[Dungeons/Dummies] Now "Imp Game", New Draft!

[daMoose_Neo]

Lots o' updates for one post and title ^_^

#1 : What was formerly "Dungeons for Dummies", then "Dungeons/Dummies", is now "The Imp Game" (Because thats how its known and best described ^_^). Books for it will be labeled "The Imp Game presents An Imp's Guide to..." depending upon the title.

#2 : First book is prepping up for February to be a small read, a couple bucks ($5 would cover costs and make a nice little profit) for a POD version "Mischief and Mayhem". Covers covers "The Great Fantasy Cliche", Imps, Adventurers, and Villagers. Book 2, "Dungeons" is slated for later February or March, PDF purchases of #1 will get #2 free, POD will again be around $5 or so while being quite a bit more.
Basic system (about 1 double sided page) will be available from the site for free and I'll try to send some out to any con goer who would be interested in doing something with it ^_^

New draft available here: http://www.neoproductions.net/files/Mischief.pdf

Changes from previous:
- Eliminated Rank definitions from Abilities. Now tis an all or nothing type situation- roll- succeed, and you pull it off. Fail, and you blow it.
- Started some formatting for a PDF/Print publication on it, but not too much. Also started adding some "flavor" text
- Stripped some features for yet-to-be-dealt with Dungeons
- More fleshing out of some additional parts, though some "niceness" is lacking, it is no where near a finished product in terms of a written product, mostly system yet.

What I'd like to see:
- Some thoughts about the system, how it works, what folks think about it in general
- How the abilities and traits work out for folks, suggestions for additional, areas where it may need clarification.
- Adventurers: Should they have abilities and traits of their own?
- Any ideas for the Fantasy Cliche (found here: http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13829 ), which will help generate the basis for the world. Please note, before suggesting, insert tounge firmly in cheek ;)

And any one think they could run a session of it or so? The system is quick enough and decentralized enough a chat game could be run easily enough. Actually, anyone online tomorrow afternoon for around 2 hours or so? I have the time tomorrow/tomorrow evening to run something.
Anywho, give it a once through, lemme know what you like and what it needs!

[Tobias]

Will peruse.

You might also want to mention your timezone. :)

[daMoose_Neo]

Ah poo!
Good point :P
I's Eastern Time Zone, though the post above was for Sunday, I'm also free early in my day (from around 11 to 3 usually) if that falls about right for some folks to want to try~

[xenopulse]

Hi,

You might want to continue clearing up the formatting. For a little while there, I thought that using abilities made an Imp gain PP, because the section was not clearly enough separated from the fears section. Also, as per standard layout guidelines, since your paragraphs of text are not indented, they should be separated with some blank space. That will make your document more easily readable.

I like the system for its fun-based style. Having the Imps be "immortal" eliminates a lot of problems and makes the low TNs viable (as a TN of 2 has a whooping 2.8% chance of success). It also encourages the players to just throw their Imps out there and have them do all sorts of crazy things. Personally, as a mostly freeform player, I am very fond of having control over when my character dies. That also applies to being able to describe the outcome for my character. I would clarify, to keep some separation of GM and player alive, that the player describes the effect on the Imp, but not the actions by adventurers (unless you want to make the game GM-less, which is a possibility, given the many freeform elements already in place).

Should the adventurers have abilities? I would say no. In fact, I would prefer not to give them TNs and rolls at all. It keeps the action more in the players' hands if the Imps have to duck (with their TN) instead of the adventurers rolling for attack, etc. This way, you can have adventurers do all sorts of things, such as hurl magic missiles at the Imps or try to catch them with a net, and it's up to the players (not the GM's roll) to come up with a good response that utilizes their Imps' abilities and traits, then roll to see if they make it. It also will allow the GM to focus on providing a good narrative instead of worrying about keeping track of adventurers' TNs and abilities.

Are Imp abilities capped? I don't see an ability score of 6 helping the game flow. In fact, it might be more in line with the feel of the game to cap abilities at a score lower than 5, as failure is such a strong part of the game.

Could there be an ultimate goal, such as retirement, liberation, or evolution to a higher-level baddie? I would like some motivation to keep evolving the character, as well as a point at which making a new Imp becomes a good idea (when the old one "makes it").

Overall, it sounds like a good time!

[daMoose_Neo]

Actually, I like having the practically a GM-less system. The GM has a position as a herder of sorts to reign things in ("Okay, enough of the fart jokes now, we have to kill this thing") and to introduce an adventure, but otherwise he isn't needed. Thus, whom ever can be the GM.
This is how I've run the few test adventures I've done, and its worked out quite nicely. I do very few "authorative" actions aside from that reigning in and everyone has a good time.

Point noted on formatting, will clean that pronto.

Re:Capping
Cap the abilities at 3, also to encourage taking on new abilities? Allow a 50/50 chance of success (which still means blowing it a lot!) while still allowing for some measure of growth.

Re:Goal
Actually, the original design was to tightly include Imps and Dungeons, so that the main goal of play was to amass Praise to expand the dungeon even more.
As for a definitve goal...that, I don't know about. I can't say I see people playing this a lot, not like running full campaigns in which they would "retire" an Imp, so trying to put specific goals into the adventures allows the players to keep characters viable, achieve some measurable success and, like TV series, keeps things near the status quo. \

Re: Adventurers
Like the Dungeons, they're not entirely too fleshed out. Course, using the Fantasy Cliche, can get away with saying they're uber powerful and cool, and the Imps have to use thier own rolls to mess with them.

[xenopulse]

Capping at 3 sounds good to me.

You may be right about a goal implying people spending a lot more time on the game than they may. Though it could actually work as a motivator. In any case, it's probably not something you need to worry about in your basic game. You can just make the Imp Evolution expansion later :)

It seems to me that players will always spend 2 GP on every roll, once they figure out the system. After all, those points are not wasted. They count for the next roll as well (since the TN remains elevated), so there is no advantage to not spending them earlier. The only reason one may want to preserve GP is for activating traits, but those don't seem very advantageous to me. After all, there is no clear advantage to activating a trait; the traits are only going to be activated if players want to mess with each other. Or am I missing something?

A note on fears: You say GP cannot be applied to the roll, but you don't explain how the TN is determined. Without counting any GP, it should be 2, but your example has it at 3. It also seems strange that you're awarding more PP on average when the fear is overcome more easily (i.e., has a higher TN).

[GaryTP]

Hi,

Just curious but was Dungeon Keeper your inspiration? It's one of my favorite games and I see a lot similarities.

I downloaded your file and have looked it over a couple of time. I agree with what has been said before. Continue to tighten it up and merge some pieces together.

I might keep the adventurers simple. They're your tools, much like equipment or spells and should be viewed as such.

About the Imp mortality. I find this extremely amusing but am not sure what effect it will have on the "risk" involved with the players. Tension is an important part of a game, even in video games where you have unlimited lives you might still lose your accumulated wealth or powers. This makes me think that you could somehow tie it all back to something like having the favor of the one in control of the dungeon. You have different imps, so they can be from different tribes. And these tribes and fall in and out of favor with the one ruling the dungeon. This would then be their reason to care. My imp doesn't die, but he's certainly screwed with our tribe status. Just some thoughts...

Gary

[daMoose_Neo]

Not sure about "tribes", I have yet to expand upon the DEVO concept, but it will be expounded upon. DEVO is an organization that supports and funds these dungeoneers and provides the raw labor in the form of the Imps. BUT, I can see where some kind of tension would help. Also makes some of the backstabbing manuvers more desireable ^_^ Will look into this more...

Per traits, you may not see a mechanical advantage to it, but the players seem to love it. It never was contested in my little play sessions mind you, but it was used quite a bit.
On using the points, there is a reason not to bump it- risk. No, you don't lose the points from play but you yourself do lose the points.
Kind of thing I have in mind (and Gary's ideas may help propel) is the imps looking out for #1 mostly, so that say a few imps DO work together toward a common goal and one wants to screw everyone else. While they rack up points toward the common goal, the other Imp decides he wants to make a roll for making a Perfect Grilled Cheese Sandwich. With the elevated points, he wins! And screws everyone else out of those points.
If you feel lucky or sure, there are reasons not to spend the points.

EDIT: On the Fear example, the TN remains the same. That Imp cannot apply any GP to the roll, however if GP has been applied it will affect the Imp with the Fear. So, its a way other players can also help a player dealing with a Fear.
On awarding the PP...original idea was to double the GP earned (being proud of his success he's a little gutsier), which then may translate into PP. Can't remember why I switched it though...

And no, Dungeon Keeper wasn't a direct inspiration. I've seen it, never played it, but the idea is certainly amusing ^_^

[xenopulse]

Ahhh... you may want to emphasize that the TN is the same for all Imps! I thought each Imp kept track of his/her own TN. It makes more sense this way--or at least it provides for a more interesting in-game dynamic.

I like the traits, don't get me wrong. I just don't see much reason for a player to activate another player's trait unless they're trying to pull each others' legs.

[daMoose_Neo]

I like the traits, don't get me wrong. I just don't see much reason for a player to activate another player's trait unless they're trying to pull each others' legs.

Well, case in point, the Klepto trait. A player could rationalize their Imp wouldn't touch the Master's hoard. HOWEVER, thats not to stop someone from MAKING the Imp steal from the Master.
Hmmm...mebbe tie this more into a "Favor" type idea Gary was getting at...

[daMoose_Neo]

Ahhh... you may want to emphasize that the TN is the same for all Imps!

Actually, I had almost forgotten about this, read through the example in the first part. I thought I did show it was linked. The first player raises it to 4 then the second player starts with it at 4, spending 2 points to raise it again.
Mayhaps need a change to blatantly say "All players share the same TN".

Other, odd random thought to a previous post/question, on the point economy. Awarding that much PP or GP, I don't see as much of an issue, as it goes by the value of the ROLL, not the TN.
So, yea, maybe you do have it cranked all the way up to a 10 TN. Then you roll a 3. Easy way to explain that is falling (well) within a "safety zone", where you're sure to make the roll. The higher it gets, the riskier it is as well...you'll win, but not a significant win points wise.

[daMoose_Neo]

http://www.neoproductions.net/files/Mischief.pdf

Updated for Clarity and some better formatting and ordering, which I also hope helps clarity. Nothing that you haven't seen yet, Tobias, but I am playing around with some Favor mechanics.

Heres the idea as it stands:
- Earn 1 PP for each success
- Begin each Session/Scenario with a "Leader", the player with the most PP.
- Players who can humiliate the Leader in the eyes of the Master cause him/her to lose PP (and possibly the leader position).  
- Being "Leader" means your Imp "is better than everyone else, so nyah nyah nyah!", thinking a +1 boost to any roll the Leader makes, which could be incentive for other players to use the Traits to screw with each other. Also causes him/her to gain the trait "Arrogent" (hence the "nyah nyah!")

Other ideas:
Removing Tinkering Imp from that basic line up of the 4 and saving him for the Dunegons booklet, where I might be able to feature him a little more and how he interacts with the dunegons.

[Tobias]

Downloaded and looked it over, but not in sufficient depth to have comments.

I'll be playing a game of Uni this weekend. Maybe I can sneak in comically inept imps (just like I might try to sneak in disembodied time-travelling beings that can possess humans... *cough*) ;)

Good weekend all