I've been ponedring deeply on my most recent roleplaying experiences as a player and thinking about what that means in terms of the type of game I would like to design in order to deal with some of these observations. For example, in one game a great plan that we as a group of players came up with nearly got completely stalled because we kept muffing up a crucial roll for a task that was merely the perliminary to the plan. The goal in itself was trivial, but without it, the plan as a whole couldn't succeed.

With this and other thoughts in mind, I've been trying to model a new process for approacing games from a character oriented perspective. Some of this has bene said before, of course: what I'm trying to do here is organise my own thoughts systematically and put them out in the open for questioning & evaluation.

The classic model for the process of a game is 'Input-Operation-Output', e.g. the GM tells the players what situation they are in (Input), the players describe what their PCs are doing about that situation (Operation)and then the GM or the players (depending on who has narrative authority at that stage of the game) describes what happens as aresult of those actions (Output) which then frequently forms the Input for the next iteration of the cycle.

Point #1: what is your evaluation of this model?

Taking that as my model, then, I want to modify it by reversing the roles for the first two steps, e.g. make players responsible for the Input and the GM responsible for the Operation. My reason for doing this is because I want a PC to be a statement about what the player wants to happen in the game, instead of being a 'spread bet' on what the GM will introduce into the narrative. In most of the game I've been playing, creating a PC seems more like a process of guessing what skills will be useful and how often: even where the player takes the approach of choosing those skills which reflect their character, as opposed to vice versa, there is still a large element of 'betting' e.g. staking your character creation points in a way that 'maximises' the 'winnings' the player can make with that character.

Point #2: any questions on that assessment? Feedback? I'm largely talking about traditional RPGs here, but I still think its an underlying assumption in many indie games too.

My approach therefore is to take the lead from the character choices made by the players: instead of a number on a sheet representing the PC's chances of success in ceratin situatiosn that may or may not come up, and which will have varying degrees of imapct on aspects of the game, I want the number to repesent how often that situation will occur. In other words, use the quantities assigend to different categories like 'Stealth', 'Combat', 'Research',
'Persuasion', etc as resources to be spent to make those things occur as part of the narrative.

In this model, the GM's role would be to respond to the players choices (the Input) by selecting an appropriate response from his own resources (the Operation)with the result narrated by whomever ends up with narrative authority (the Output)

Point #3: am I just talking out of my backside here or does this mean anything to anybody? I've not quite ironed out the details in my own mind, though I do have an idea for a specific approach I would like to take. Do you think the model proposed would be attractive to players and is it practical? Any cooments or feedback appreciated.

OK, thats my brain-splurge over for now: back to my customary taciturn silence again. :-)