Quote from: Heikki Hallamaa on May 25, 2010, 10:48:08 PM
Secrets:
Specialization (Jarkko De Badeh)
QuoteSo say the PCs are trying to escape Pirate Island, and as GM I don't want them to - I have a brilliant idea for a plot twist that needs them to still be on the Island. So the PCs get in a ship, and I have it attacked by a giant squid. The players have to roll, but they manage to beat the squid, so I have a second squid attack them"But a good GM wouldn't do that!/Only a dick GM would do that!"
QuoteIt's an extreme and perhaps absurd example, but I think it reflect the fact that GMs railroad PCs by simply forcing them into an increasingly narrow set of options. What I'm *trying* to come up with is a system that allows the GM to still do all of the above if he wants, but he will be constrained by having to invest some of his finite resources in order to do it.If I understand you, I agree that if a GM has unlimited resources, then whatever you do is at his whim. Even if he doesn't railroad you and you go the way you want, it's because at a whim he decided not to deploy his unlimited resources. In a way your only ever doing what he wants when he has unlimited resources/your always railroaded into what he wants (I think that's why people grope at 'oh, he'd be a dick to do that' as some sort of social currency, but it involves actually calling people names/threatening to call names as part of regular gameplay...*brrrr*).
QuoteI apologize that this aggravated you and will step out of this discussion.Please don't. Rather, I need to apologize, because I shouldn't have been so aggressive and I didn't realize how statements come across over the internet without tone or facial expression. I'm sorry, I shouldn't be so conceited and single minded. I certainly hope I haven't caused anyone else to step away from the thread.
Quotebut because every edition of the game is built specifically to support treasure hunting, monster killing, and dungeon exploration, and is focused around playing adventurers having combat-oriented fantasy adventures. I used that example, and the others, to point out the core idea/point of gamesAnd now I get the gist of what you're saying, though I probably should have understood right away.
Quote"you can do anything!" is a design trap that we have seen new designers step into quite often over the years (or stepped in ourselves).How is this a trap? And also, I rather want players to be able to do a great number of things.
Quotewhy I would play your game, or rather what it offered as a game.It offers a few things that are mostly, if not completely, unique. The Concept Overlay isn't something I've seen featured in any game but Mage: the Ascension, but unlike Mage, the Overlay is constantly affecting the makeup of reality. There can be unique consequences, as well, when a newly invented god gets enough power to physically manifest. Vitae offers a wide variety of opportunities, it enables people to manipulate biology in any way, it creates a link between Reality, the Overlay, and every sentient being, and vitae can be converted into different energy types and even mass. Certain people can tap into the collective subconscious of the human race using vitae, while others can generate Higgs Bosons to suddenly add "mass" to a falling object. When people believe the characters are a certain way, and the characters act in a way that's congruous with that belief, they start becoming Icons. They gain abilities derived from the fact that they now exist both in Reality and the Concept Overlay. Each character can become unique in its mechanics, personality, and world-identity.
QuoteExactly. The question is not one of possibility, but of support.Yes, this was mighty stupid of me.
QuoteHowever, I am skeptical that you could do so extensively enough to cover everything. How extensive are you planning to make the rules on deep sea fishing, for instance?One thing at a time, dude. The blue finned tuna shall not stay safe from my players for long.