws game but with Hero Wars and Sorcerer rules.

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

And I was thinking about the mysterious Edge rules that were mentioned and what they might be like...

My first guess is that they would be having some kind of Advantage/Edge that the players gain by successful combat actions? And that when you get enough, which should probably vary with the enemy's skill, the opponent can have Bad Things happening to him or her?

At least that's what I imagine when I hear "Edge rules", though I might be totally off-base.

I've forgotten, to be honest, but as far as I remember it gave someone with higher skill relative to the opponent a boost to degree of success. By doing so, it meant losing the chance for doubles, the rationale being that fluke brilliant results are more the preserve of the underdog.

But on reflection, it's very much a case of system-fetishism. One thing Dave and I are very much in agreement about with regard to the revival is to keep it simple: streamline where possible.

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

So, since we last spoke...

It takes a while to get me moving, but now I am finally trundling along the track. I’ve been going through the rules, preparing them for layout, and making relatively trivial changes (aptitudes to talents etc), as a means of refamiliarizing myself with them. I’ve now finished the three core rules chapters, and I thought it was time to go back through this thread to check up on the suggestions made, in the light of my newfound knowledge of the game.

A few points about stuff. Although "a round" was deliberately phrased vaguely, I noticed going through the rules that this was a lie. The problem is that some things need to be specified in "time" terms, and so I used rounds... and fixed them at one second. I think I was trying to convey the idea of speed of motion. But I don't like this much. I'm just going to be suggesting that a 'fixed' round (as against the elastic round, which is what it ought to be, in an ideal world) is a bit longer. I much prefer the idea I had in the revision, of dividing a combat into 'crucial moments', but it wouldn't port easily to the current Outlaws superstructure.

I was surprised at comments about map of China and stats for Water Margin heroes being omitted, because they're in my copy. The suggestion that I incorporate Pyramid of Skulls into the game had already been implemented.

I was also amused to find myself on this thread umming and ahhing about the inclusion of Mr Vampire into the rules. I had forgotten that actually kyonshi are in there: one of the spells deprives a body of its hun spirits, but keeps it alive, and the result is described as a "stiff corpse", which is a literal translation of the Chinese. See, there is a point to the magic system!

That apparent non-sequitur about magic items is actually saying: "Look, there are talismans, and there are special one-off magic items, so any magic items you want, sort them out from that, I'm not going to spoonfeed you with a list". I will rewrite it to be more lucid. And actually this ties in with the list of gods. Even in those days I was bored shitless at copying stuff about various gods into the game. And there was also the problem that the religion of China was immeasurably more complex than a decontextualized list of deities conveys. I couldn't be sure that many of the gods I listed were even worshipped in the Song Dynasty. And RPGs have always had this problem of not understanding how religions outside the Big Three (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) actually work, especially with regard to deities. How to convey that pithily?

But what I've done so far is decide to relocate a modified version of the Games chapter to the beginning of the game. And then I'll follow something akin to Tristram's suggestions on rationalizing the rest. I'm not going to touch much of the text. Where I do, based on what I've done so far, you can expect to see more player-empowerment and less 'the ref decides'. To be honest, I was surprised at how many places played up the ref's omnipotence.

Various people kindly mentioned blind playtesting. Personally, I think the idea of 'blind playtesting' is more of an affectation; an attempt to claim some 'scientific' element to the design. Playtesting is good. But I don't care whether it's blind or not. So anyone who's interested in getting a copy of the new rules to try, don't feel you have to poke your eyes out (and I'll have to make the font smaller on the credits page...).

 

[AsenRG]

I'd like to play test this.

Also, can you give us an idea how the "crucial moments" system works?

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

I'd like to play test this.

Also, can you give us an idea how the "crucial moments" system works?

It's not a system. It's just a replacement to the tick-tock of RPG combat rounds, by organizing the rolls around moments where something is at stake, rather than just time. The relevant bit from my new system was this:

Structure of combat
In this game, most combats are simplified into two stages. The first stage is where the combatants jockey for position, test their opponent’s weaknesses, and try to get into a position to launch a winning attack. Depending on the combatants, this stage can last quite a lot of time. The second stage is where the combat becomes all-out, and the roll here will usually decide the outcome.

This is not the only possible structure, of course. A character may straight away launch a murderous attack on another—this can be resolved in a single roll. Or after the jockeying stage a character may realise that he is outclassed, and thus give up or run away. On the other hand, in some cases the second stage of the conflict may not resolve the matter, and another roll may be necessary to determine a final outcome.

The important thing is to be clear what is at stake at each stage. In the case of the initial stage of combat described about, what is at stake is the gaining of advantage, and the ability to initiate serious combat from a position of strength. What is at stake in the second stage is usually victory or defeat. It’s possible, though, to refine this. You can specify death or glory, for example. Or you may have more specific needs: what is at stake may be overcoming a guard without that guard being able to alert anyone.


... tantalisingly, the file ended at that point. I do much prefer the idea that, rather than rules just being a mechanical (interesting that we call them rules 'mechanics'!) succession of die rolls, an intervention is at a crucial juncture, in order to resolve something that matters. I think this is also why the revised system contained a lot based on my description of games as being driven by player or referee assertions. Again, this isn't so much a system, as a way of describing how rolegames are actually conducted. I still think the butterfly of role-playing is trying to emerge from the chrysalis which wargaming spun about it. That's what all the fancy narrative games were trying to do, but I think they missed something important about the rules and what they actually mean in roleplaying.

 

[Séadna]

I'd also be interested in playtesting.

 

[TristramEvans]

I was surprised at comments about map of China and stats for Water Margin heroes being omitted, because they're in my copy.

I realized after I wrote that there are different versions of the game saved in my files, and while I have the more complete one in pdf, the print-out I was mainly reading from was of a less complete version.

RPGs have always had this problem of not understanding how religions outside the Big Three (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) actually work, especially with regard to deities. How to convey that pithily?

I think the conventions/expectations set by D&D are essentially "monotheistic polytheism", with not many games pushing beyond that. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the Asian religions myself to even begin to guess how much information needs to be conveyed, insofar as how they intersect with daily life, social interactions, and any sort of prayer/priestly magic system.

So anyone who's interested in getting a copy of the new rules to try, don't feel you have to poke your eyes out (and I'll have to make the font smaller on the credits page...).

Absolutely would love to be a part of that.

 

[Panzerkraken]

I would love to as well. My gaming group can take a break from The Witcher.

 

[AsenRG]

It's not a system. It's just a replacement to the tick-tock of RPG combat rounds, by organizing the rolls around moments where something is at stake, rather than just time. The relevant bit from my new system was this:

Structure of combat
In this game, most combats are simplified into two stages. The first stage is where the combatants jockey for position, test their opponent’s weaknesses, and try to get into a position to launch a winning attack. Depending on the combatants, this stage can last quite a lot of time. The second stage is where the combat becomes all-out, and the roll here will usually decide the outcome.

This is not the only possible structure, of course. A character may straight away launch a murderous attack on another—this can be resolved in a single roll. Or after the jockeying stage a character may realise that he is outclassed, and thus give up or run away. On the other hand, in some cases the second stage of the conflict may not resolve the matter, and another roll may be necessary to determine a final outcome.

The important thing is to be clear what is at stake at each stage. In the case of the initial stage of combat described about, what is at stake is the gaining of advantage, and the ability to initiate serious combat from a position of strength. What is at stake in the second stage is usually victory or defeat. It’s possible, though, to refine this. You can specify death or glory, for example. Or you may have more specific needs: what is at stake may be overcoming a guard without that guard being able to alert anyone.


... tantalisingly, the file ended at that point. I do much prefer the idea that, rather than rules just being a mechanical (interesting that we call them rules 'mechanics'!) succession of die rolls, an intervention is at a crucial juncture, in order to resolve something that matters. I think this is also why the revised system contained a lot based on my description of games as being driven by player or referee assertions. Again, this isn't so much a system, as a way of describing how rolegames are actually conducted. I still think the butterfly of role-playing is trying to emerge from the chrysalis which wargaming spun about it. That's what all the fancy narrative games were trying to do, but I think they missed something important about the rules and what they actually mean in roleplaying.

To be honest, RPGs struggle almost as much to convey Christianity (and I'm not going to speak about neither Judaism nor Islam). In the end, the majority of players being of an atheistic bent doesn't help at all, IME...

But may I say that I totally like the revised system? I mean, I've long been a fan of systems where you can try to gain advantage before acting...and this sounds like a nice example. To be honest, there aren't that many of those...

Would you post the revised file as well? I mean, some of us might like one or the other better, but it's nice having a choice.
And no, you don't need to clean it up as well. We're big boys, we can handle it!
We can even patch with the background info from the previous edition when necessary, and so on!

Interesting that you have the stats for the Water Margin heroes and the map of China. They weren'tin my copy...I guess I'd get those now in the playtest file?

I would love to as well. My gaming group can take a break from The Witcher.

Taking a break from the Witcher with the Water Margin? You, sir, have a fine taste in games and I'd like to play in such a group!
Instead of being the GM, I mean.

 

[Panzerkraken]

Taking a break from the Witcher with the Water Margin? You, sir, have a fine taste in games and I'd like to play in such a group!
Instead of being the GM, I mean.

It's just a bi-weekly game, so it's not very in-depth, the off-weeks are Savage Worlds Rifts at this point (I led a very successful PSYOP campaign to get our GM out of Palladium and into SW). I'll probably have to make the characters for the players, it's not something they would be able to get into the spirit of easily. But if you find yourself stranded in eastern mid-michigan, feel free to let me know.

 

[burbles]

I think this is also why the revised system contained a lot based on my description of games as being driven by player or referee assertions. Again, this isn't so much a system, as a way of describing how rolegames are actually conducted. I still think the butterfly of role-playing is trying to emerge from the chrysalis which wargaming spun about it. That's what all the fancy narrative games were trying to do, but I think they missed something important about the rules and what they actually mean in roleplaying.

OK, I understand what you are getting at, but I assume that there are ‘rules’ to indicate (or at least guidance) as to how, when a player or GM, decides to change from ’rounds’ to ‘one roll outcome’ that the current state of play influences the target value of the ’one’ roll? If I’m ‘winning‘ the contest of rounds, unless I want a ‘coup de gras‘, why alter my strategy for a ‘do or die’ roll, unless I have a good chance of winning? Ie one unlucky roll is less influential during ‘round’ play.

Also if the GM decides to swap to a ‘one’ roll, ie NPC decides to go for a ’do or die‘ (one roll) strike, am I, as the player, able to disagree with the GM? ‘No I don’t want this to happen now!’ (For whatever reason)

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

OK, I understand what you are getting at, but I assume that there are ‘rules’ to indicate (or at least guidance) as to how, when a player or GM, decides to change from ’rounds’ to ‘one roll outcome’ that the current state of play influences the target value of the ’one’ roll? If I’m ‘winning‘ the contest of rounds, unless I want a ‘coup de gras‘, why alter my strategy for a ‘do or die’ roll, unless I have a good chance of winning? Ie one unlucky roll is less influential during ‘round’ play.

Also if the GM decides to swap to a ‘one’ roll, ie NPC decides to go for a ’do or die‘ (one roll) strike, am I, as the player, able to disagree with the GM? ‘No I don’t want this to happen now!’ (For whatever reason)

No GM in Outlaws!

My goal was the abolition of 'rounds', not the worst of both worlds. There's no transition between 'rounds' and 'one roll outcome'. The idea is that each roll resolves a point at which something is at stake.

If the referee makes a decision that an NPC goes for do or die, then it should emerge from what has happened previously.

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

To be honest, RPGs struggle almost as much to convey Christianity (and I'm not going to speak about neither Judaism nor Islam). In the end, the majority of players being of an atheistic bent doesn't help at all, IME...

It's true that RPGs are inept at conveying religion generally, but I'm not sure that it's entirely down to players being atheistic. The Tekumel game I played in (Dave Morris's group) were as atheistic as any, and they managed to cope pretty well with religion, because Barker (himself a Muslim) had managed to create an unusual set-up that was relatively easy to grasp even for those who weren't really au fait with the distinction between sacred and profane.

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

Thanks for the offers to playtest. When I have something viable I'll let you know sharpish. And give me a day or so to sort out the 'revised' files. I'll attach them to a post on this forum.

 

[burbles]

No GM in Outlaws!

Hmmm... all I was referring to was the referee.

I'll try and rephrase my question (hopefully correctly using the terminology that I find in the pdf of Outlaws of the Water Margin I have ....

I'll use the Combat Example 'Entrance Examination' in which Yang is gradually beating up Cao. Picking up at the end of round 6 , Cao is regularly being hit by Yang, but is being saved from further injury by his armour. If this was a occurring in real fight to the death (rather than a match to assess whether Yang can join the outlaws), I could see Cao deciding on a do-or-die (literally) manoeuvre in an attempt to save himself. I see this as a situation you are referring to, as changing to the 'one roll outcome' (described as Cao getting desperate given his current predicament). Is there any recommendations for the referee as to what the target number for this new situation should be?

If the odds for a positive outcome in the 'one roll outcome' for Yang is identical to that for a single round of combat, then I'd argue that a one-off bad roll on the part of the Yang (to avoid the do-or-die attempt) is a worse outcome than would occur if it was just a normal combat round (ie I'd take some damage, but still probably be ahead overall). How does the referee set up the target number for this new situation?

Given this if the referee decides to swap to a ‘one’ roll, am I, as the player, able to disagree with the referee, and stop a one roll outcome?

 

[AsenRG]

It's just a bi-weekly game, so it's not very in-depth, the off-weeks are Savage Worlds Rifts at this point (I led a very successful PSYOP campaign to get our GM out of Palladium and into SW). I'll probably have to make the characters for the players, it's not something they would be able to get into the spirit of easily. But if you find yourself stranded in eastern mid-michigan, feel free to let me know.

If I happen to be around, which is unlikely, I'll let you know.

No GM in Outlaws!

My goal was the abolition of 'rounds', not the worst of both worlds. There's no transition between 'rounds' and 'one roll outcome'. The idea is that each roll resolves a point at which something is at stake.

If the referee makes a decision that an NPC goes for do or die, then it should emerge from what has happened previously.

Sounds a lot like some of the best combat systems I've seen. Though it's closest to PbtA, I'd say it might as well be like Spellbound Kingdoms or The Riddle of Steel (where you have "rounds'" consisting of two "exchanges", but unless both of you attack, only one of you is acting in one exchange - the one who "has initiative"...meaning that you kinda have opposed rolls which resolve whether one of you gets some kind of advantage or not, and the rounds are only tracked in order to find out when your dicepool refreshes).

It's true that RPGs are inept at conveying religion generally, but I'm not sure that it's entirely down to players being atheistic. The Tekumel game I played in (Dave Morris's group) were as atheistic as any, and they managed to cope pretty well with religion, because Barker (himself a Muslim) had managed to create an unusual set-up that was relatively easy to grasp even for those who weren't really au fait with the distinction between sacred and profane.

I'm not saying "entirely". I said "it doesn't help", and it took me some time to pick the wording...
Tekumel has a great set-up, it's up there with the rest of my favourite settings, but I've also seen players balking at it online because your PC should be part of some religion.

Thanks for the offers to playtest. When I have something viable I'll let you know sharpish. And give me a day or so to sort out the 'revised' files. I'll attach them to a post on this forum.

Have we told you how much we appreciate your joining this forum? If not: we really appreciate it, and I believe I'm speaking from the name of all of us!

Hmmm... all I was referring to was the referee.

Does that mean the revised version is GMless? I doubt it, frankly, but it's not impossible.

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

OK, here are the files I unearthed for the revised rules. Very much unedited, and with bits copy pasted from the old rules, that haven't necessarily been correctly sutured into place. I also note that there's a lot of soap-boxing in it.

It's unlikely I will be using any of this for the 'new' game, not because I don't believe in it, but because the old game essentially works, and was used in practice over many years, whereas the new rules have never been used at all.

Well, I say that, but they are much closer to how I actually ran the game myself.

 

[burbles]

Does that mean the revised version is GMless? I doubt it, frankly, but it's not impossible.

Given that ‘the referee‘ is talked about later in the post I’m assuming that this is more about terminology. I think that when I originally reposed my question, I had also misunderstood the statement ’No GM in Outlaws’

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

Hmmm... all I was referring to was the referee.

I'll try and rephrase my question (hopefully correctly using the terminology that I find in the pdf of Outlaws of the Water Margin I have ....

I'll use the Combat Example 'Entrance Examination' in which Yang is gradually beating up Cao. Picking up at the end of round 6 , Cao is regularly being hit by Yang, but is being saved from further injury by his armour. If this was a occurring in real fight to the death (rather than a match to assess whether Yang can join the outlaws), I could see Cao deciding on a do-or-die (literally) manoeuvre in an attempt to save himself. I see this as a situation you are referring to, as changing to the 'one roll outcome' (described as Cao getting desperate given his current predicament). Is there any recommendations for the referee as to what the target number for this new situation should be?

If the odds for a positive outcome in the 'one roll outcome' for Yang is identical to that for a single round of combat, then I'd argue that a one-off bad roll on the part of the Yang (to avoid the do-or-die attempt) is a worse outcome than would occur if it was just a normal combat round (ie I'd take some damage, but still probably be ahead overall). How does the referee set up the target number for this new situation?

Given this if the referee decides to swap to a ‘one’ roll, am I, as the player, able to disagree with the referee, and stop a one roll outcome?

But the combat between Yang and Cao is the old system. There's no question of switching from the old system to the revised system in the middle of a game session!

And actually it is to a large extent the problems of probability skews when series of rolls are replaced by single rolls that led to me settling on the old system as the one that'll be published. And I suspect that once people have looked at the waffle in the new system files I've just uploaded they will agree it's the best decision. When I did the revised rules I was still trying to drag role-playing kicking and screaming out of the 70s. I no longer have such revolutionary urges and am happy to settle for just making a game that people enjoy playing.

Given that ‘the referee‘ is talked about later in the post I’m assuming that this is more about terminology. I think that when I originally reposed my question, I had also misunderstood the statement ’No GM in Outlaws’

Yeah, I was just being facetious. But there was a serious and relevant point, because you quite rightly brought up the issue of how much influence the player has on how the rules are implemented. And my answer to that relates to my distaste for having 'Masters' in charge of rolegames. But you have successfully demonstrated that I don't have a satisfying answer to that conundrum. The new rules (by which I mean the ones I'm going to publish, as against the 'revised' ones I just uploaded the bare bones of) are going to contain a little more about player power vs referee fiat. But not a solution.

 

[Panzerkraken]

But there was a serious and relevant point, because you quite rightly brought up the issue of how much influence the player has on how the rules are implemented. And my answer to that relates to my distaste for having 'Masters' in charge of rolegames. But you have successfully demonstrated that I don't have a satisfying answer to that conundrum.

When you get right down to it, the Dungeon Master/Game Master/Referee/Senior Player/Seongsengnim is just a term of semantics, and to some degree, theme. Is there some thematically appropriate term in Chinese that conveys the role of the Referee? A single term for Magistrate maybe? I could make suggestions in Korean, but that's not quite right for a Song China game. (I'd pick 형).

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

When you get right down to it, the Dungeon Master/Game Master/Referee/Senior Player/Seongsengnim is just a term of semantics, and to some degree, theme. Is there some thematically appropriate term in Chinese that conveys the role of the Referee? A single term for Magistrate maybe? I could make suggestions in Korean, but that's not quite right for a Song China game. (I'd pick 형).

On the one hand, it's 'just' a matter of semantics.

On the other, it's expresses the philosophy behind the game. If one role-playing game calls players 'players' and another calls them 'the Games Master's snivelling underlings', then although it's a matter of semantics, I think we have a reasonable idea of the relative philosophies of those games. Bear in mind I've been in a room with Gary Gygax when he commented that he only rolled the dice for the noise they made. He obviously thought this was testimony to his creative genius, but to me it represented the pointless power-trip of the classic dungeon master (shortly afterwards, he told us fanzine editors that he kept fanzines in the toilet. Oh how we laughed at his subtle put-down!).

I'm reluctant to come up with some fancy game-specific term for the referee. The Hollyhock God (or whatever that ridiculous Nobilis term was) casts a long shadow. I'm happy with referee, because it's in reasonably common use, and it denotes an arbiter rather than an antagonist. The purpose of a 'referee' is to resolve disputes. And since the referee is not directly part of the diegesis, I think it's confusing to give her a diegetic name. I'm well aware that Outlaws swamps players with Chinese names as it is!

 

[Panzerkraken]

Tangentially related to the thread here, as I'm working myself up to putting something together for my group, I decided to pursue Barry Hughart a bit more, and discovered he'd died in 2019, which, I'm sorry to say, is par for the course for me, as I never seem to actually hear about it when my favorite authors pass on; with the exception of Pratchett.

Anyway, I also found that there's a draft form of Bridge of Birds available for free on his website, which, if you're familiar with the story, is QUITE a deviation from the published version. I read it and thought I'd share for anyone else who's interested.

http://www.barryhughart.org/features.htm

As 매선 선생님 mentioned though, it's not exactly pure to the historical, but I honestly find him (Hughart) very approachable and engaging as a storyteller. I'm also working through the Shapiro translation of the book itself, which I've never had any contact with before.

 

[TristramEvans]

On the one hand, it's 'just' a matter of semantics.

On the other, it's expresses the philosophy behind the game. If one role-playing game calls players 'players' and another calls them 'the Games Master's snivelling underlings', then although it's a matter of semantics, I think we have a reasonable idea of the relative philosophies of those games. Bear in mind I've been in a room with Gary Gygax when he commented that he only rolled the dice for the noise they made. He obviously thought this was testimony to his creative genius, but to me it represented the pointless power-trip of the classic dungeon master (shortly afterwards, he told us fanzine editors that he kept fanzines in the toilet. Oh how we laughed at his subtle put-down!).

I'm reluctant to come up with some fancy game-specific term for the referee. The Hollyhock God (or whatever that ridiculous Nobilis term was) casts a long shadow. I'm happy with referee, because it's in reasonably common use, and it denotes an arbiter rather than an antagonist. The purpose of a 'referee' is to resolve disputes. And since the referee is not directly part of the diegesis, I think it's confusing to give her a diegetic name. I'm well aware that Outlaws swamps players with Chinese names as it is!

I always liked The Marvel Superheroes RPG's use of the term "Judge", as it implies impartiality and analysis (or, at least to me, anyways).

IME, it doesn't matter what a book says, players are just going to call 'em "GM", but I've heard the acronym for so long I often forget that it stands for such a grandiose title.

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

Tangentially related to the thread here, as I'm working myself up to putting something together for my group, I decided to pursue Barry Hughart a bit more, and discovered he'd died in 2019, which, I'm sorry to say, is par for the course for me, as I never seem to actually hear about it when my favorite authors pass on; with the exception of Pratchett.

Anyway, I also found that there's a draft form of Bridge of Birds available for free on his website, which, if you're familiar with the story, is QUITE a deviation from the published version. I read it and thought I'd share for anyone else who's interested.

http://www.barryhughart.org/features.htm

As 매선 선생님 mentioned though, it's not exactly pure to the historical, but I honestly find him (Hughart) very approachable and engaging as a storyteller. I'm also working through the Shapiro translation of the book itself, which I've never had any contact with before.

I also really enjoyed Hughart's stories. But you don't read them for the history!

Having said that, Water Margin, in any of its published incarnations, is shaky from a history point of view, as Shi Nai-an wrote it based on the China of his own time, more than of the Song Dynasty.

The Shapiro translation is pretty good (certainly better than either Pearl Buck or J H Jackson), but I do think the more recent version, The Marshes of Mount Liang, by the Dent-Youngs, has a livelier style, which suits the story better.