Thoughts on Penalties

As it stands, penalties in Omnia affect a character's Ability by reducing the number of randomizers used in a test. (Example: A City Guard 3 with a Condition of Sleep Deprivation −1 would roll two binary dice instead of three to notice the thief.) In a previous draft of the rules, penalties were negative randomizers that could potentially cancel an Ability's positive randomizers. (Example: The City Guard 3 with a Condition of Sleep Deprivation −1 would roll three positive binary dice and one negative binary die to notice the thief. If the negative die result is 1, it cancels out a single positive die result of 1.) This requires much more dice-rolling to determine whether a penalty has any effect whatsoever. Another method has just occurred to me, though. Suppose instead of reducing Ability randomizers or incurring negative randomizers, a penalty simply raises the Difficulty. (Example: The City Guard 3 with a Condition of Sleep Deprivation I needs to notice the thief, which is ordinarily a Difficulty of II. The City Guard would roll three binary dice versus the modified Difficulty of III.) This would make penalties much more punishing and feel less tangible. Gaining or losing randomizers as bonuses or penalties respectively makes the process more concrete. Conversely, raising and lowering the Difficulty depending on the bonuses and penalties affecting the character makes it seem more abstract. I think I shall continue using penalties for randomizer reduction.

Roman Numeral Difficulties

This is just a test to see how Difficulty ratings look with Roman numerals by modifying an excerpt from this article.

• Jane Doe tests her Ability as a Pole Vaulter 4 versus a Difficulty of II and scores a 3.
• Jeremiah Doe, Brawler 4, throws a punch and scores a 1.
• Jedediah Doe, Veteran Infantryman 3, defends with a 2.
• "I'll use my Ability as a Cat Burglar 5 to deactivate the alarm. The Difficulty is III? I scored a 4."
• "Test your Botanist 4 Ability. The Difficulty is III. You scored a 3? The plant is clearly extra-terrestrial in origin."
• "The Difficulty is IV? I'll use my Ability as an Armorsmith 4. I scored a 2 and I'll spend 2 points of Luck to see if I can bring it to a 4."

Obviously, this wouldn't be distinguishable verbally, but it would add clarity in print, especially in adventures. Theoretically.

Limited Game Notation

Instead of being concerned with how to notate Abilities and other aspects that are defined by quantities of randomizers, perhaps I should only be concerned with how to notate Difficulty (and possibly other fixed value aspects). Roman numerals would be a reasonable choice for Difficulty. Difficulty 3 becomes Difficulty III. Difficulty 4 becomes Difficulty IV. In a way, it makes it seem more imposing, more of a challenge. Abilities remain as unadorned numerals. Results remain as italicized numerals. And Difficulty ratings thereby stand out more, as they should. I think it might work.

Similar, but Not the Same

What do you do when all of the player characters in a group essentially have the same Ability, such as a group of Pirates, or Knights, or Ghost Hunters? In many role-playing games, such designations would be occupations and the individuals would be differentiated by long lists of skills. In Omnia, Abilities are already collections of skills and areas of knowledge, so player characters are differentiated by a) adjectives added to the Ability they have common and b) their other Abilities. In the first case, the adjective could modify the Ability by describing a significant trait, specialization, style, outlook, or cultural perspective. In the second case, a character's other Abilities could influence a character's approach to the primary Ability or contribute to success in fulfilling the objectives of the primary Ability.

I may need to provide examples in the future.

Luck Again

In Luck Happens," I wrote that "Luck should literally be the result of luck, as in chance." I still believe it's the optimal method of awarding Luck, but I also believe Luck can be awarded for achieving certain goals as long as it cannot be spent on permanent character improvement. In Omnia, Luck plays no part in improving a character's statistics. It can only be used as a temporary boost. Therefore, Luck may be awarded when a character does something specific or it may be awarded randomly. The real key, as I reflect on it now, is not how Luck is acquired, but how it can be used. (It should also be noted that Luck scores and Ability scores are randomizers, not flat values, because Omnia uses a dice pool system.) Luck is no substitute for experience (except when it is), but it can be gained by having experiences.

What Voice Did I Use for That NPC Again?

Apart from schedule conflicts and published adventures with suboptimal presentation leading to user unfriendliness, my biggest challenge in running role-playing games is trying to remember exactly how I portrayed a given non-player character in a previous session, especially when the last session was months (or years) ago. This frustrates me to no end. How can I create a believable world and its inhabitants if I can't remember how I portrayed recurring characters? It isn't easy.

For Omnia, I borrowed an idea from QAGS. In QAGS, player characters have something called Who Would Play Him/Her In The Movie, or WWPHITM. The player is advised to think of a thespian who is best suited to play the character in a hypothetical movie to help the other players imagine that character. In Omnia, there is a similar characteristic for player characters called Portrayal, but it occurred to me that this would also be a useful characteristic for non-player characters—not only for helping visualization, but as a means for helping the moderator remember how to play the character. The moderator need not ever reveal a non-player character's Portrayal. It can just be a mnemonic device for the person responsible for playing an entire cast of supporting characters and antagonists every session. It's a simple solution that works for any role-playing game. I might need to highlight this aspect in the rules.

Methods of Group Character Creation

Omnia is an occupation-centered (or "class-centered") role-playing game, which means there may be some tension between characters if several are fulfilling the same role within the party. Some players may have no problem with overlapping or duplicate skillsets and responsibilities, and can lean into other Abilities or aspects of their character that differentiate them from their comrades. Other players prefer characters to occupy their own zones of expertise where each party member can shine. Players and moderators should discuss the best method of group character creation for their needs. Here are some suggested options.

Independent

Each player picks Abilities independently with no input from other players. When everyone is finished, the Abilities of all characters are revealed. Players may choose to allocate points to Abilities before or after the reveal. The moderator could even opt to have the Abilities remain secret until the characters meet.

The benefit of this method is the possibility of surprise and conflict, which can enrich the role-playing.

Cooperative

The players cooperate to pick Abilities, making suggestions, coordinating their choices to make either the most optimally effective party or the most entertaining group dynamics.

The benefit of this method is that the players can craft exactly the kind of party they want if they all agree.

Back and Forth

Starting with the player to the left of the moderator, each player picks one Ability, proceeding clockwise. Then each player picks a second Ability starting with the player to the right of the moderator, proceeding counterclockwise. Third Abilities are picked in the manner of the first. Fourth Abilities are picked in the manner of the second. At any point, a player may pass. If any character has less than four Abilities at the end, they may invoke the rule of spontaneous Ability generation during gameplay. At no point may any player pick an Ability that has already been picked (optional: unless there is unanimous approval).

The benefit of this method is that skill diversity is guaranteed and selection opportunities are more evenly distributed.

Random

All of the Abilities permitted are written on playing cards and shuffled. The moderator then deals four cards to each player. These become the Abilities for each character. There are several options for determining which Abilities are permitted:

• The moderator makes all the Ability cards.
• The players make all the Ability cards.
• Everyone makes all the Ability cards.
• Each person makes four Ability cards secretly and adds them to the deck.

The benefit of this method is controlled unpredictability.

N.B. In any of the above methods, the moderator reserves the right to restrict or recommend Abilities based on the needs of the genre, setting, or adventure.

One Chance to Be More Specific

In Omnia, the primary building block of character creation is the Ability, which is a vocation or avocation. Characters may start with one to four Abilities. If they start with fewer than four, they may add Abilities during gameplay. An Ability gives a character a wide swath of capabilities. If you possess the Ability of Musketeer, you are skilled at marksmanship, fencing, battlefield tactics, carousing, and any number of things that might pertain to being a musketeer or having a musketeer's experience. An Ability is not a general characteristic or attribute like Strength or Intelligence or Dexterity, although an Ability might be indicative of a character's inherent characteristics. A character's rating as a Musketeer might very well indicate an equivalent level of agility and dexterity (especially if you make your character a Dextrous Musketeer or an Agile Musketeer). Attributes, in other words, can be inferred from a character's Abilities and used as such with moderator approval.

The problem is that some gamers will ignore this fundamental fact of the game and resort to listing their Abilities as common attributes instead of occupations. I cannot stop people from doing this, but I can offer this insight: If you list an Ability as being an attribute such as Dexterity or Charisma, it will deprive your character of skills and knowledge. You may be generally dextrous or charismatic, but anyone who is, for example, a Pianist or a Game Show Host can already use their Abilities of dexterity and charisma respectively in general terms, but they also have skills, knowledge, and connections associated with those Abilities. You are only depriving your character of competence when you focus on general characteristics.

If a player insists on using run-of-the-mill generic attributes as their Abilities, I, as a moderator, will just mentally substitute a generic avocation. Your Ability is not Intelligence 3. You are a Generally Intelligent Person 3. Your Ability is not Strength 5. You are a Generally Strong Person 5. You will be able to test your Abilities generally like anyone with an applicable Ability, but you will lose any tie against a character with a more specific Ability, and you will never be able to use such Abilities to achieve tasks that are the province of dedicated vocations or avocations. For that, you can only use Luck (with moderator approval).

Abilities are so much more powerful than attributes. Lean into it.

Wise Allocation

Omnia does not use random character generation, although I am not opposed to providing a form of it as an optional method of character creation. Instead, I have chosen the point allocation method for determining Ability ratings. Initially, I planned to allow points to flow between Abilities and other elements of the rules, but I have decided I want Abilities to be self-contained. Enough flexibility is already present with the potential for spontaneous Ability generation if the player character chooses less than the maximum number of starting Ability points. Allowing players to tap other elements during character creation leads to both power inflation and Ability dilution. I want the choices in Ability selection and competency to be meaningful.

Does this mean there is no exchange between any rules elements in the game? No, it does not. In the current draft of Omnia, Complications serve as a character creation currency that can be used to increase Health, Psyche, or Luck as well as purchase Powers (within the scope of the setting and genre being used). In a way, Abilities can be modified by exchanging points with other rules elements indirectly through the purchase of Powers. (Powers are capabilities possessing their own ratings, which are used in coordination with appropriate Abilities.)

This enables Omnia to maintain the integrity of the Ability microsystem without sacrificing flexibility during character creation.

P.S. I realize this article will make little sense to anyone but me until I release Omnia in some form or other, but for now it serves as another installment of design notes recorded for posterity.

Luck Happens

In some role-playing games, you earn Luck for accomplishing something, and you spend Luck either to accomplish something or to improve yourself so you can accomplish things. That doesn't sound like luck to me. It sounds more like experience. You don't earn luck—you're just lucky. It isn't karma. It isn't brownie points. It's just dumb luck that can happen to anyone at any time, and it can be good or it can be bad. So, maybe "Luck" isn't a good term for this kind of metacurrency. Karma is great for Marvel Super Heroes and Brownie Points are perfect for Ghostbusters, but Luck should literally be the result of actual luck, as in chance.

Luck already happens in any game with a randomizer. You roll the dice. You flip the coin. You spin the spinner. The result is pure luck. If you want a rule where you can gain Luck and use it later without stepping on the experience system's toes, you need to make sure that Luck is always acquired purely by chance.

As an example, consider any game that has a rule for critical success or critical failure. You could make a house rule that any critical success (or critical failure, or both) grants the player a point of Luck they can use later for whatever they are allowed to do with Luck. For a game with a dice pool system, perhaps there is a unique die that grants a point of Luck whenever a specific side comes up. For a card game, it's the Joker. If you're lucky, you get a Luck point.

What you can do with Luck points depends on the game, but the one thing it should never let you do is increase your skill/ability/level. That is the realm of experience, not luck. Luck that is gained should be spent on lucky breaks. Even as a resource, it should remain within its own ecosystem.

All of this has me reevaluating the metacurrency in Omnia.

The Arcade Style

There is one genre where experience levels can be justified in Omnia, and that is the genre of video games. Yes, I know video game developers derived the "level up" concept from the earliest real role-playing games (primarily D&D), but I think levels make more sense in video games and the role-playing games adapted from them. Levels and the points needed to achieve them become an element of the game world itself as experienced by the characters—or it can be, and to good effect, I think. There might be room after all for levels, points, and even power-ups in an alternative Omnia arcade.

Improving Improvement

I have re-examined the rules of character development and, after briefly entertaining the possibility of directly linking the Luck metacurrency to improvement, I have decided to separate them. Luck remains an easy-come-easy-go resource that players can use freely when they feel the need. Character development will be based on what characters do during and between adventures. For those who seek a random element and slower progression, an optional rule can be added that requires a check (or "test" as it is called in Omnia) after the conditions for improvement have been met.

The temptation lingers to add another alternative for advancement along the lines of accumulating experience points. The concept is familiar and easy to grasp, but it is a remnant of the early hobby that interferes with immersion and requires an amount of bookkeeping I prefer to avoid. It's fine for certain games, especially those that are concerned with traditional character classes and levels, but it runs counter to the spirit of Omnia. I want to encourage player characters to pursue personal goals and group objectives within the setting. I do not want them to be distracted by the abstract point values of treasure, foes, or miscellaneous activities and how many points they need to level up or increase a skill.

I am striving for simplicity and verisimilitude.

As Luck Would (or Would Not) Have It

The Luck score in Omnia has changed and will possibly change again, but one thing it will never be is a reality-altering superpower like "The Force" in Star Wars or an authorial metacurrency in a story game. They have their place in their respective spheres, but this is not the way of Omnia. Instead, Luck is an intangible combination of circumstances and willpower, or Fortuna and bloody-mindedness, that occasionally enables people to exceed their normal capabilities, avoid catastrophe, and possibly even make a major breakthrough. I think this is something that accelerates the gameplay without breaking immersion. We shall see...

Distinguishing Results

Because of the kind of person I am, I invariably concern myself with style choices of which most readers are unaware. I care about such things because it has an impact on clarity, and clarity is paramount in good rule-writing. As I have agonized over optimal game notation for Omnia, I have become aware that I do not have a clear way of indicating when a number refers to an actual randomly generated result as opposed to a rating such as Ability or Difficulty. If I don't resort to any of the game notation gimmicks I have been toying with, it stands to reason (in my mind, at least) that something should at least distinguish a result from other numbers. I could enclose it in quotation marks, but this becomes tiresome if it is nested in a quotation. I have decided, for now, that it would be best to italicize results. For example:

• Jane Doe tests her Ability as a Pole Vaulter 4 versus a Difficulty of 2 and scores a 3.
• Jeremiah Doe, Brawler 4, throws a punch and scores a 1.
• Jedediah Doe, Veteran Infantryman 3, defends with a 2.
• "I'll use my Ability as a Cat Burglar 5 to deactivate the alarm. The Difficulty is 3? I scored a 4."
• "Test your Botanist 4 Ability. The Difficulty is 3. You scored a 3? The plant is clearly extra-terrestrial in origin."
• "The Difficulty is 3? I'll use my Ability as an Armorsmith 4. I scored a 2 and I'll spend 1 point of Luck to see if I can bring it to a 3."

(You will note I avoid using terms such as "roll," "throw," "shake," or "toss" because the randomizers used in Omnia could take a variety of forms from coins to dice to cards to anything that can be used to generate a binary result.)

Is this style choice helpful?

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.

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.