The Sunfall Manifesto
Principles of Game Design
This document is intended to lay out simply the basic philosophical and political assumptions upon which I first began to construct the rules system which has come to be called Sunfall. At first glance, it may seem odd to treat the design of a roleplaying game as an exercise in political philosophy, but in fact that is precisely what it is.
Individuals in any human society are motivated by a wide variety of goals. Some of us wish to become rich and famous, some look for True Love, others seek virtue and wisdom. Most are too busy looking for their next meal to stop and think about what they want out of life. In any case, all of these personal quests can be grouped under the general heading "the pursuit of happiness", so familiar from the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and insofar as we are social creatures, our actions in this pursuit will often have an effect on the ability of others to follow their own goals. In the liberal state, we establish and recognize rights of individuals as a means of selectively limiting certain freedoms for the sake of greater total freedom overall.
Ultimately, Sunfall is a game of make-believe, where each player is attempting to fulfill his or her own personal gaming objectives. These goals are many and varied, ranging from the accumulation of treasure to the attainment of spiritual peace, from rules-lawyers intent on achieving personal advantage in roll-playing to method actors exploring the bounds of the human condition. Each player, acting through his or her character, exerts an influence on the development of the plot, hopefully in the direction of satisfying that player's own objectives. Since the reality of Sunfall is a shared fantasy, however, the actions of one character can often limit the plot options available to another. The rules of Sunfall, just as the laws of a liberal state, are an attempt to maximize each player's total ability to influence the development of the story, by placing reasonable limits on any one person's power.
Thus we have the most important philosophical assumptions behind the Sunfall rules: people play to have fun, but everyone has a different idea of fun. Moreover, there is no way to tell which way of having fun is correct. Therefore, the game designer (and organizer) should not concern himself/herself with promoting one notion over another, but should endeavour instead to provide the players with the greatest possible opportunity to satisfy their various objectives. Sunfall is therefore an exercise in Utilitarianism, where the greatest good for the greatest number translates into the greatest plot-influencing power for the greatest number of players. (Note that this does NOT include actors or game organizers! These people, especially as Referees, have tremendous power over the game reality, but this power is intended only to benefit the players by creating and maintaining a more or less objective game world, to arbitrate between their conflicting plot-desires, and to provide plot stimuli and a sense of mystery where needed.)
So, the following principles are instrumental in achieving the above ideal:
Economise Rules: Don't try to make rules for every possible situation. Fortunately, many of the things that have to be addressed by tabletop games are taken care of by Nature in the live RPG environment, so rules for hiding and sneaking and NPC reactions are unnecessary. However, it is just as important to economise in areas where rules might seem to be appropriate. For example, it might be tempting to introduce standard Hit Locations to combat to give players more direction in roleplaying the effects of wounds, but such roleplaying can be done (and often is) just as easily without any formal rule. Bear in mind what the rules NEED to do (for combat, they need to decide who wins, and how much healing everyone will need), and make them do that. Let the players add whatever roleplaying embellishments they want (and organizers can certainly encourage this through post-game awards and such).
Sometimes rules can create greater problems than the ones they seek to remedy. Consider the problem of encumbrance rules. It certainly seems unrealistic for characters to run around with half a dozen halberds in one boot, and three or for greatswords tucked into the other, and so we might very well want to put in a rule to limit the number of chits anyone may carry. However, the only person who is likely to know of a violation of such a rule is the guilty party, and so enforcement would have to depend on intrusive supervision (spot checks, etc.) which would only harm the overall quality of the game. Even worse, encumbrance rules encourage players to pay attention to what OTHER characters are carrying at least as much as what they themselves have in their pack, for the advantage of inconveniencing or delaying a rival by reporting him or her to the Referees. This can only benefit rules lawyers and impede serious role-playing. Thus, encumbrance rules are more trouble than they are worth.
Likewise, economise the use of Referees. If it is at all possible to make a rule that doesn't need a Referee to supervise, then do so. In the old DreamQuest system, GMs were needed for Assassination, Thieving, and Bewitching Smile. In Sunfall, Surprise Attack uses no Referee (at the cost of compromising the anonymity of the assailant), a Referee is optional for Picking Pockets (if the thief wants to be anonymous), and Hypnosis is completely Referee-free (and more versatile with respect to player interpretation, as well!)
Keep the rules abstract. Don't force any particular description or interpretation, no matter how sensible it may seem. Players should feel encouraged to come up with new and interesting ways to use the powers they can buy with AP. Hypnosis, for example, can be a powerful form of quasi-magical mind-control, or it can be used to represent just a really good Fast-talk skill.
This also means keeping clear the distinction between game mechanics and in-game events. For example, while dice are used to determine the outcome of a melee round, they do not exist within the game reality; a poultergeist cannot help you win a fight by making your dice come up boxcars. Likewise, you cannot win a Hypnotism staring contest by physically grabbing your opponent's head and forcing him to look away.
Also bear in mind that players may always voluntarily impose further restrictions on their game abilities to better suit their character concepts, so there is no need to tack on special roleplaying-related limitations to skills, spells and abilities beyond the inherently necessary restrictions for game balance (such as the requirement that a Surprise Attack victim not be involved in combat). For example, someone playing a Butcher may take a high Nature Lore skill to reflect knowledge of animals, and voluntarily abstain from using the skill for anything involving plants or minerals. Likewise, a character may be unable to use the Speak With Discorporate ability without her crystal ball (although the rules make no such requirement of her).
If an ability seems too powerful, balance it out with a high AP cost, not with arbitrary restrictions on how it is to be roleplayed. For example, if Damage III is too potent, then raise the MP or AP cost or the required roll. Do NOT add a requirement that forces an interpretation, such as "The caster must eat a live toad while casting this spell."
Every rules infraction should have a victim: If the rules are intended to protect the rights of players to influence the plot, then don't make rules that don't protect someone. Every rule has to rely on some form of enforcement, and that in turn relies on some form of detection of infractions. Not everyone who detects an infraction will have an interest in seeing the rule enforced, however, so it is important to design rules such that if they are broken, at least one of the people who is likely to know about it will be harmed by the cheating, and can then do something about it.
Consider combat. If I beat your roll in battle, and you fail to mark sufficient damage, then I am the victim of your act of cheating, and I will be inclined to insist that you obey the rules. (Of course, I might well say that instead of hitting you with my sword, I deftly flick your hat off and offer you a chance to surrender before you get hurt. In this case, I as your opponent allow you to take little or no damage, so no one's power over the game reality is threatened; I have waived my right to injure your character for this round.)
So, Sunfall is designed according to what are essentially liberal (though not necessarily democratic) principles. Much more can be said about what this implies about the responsibilities of game organisers, referees, actors and players, but that I shall leave to a separate document.