Hey. I'm writing my own RPG now. I am only a teenager so please bear with my teenage silliness. It's a post-apocalyptic game set at the end of the next Ice Age. Cromagnus/cromagnum man has started to dig up technology from the "modern era." The three main player groups each have a different view of this tech. There are those who worship humanity, called the Church of Humanity (boring name. I know.) This group is basically a carte blanch to drop in whatever pop song, pulp novel etc. the GM wants to. For example the song "Dancing Through Life" from the musical "Wicked" could be being sung as a hymn or the Wheel of Time series of fantasy novels could be holy books for a sect of the COH. The second group want to study the tech and figure out how to copy and/or improve on it. I haven't come up with a name for them yet. The final playable "white hat" group are the ones who don't really care. They'll use tech but they don't really want to bother studying it and certainly don't worship it. The bad guys are the Heavenly Scourge. They think that technology is completely evil and want to destroy it. They are the ones who rule most if not all of the cities in the game. How, you may well ask, does the Scourge manage to defeat or even avoid being obliterated by the other groups, since it refuses to use technology. The answer is Solar Psionics. The ozone layer has been thoroughly decimated. Enough UV radiation now reaches Earth's surface to cause mutations in many humans and animals. (Please tell me if this is horrible science). Some humans, called Solar Psions, absorbed the extra UV light and can eject it from their bodies and use it in many different ways. (Blasts of energy, shooting out the ground to increase the height of their jumps, etc.) The magic system is free-form and based on power level (on a tentative scale of 1 to 100.) Every time a player or the GM wants to use UV radiation for something they go through a diplomatic discussion to determine what would be reasonable for that person's power level and what the cost would be in terms of power. They then subtract the agreed upon cost and "cast the spell." Solar Psions have different max power levels depending on their experience. They meditate in the sun each day to restore their power level to max. The Scourge worships Solar Psions as prophets, angels, etc. What they are called varies between groups of Scourge agents but they are always gifted by God with their powers. Scourge Psions go through an initiation in which they sit in a chamber which focuses UV light on them. Those who survive this ceremony are more powerful than those who do not undergo it. There is also a lot of infighting between sects of Scourge agents who follow different religions.
I will probably be using the Tri-Stat system.
Thank you for wading through this long and rambling post and please forgive me for the horrible organization and extreme length. I would love some feedback and possibly help with the mechanics because I suck at mechanical stuff.
Thanks.
Finally, many have been mutated by the UV radiation in monstrous ways (extra limbs, fur, etc.) They are discriminated against or outright hunted and hide in remote villages.
Okay, ice age, end of civilization/rise of civilization, three groups of retards, but what is your game about? What do the players do in your game? Who are the characters? What's the goal of a game session?
-L
It's about fear. Fear of the Scourge to be specific. At low levels the goal would be to simply survive while also trying to take the Scourge down a peg while you're at it. I like to think of it as a post-apocalyptic WWII where the Scourge is the Gestapo and the PCs are members of the Resistance. Therefore the most common things that they do will be typical guerilla warfare stuff. (Blowing up important buildings, ambushing patrols, kidnapping commanders etc.)
I hope this answers your question Luke. Thanks for the feedback.
It IS horrible science, but as long as you unashamedly admit to it, nobody will care. I mean, after all, Superman gets powers from the sun, why not future mutants?
For your magic, how about the player says what they want to do and writes on a piece of paper how much he thinks it should cost. Then the gm says how much he thinks it should cost. If the player's guess is less than the GM's, but within 20 points, he pays his cost. If it is more than 20 points less than the GM's cost, he pays the GM's cost +20. If he guesses over the GM, he pays the GM's cost.
Also, Alokov, since you don't seem particularly good at organizing your thoughts, can you just write a list of specific questions in addition to your summary?
Thank you. I will probably end up using that magic system. It seems to accomplish all that I was trying for while avoiding all the pitfalls I saw with my solution.
Also, thank you for the bit about the horrible science I certainly would rather admit it than overhaul my setting.
I understand that I ramble (as I am doing right now.) So here's my list of questions.
1. What do you think of the basic game idea (resistance vs. Gestapo-esque entity in a post Ice Age world)? More specifically do you think it's too constricting and/or likely to cause repetitive adventures?
2. What do you think of the organizations. Do you think I need more or fewer? Do any stand out as particularly good or bad?
3. Do you think the Tri-Stat system is a good choice for this setting/type of game? if not please give some alternative systems that you think would work better and/or some suggestions on how to design a new system. Keep in mind, if you choose this option that I am not at all mathematically minded.
I hope these are focused enough.
Quote from: Alokov on July 20, 2009, 01:42:20 AM1. What do you think of the basic game idea (resistance vs. Gestapo-esque entity in a post Ice Age world)?
Seems like a perfectly good premise to me, more important than my opinion though is that you want to run it and that is really all the validation that it needs.
Quote from: Alokov on July 20, 2009, 01:42:20 AMMore specifically do you think it's too constricting and/or likely to cause repetitive adventures?
That's up to you really. There are plenty of ways you could flesh it out to ensure it has variety but make sure that is doing that you don't end up diluting the original concept. If your game is "Primitive tribesmen exploring the moral and ethical implications of contemporary technology," then adding in a monastery full of ninjas and their trained monkeys will certainly add variety but it won't help you explore the implications of contemporary technology. Don't worry about the variety on offer in your game, if a game concept os only good for six sessions then it is better to run it for six sessions that to stretch it out to fifty.
Quote from: Alokov on July 20, 2009, 01:42:20 AM3. Do you think the Tri-Stat system is a good choice for this setting/type of game? if not please give some alternative systems that you think would work better and/or some suggestions on how to design a new system. Keep in mind, if you choose this option that I am not at all mathematically minded.
Tri-Stat system would certainly be able to run something like this and thinking about it the minor and major gadget rules are just what you need to represent the assortment to tech that will feature in your game. Some people would say that you should first make sure that such a traditional system is really what you want -maybe you would want some mechanics in your game directly related to your character's faith in or fear of technology- but I figure that if you are comfortable with the Tri-Stat system then go with it! The worst that can happen is that it isn't the system that you are looking for and you can try something else. That is what playtesting is for after all!
Thank you for all this great feedback. Being new to The Forge I am utterly shocked at the speed with which I'm getting responses. Having gone through several incarnations of this setting on other boards only to come back to my initial idea I can certainly appreciate not trying to stretch out the game longer than it's good for.
My main concern now is whether or not will sell. I am doing this primarily for fun but it would be nice if it could sell some too and I am willing to make small changes to the setting in order to make it sell better.
Quote from: Alokov on July 20, 2009, 06:49:14 AMMy main concern now is whether or not will sell. I am doing this primarily for fun but it would be nice if it could sell some too and I am willing to make small changes to the setting in order to make it sell better.
Designing a product according to the standards of a mythical committee will not make it sell any better or worse. Just worry about giving your product the best presentation you can, expressing your ideas clearly and passionately, and customers will follow, or not.
Your setting, in some ways, reminds me of Dream Pod 9's Tribe 8, you might want to read up on it some.
The setting and premise seem alright, on the concept. As for the amount of factions, in the end, each group would make use of what interests them, horror game and resistance, or just survival and rediscovery in a post-apocalyptic setting, or moving between the two, so just present the background that you want, people will treat it as a sand-box.
Okay, some questions: How is your game about fear? What does it do to reinforce that? What do the players (rather than the PCs) do at the table?
The main way to reinforce fear is through roleplaying and interaction. Just moving through the streets is a daunting proposition as the Scourge is getting ever more paranoid and their trigger fingers are getting ever more itchy. They're starting to send out patrols to bust down random doors in order to look for Resistance safehouses. Haven't thought beyond this general level yet. Will post if I do come up with more.
Anyone know anything similar to this? Cause if there is anything similar to this I should change it.
Quote from: Alokov on July 21, 2009, 07:21:42 PM
Cause if there is anything similar to this I should change it.
Why?
Work on what excites you. Even if it's "similar", it could be different enough. It could be better. It could be better for
your needs.
Also, designing a game helps designing future games. Some of my later designs definitely benefited from experience gained working on previous designs. Even if none of them were great, or perhaps even good, they were
better.
Hi Alokov,
I think you're running into a difficulty here, in that the primary interest of a lot of the people who post here is in how mechanics reinforce the aesthetics of play. That means that before we can talk mechanics with you, we need to know what aesthetics you're going for.
By "aesthetics" I mean the feeling of playing the game, the kinds of decisions the players have to make, the kinds of moral issues they have to deal with (if any), and the way the players interact with each other. I definitely don't mean "the details of the setting". At this point, we (or at least I) don't need to hear more about the setting. What I want to hear about is the kind of experience you want players to have.
Sometimes it's hard to know what kind of experience you're looking for. "You'll know it when you see it" or it's "Just good roleplaying". It's especially hard to describe what you're looking for if you haven't played a lot of games that don't give you what you're looking for, but were fun anyway. Talking about roleplaying experiences (rather than just the events that happened in the fiction of the game) is a tricky thing to do, and it's something that there hasn't really been a good language for. One of the projects of this forum has been to develop a language for talking about the experience of playing roleplaying games.
What I'd recommend to you is to go and read a bunch of threads in the "Actual Play" forums here, and even post a discussion if you feel like it. Depending on your RPG experience, you might find it hard to follow some of the threads, so look for ones with games you know first. Let us know how you get on.
Cheers,
Simon
Thanks, Simon. I think I was having that kinda trouble and I will certainly look into some actual play threads. My co-author (overly fancy title I know) and I have decided to publish this as a setting/campaign for an existing system (probably Pathfinder). We think it would be easier, especially as a first excursion into the realm of game design. This tidbit is probably not very germaine to this discussion since I would still like feedback and will incorporate it into the setting, but I just thought I'd let you know where we're heading with it.
Publishing for use with an existing system sounds like an excellent idea.
I don't know Pathfinder very well, but from what I know, it sounds like a fair match for your purposes. When you're ready, I'd be happy to talk about what is useful and cool to put into this kind of product, and what can be left out. You probably won't get a lot of advice on specifics of your setting, but I suspect there will be people with strong opinions about how to make a product like this really good.
Cheers,
Simon
Thanks. I will certainly take you up on that when I'm ready. It shouldn't be too long (only a few months or so I hope. Since we've got a lot of it nailed down already).
I've finally come up with a workable fear mechanic (I hope). It'll be a push-your-luck style mechanic based around adrenaline. You can take "fear points' or whatever I decide to call them,whenever you want, although you will have to narrate why you've gotten more scared. Taking a point gives you a bonus to physical tests (strength, speed, etc) equal to the number of points taken via the fight-or-flight response kicking in. It also gives you a penalty to precision skills (ranged weapons, disarming a bomb) and some mental skillls (solving a cryptic message left by a dead member of your cell, etc.) equal to the number of points taken. Also, once the adrenaline wears off, probably based on a die roll of some sort (or similar randomizing element) you become fatigued, giving you a penalty to physical skills, and possibly others, equal to the number of adrenaline points you took. The GM can also take fear points to get the same effects, but also has to narrate how an NPC is getting more scared. Finally, the GM can force players to take fear points when they see something scary (a dead body, a group of heavily armed guards, etc.) I'm looking for a negotiation-style mechanic for this, so the GM can't just pick the number of points the players take, but it's not totally random. I may end up using the same mechanic someone suggested for the magic system (thanks by the way.)
I know this isn't a great mechanic but, since it's my first one, I still think I did an ok job.
Need to hammer out the details though, of course, and the rough spots.
Normally in new game threads I'm asking 'what are you trying to get at', because people come up with a setting and go 'oh, it has steam powered devices' or something and I'm like "Okay, annnnddd...?" and then they ramble on about more setting that has no conflict inherent to it what-so-ever.
Here I'm the opposite - I don't know why everyones going "what are you trying to get at!!!?? Your not saying!" when you have three factions, two of which are clueless and one of which is out to get everyone and your stuck in the middle of them all going WTF - and it's due to human beliefs! It's the mega bang from hell!
Alokov, I'd take the 'what's experience are you trying to get at' questions with a grain of salt. You've already got a big ass conflict going on which is an experience in itself. It's just a matter of refining it/how much you want to refine it.
With your fear idea, I think the mechanics should tie it into the big clash of beliefs from your setting. What comes to mind with the fear mechanic is that the characters have beliefs written on their character sheets - and the more afraid they get, they more they believe in these beliefs and start living them out as truths. It could be any old belief, like all red heads are evil - at the start of play they kind of just think it a bit, but as combat comes around and players draw on fear for the extra points, that fears point rating goes up, indicating to the player that the character is starting to believe more and more that red heads really are a great evil.
Nice setting, regardless :)
Thank you for the ideas. With this fear mechanic I was going more for the "undercover" thing. The constant fear of the Scourge, but I really would like to play up the beleifs. The dogmatic feel of that mechanic is great, especially for the Scourge, since I was aiming very much for the "fanatical neo-con" stereotype with them. I would like there to be a way to decrease/change your beleifs, since that happens often enough in real life, but to prevent/discourage munchkins from exploiting that ability, I'm going to include a new mechanic. If a belief gets reduced to a certain level (1 at least, maybe higher, I'll have to see what the average number is) you go into a crisis of faith. You can no longer take fear points from "any" belief until you reconcile with yourself (not necessarily by regaining that belief, just by finding some way to accept your new beliefs.) Not sure how the "reconciliation" thing will work yet, but it should be interesting. There should also be some kind of cap or penalty for taking too many beliefs. I may use a similar mechanic to the one in Mortal Coil. A fixed number of points to spread between beleifs Characters can also gain and lose fear points due to pivotal story events (pretty much the same mechanic as before.) I really like the idea that the best way to fight a fanatical Scourge member may be to disilussion him rather than to shoot him, or at least that it could be an option. Again, I need to make this mehchanic more concrete and munchkin-proof but it's 5 am, so it won't happen yet.
Cool! In terms of disillusionment, if you remember the end of the serenity movie, the good guy doesn't kill the bad guy, just forces him to watch a video to show what the thing he believed in really was doing. Then as the good guy meets up with his group heading out, they get confronted by the bad guys kill team who clearly can kill them. But then, after a dreadful pause, the bad guy radios through to them to cancel the kill order. I think it was a striking message that killing would just result in more killing and so on - the only way out is the faint hope someones belief would turn. So in terms of disillusionment, you could look at how killing becomes a cycle and how to break out of it.
I'm not sure you should be so concerned about 'munchkins' - if someones just trying to play a numbers game when the games about looking at those beliefs and how they clash, well that person just doesn't want to do what the games about. You can't proof a game against someone not enjoying it. Also some people might work the numbers hard yet really care about those beliefs etc - this is just playing the game, situation normal :)
Quote from: Callan S. on September 30, 2009, 05:51:03 PM
Cool! In terms of disillusionment, if you remember the end of the serenity movie, the good guy doesn't kill the bad guy, just forces him to watch a video to show what the thing he believed in really was doing. Then as the good guy meets up with his group heading out, they get confronted by the bad guys kill team who clearly can kill them. But then, after a dreadful pause, the bad guy radios through to them to cancel the kill order. I think it was a striking message that killing would just result in more killing and so on - the only way out is the faint hope someones belief would turn. So in terms of disillusionment, you could look at how killing becomes a cycle and how to break out of it.
I'm not sure you should be so concerned about 'munchkins' - if someones just trying to play a numbers game when the games about looking at those beliefs and how they clash, well that person just doesn't want to do what the games about. You can't proof a game against someone not enjoying it. Also some people might work the numbers hard yet really care about those beliefs etc - this is just playing the game, situation normal :)
I should have realiized munchkins wouldn't be a big problem but I come from a long history of D&D and similar games which tend to attract munchkins. I haven't seen Serenity but that scene sounds like what I was aiming for As to how this "psychological combat" would work, i really don't want it, or any part of the game, stat or number-crunching heavy. The base difficulty of the conversion is set by the number of fear points the enemy has in that beleif. The attacker and defender take turns making arguments for their belief, then they wager points in their own beliefs on converting the other person and/or maintaiining their own outlook, sort of similar to the mechanic from Dogs in the Vineyard. It thus becomes a matter of "how much are you willing to give up for your beliefs." If someone runs out of points in the first belief they pick, they can take points from another one. Now this is the more tentative part, the winner takes all wagered points and appliethem to whatever belief/beliefs they took their wagered points from. The ability to take points from multiple beliefs is, perhaps, less realistic, but I wanted a mechanic to prevent the person with the higher number of points in one belief from always winning, just cause the other guy ran out of points first. I took inspiration from PDQ's damage mechanic, obviously.
Very rough still but I wanted to write it down before I forgot it, as has happened to me often before.
Hmm, not really seeing it? It seems to be a stat battle - no ones giving up anything, they are just clashing swords/stats and seeing who loses. When a sword swing chops your head off, your not giving up your head - it's just coming off because of events. Giving something up is alot different than something just happening because of events.
Can you draw so much (points) from a belief that it becomes extinguished and you lose it? Thus in trying to convince the other guy out of a belief, your character might burn up several (lesser?) ones of his own?
Quote from: Callan S. on September 30, 2009, 08:36:49 PM
Hmm, not really seeing it? It seems to be a stat battle - no ones giving up anything, they are just clashing swords/stats and seeing who loses. When a sword swing chops your head off, your not giving up your head - it's just coming off because of events. Giving something up is alot different than something just happening because of events.
Can you draw so much (points) from a belief that it becomes extinguished and you lose it? Thus in trying to convince the other guy out of a belief, your character might burn up several (lesser?) ones of his own?
In a word, yes, if you draw all of the points from a beleif, which can be done, you lose it and have to deal with the loss somehow. I was thinking of the theological debate model. Say. for example, a Christian is trying to convert an atheist. Perhaps the Christian "wins" and the atheist becomes a theist but, in the process, the Christian stops beleiving in the divinity of Jesus, while still beleiving in a similar God. That is, perhaps, an overly extreme example, but it's the best one I could think of. For an in-game example: a church of humanity member is trying to convince a Scourge member how wonderful technology is. In the process, the Church guy reduced his faith in the divinity of humans by reducing that beleif to 0. The Scourge guy loses his fanatical hatred of all technology by conceding the battle, but, because he still had some points in that belief, he still believes that technology can be taken too far, and manages to convince the Church guy of that. Still extremely inelegant but it is only a rough draft, after all.
Ah, cool! That's a good idea you've got - of course it'll be even better to see in complete form (or atleast a strong draft form).
This is kind of a meta suggestion, but I'd say collect what work you've completed so far on this (which definately includes this thread) into a folder on your computer or printed out. I'm saying that as a self encouragement method - it's good to think that you have already completed various works on the project. This helps encourage completing other works on it, which encourages more and it's all making something. Or maybe you don't need this suggestion, but I thought I'd post it in case it was helpful somehow. If not, you sound like your really developing what you want out of it already. I'll post with encouragement if I see threads on frozen dawn, but otherwise you seem to be working something out already. Good luck! :)
Thanks. I will certainly do a separate folder, especially since I've gone through sevral complete drafts of the setting so far (all almost totally different) that way I can nick stuff from different drafts when I need it. Having grown up an agnostic, and been through several different belief "phases" I should be able to draw on first-hand experinece for this,, which is always cool. Also, thanks to John Wick, who introduced me too this style of "indy" game via his design blogs on Houses of the Blooded.
I've decided to change the belief-duel mechanic. Whatever number of points you wager determines how shaken your beliefs are, if you win. If you lose, the difference between your final bid and your opponents determines his degree of success, as it were. This way, people will rairely walk away without some kind of point-loss inn at least one belief. Seems like a nice refinement to me, although, admittedly, still not that great,
This all rather reminds me of A Canticle For Liebowitz, which you might want to look up and read for inspiration.
I certainly will look that up. Thanks
I think I may limit the number of fear points you can take to the number of points you have in beliefs (combined) or it could be that number plus a certain fixed number or mod. Not sure if this is a good idea or not but I thought I'd throw it out here.
I think, looking at your big conflict of about four factions and how they just don't get along together (scourge especially, of course), your better off playtesting what you've got (even if that means alot of just making it up as you go) and seeing how much that big conflict is engaged by characters in moment to moment play.
It's easy to get caught in analysis paralysis and keep changing little things - I think it'd be better to have a quick session and it be a collapse and catch on fire (so to speak) disaster than keep trying to fiddle things in advance. Though I'll admit, are the other people your playing with okay with having a session fail badly, since they know it's part of development (and they want to help with development). Or do they expect entertainment, more like a traditional audience expects entertainment when they go to a show? Hopefully they are more of a playtesting crew and are willing to potentially take some bad play on the chin as doing their part in the games development. And if you run it and it instead goes swell, I am jelous... >:)
Quote from: Callan S. on October 09, 2009, 10:59:34 PM
I think, looking at your big conflict of about four factions and how they just don't get along together (scourge especially, of course), your better off playtesting what you've got (even if that means alot of just making it up as you go) and seeing how much that big conflict is engaged by characters in moment to moment play.
It's easy to get caught in analysis paralysis and keep changing little things - I think it'd be better to have a quick session and it be a collapse and catch on fire (so to speak) disaster than keep trying to fiddle things in advance. Though I'll admit, are the other people your playing with okay with having a session fail badly, since they know it's part of development (and they want to help with development). Or do they expect entertainment, more like a traditional audience expects entertainment when they go to a show? Hopefully they are more of a playtesting crew and are willing to potentially take some bad play on the chin as doing their part in the games development. And if you run it and it instead goes swell, I am jelous... >:)
I think you're right, I know I have an Analysis Paralysis problem. About my group. They're all teens and most of them don't know that any game besides D&D exists or that any game can be anything but a dungeon crawl (drives me insane but, well, they are my friends) so I'm a bit scared of presenting them with such a "radical" game. Also, one of them is a neo con (which are the group that the Scourge parodies BLATANTLY) don't want to offend him. If I can find playtesters I would love to do it, otherwise, well . . .
Ok, I have a default start point for the playtest adventure, and the default one for cons. The players are all running/hiding from the Scourge (great way to slot backgrounds in and for character development. Whaat did you do to tick them off?) and, at least for this adventure, meet in a warehouse where they decided to hide. This may become the default setup for all games (minus the warehouse). I did realize, however, that I probably need some sort of system for handling things besides just "belief battles." Fights, chases, disguises, stealth, anything that might be expected to come up frequently in-game. Haven't thought of one yet, but it's 6 AM, so that's not surprising. Anyway, I keep expecting to wake up any minute, I can't believe I've come this far from that original mental image of an eskimo with an AK. And in so short a time. This is incredibly cool.
As per usual, as soon as I left I came up with more stuff (darn you, Murphy's Law).
For the combat: spontaneous system in which all players and GM write (or type) their actions. they then slide the peices of paper into the center of the table (or tirn around the computer if typing) and show each other their actions. Unsure how to determine who wins/loses. Possibly based on descriptiveness (within limits of plausability of course)?
For non-combat skill test etc. I think I may steal a mechanic from an old free-form game my friend and I used to play in my basement. Each character gets 2 "feats" and 3 "skills." Skills are general things like, shooting, disguise, oratory. Feats are more specific, like accuracy with rifles, or, mimicry, etc. I'll probably change the numbers, but still, pretty similar to its original form. As for resolution, I'll probably use a Ubiquity-style mechanic. We originally used coin flips. You get a certain number of flips, based on your skill. For untrained skills, you get one flip and you have to win it or fail. Each rank you have in an applicable skill/feat, gives you an extra flip, but you still only have to succeed on one. If you succeed on more than are necessary you get extra degrees of success. Every rank an opponent has in an applicable skill/feat as well as other factors, such as bad weather, a slippery suface, whatever, adds one more flip you have to win in order to succeed. You can burn fear points to give you the equivalent of an extra rank per point untill the adrenaline wears off, but you have to narrate how your belief "kicks in" and the GM can spend his fear points similarly. He can also initiate a belief duel, if appropriate, by "seeing and raising" your point bid. In fact, I think I'll use this for combat as well, but keep the spontaneity bit, cause I've always wanted that in an RPG. Initiative order and its ilk have been a pet peeve of mine from the beginning.
Oh, and now Nathan gets a credit on the game like he wanted. He designed the coin-flip system.
Hey. Just in case I wasn't clear about the whole skills vs. feats thing, here's a stat block I did for Mad Eye Moody using this system.
Skills: Auror Training x3 (gives bonus to DADA stuff) (improves vision, plus special powers) Experience/rep x1 (he's a badass and everyone knows it) Contacts x1 (if you play the game long enough you get some friends) Cool DADA gear x1 (self-explanatory) Order member x1 (access to backup, gear, intel, etc.) Personal friend of Dumbledore x1 (Duh) Paranoia x1 (hard to sneak up on, etc)
Feats: Mad-Eye (special vision powers) Think Like a Death Eater
Flaws: (allows more feats and/or skills) Cripple: x2 (wooden leg, harder to be quiet and slower and harder to hide) Paranoia x1 (a bonus and a detriment) Enemies (too many people want him dead, eventually it's gonna catch up to him)
Hope this helps. I can do Lupin too, if you want.
I also decided that you only get 1 feat unless you take flaws. If anyone takes issue I can change it back. I may have gone overboard with him but it was fun.
This post was for a game I was trying to start, so if any of it doesn't make sense, that's why. I forgot about the flaws thing but it's a great idea (I think) especially for this setting.
So, hope that helped clear things up.
One final point. This is the only system I can ever do spontaneous character generation for. I never thought ahead at all about Moody's stats, just wrote them in stream of consciousness.
There will not be a hard and fast list of skills/feats for this game, I don't think it's necessary and I muchh prefer not to include one. The beauty of this system, to me, is how user-friendly it is. Especially for GMs like myself, who can come up with stories in the blink of an eye, but can't getr stats done in days.
Hope I don't sound too self-obsessed or anything (especially since I didn't even design the system, with the exception of the flaws part).
I realized that I don't really have a way to handle health. I could, of course, just do it with plain vanillla hit points but I don't particularly like that mechanic. I think I'll take a page out of Chad Underkoffler's book here. Every time you take a "wound point" you take a cumulative -1 to everything. Once all, or a certain number of, your skills have been reduced to zero due to wounds, you fall unconscious and/or die. If you start out with +0 or llower in a skill, it has to be reduced to a certain negative number before it counts as being "disabled/" Very rough mechanic, but I like the basic framework.
Thanks
Oh, and, while you get experience, not sure exactly how much yet, you can only spend it on skills you used during the last adventure/encounter/however long it's been since you last spent XP.
Alokov,
One thing sprang to my mind when you said neo-con.
That is how the neo-cons run, isn't it? By fear.
So, maybe people change their beliefs when they are no longer afraid. Like if you can make it through a conflict without spending fear points, you get a change your beliefs free card?
I dunno, it is just an idea. But I like the idea that the guy who can change his mind is the one that is not afraid...
That's the point of reducing your beleifs to zero. And that's why I have negative effects to using fear points as well as positive ones. How about if you get through an encounter without using fear points you take one less in bonus or one more in penalty to rolls/flips to force you to act on your fear. For example, if you have a fear "red heads are of the deil" it would be a flip to determine if you are forced to attack/run away from any red-haired person you meet. Again very rough and very confusingly written, but I just realized that people might be more inclined to take fear pointsthan not to, so I thought I might need something to discourage that.
I realized that it might be better if I changed somee of the terminology. Normal points in beleifs are now just "conviction points." Fear points are taken if you want to add more to a skill than you've got in a relevant beleif. This bonus only lasts for the duration of the encounter, but the fear point/s stay. For every fear point you have, you take a penalty to trying to "go against" your fear, such as trying to negotiate with someone you believe to be evil. If you take ten fear points in any one belief, you must make compulsion rolls to avoid fleeing from, attacking/whatever whatever you're that afraid of. For every point over ten, you take a -1 to compulsion rolls.
There, now that's much more in line with what I want.
Oh and you can still gain fear points by encountering stuff that the GM thinks would scare you. This is why Scourge members start off with so many fear points, cause they've been indoctrinated so heavily.
Quote from: Alokov on October 10, 2009, 04:44:57 AMI think you're right, I know I have an Analysis Paralysis problem. About my group. They're all teens and most of them don't know that any game besides D&D exists or that any game can be anything but a dungeon crawl (drives me insane but, well, they are my friends) so I'm a bit scared of presenting them with such a "radical" game. Also, one of them is a neo con (which are the group that the Scourge parodies BLATANTLY) don't want to offend him. If I can find playtesters I would love to do it, otherwise, well . . .
Well, I'm in Melbourne, Australia, in terms of playtesting. And I'm not sure play by post would do your ideas credit (I shouldn't put you off by saying this, but at the same time I don't think it would do your ideas credit).
I'm thinking the way to handle it is to preserve the traditional gaming nights, but set up a series of radical gaming nights (or whatever you want to call them). Much like I talk about here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=28791.msg270385#msg270385). Perhaps after two traditional sessions, you do a radical night - and have several of them, like four, so it really gets a work out. If you can arrange something like that with your friends, you may get a proper playtest.
As I say in the link, if you think of the traditional game as 'yet another bloody dungeon!' they'll think of the new game as 'yet another bloody indie/freaky game'. You get what you give. Well, maybe even if you respect and support the traditional game, they might still think that way - it takes that chance risking of respect for their dungeon crawling to get the chance of them paying some respect to something different. And as I said, you make it a specific night, so it's clear it's not just the usual game night thing.
Wow thanks. If necessary I will do that. I think I made it a biit unclear before. They don't explicitly hate Indy games. They just don't know they exist. The only thing I'm worried about is that it might be too overwhelming for them at first (It wasn't for me but . . .) However, as someone told me. I think that if it's presented as "a game I wrote" not "a new game" they'll be more likely to like it. At worst, I'll get more credit than I'm due cause they won't realize how similar a lot of my mechanics are to mechanics from other games. If, however, it doesn't work out. I have a lot of people I can play with over Skype who would be into this. At least I have a ready-made playtester in my uncle. He is notorious for screwing with the DM's plans (not in a bad way, just unintentionally) which is great cause that's what playtesters are supposed to do. Anyway, better get to condensing this to a page or so in Word so I can print it and bring it to the session. Oh, and one final tweak, after this I'm forcibly keeping my hands off so I don't go into OCD mode, as I have been known to do, and keep tweaking things incessantly. When the DM tries to force a character to take a fear point, the character gets 1 flip, with no mods. Eventually theey're gonna fail, but there's always a 50-50 chance.
Not exactly sure where to post this, so if I put it in the wrong place, please forgive me and direct me to the right forum. Thanks.
I haven't playtested this game with my regular group yet, but, if anyone is interested, I would like to run a playtest over Skype, as well as in-person test with my regular group. Two reasons for this: 1. I know a lot of people who run/play in many games over Skype (this includes me) and would like to make sure that the game is tested adequately for on-line play as well as for in-person play. 2: I would like to get a "second opinion" as it were, and, since I don't know any gamers in my area besides my current group, the only recourse I can think of is Skype, or a similar service. I know this is a bit of a blind call, and I apologize if I'm out of line, but I don't know anywhere else to post it, here or on another site.
they also have short attention span issues but it should work fine.
I realized I haven't set a firm tech level (for the Scourge or the other groups.) I'm thinking roughly Wild West era, with the Scourge being the technological equivalent of the natives. Of course, you're allowed to tune it for your specific campaign.
Even though I've decided on the Wild West thing, I don't really like it. If anyone has any other ideas, please let me know.
Allright. My first playtesting session went swimmingly, butI need to fine-tune the health system. I need a definite number at which you pass out and/or die. I was gonna go with -10 but that proved far too low. And zero seems far too high (at least for first level characters) For those of you who don't remember, my wound system works like this. You take -1 to all skills per success in an opponent's dice pool. The problem is that I can't figure out how low you should be allowed to go beforeyou pass out/die. This is particularly hard because it has to work for all possible characters. If I set it as "if you get reduced to 0 in all skills" then people who diversify and have low ranks in many skills (which is plausible, and even likely, in the rest of the system) they will be taken down far too easily. Yet if I set it too low "-10 in all skills" for example, then 1: even mooks like generic bandits will take an obscenely long time to kill and 2: Those who invest heavily in particular skills can easily become over-powered and will certainly have a big advantage.
Anyone got any ideas?
Thanks.
Oh, by the way, since US coins have a slight bias (and just for ease of use) we used dice instead of coins during the playtest (with even numbers representing success and odd numbers representing failure). Is this too close to the Ubiquity System? If so, we can just use coins.
I've solved my health problem. If you get to -3 in all relevant skills (so all combat skills if you're in combat, or, all skills if you survive the last round of combat).
I agree with you view
um, perhaps Knowledge in this aspect I know too poor.
Quote from: cocohow on October 26, 2009, 10:12:07 PM
I agree with you view
um, perhaps Knowledge in this aspect I know too poor.
Sorry. What did you mean?
Quote from: cocohow on October 26, 2009, 10:12:07 PM
I agree with you view
um, perhaps Knowledge in this aspect I know too poor.
Sorry. What did you mean?
That'd be a spam post.
It's good to hear you got a playtest off...I'll ask a perhaps vague question: When you played it, was there a sense of - I dunno, question of where character loyalties lie (in regards to the main factions, or even PC personal beliefs). Was there a sense of that in the background of all the dice rolling and stuff, or was it at the forefront of play?
Please don't respond to spam posts. Just hit the "report to moderator" button and Ron or I will come take care of it.
Thanks!
-Vincent
Quote from: Callan S. on November 03, 2009, 07:54:15 PM
That'd be a spam post.
It's good to hear you got a playtest off...I'll ask a perhaps vague question: When you played it, was there a sense of - I dunno, question of where character loyalties lie (in regards to the main factions, or even PC personal beliefs). Was there a sense of that in the background of all the dice rolling and stuff, or was it at the forefront of play?
Actually, it pretty much devolved into Butch and Sundance in the Ice Age (the PCs decided to go on a bank-robbing spree). All the mechanics worked just as I expected, they really latched on to the Church of Humanity faction and the beleif duel we played out worked briliantly. The only problem was that, whereas I was expecting "serious with a dash of silly" it became "silly with a dash of serous." Then again, I was playing completely off the cuff, since I didn't have characters ahead of time. I have another playtest on Saturday, during which we will be introducing a new character (who will be a psion, so I can test out that system.) And I will have more planned. They're gonna get captured by the Scourge and, of course, interrogated, so I hope that will bring about some more introspection. Even if I do introduce a Rorschach-worshiper (yes, I know that will probably drag it back to the gutter, but I can't help it.)
Well, from other actual play accounts, groups are often silly at first - people say their character does something, like it's a joke. But really they are testing the waters to see if they will be ridiculed...you watch and you see 'hahaha, my character does this' transform over time into 'No, my character really believes in doing this!!'. It's just a trust building process and it's good to see it's in motion!
Speaking of, how are your rewards handed out? For example, in a recent game I GM'ed I started handing out XP pretty much on any expression of character. It's hard to remember examples now, but even stuff like "Nah, I'm not doing that!" and petty bickering got XP, because basically that was their characters. Petty is character just as much as Elizibethian angst. I also gave all players the same XP, even though it was one player saying something like this - this made the in character stuff a team effort, rather than one guy getting lots of XP for being in character and a quiet guy gets none. I think it encouraged more petty squabbling and rash decisions on the players/PC's part...which was a good result. Just something to think about.
On the 'they WILL be captured', some groups have a tacit, even unspoken understanding that sometimes the GM will force (almost railroad) play to a particular spot, but it's in the interest of setting up a dramatic conflict that would otherwise not happen without some heavy handedness. Some other people don't, and just see it as railroading and that nothing they do matters cause the GM is just gunna force them, so they give up and, whilst not leaving the table, essentially stop playing.
For that reason you might want to make that former understanding a bit more explicit, to ensure it's actually there.
I will be incorporating all of your suggestions. Thanks. I may also test out a group beleif-duel system by which party members can assist each other in belief duels by jumping in and countering an opponent's argument. I'm a little afraid that this system would make duels too easy, unless the GM made the NPCs ridiculously over-powered or numerous, so I may not try it yet.
Any suggestions on how to avoid this. I like the idea but I'm afraid it would be too unbalancing and having already had to tweak the health system because it was way too unbalanced, I'm a little gun-shy when it comes to including potentially unbalancing mechanics.
Well, is it supposed to be hard? Or is it supposed to bring out character beliefs to the fore?
Though I think it is possible for characters to mechanically overrun all the material you currently have, without showing much character for it. And that makes making material a bit of a chore, since it has poor returns in character expression.
Perhaps the GM could have a (known by everyone) pool of 'make it harder' points per session he can simply add on if he wants to make more pressure at a particular time. But he doesn't have to add them, of course, if the pressure is already sufficient.
Good point. I may do that although I'm not sure. I think most of those dificulty problems can be fixed by just tweaking numbers rather than adding a whole new mechanic. But, then again, I suck at tweaking numbers so this might actually be easier. I'd still prefer just to get the stats etc. right in the first place. We'll see. I will be giving one of my players a chance to run the game soon though.
Anyone have any suggestions on what numbers I should use? (Number of skilll points at character Generation. Number of feats. number of hit points, amount of XP granted in different circumstances, number of power points at chargen, number of power points used for a few basic spells?)
I think these are the last things I need to nail down.
Thanks.
Remember, you don't necessarily have to burden yourself with the idea of making this into its own game. It would make a fine d20 System supplement or campaign idea, for example. When making a whole new game, I think it's important to understand exactly why a new game system is needed for the idea. If an existing game system will work, then use that system.
You show a lot of creativity. I expect you're a pretty good GM in whatever group you game with. Whether or not you develop this into something that can be sold, keep your notes on it. You may discover, in some future year, that this is all actually a part of an even greater idea stored within yourself.
Good idea. But I have yet to discover a system that I like to run (other than the ones I design that is). Oh, and possibly Houses of the Blooded but I don't even have that book so I don't know enough to convert this to it.
Allright, I've got this system down to the last bit of tweaking necessary (I hope). I just need to set an unconsciousness/death threshold, and set the starting number of hit points. As I attempted to do this, however, I discovered that, perhaps, since I was working with such large percentages (because I was using coins rather than dice) the whole system might be unworkable. Can anyone offer some feedback on this? If you think the system is currently unworkable, could you suggest some alternativves to coins? I'm leaning heavily towards a dice pool system, but I can''t figure out what would be a good success threshhold (a.k.a what number would be a success) or what kinds of dice to use. If anyone can offer some suggestions I would appreciate them.
Thanks.
IT'S DONE! I'm going to be using a dice pool of d20s. 12+ will be a success. 20s will count as 2 successes. Success levels will be based on number of successes rather than the number on the dice. 1 point in a skill/attribute will equal one die in the pool. The magic system will be based on the system in Monte Cooke's World of Darkness.
The Health System:
People fall unconscious at 0 hp and die at -10 hp. They start with d10 hp. Attacks do 1 bp damage per success. 1 point of damage = -1/2 to all chcks.
The -1/2 Modifier: each -1/2 modifier increases the number needed for a succes by 1
For example: 1 -1/2 mod: succes = 13+ instead of 12+