Reforging the Outsider Chronicles

[RobMuadib]

Keith

Hey, wanted to say my welcome to the forge bit too, and say I am a fan of your work. I own Steeltown, and liked SOL, good solid universal system.  I guess you got the whole Hardcore sim Purist for System bug out of your system by designing SOL huh? :) I haven't, I still have a king-kong sized system monkey on my back with my design, The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle.:) However, it still does alot of new style things in it's focus and play style, being built around collaborative RP/Gamemasterful playing, and with focus on Shared World design ala Aria, and Ensemble/Troupe type and Meta-character play as well, or at least it will when I get it done.

So I looked over Luna 0.2.5 and thought I would offer some thoughts. In terms of your wanting to go with the dramatic model, I guess I would want to ask if your are familiar with the GNS theory and documents. I'd ask how you want to focus the Outsider Chronicles. To me it would seem to be an Sim: Exploration of Setting/Situation kind of focus based on it's premise. It would seem you don't want to go whole hog narrativist in terms of Being purely character driven thematic play, correct?

It seems you want a bit of a faster, looser system, with the players to have the ability to have more authorial weight, correct?  Oh, one question is that you are pretty solid on having a traditional GM moderated game, with most of the credibility & authority reserved to the GM, correct?

Your idea of using Plot Points only as limited Authorial weight would seem to support this, making the game heavier on the participationist side. Another question for you is have you considered collaborative plot point spending and such. Say a player wants to pump his action a certain way, but another player has an idea for some cool complication fight scene element. Would you consider allowing that player, or even the GM to offer the PLAYER some Plot Points in exchange for agreeing to this change.

Like, Bills character Mark has been getting the crap kicked out of him by the big bad, he just failed badly and got the hand holding his sword cut off. He has nowhere left to go but out onto the thin maintenance bridge overlooking the airshaft. GM, "Big Bad advances upon you, breathing heavily, it looks like he will probably be able to kill you, unless you want to accept a 10 PP complication instead. Bill, umm allright, beats me getting killed. The GM smiles and continues. Advancing toward you Thulsa, moves his sword from his right to his left hand and extends his hand towards you, as you cower behind the tower at the end of the maintenance bridge. He says, "Join me Mark, together we will rule empire together." Bill... "Never, I'll never be like you and the emperor." Bill grimaces hoping the plot points will help avoid death as the GM will probably have him cut away the maintenance bridge sending him falling. GM as Thulsa, "No Mark, you are like me.  I Am your Father." Bill as Mark, "What? NO!". I'll jump off the bridge hoping to save myself somehow below, says Bill."

(Cheesy yeah, but classic!:) )

A couple of other ideas about driving storytelling by Players rather than GM. You have been talking about goals and such. And the idea of TROS' SA's have been mentioned. I think doing that could be interesting, letting them drive action by providing "free dice" towards goal achieval. .

Second, To expand on Mike's idea for Negative Traits. I agree with Mike, definitely, DO NOT provide points at creation for taking Negative Traits, otherwise you get GURPS hunchback albino syndrome as players point scrape for extra effectiveness. I like to think of Negative Traits as "Character Expectations", basically they are an agreement by the player that his character can be expected to act in ways consistent with the expectation. An interesting take on this combined with the collaborative RP aspect is in addition to the player being able to Fullfil the character expectation in a scene during a session, have you considered letting either the GM or other players to propose scenes or actions where they offer the player points to fulffil the character expectation as they imagine it would add to the story. If the player of that character is agreeable, then he gets the Plot points from the GM/Player, and the other player can narrate how the expectation is fulfilled.

This stresses some of the more collaborative aspects of the Play is shared concept. Speaking of which, have you considered allowing players to offer up meta-game elements for introduction to the plot by spending plot points? Going beyond Authorial weight into full on Director stance. I have encapsulated alot of these ideas in the Scripts idea for my game The Million Worlds. I talk about it in my TMW:COTEC - Shared Play concepts - Scripts Thread.

As part of that, you might want to seperate the Plot Points/Design Points aspect. I find it is interesting to conceive of attaching Plot Points to the player, which he can invest in Character's or other entities in the game. Of course all this stuff is pretty radical compared to traditional RPG, but it is some stuff you can think off. I think letting all the players come up with interesting wierdness could add to the appeal of Outsider Chronicles due to it's parallel/altnerate world nature. Going to different worlds provides opportunities for the different players to contribute different ideas for entities and such to the game.

But as I said, this is getting off into the land of radical GMful/collaborative/sharedplay gaming. But is something you could consider. It also helps drive player thinking away from the only thing to achieve in the game is character advancement. (Since you'll be playing guys like Navy Seals and shiat, they are already at the top of their game, as it were.)


Anyway, I hope you find some of these ideas interesting or useful. Any other areas or ideas you are looking for more feedback on in particular?

Best

[Keith Sears]

Keith

Hey, wanted to say my welcome to the forge bit too, and say I am a fan of your work. I own Steeltown, and liked SOL, good solid universal system.  I guess you got the whole Hardcore sim Purist for System bug out of your system by designing SOL huh? :)

Thank you for the welcome and the compliment, Rob. I really appreciate it. I don't know if I've actually got it entirely out of my system. It's just the way I tend to think. Coming up with a "soft" system like Luna is something of a challenge because I'n having to take a lot of mushy ideas I have and shape them into something tangible enough for other people to play with.

So I looked over Luna 0.2.5 and thought I would offer some thoughts. In terms of your wanting to go with the dramatic model, I guess I would want to ask if your are familiar with the GNS theory and documents. I'd ask how you want to focus the Outsider Chronicles. To me it would seem to be an Sim: Exploration of Setting/Situation kind of focus based on it's premise. It would seem you don't want to go whole hog narrativist in terms of Being purely character driven thematic play, correct?

I've looked over the GNS articles and I believe I have the gist of them. The original focus of Outside was to simulate the exploration of alternate worlds. However, there is room for other types of adventures, such as X-files types of investigations, or military action versus interdimensional invasion.

I would like to make Luna..and the Outsider Chronicles.. more Narrativist. I'll be adding those elements onto Luna 0.2.7 and later versions. As much as I would personally enjoy a narrativist system, I'm not certain the general gaming public would buy such a system in quantities enough for the game to be a success.  I may be wrong, but many of the gamers I've run across tend to have some fairly passive imaginations. I think a system that would allow the GM to be in charge, but allow the players to contribute creatively to the adventure would be best.

It seems you want a bit of a faster, looser system, with the players to have the ability to have more authorial weight, correct?  Oh, one question is that you are pretty solid on having a traditional GM moderated game, with most of the credibility & authority reserved to the GM, correct?

Correct.

Your idea of using Plot Points only as limited Authorial weight would seem to support this, making the game heavier on the participationist side. Another question for you is have you considered collaborative plot point spending and such. Say a player wants to pump his action a certain way, but another player has an idea for some cool complication fight scene element. Would you consider allowing that player, or even the GM to offer the PLAYER some Plot Points in exchange for agreeing to this change.

Like, Bills character Mark has been getting the crap kicked out of him by the big bad, he just failed badly and got the hand holding his sword cut off. He has nowhere left to go but out onto the thin maintenance bridge overlooking the airshaft. GM, "Big Bad advances upon you, breathing heavily, it looks like he will probably be able to kill you, unless you want to accept a 10 PP complication instead. Bill, umm allright, beats me getting killed. The GM smiles and continues. Advancing toward you Thulsa, moves his sword from his right to his left hand and extends his hand towards you, as you cower behind the tower at the end of the maintenance bridge. He says, "Join me Mark, together we will rule empire together." Bill... "Never, I'll never be like you and the emperor." Bill grimaces hoping the plot points will help avoid death as the GM will probably have him cut away the maintenance bridge sending him falling. GM as Thulsa, "No Mark, you are like me.  I Am your Father." Bill as Mark, "What? NO!". I'll jump off the bridge hoping to save myself somehow below, says Bill."

(Cheesy yeah, but classic!:) )

Cheesy, but I tend to think of that same Star Wars scene myself. Why? There is so much in that scene that you CANNOT simulate in a traditional rpg. You cannot come by that much drama by sheer random rolls. Belive me, if I could make Luna a narrativist, diceless sytem, I would. However, if I even mention the word "diceless" to most gamers, they make a face like they just sucked on a lemon.

I am adding an option for players to "Sweeten the Scene" using Plot Points. They can add new elements to the adventure that either help or hinder them. Spending points to add something to help, or gaining points by introducing a complication. I'm still working on the details for that.

A couple of other ideas about driving storytelling by Players rather than GM. You have been talking about goals and such. And the idea of TROS' SA's have been mentioned. I think doing that could be interesting, letting them drive action by providing "free dice" towards goal achieval.

Free Dice? Give me an example.

Second, To expand on Mike's idea for Negative Traits. I agree with Mike, definitely, DO NOT provide points at creation for taking Negative Traits, otherwise you get GURPS hunchback albino syndrome as players point scrape for extra effectiveness. I like to think of Negative Traits as "Character Expectations", basically they are an agreement by the player that his character can be expected to act in ways consistent with the expectation. An interesting take on this combined with the collaborative RP aspect is in addition to the player being able to Fullfil the character expectation in a scene during a session, have you considered letting either the GM or other players to propose scenes or actions where they offer the player points to fulffil the character expectation as they imagine it would add to the story. If the player of that character is agreeable, then he gets the Plot points from the GM/Player, and the other player can narrate how the expectation is fulfilled.

This has been changed per yours and Mike's suggestions. Negative Traits no longer give the character more Plot Points. However, the player may get Points for actively using a Negative Trait during an adventure.

This stresses some of the more collaborative aspects of the Play is shared concept. Speaking of which, have you considered allowing players to offer up meta-game elements for introduction to the plot by spending plot points? Going beyond Authorial weight into full on Director stance. I have encapsulated alot of these ideas in the Scripts idea for my game The Million Worlds. I talk about it in my TMW:COTEC - Shared Play concepts - Scripts Thread.

I'll have to take a closer look at that thread.

As part of that, you might want to seperate the Plot Points/Design Points aspect. I find it is interesting to conceive of attaching Plot Points to the player, which he can invest in Character's or other entities in the game. Of course all this stuff is pretty radical compared to traditional RPG, but it is some stuff you can think off. I think letting all the players come up with interesting wierdness could add to the appeal of Outsider Chronicles due to it's parallel/altnerate world nature. Going to different worlds provides opportunities for the different players to contribute different ideas for entities and such to the game.

But as I said, this is getting off into the land of radical GMful/collaborative/sharedplay gaming. But is something you could consider. It also helps drive player thinking away from the only thing to achieve in the game is character advancement. (Since you'll be playing guys like Navy Seals and shiat, they are already at the top of their game, as it were.)


Anyway, I hope you find some of these ideas interesting or useful. Any other areas or ideas you are looking for more feedback on in particular?

Well.. you have give me a lot to chew on. I would have replied sooner, but I felt the need to think well on my replies.  I think the most help I will need is making Luna more of a narrativist system.  It seems to fit the dramatic model better.

[Mike Holmes]

Just to be a pedantic terms Nazi, Narrativist does not necessarily mean Director Stance. Which is what you're actually implying. Right now I'm seeing Luna as at best abashedly Narrativist, but more likely plain Simulationist. It does have player power in terms of Director Stance mechanics, but that alone does not mean that it promotes Narrativism (despite many people making that assumption).

I like this combination, however. So keep it up. :-)

See the notes on the game Pace here for an example of a diceless Sim game. People assume that if there are less rules or more player power that the players will automatically stop making Sim decisions. But this is just not true. At the most it means that players will not be informed one way or another, and will merely play by preference. Narrativist games must have some way to promote the making of decisions about speccific sorts of dramatic questions (as opposed to just questions about "what happens next").

Mike

[Keith Sears]

Just to be a pedantic terms Nazi, Narrativist does not necessarily mean Director Stance. Which is what you're actually implying. Right now I'm seeing Luna as at best abashedly Narrativist, but more likely plain Simulationist. It does have player power in terms of Director Stance mechanics, but that alone does not mean that it promotes Narrativism (despite many people making that assumption).

I don't mind you being a Nazi at all. I was up late when I wrote that reply and my mind tends to be a bit chaotic even when fully rested. The term "Narrativist" kind of trips me up because the term doesn't seem to adequately represent the idea. But that's just me.

My area of expertise has always been Communications, and I tend to think of an rpg in terms of group dynamics, rather than Ron's GNS model. I think his work is brilliant in breaking down RPGs like that, but there seems to be some part of my brain that just doesn't seem to get it like the rest of you do.

It seems to me that whether a game is going G, N, or S depends mostly on what the players personally focus on in the game. Systems can help in this choice, but ultimately it is up to the players whether they are going to concentrate on beating the other players, exploration, or creating a great story.

I like this combination, however. So keep it up. :-)

Thanks. Praise does the fragile ego good.

See the notes on the game Pace here for an example of a diceless Sim game. People assume that if there are less rules or more player power that the players will automatically stop making Sim decisions. But this is just not true. At the most it means that players will not be informed one way or another, and will merely play by preference. Narrativist games must have some way to promote the making of decisions about speccific sorts of dramatic questions (as opposed to just questions about "what happens next").

Well, it seems to me that most roleplayers are going to be in G or S state of mind. Most of the gamers I have come across tend to be concrete thinkers.  G and S would both apeal to these people because it gives them something "solid" to hang onto. Moral and emotional quandries as entertainment don't normally appeal to them. However, I'm hoping to make some Narrative concepts more concrete by using various elements such as Personal goals.

[Mike Holmes]

It seems to me that whether a game is going G, N, or S depends mostly on what the players personally focus on in the game.

That's completely true. GNS is about players making decisions in play. To say that a game is one or the other mode is to say that it tends to promote that sort of decision making. That's all.

Well, it seems to me that most roleplayers are going to be in G or S state of mind.

There are plenty of players who use N at least a little, and a considerable proportion of the gaming populace who use it a lot. The relative lack of N play (and it's true) is that players haven't had N games to play. They're being coerced to play in a mode that they don't prefer. Same thing with the "passive imaginations". In general this is the result of players are being discouraged by the system from being creative. I've yet to see a player behave uncreatively in Universalis. To do so would be not to play as the only thing you do in that game is create things/events.

As soon as you play a Narrativist game, you see how many players take to it immediately. That is, I personally believe that almost all gamers really like all three modes. But incoherecy in prior play convinces players that certain modes are dysfnctional. So that's where their disike of certain modes comes from. Given a functional game of any mode or combination of modes, most players can enjoy any mode, IME. Playing Dust Devils, for example, at GenCon last year with complete D&D-only gamers led to comments like, "It's a completely different sort of game. But I like it."

This is why I don't advocate that people worry too much about what mode their game ends up. Just that it's Coherent.

I don't see any problems with your design so far in this regard other than those that tend to occur around Abashed games in general (a topic I've wanted to broach for a while) - but it's early yet. :-)

Anyhow, kick some more out, and then we can talk coherence.

Mike

[Keith Sears]

There are plenty of players who use N at least a little, and a considerable proportion of the gaming populace who use it a lot. The relative lack of N play (and it's true) is that players haven't had N games to play. They're being coerced to play in a mode that they don't prefer. Same thing with the "passive imaginations". In general this is the result of players are being discouraged by the system from being creative. I've yet to see a player behave uncreatively in Universalis. To do so would be not to play as the only thing you do in that game is create things/events.

As soon as you play a Narrativist game, you see how many players take to it immediately.

I must agree with you on that. When I tried out Universalis in a GenCon demo, and you can read about it at http://universalis.actionroll.com/psionic_mines.htm. I had more fun in that half hour than I had in two years of playing D&D 3rd Edition. Why is this?

Because I felt as though I had been freed.

I have been trying to design a roleplaying game that would allow the players to make use of the "soft skills" that go into roleplaying... creativity, storytelling, a bit of acting... and make that what counts in the game. Universalis is the closest thing I have found so far.

I want to be able to make a game that allows others to feel like that session made me feel that day... like a hero in a movie.

[ross_winn]

Two of the games that have gotten a lot of press and are very weighted toward the more dramatic style of play are Wushu and Nobilis. I have not seen it, but understand that the new Marvel Super Heroes game is resource based as well.

Nobilis is a very weighty tome and while I heartily recommend it, I think its size is prohibitive for this discussion. Wushu is another matter altogether. I do think that Wushu is both the soul of simplicity, and possibly the most elegant game I have ever seen.

I do think Wushu is a 'must see' point of reference for those wanting to keep it simple and reinforce genre tropes and conventions.

[Lxndr]

As long as we're recommending, I like both The Pool and TQB, for dramatics.  Both are basically predicated around exactly one concept:

"The player defines how important to the story his character's traits are."

Thus you could be "Strongest Man in the Universe" but, if you rank it low, that means "eh, this is a part of my character, but I don't want it to often help him get out of jams or otherwise improve the story."  On the other hand, you could be "Annoying" and rank it really high, thus effectively saying "Yes, I want this to be a significant part of my character."

Also, as for the Star Wars Scene, I think a properly-written game COULD very well handle that scene.  The only problem is, you couldn't script such a thing in advance.  However the neat scene goes, it's probably NOT how you, the GM, imagine such a scene.  Yes, a scene JUST LIKE THAT could happen, even with random dice rolls (look at Sorcerer).  But, given two sets of players and the same initial set-up, the chances of the SAME dramatic scene happening is close to nil.  

Which isn't a bad thing - the revelation of "you are my son" is dramatic all by itself, and there are all sorts of different, yet still dramatic and narratively interesting, ways to reveal such a thing.

[Keith Sears]

Also, as for the Star Wars Scene, I think a properly-written game COULD very well handle that scene.

The operative word was "TRADITIONAL" roleplaying system. My point being that they usually boil down to random results in a dice game. It would be possible to do it with the right system, but the players would probably be more impressed by the great die rolls that were made than the actual scene itself, if it were done traditionally.

[Keith Sears]

Boy... does my last post seem cynical now that I look at it a second time. My apologies if I was offensive.

That scene from Star Wars could be played out with the right system. It would probably have to allow the players to interject their own elements into the story, though. There are several dramatic elements in the confrontation scene between Vader and Skywalker in Cloud City. My version of events assumes that Vader isn't out to kill Skywalker, but to turn him to the Dark Side by filling him with hatred, pain, and confusion. My apologies if I'm inaccurate, it's been a long time since I've seen this film.

1. He hits Skywalker indirectly with bits of equipment. always aimed at his back. This is mostly to frustrate him. (The mechanics for flinging things around telekinetically are easy to find in any rpg, but there's virtually nothing about this type of tactic to wear down a person's resistance to persuasion.)

2. During an actual duel, Vader drives Skywalker back to a precipice and lops off his hand, taking his lightsaber with it. Both hand and saber fall into the depths. (Most rpgs don't normally allow you to manuever your opponent like that. Melee battles tend to be toe-to-toe until someone is dead. Aimed shots, if they exist in the system, tend to be very difficult to do and most players tend to choose attacks with the greatest chance of success. Combat in a dramatic system would have to made so that details like manuevering an opponent and cutting off a limb become more attractive.)

3. Vader, after beating the snot out of Skywalker and showing him how weak and ineffectual his side is, hits him with the "I am your father" schtick. Skywalker is put on the edge, physically and emotionally. (Once again, an emotional tactic not handled in normal rpgs.)

4.) Skywalker chooses to escape Vader by the seemingly suicidal tactic of jumping off the precipice. He is saved from falling to his death by Deus ex Machina. (One could argue that Skywalker recieved guidance from the Force when making this decision, but salvation by lucky intervention seems to be a common occurence in adventure movies like this. In order to simulate this, the player would have to be able to make his own "luck" somehow.)

[Mike Holmes]

First, there are plenty of more freeform games out there that can accomplish this all easily (see The Pool), but I understand that this is not what you're looking for.

1. He hits Skywalker indirectly with bits of equipment. always aimed at his back. This is mostly to frustrate him. (The mechanics for flinging things around telekinetically are easy to find in any rpg, but there's virtually nothing about this type of tactic to wear down a person's resistance to persuasion.)

Well, is Luke a PC in this instance? Then few, if any RPGs will allow the character to be "convinced" no matter what. That is, most RPGs have no rules that force characters to behave in any way other than what the player wants, with the possible exception of mind control and other powerful forces.

The reason for this is simple. If you take away the player's ability to make decisions for the character, you've gone a long way to eliminating their participation in these cases. There are exceptions, however. Pendragon, for instance, has rolls against pairs of Traits so as to cause a character to act to type. And there are lot's of games with Sanity rules, ranging from CoC which can cause bonkers behavior to Unknown Armies which can cause the character to have all sorts of interesting behaviors based on their mental conditions.

But the one that really sticks out here is a game specifically designed to do this entire scene - Paladin. I'm not sure that it covers this particular part, actually, but it does cover the whole slide to the dark side thing.

2. During an actual duel, Vader drives Skywalker back to a precipice and lops off his hand, taking his lightsaber with it. Both hand and saber fall into the depths. (Most rpgs don't normally allow you to manuever your opponent like that. Melee battles tend to be toe-to-toe until someone is dead. Aimed shots, if they exist in the system, tend to be very difficult to do and most players tend to choose attacks with the greatest chance of success. Combat in a dramatic system would have to made so that details like manuevering an opponent and cutting off a limb become more attractive.)

Actually, I can think of several systems that allow this in different ways. Some are more tactical oriented, and others more based on story concerns. One that I really like is Hero Wars. Basically conflicts become a series of bids trying to reach an outcome. If the outcome you want is for the person to feel like they're trapped by maneuvering them, that's easily accomplished with the system.

3. Vader, after beating the snot out of Skywalker and showing him how weak and ineffectual his side is, hits him with the "I am your father" schtick. Skywalker is put on the edge, physically and emotionally. (Once again, an emotional tactic not handled in normal rpgs.)

Even in good old Hero System there are presence attacks. But again, the question is what areas of the character's protagonist nature do you want inviolate for the player, and what not? I could proffer my Synthesis system as one that focuses only on the internal struggles of the characters. I've had playtesters roll constantly to find out what their characters do despite the fact that they aren't required to do so. I mentioned to one, "Hey, you don't have to roll for that." His response was, "I know, but it's fun."

So you can mess with things like this with the right system.

4.) Skywalker chooses to escape Vader by the seemingly suicidal tactic of jumping off the precipice. He is saved from falling to his death by Deus ex Machina. (One could argue that Skywalker recieved guidance from the Force when making this decision, but salvation by lucky intervention seems to be a common occurence in adventure movies like this. In order to simulate this, the player would have to be able to make his own "luck" somehow.)

Again, it all depends on to what extent you want events to be resolved by internal logic, or external story logic. In The Pool, Universalis, Hero Wars, etc, this is an easy thing to accomplish. Who says that the player has to do this either?

Here's an example of how it could go in one style of play.

Player: I want my character to escape.
GM: Well, he's in a tight spot on this precipice. What stat do you want to use?
Player: Hmm. How about my character's Luck stat?
GM: Fine. Roll it.
Player: Success!
GM: Luke jumps off the precipice having no other place to go. As luck would have it, a chute opens and he falls into it and starts sliding to safety...only to fall outside the city onto an antenna. And he's having problems holding on with only one hand....

Exchange "the Force" stat with "Luck" if you want an in-game solution.

It can all be worked out with the right system. I can totally envision the scene working in Hero Wars, and that's pretty solid mechanically.

Mike

[Keith Sears]

First, there are plenty of more freeform games out there that can accomplish this all easily (see The Pool), but I understand that this is not what you're looking for.

Well, I think I had hoped to make Luna more of a Narrative game than it currently is. I've been looking at various Narrative games in order to get some ideas.

One has been Universalis, of course. The Pool is interesting. Another one that I find fascinating is Soap. Pace, though it isn't a Narrative game, is also interesting. It think this has a lot to do with its' diceless nature.

[Keith Sears]

After my brief flirtation with making Luna a card-based roleplaying system, some ideas came to light that will change the system significantly in some areas, and hopefully make it a better system. I had some concerns about the design that I just wasn't able to overcome until now. Let me give you a brief synopsis of the changes:

Character generation is unchanged.

Luna will remain a dice-based system, but will use a dice matching system (like in poker dice) as opposed to the even/odd mechanic previously used.

Players will roll a number of dice indicated by the character's Level of Play.

Mook- 1
Normal - 4
Heroic - 7
Super - 10
Godlike - 13

Positive Traits will not add onto the number of dice rolled, but will allow the player to reroll a number of dice equal to the Trait's score.

We'll be trying out the Stakes mechanic I described in my previous post. I didn't get any feedback on that one, so I either described it well enough that it didn't need comment, confused everyone so that no one could comment, or came up with something so bland that it didn't deserve comment.

We'll also be trying out a new mechanic I'm calling Embellishment. Each descriptive detail that the player adds to his statement of intent will give the character up to +3 bonus dice.

I'm hard at work getting Luna 0.3 written and uploaded. Barring disaster, I should have it uploaded in a week or two.


~Keith W. Sears
Heraldic Game Design

[Keith Sears]

Sorry if I've sent anyone on a fruitless search for a "previous post" about a Stakes mechanic. I cut and pasted that post from my Yahoo group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/outsider_chronicles/.