Navigation

User login

Poll

6 comments | 61 reads | older polls | results

Search site

Syndicate

PORTAL: A Spankin' New Roleplaying System

Category: News | Other Systems | Plugs | Rule Systems

By enigmagic | Thu, 2007-06-07 02:21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Basics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Player Oriented Roleplaying

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

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

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

Timing

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

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

Action

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

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

Lucidity

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

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

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

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

» 5169 reads

Submitted by zipdrive on Thu, 2007-06-07 12:42.

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

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

Submitted by enigmagic on Mon, 2007-06-11 19:20.

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

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

Submitted by D.P. on Thu, 2007-06-07 13:01.

[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...

Submitted by enigmagic on Mon, 2007-06-11 19:23.

see above.

Submitted by Nefandus on Thu, 2007-06-07 16:59.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by Whutaguy on Thu, 2007-06-07 18:24.

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.

Submitted by enigmagic on Mon, 2007-06-11 20:02.

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

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

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

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

Submitted by Whutaguy on Tue, 2007-06-12 13:49.

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.

Submitted by enigmagic on Tue, 2007-06-12 20:36.

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

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

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

The Good: Thank you for the compliments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by Whutaguy on Wed, 2007-06-13 03:39.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by enigmagic on Wed, 2007-06-13 13:22.

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

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

Submitted by lurkinggherkin on Fri, 2007-06-08 09:05.

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

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

Submitted by Gilgamesh on Fri, 2007-06-08 10:20.

Well put LG.

Submitted by Nefandus on Fri, 2007-06-08 15:04.

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.

Submitted by enigmagic on Sun, 2007-06-10 20:58.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by Nefandus on Fri, 2007-06-08 14:41.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by John on Sat, 2007-06-09 01:59.

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

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

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

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

Submitted by Nefandus on Tue, 2007-06-12 19:03.

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.

Submitted by enigmagic on Wed, 2007-06-13 03:00.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by Nefandus on Fri, 2007-06-15 14:05.

"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.

Submitted by enigmagic on Sun, 2007-06-10 21:09.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by enigmagic on Sun, 2007-06-10 20:14.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by John on Mon, 2007-06-11 00:25.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by enigmagic on Mon, 2007-06-11 18:36.

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

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

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

Submitted by John on Mon, 2007-06-11 21:59.

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.

Submitted by enigmagic on Tue, 2007-06-12 00:02.

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by John on Tue, 2007-06-12 01:05.

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.

Submitted by enigmagic on Tue, 2007-06-12 02:40.

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

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

what do you think?

Submitted by John on Tue, 2007-06-12 13:04.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by enigmagic on Tue, 2007-06-12 20:52.

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

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

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

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

Submitted by Nefandus on Fri, 2007-06-15 14:08.

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

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

Submitted by Nefandus on Tue, 2007-06-12 06:36.

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

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

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

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

Submitted by enigmagic on Tue, 2007-06-12 08:20.

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

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

Submitted by Nefandus on Tue, 2007-06-12 14:12.

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?

Submitted by enigmagic on Tue, 2007-06-12 19:24.

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

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

Submitted by lurkinggherkin on Mon, 2007-06-11 13:52.

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.'

Submitted by enigmagic on Mon, 2007-06-11 19:02.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"You start running into consistency issues..."

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by lurkinggherkin on Tue, 2007-06-12 09:17.

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.

Submitted by Nefandus on Tue, 2007-06-12 06:21.

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