The Continuing Story of Game Notation in Omnia

I recently discovered that none of the methods of game notation I have been considering for Omnia are compatible with automated audio readers in that the audio reader makes no distinctions between different typefaces or forms of numbering (such as Arabic vs. Roman).

One thought I had was to add an exclamation point after numerals that pertain to randomizers. So, you might have John Doe, Tortured Proofreader 4!, Racecar Driver 4!, Karaoke Singer 1!. As you can see, it makes for awkward punctuation, and I'm not sure it would add much (if anything) to an audio reader's clarity.

I also revisited the possibility of adding "C" after randomizer numerals with the reasoning that it could stand equally for three types of binary randomizers: "coins," "cowrie shells," or "cubes" (as in "binary randomizer cubes" a.k.a. binary six-sided dice). Meet Jane Doe, Archaeologist 4C, Linguist 3C, Medic 3C, Stunt Cyclist 2C.

Perhaps I should just revert to the reliable basics of Ghostbusters and simply use the unadorned numerals. Jade Doe, Ghost Hunter 3, Comic Book Collector 4, Shopkeeper 2, Photographer 3. Surely anyone who learns the rules will know when the numbers refer to randomizers, results, or target numbers through context. Why complicate things?

Alternative Game Notation

In case one desires to avoid bold, underlined, and bold underlined numerals in their Omnia documents and notes, the following alternative method of game notation is offered:

Alternative Game Notation

Use uppercase Roman numerals when referring to randomizers. E.g., an Ability rated at 3 would be III.

Use Arabic numerals when referring to Difficulty. E.g., a Difficulty of 4 would be 4.

Use lowercase Roman numerals when referring to penalties. E.g., a penalty of 2 would be ii.

So, Roman numerals refer to randomizers (uppercase for positive randomizers and lowercase for negative randomizers) and Arabic numerals refer to target numbers.

Would this overcomplicate things? Should I jettison it? Should I replace the other method of game notation with this one? This bears further consideration.

One complication just occurred to me: How would an audio reader narrate Roman numerals? Would it say, "Ability Roman numeral three" or "Ability I, I, I"? I'm not sure I like either option. Back to the drawing board...

[Edit: The read aloud function on my computer simply says, "Ability three." So, it's still a problem. It also makes no distinction between normal, bold, and underlined numerals. I may have to rethink the game notation entirely.]

The Tightrope

Once again, I am doubting myself and re-evaluating a) what I want Omnia to be, and b) how to get there. I imagine how I want the game to be played, and then I imagine how everything will be subverted, misinterpreted, and generally twisted out of recognition. It is not meant to be compatible with every conceivable style of play nor is it a "One True Way." I just want to create a role-playing system that doesn't punish players for being creative or seeing their characters in more than two dimensions. I want to create an anti-min-maxing system that still allows players to customize their characters. This is the tightrope I am walking.

I am also having second thoughts about a variety of other issues, and I am concerned that my perfectionism will cause this project to languish until it is forgotten. Am I overthinking this? Let me think about it.

Defining Character Capabilities

There are many ways to model a character's capabilities in a role-playing game including class and attributes (the classic model), attributes and skills, class and attributes and skills, attributes only, skills only, and class only. Some games add feats, stunts, and/or specializations. For Omnia, I chose the "class only" category (alternatively known as "profession only," "occupation only," "vocation only," etc.) Characters are defined by their Abilities, which may be vocations or avocations. I settled on this method because I discovered that I had the most fun creating characters when I listed what their careers and hobbies were, rather than trying to figure out where they stood in an arbitrary scale of general attributes or specific skills. I can rank how good a character is at a particular job far more easily than I can assess a character's overall intelligence, strength, or coordination. Besides, overall ratings are wildly inaccurate by nature. A weightlifter, a gymnast, and a boxer may all be strong, but they are strong in ways that do not necessarily crossover to each other's area of expertise. A dancer, a gemcutter, and an archer may all be coordinated, but with radically different sets of motor skills. A physicist, a linguist, and a military strategist may all be highly intelligent with no knowledge whatsoever in each other's chosen field. I just don't see the point or appeal in ranking general attributes when the question in the game is, "Which character is the deadlier duelist?" or "Which character is the stealthier ninja?" or "Which character is the more talented singer?" The general attributes are irrelevant. What matters is how good characters are at what they do, because the character who may not be too smart at most things might be a genius at safecracking and calculating odds. The character who might not have massive upper body strength might be a champion marathon runner. The character who can't walk without tripping might be the most accurate knifethrower on the Mississippi River. Some people might enjoy assigning attribute ratings to Phyllis Diller, but I would rather rank her as a Comedienne, Concert Pianist, Writer, and Artist.

The next question I can imagine being asked is, "What about attribute checks? How do characters do things in general without attributes?" The simple answer is this: The characters can do what the characters can do. Most of the time, checks are a waste of time. Yes, your character can climb the hill. Yes, your character can bandage a wound. Yes, your character can search the closet for a secret door. Yes, your character can use all five senses in most situations. If your character wants to act as a ship's navigator, they can do it if they have the Ability of "Navigator." If your character wants to forge horseshoes for the party's horses, they can do it if they have the Ability of "Blacksmith." A check is only necessary if there is a reasonable risk of failure due to the circumstances. I am far more interested in describing the characters' environment and letting them do what they ought to be able to do rather than forcing them to make boring attribute or skill checks just to experience and interact with their surroundings.

Omnia (Actual) Progress Report 2024-04-21

Omnia is ready for playtesting. Ideally, I could release it now, but I know I need to see it in action and make any necessary changes before I reveal it to the public. The most fundamental question is, of course: Is it fun? If it passes that test, the next question is: Did any aspect of the rules make it less fun? If the answer is affirmative, the logical question after that is: What can I do to correct it? Those questions can only be answered by playtesting.

I am eager to playtest as soon as possible, so I will try two different approaches selected for expeditiousness. One approach is to write a brief adventure for a genre and setting with which everyone is familiar; the other approach is to take an existing adventure published for another game system and adapt it to Omnia. Now is not the time to produce a masterpiece of adventure design. Now is the time to test Omnia through play, take notes, and decide what, if anything, needs to be changed.

I'm inspired, and I can't wait to see what unfolds.

Omnia (Lack of) Progress Report 2024-04-17

Oh, no. I was on the verge of posting the rules of Omnia (pending a decision about what license to use), when I began to have doubts about the combat rules again. I struggle with my perfectionism, and this is a perfect example (ironically?). I believe the prevailing strategy amongst game designers is to put something out there and playtest it extensively, incorporate the notes that were taken, conduct more playtesting, incorporate more notes, repeat the cycle a few more times, then publish it. Then publish errata. Then publish more errata. Then start designing the next edition incorporating the errata and other tweaks. Then playtest that edition extensively, etc.

I know I'm a dreamer, but I would like to avoid most of that process and publish a good solid edition that is truly finished systemwise, not an eternal work in progress that alienates fans from one edition to another. If there is to be expansion, I want it to occur in the form of adventures, settings, genres, practical advice, and inspiration. I want the system rules to be a reliable foundation upon which gamers can build whatever they can imagine because they understand and enjoy how the rules interact with their gameplay. Is that too lofty a goal?

I am not against playtesting. I am a strong advocate of it. I just want to start with the best possible iteration I can, see if it works, and make adjustments as necessary. But the more I think about what I want, how it would work, and what others would enjoy, the more doubt encroaches on my vision and forces me to question everything. What others do externally, I am doing internally—conducting playtests in my mind, taking notes, making changes, conducting more mental playtests, taking notes, making changes, ad infinitum. It is frustrating. I just want to bring the rules to a reasonably presentable state so I can playtest them with others, publish it, and start sharing the stuff I can build upon it.

Thank you for reading.

Wish me luck.

Simplifying Game Notation

Omnia does not use conventional game notation. You will not see a number followed by a "D" to denote how many dice you roll as you might in other role-playing games that use a dice pool system of resolution. At the game table, you might hear, "My Ability is five," or "The Difficulty is three," or "Being slimed is a penalty of one to all actions." In print, it would read, "My Ability is 5," "The Difficulty is 3," and "Being slimed is a penalty of 1 to all actions." It would be nice to dispense with out-of-character terminology entirely, but this isn't Fudge (despite my affection for it). So, the numbers stay.

In the past, I have been driven to distraction trying to find an effective method to notate binary randomizers (see "Binary Dice Notation" in Decidedly Six-Sided,) but two role-playing games solved the problem long ago, by which I mean Ghostbusters: A Frightfully Cheerful Roleplaying Game and Prince Valiant: The Storytelling Game. Unburdened by alphabetic signifiers, these games simply used the bare numerals in their quantitative glory. The plan was sheer elegance in its simplicity (to quote numerous villains from The Middleman). Nonetheless, I felt there were possibilities for improvement at least in a typographical sense, which may aid in learning the rules and referencing them later. With an eye toward this objective, I wrote the following as an appendix of sorts to the rules of Omnia:

Game Notation

Whenever a numeral is in boldface, it refers to the number of standard randomizers to be used in resolving an Ability test. So, an Ability rated at 3 would mean three six-sided dice (odds-and-evens), three binary dice, or three coins, with the capacity to generate a number between 0–3.

Whenever a numeral is underlined, it indicates a target number, or Difficulty. Thus, a task might be expressed as Difficulty 4. A character must equal or exceed this number in an Ability test to succeed at a given task.

Whenever a numeral is in underlined boldface, it refers to the number of standard randomizers applied as a penalty to an Ability test. For instance, a character with an Ability 3 and a Moderate Wound 2 would roll three dice for the Ability test and two dice for the penalty. The penalty result, if it exceeds 0, is then subtracted from the Ability test result.

In short, numerals that are in boldface stand for randomizers and numerals that are underlined stand for target numbers to beat.

In other words, Agent 86 uses his Ability as a Secret Agent 4 to defuse a time bomb (Difficulty 2), but he is hampered by a Condition of Sleep Deprivation 1. Godspeed, 86!

Omnia and Jargon

One of my guiding principles for Omnia is the avoidance of gamer jargon. I try to write the rules in plain language in order to remove as many barriers as possible for those who might be new to the hobby or have other challenges. I like to think also that it will preserve comprehensibility for those who might stumble upon the game long after current popular jargon has become obsolete. The rules are meant to be understood and usable by anyone; they are not meant to confound the uninitiated with acronyms, neologisms, or misuses of existing terms. They are meant to be accessible to all.

All for all.

I've written more about gamer jargon in "Deliberate Obfuscation in Gaming" in Creative Reckoning.

Omnia Update 2024-01-20

The rules of Omnia ought to be as concise as possible, but I envision an additional annotated edition that will furnish a wealth of examples and explanatory notes. I would also like to release editions focused on single genres using only examples specific to the genre and possibly including settings, adventures, adventure seeds, and other relevant material.

The concise edition ought to be released in at least two formats: PDF and digest-sized zine. I am considering a third format, but it depends on just how concise I can make it. I might have to create a condensed edition to make it work.

Regardless of the format or density, the rules will be the same across all editions and formats. The difference will be in the presentation.

This Will Be the Year

I thought I might entitle this article, "Will This Be the Year?" That, however, would only herald procrastination, and although I am skeptical of New Year's resolutions, it is time to make a commitment to the unveiling of Omnia. I will release Omnia in 2024 so I can concentrate on writing gameable content for it and actually running it. I resolve that this will be the year.