I Win

[SA]

I WIN

[ic=Confrontation]The battle is over before it has begun.

There must be a thousand of them, standing at restless attention on that sun-scorched plain.  Their armour is black and shines like the starlit ocean; their spears are anointed in the venom of demons.

The first among them raises his weapon in challenge.

I search the earth at my feet and find the perfect stone.  It is the size of a fist, ruddy brown and soft '" little more than a stiff clump of earth.  But it will suffice.

They charge, and by the dozens they fall.[/ic]
There are a lot of roleplaying systems out there.  When I say a lot, I mean, a lot.  Hundreds '" maybe even thousands.  And this is another one.  Add it to the pile.

I conceived of the I Win system a long while ago, as it became increasingly clear to me that the randomizing mechanic in most RPGs reflected actions I often did not agree should have been random.  Whether it was crafting masterpieces, making rousing speeches, threading a starfighter through an asteroid belt or just straight up kicking some goofball's candy ass, I often found the uncertain elements to be out of place.

This is my attempt to remedy that.

The basic idea behind I Win is simply that any totally average character, employed by a player, will succeed adequately at any average task, and will always defeat any totally average non-player character.  There is no doubt about it.  If Joe Average the accountant gets in a drunken fight with some nameless dude in a pub, he wins.  He doesn't wipe the floor with him '" in fact, assuming the nameless dude is also totally average (and no less than), chances are Joe's gonna come out feeling pretty damn sore '" but he wins.

Why?  He's the protagonist.  Nameless Drunk Guy ain't.

The uncertainty in the I Win system is not whether a player succeeds or fails.  A PC can always do exactly what his player said he could.  What's uncertain is pretty much everything else.  So Joe's player doesn't roll to see whether he can throw a killer punch, he rolls to see if the Nameless Drunk Guy is in fact a Really Drunk Guy, in which case Joe does wipe the floor with him (unless Joe's also really drunk, in which case they're once again on even footing, and Joe's victory is less clean).

Most random elements in this system are therefore external to the character, which naturally alters the GM's role.  In many RPGs the Game Master gets to introduce whatever manner of NPCs and challenges he likes, and then the players roll to see if their characters are fortunate enough to measure up in this particular instance.  However, here the players know their character's precise weight and measure, and they roll to see how well their enemies measure against them.

A BIT OF CONTEXT
I Win was developed for a specific setting, called Mandela.  In it the characters are people who, because of their misdeeds, have been judged too unclean even for the River of Transformations (whose very purpose is to wash souls clean so that they may reincarnate).  Thus, they cannot die and they cannot forget their transgressions.

Their only hope of reprieve is the Mandela of Alam Maturajni, a masterpiece of uncertain form said to depict the entire cosmos in minute detail, which is held in the palace where a hundred warring dynasties compete for an invisible throne.  At the beginning of their adventure the characters are already in the palace, and together they must uncover the Mandela's secret so that their burdens may be lifted, all the while evading the machinations of the Hundred Dynasties.

Their journey is an intellectual and spiritual one more than a physical one: through the medium of prose (and with a little help from some powerful narcotics) they will travel together through their own memories and the fictions of their own devising, the better to comprehend their situation.

MORE DETAIL
Thus, the I Win system is intended to evoke a very psychological feel, highlighting the contrasting degrees of internal and external certainty.  Characters know how well they can trust their own actions and perceptions (and sure, sometimes that's '˜not at all'); what they can't know is how skilled/angry/committed their fencing opponent is; just how fortified and heavily populated the fortress is; or whether the shady merchant they purchased the map from gave them the genuine article.

Then there are their actual statistics, which have nothing to do with how eloquent, swift, learned or combat-ready they are.  These identify how fortunate they are in a number of different areas: how likely someone is to come to their aid, how invested in their death their enemies tend to be; generally the kinds of things a character can't guess.  These are what you roll against: as I've said, you know what you can do, now let's see what you'll have to face.

And finally you have effort.  This is the resource you can use to extend your capabilities (though it rarely gives you new ones) and influence the dice (or cards '" haven't decided on a randomizer yet).  There's also a resource for when you lose your head (figuratively): this reflects when you freak out, throw a Hail Mary and hope for a miracle.  It's really the only time your own actions are random, and its side-effects are painful.

THERE IS NO FAIULRE
This is a crucially important point.  Nowhere in the I Win system is there a situation where a player says 'I try X', rolls, and fails.  That's not how it works.  The rule is: whenever you roll, something interesting happens.  Never 'yes/no', but rather, 'something/something else".

Example 1
Emil is a legendary acrobat, with virtually supernatural grace and reflexes.  He's chasing the assassin who just killed the king at a festival where Emil was performing.  The pursuit moves to the rooftops, across rain-slick tiles and half-rotten planks.  He doesn't have to roll for that, because he's a legendary acrobat!  He just does it.  But he rolls to see if it starts to rain again, to determine the assassin's course and skill, etcetera.

Luck is with him: the assassin, while a masterful shot, is not particularly swift, and he catches the fiend quickly.

The player didn't roll his skills, he rolled his fortune.

Example 2
Anaster the swordsman is surrounded by the henchmen of his old nemesis, Zabir.  There are five of them, but he is well-versed in the art of disadvantaged combat.  Alas, the henchmen are pretty fanatical.  A bad roll indicates that they go all out in their attempt to defeat him, and Anaster considers it prudent to retreat and recuperate.

Example 3
Lucretia is a channeling Ordas, an ancient god of war.  She confronts the entire Black Legion of the Foul Prince Eshenter with nothing but a ball of dirt.  She proceeds to kick their asses.  Her player rolls, determining that the rest of the soldiers flee in terror.  She catches up to them, and kicks their assess too.

SAVE ME, HEISENBERG!
Only one player has to roll for a specific instance.  So if three characters are in the same room, the one with the highest relevant fortune can make the roll to determine the skill and intentions of the zombie warriors about to come crashing through the door.  Or not.  I'm not really sure how this'll work...

__

That's only the beginning, and there's a whole lot to flesh out, but bring on the comments!

[Numinous]

The best argument in favor of this system is your opening prose, but otherwise the whole idea feels prone to failure.

If we all were "Salacious Angels" then maybe it would be as interesting as you describe, but it strikes me as a game which might decay rather quickly and grow boring under the weight of continued success.  Of course, we'll never know until the game is run, eh?

[SA]

Continued success?

It appears my description was off the mark, then.  The idea is that when two individuals face off, and they are equally matched, the PC character will always win as long as the opponent uses similar tactics.

Looking back, I don't think I clarified that bit in italics, so I might have to retroactively insert it, as it's a crucial element.

As an example:

Gustav and Leon are expert soldiers who have served together for sixteen years.  They have been taught the same tactics under the same instructors, been in many of the same conflicrs, and so on.

Leon has defected to the enemy's cause, and now Gustav, the PC, faces him, unarmed, in the middle of a burning field.  This is a life and death encounter: Leon has grown fanatical and will do everything in his power to kill Gustav; Gustav wantshis comrade to see reason, but understands that it is impossible.

From a metagame perspective, the player knows that he's going to win if they both stick to the rules.  But he also knows that Leon wants him dead.  So if the player simply says "I'm going to use all my combat experience to tear this traitor apart", he'll end up at death's door himself, even though he'll succeed.

What's needed is a measure of prudence: does the player want to come out moderately in tact?  Then he won't want to go balls to the wall.  He might simply want to amp up the effort to subdue Leon or get the hell away from him.

Besides, there's every possibility that his comrade has a trick or two up his sleeve, something that'll change the context of the confrontation.

Basically, there's always an opportunity for the PC to succeed (okay, nearly always; there is a limit to how much you can stretch the limits of your own abilities), but the harder you try the more damage you do to yourself.  This doesn't necessarily mean physical damage, merely that themore obsessive you are in seeking a particular outcome, the more you'll suffer for it in other areas.

Perhaps, in stead of using the surgical techniques his ally is likely to use (which would mean a fairly drawn out combat), he goes for a quick, brutal kill.  Alas, that also means that if Leon was in fact being defensive and methodical, he could very well exhaust Gustav quickly, at which point it is then even harder for Gustav to get the hell out.

In a nonspecific combat sense, the player would basically state their objective and attitude, calculate their statistics based on their tactic, then roll to see what the enemy has opted for.  It's kind of an elaborate Rock/Paper/Scissors: I know what I'm doing, so what are you doing, and can you match me?

PCs can certainly lose conflicts, and will do so regularly, but never because they were unlucky in the quality of their actions (And by the same token, no 'Critical Successes', except on Hail Marys, which are generally stacked against you anyway).  They lose because their opponent did something they didn't expect, or was more powerful than they'd anticipated, etcetera.  And maybe they simply brough a knife to a gun fight and left it at that?

Of course, it's also possible that the system just won't float, but I'm inclined to think that the first criticism is a result of my bad description.

NOTE:
I feel it is also important to describe the kind of games the system would be used in.  This system won't work well for campaigns where the GM has a whole bunch of carefully detailed NPCs with individualised motivations and relationships, and a meticulously conceived plot.  It would be too easy for a roll of the dice to send the whole story out of whack.

Instead, it's for much more freeform stories where the players have much more license to define the plot, while at the same time allowing for an unlimited variety of unexpected turns.  Again, the GM's roll is very different here.  If he exists at all, he is much more a mediator than controller.  He can interpret the dice, but he certainly can't fudge 'em since the players are the ones who rolled.

There are also certain thematic qualities in a game with these mechanics.  If you want to go around killing whole armies with your howling demonsword, you certainly can.  But then, you don't need this ruleset because you know everything you need to already ("their screams feed the unholy power of my blade!").  If, however, you want to deal with such an action's consequences, or the potential reactions of more challenging entities, it might do the trick.

Once again, this is not about being concrete and non-random, it's about knowing exactly what you're doing and having only the foggiest idea what everyone else is.

[snakefing]

In some ways this sounds like Amber, although that system was designed without randomizers at all.

[SA]

Yeah, it is a little like Amber.  It's crucial that this system does have randomisers, however, as the whole point is that plot turns are unexpected (and not determined by the GM).

[LordVreeg]

Though totally opposite of what i use, I like it.

Why?

Because while this system is a lousy one for gritty realism and longterm slow growth, it is great for 'collaborative storytelling' games, which is another of my favorite goals.  
And from what SA describes, if done preoperly, the story should almost 'tell itself', with the GM providing guidelines and the player's actions, coupled with GM notes, define how the story goes.

Am I right about the feel you are going for?

[SA]

That's pretty much spot on the money, Vreeg.

Some ideas:

Personal/Impersonal Attributes
A personal attribute is an NPC statistic that applies specifically to the PC who rolled its appearance (the only possible one that comes to mind is whether or not they're familiar with the PC, and in what way).  An impersonal attribute, on the other hand, reflects an NPC attitude relative to the world in general, such as their influence, ideologies, powers, dispositions, etcetera.

Impersonal attributes only need to be rolled once, ever.  This sets the benchmark for interactions with any PC character, as pertaining to that characteristic.  Once rolled, that quality is detailed under the NPC's name and can be referred to for interactions with the whole group.  A personal attribute is rolled once for each PC who encounters the individual; a benchmark is set each time a new player encounters him.

Ephemera
These are uncertain qualities that vary every time an NPC is encountered (and may even vary during an encounter).  Benchmarks cannot be set for such qualities.

Example:
Sara enters the hall of the White Eyed King ahead of her companions, bringing news of their arrival.  Rolling the dice, it is determined that he has heard of her exploits (a personal attribute), and that he has a peculiar fondness for adventurous women (impersonal).  Later, when her friends arrive, they too roll personal attributes (does he know of them, and if so, does he like them?), though they needn't roll impersonal, as she already has (or maybe they can roll different ones?)

(Perhaps one PC can mention another as well; the mentioned PC rolls his fame/renown/whatever despite being absent from the interaction, thus setting a personal benchmark with the NPC.  Perhaps it would be possible for the introducer to slander his friend's name, thus negatively influencing the other player's attribute roll)

Obviously, a lot of interpretation is required.  The dice do not reveal numerical values so much as characteristics.

[SDragon]

I'm not so sure I like this. What happens once the protagonist is marked as being better then the average PC? Do you develop a "chosen one"-style demigod character, capable of almost anything?

It's good for novel-writing, where you can say when and how the protagonist succeeds or fails (even if he's succeeding purely because, well, he's the protagonist), but I don't think it works quite as well for a RPG.

Personally, I'd prefer getting rid of the "random" element by using a diceless system. If it's wanted, I can make a thread outlining the idea behind a diceless system.

[Thanuir]

Here's an idea: Player character will always win when the player wants that. Question is: Is it really worth it? Do you want this goal bad enough to signicantly hurt yourself and others you love?

This can be made machanical or fiction-based. Mechanical factors would be taking damage or permanently losing stats or paying hero points or whatever. Fiction-based would be potential consequences; like, you are fighting a mafia boss. It's not easy, which means there will be severe consequences. Maybe your girlfriend is murdered in revenge if you persist in the fight and slay the mafioso. Or maybe the other mafia people find out your identity (by tracking your gun which you are too exhausted to carry with out when escaping the scene).

Characters with skill would suffer lesser consequences or would suffer them less often than unskilled characters. This is easy to mechanically implement by dice pools (for example), which always carry the chance of getting no successes.

[Tybalt]

If I may: this system is for a specific kind of heroic fantasy. For instance it would really nicely suit a Lord of the Rings type campaign plot in which the characters are by sheer virtue of who they are expected to win. It wouldn't suit a more gritty campaign like mine or Lord Vreeg's. Because of what it best suits I think that it would be good for those players and gms who don't like the idea of much loved characters being killed by some random band of nasties. I

[limetom]

I was looking for this for a good while tonight.  Thus, bump.

[SA]

Ooh, I'd totally forgotten about this.  I'd like to get to work on it again, but at the moment I'm not quite sure how...