Appendix IV: Designers' Notes

Designers' Notes

We like to think of this game as what the second generation of RPGs might have looked like if Everway -- or Heaven & Earth, or Nobilis -- had been the first published RPG, instead of D&D. In short, if RPGs had grown out of games like Once Upon a Time, instead of wargames. These are its spiritual ancestors, though perhaps not its mechanical ancestors.

We created this game in rather a backward order. It started out with the concept of a game mechanic, and only much later did we begin putting a world around it.

The original precept was to see what happened if we broke a pair of sacred cows of the RPG: focusing on the character, and giving quantitative results. We wanted to see if we could come up with a meaningful mechanic that focused on the setting, and that told us only how things happened, not to what degree. Well, as we experimented with different things, we decided that qualitative results were insufficient for our purposes -- an RPG resolution system needs to tell you whether or not you've succeeded, and what we had couldn't answer that question with any kind of certitude. However, we did come away with the idea of a system that was without hierarchical scales, so that while the system now tells you that X is better than Y, it refuses to tell you by how much.

The focus on externalities is what became the Planets. Most (all?) RPGs consider the world the static, or at least definite, part of the equation, and the character striving is what the mechanics/dice rolls represent. We wanted to see what a system looked like that didn't take the character into consideration, except perhaps analogously to the modifiers that situation might have on a roll in a "normal" RPG. Instead, it would look at the world half of the world-character interaction. All of those "random factors" that most game system sum up in the luck of the dice -- uncertain footing, great distance, a change in the wind; in short, chance -- would become the focus of our mechanic, while those things that are usually considered under character control -- skill, natural aptitude, "attributes", etc. -- would become the chance factors summed up by the die roll. In the end, it didn't end up quite that way, but it still informs the philosophy behind the mechanics. The idea has been refined into a somewhat-detailed mechanical view of the world around the character -- the Planets -- which consciously ignores all other aspects of character.

Once we had the mechanic that became "Rolling the Planets", though without specific forces in mind yet, we set about looking for a setting/genre where this sort of heavy-handed fate intervention would feel reasonable, or even appropriate. A couple of possibilities were tossed around, but we finally settled on low-powered supers, and thought that a pseudo-period setting with supers would be grand fun. We hope you agree on that count. The "pulp" part of the setting came from two imperatives. First, it seemed more appropriate for the setting, and, second, the lower power and less-special-status for supers seemed a better mesh for the pseudo-historical setting -- with supers having less power, we could minimize the degree to which they had warped the setting.

There are some specific principles that we've tried to adhere to and convey with the rules. In case they aren't obvious⁴⁰, here they are:>

• The players have complete authorial control over their personal characters in matters that are unimportant or uncontested. In the case of inanimate objects, the closer a thing is to the character, the more control the player has over it. In the case of other characters (not controlled by other players), the less significant and more appropriate the action, the more control over it the player has.>
• The Storyguide may contest a player's authorial control of her character in matters that are significant or contested, at which point the rules for Traits and Planets (in that order) come into play to resolve the outcome.>
• The Storyguide has authorial control over everything else.>
• Players may assume temporary complete authorial control (including other objects and characters, but excluding other players' characters) by playing Storypath Cards.>
• The game is played on a dual level, where the players both inhabit their characters and craft a story that the players can appreciate. At the level of the characters, genre conventions should be the primary basis for reality and should inform the characters' decisions. At the player level, appropriate literary trappings (framing stories, cliffhangers, issue/title distinctions, variable consistency) should shape the narrative on a broader scale.>

Further, there are a set of assumptions about the descriptions of characters that are very important:>

• Planets are a measure not of the character's internal capabilities, but of how the universe around the character reacts to her. A character with a very high (small die) Known is not necessarily learned or intelligent, and a very physically fit and powerful character could have very low (large die) Static and Dynamic scores.>
• Similarly, Traits are not in any way "linked" to a particular Planet. Once character creation is finished, the effects and uses of a Trait (and relationships to particular Forces) should be considered only in light of the player's description of how the Trait is being used and the situation at hand. Powers and Weaknesses are related to their source Force, but since the player will only rarely be rolling a die for that Planet, see the next point.>
• Descriptors generally decide an action, when applicable. Rolling the Planets is only used to decide actions that the Descriptors do not govern, or when two characters are too close in ability to decide the results from comparing their Descriptors.>
• There are no absolute or objective hierarchies. In particular, the dice used for the Planets do not sit upon a scale, so someone with a d4 in a Planet is not necessarily more governed by that Force than someone with a d10--it depends only on the relationship within the Planets of a given character. Likewise, Descriptors are not rated in any way; decisions of relative power in that area are generally decided by a combination of dramatic fiat and narrative comparison.>

Oh, and for those of you who care: yes, we have analyzed the probabilities for the dice, at least to a degree. And we're not telling. This isn't a game about that sort of thing. It only matters whether or not one die is less than, equal to, or greater than another, not by how much, so suffice it to say that, yes, a d20 beats a d16 about as often as a d6 beats a d4 (within a few percentage points), or for that matter, about as often as a d12 beats a d10, and this holds true so long as you only use the recommended die sizes.

If you've followed my writings online for any time, you may be aware that I think setting is king in the RPG, and mechanics are just there to bring the setting to life. So why is this game several chapters of rules, and just one paltry chapter on the setting? Two reasons. First of all, this game grew out of mechanics, and the setting game later. The point of this game, at least initially, was to challenge the assumptions of what mechanics in an RPG should look like, and to thus stretch the shape of the RPG as a whole. And most of that comes in areas that are, loosely, mechanics.

Secondly, Italia is meant to be 9 parts feel and 1 part detail. We are trying to evoke a mood, and want you to fill in the details as you see fit, in order to capture that mood in whatever way you wish to. Also, it is supposed to be based on cliches, tropes, and erroneous familiarity. Doubtless, we have different ideas of what "the Renaissance" is like, so by leaving Italia vague, you can better mesh it to your own preconceptions.>

Inspirography

A great many things have gone into this game, in terms of antecedents. The most obvious and significant, from a setting point of view, are several comics, while much of the mood can be traced to movies. The mechanics, and the game side in general, come from a mix of RPGs and comics.>

Astro City>

Kingdom Come>

It's not just the concept of a more realistic setting that actually responds to the existence of supers. Also, some of the deconstruction of the superhero, which shows up in the self-parody and tongue-in-cheek references that many of our heroes and villains display.>

Unbreakable>

not just a deconstruction of the superhero mythos, this one also reconstructs it. He rips the foundations out from under the superhero at the very same time that he is building a new foundation, from many of the same parts, put together completely differently. In the end, we see a completely different, yet infinitely similar superhero--a post-modern reconstruction of the concept of superhero. Everything underneath has changed, but the flowers are still standing.>

The Shadow>

The Numerous Comics from which we have shamelessly stolen inspiration (and then some) for many of our stock characters.

Everway>

Over the Edge>

Story Engine>

Theatrix>

Castle Falkenstein

A Final Note