Theatrum (The Pool extended)

[J. Backman]

I'm working a project called Theatrum, which turned out to be extremely similar to The Pool. It uses basically all the familiar things from The Pool -- the character creation, trait system, the gambling -- but expands them a lot. I uploaded a rough first draft here.

So, any thoughts on this? Does the success scale thing work? How about the other traits influencing the trait used in the conflict resolution? Should I have drawn boobies on the chick on the cover?

Note that the rules on animus (yes, that *does* sound a little familiar...) will be expanded a lot once I get to actually write everything down. It's still a work-in-progress.

- PJ

[Bankuei]

My only concern would be that with more dice, you still have equal chances of rolling a 1 as much as a 6 on any given die.  So more dice doesn't necessarily make it more likely for you to succeed, only less likely to get a major defeat or a major victory.  A similar problem came up with Whitewolf's 1's cancelling out successes.  

Aside from that, it seems to be pretty straight forward.

Chris

[J. Backman]

My only concern would be that with more dice, you still have equal chances of rolling a 1 as much as a 6 on any given die.  So more dice doesn't necessarily make it more likely for you to succeed, only less likely to get a major defeat or a major victory.  A similar problem came up with Whitewolf's 1's cancelling out successes.

Aye, that's true. I'm pondering a work-around for this, but so haven't been able to figure it out... Anyway, a point I forgot to make, Theatrum was made primarily for my portfolio, to display my style of doing .pdf lay-out and illustrations (I do freelancing in both categories).

Cheers,

- PJ

[Wormwood]

Backman,

A suggested quick fix:
Success - any 6's rolled
Major success - at least 3 6's rolled
Failure - no 6's rolled
Major Failure - Failure with a majority of 1's

or just toss out Major Failures.

I'd still suggest rethinking the system completely, but apparently you have little impetus to do so.

  -Mendel S.

[J. Backman]

A suggested quick fix:
Success - any 6's rolled
Major success - at least 3 6's rolled
Failure - no 6's rolled
Major Failure - Failure with a majority of 1's

or just toss out Major Failures.

I'd still suggest rethinking the system completely, but apparently you have little impetus to do so.

Actually, I *am* planning to re-do the whole system (there isn't actually much to re-do anyway). That's one of the reasons I posted the thing here, to get feedback on the rules. Anyway, that's a pretty good suggestion you made, and I actually might use it.

- PJ

[James V. West]

Hey

I just downloaded the game but haven't had time to read it completely. So far though it looks pretty snazzy.

This is particularly interesting because I'm also working on a new game that is roughly based on The Pool (very roughly), but adds levels of detail such as what you've done with Aspects. I'll post more after I've read it.

Later

[thoth]

One thing that may be worth considering is making some Successes be worth 2 Successes.

If that could somehow be worked in, it'd be difficult to overcome  a series of Exceptional Successes, with failures.

[J. Backman]

One thing that may be worth considering is making some Successes be worth 2 Successes.

If that could somehow be worked in, it'd be difficult to overcome  a series of Exceptional Successes, with failures.

Umm, I don't see why I should implement something like that. I think it wouldn't really work that well, since the game's supposed to be a really simple system, basically just bare bones.

I just downloaded the game but haven't had time to read it completely. So far though it looks pretty snazzy.

Thanks James, I'll be looking forward to your comments once you get to read it more thoroughly.

- Pasi Juhani

[thoth]

Two questions:

1) What is desired weighting with the resolution system? Towards a Draw? Towards a Success?

2) What is the reasoning behind Animus/Luck and losing all the used points on a failure and keeping them all on a success?
It seems using Animus and failing is a double whammy (you fail and lose all invested points), and succeeding is a double yummy (you succeed and can do it again). And if you get a Major Success, you get +1 Animus.
Just wondering the reasoning on that (ie: no real opinion formed with regards to it)

[J. Backman]

What is the reasoning behind Animus/Luck and losing all the used points on a failure and keeping them all on a success?
It seems using Animus and failing is a double whammy (you fail and lose all invested points), and succeeding is a double yummy (you succeed and can do it again). And if you get a Major Success, you get +1 Animus.
Just wondering the reasoning on that (ie: no real opinion formed with regards to it)

Actually, the gambling of Animus is basically the same mechanic as used in The Pool (that will change slightly in the future though), and the winning/losing/gambling thing has been discussed a lot in The Pool forums. (I suggest you go and read those). Anyway, what you pointed out was a very valid point, there really is a very large contrast between winning and losing. I'm thinking of making that contrast a bit smaller, though so far haven't come up with a way to do it.

- Pasi Juhani

[thoth]

At present, Animus is gambled and lost on a Failure, and kept on a Success...
What about a Draw? Draws would appear to be the more common result, how is Animus dealt with in that situation?

[J. Backman]

At present, Animus is gambled and lost on a Failure, and kept on a Success... What about a Draw? Draws would appear to be the more common result, how is Animus dealt with in that situation?

It's lost on draws. I think I left that out of the 1st draft... Oops.

- PJ

[thoth]

Ouch. IMO.

Are you actively looking for and thinking of possible "fixes" for Animus?

"Fix" of course is the absolute in subjective wording. I can see Animus being left alone for simple fact that it's supposed to be a Big Gamble, with losing the gamble being a Big Loss, and winning  is a Big Win, and not winning being a sorta loss.

Just wondering if ya'd like to see some mechanical ideas thrown out, because as it stands now I myself would feel compelled to modify it at least a little.

Although, there's probably no system ever created that I wouldn't want to mod at least a little ;)

[James V. West]

It seems like gambling systems are the easiest to modify, especially when they are fairly abstract.

[edited for typos :-)]

[J. Backman]

Are you actively looking for and thinking of possible "fixes" for Animus?

"Fix" of course is the absolute in subjective wording. I can see Animus being left alone for simple fact that it's supposed to be a Big Gamble, with losing the gamble being a Big Loss, and winning  is a Big Win, and not winning being a sorta loss.

Just wondering if ya'd like to see some mechanical ideas thrown out, because as it stands now I myself would feel compelled to modify it at least a little.

Although, there's probably no system ever created that I wouldn't want to mod at least a little ;)

Actually, I'm pretty satisfied with the rules on Animus as they are now, but I'll probably add a couple of variants to the finished system for people who don't like the original rules.

Anyway, in the meanwhile, you can enjoy a completely useless, albeit somewhat pretty character sheet for Theatrum. It's here.

- PJ