[I.N.I.] Skill system, seeks alternative approach?

[Mike Holmes]

I sorta agree, Andrew. GURPS does have rules for prereqs, defaults, categorizes skills similarly. But the catetgorizations don't relate directly to defaults.

This is the problem, however. Basically, the spec eliminates GURPS because of how very specific it is. I think that GURPS might meet all of Autocrat's goals, but it's hard to know. Rolemaster, actually, also comes close to meeting his goals in many ways, but may be way too heavy in other ways. The Paranioa skill tree has some similarities, too. In fact, there have been a ton of games that have done things very similar to what Autocrat describes. I'm just not sure that there's one that does it precisely like he wants.

As it happens, I invented an infinitely recursive system with self defined categories. The problem with it was that it takes a spreadsheet to do the calculations (and a damned complicated one at that, it uses some calculus). So I understand the impetus. I'm just still not convinced that the method meets anybody's goals.

Mike

[Autocrat]

Apologies for the length of time.... been V.busy.....

Right then......

Yep, if you want an alternative thread about some of the goals, particularly where I get my perspective on things like flexibility, you start, I'll join it!  (You may have to point it out to me though! LOL).

Right, GURPS..... yep played it, enjoyed it.... yet had the same issues as with Fallout.... to much complication.

The general approach I want is to cover what so many other games/systems cover, yet to provide it without the complications, intracicies and heavy math or methodology that so many other systems feel is necessary.

"I think" that one of the ultimate goal acheivals is to provide the level of play people want without inserting additional steps that are not necessary.
So, rather than keep adding strange meth, multiplictions etc, just stick to the simple A+B+C+D+E+++++ approach, or use the Substitution method of A+B(or B1 or B2)+C(or C1, C2, C3)+++++etc.
Make sense?

[Mike Holmes]

Makes sense to me, but how is your system less complex? That is, I can see if the skills are listed in such a manner that you can see structurally where the defaults go, that this might be more clear with the system that you're calling for. But one could just list the GURPS defaults with the skills in question if one wanted to which would seem to do about the same thing. Given the multiple levels of grouping that you have, it seems that it could be rather more complicated (especially in chargen). What am I not seeing?

Further, in GURPS the defaults are all simple single digit subtractions. How are you going to make the math simpler for your game?

Or are you looking to have something akin to GURPS in terms of complexity for skills, but then simplify the system elsewhere?

Mike

[Autocrat]

Sorry for the length of time to reply..... life keeps cropping up and interrupting my days!  :)

Still, at least I have my health, (yeah, right, like thats going to last!)

Still.....

I loved Gurps/Murps... and yes, it is a mjor influence for me, and I am basing a lot on that sort of strain, along with the Fallout system and Shadowrun.  Those are the three main object models, then through in a bit of D&D, AD&D, Alternaty, WoD, MArvel Heroes and books by Eddings, Gemmell, Ericsonm McCaffrey etc... and you may see/understand the reasons for wanting simplicty, choice and flexibility.

I guess I really want a game emulator... not to emulate other systems, but to permit players to generate games they want, whilst providing simple, common rules and methods, with little bits of "OR YOU CAN" as well as bits of "IF YOU WANT".

If I can make the basic system work in harmony no matter the additional setting mechanics, (such as Magic, Psionics etc.), and can provide simplistic alternate methods, (go from D100 to Multiple die or Diceless/Comparitive/Auto), then I have what I want.

Did any of that actually make sense to any one.... I get the feeling that what I think in my head, what I write on paper isn't actually what I type.... I've noticed I treat this as a conversation, and realised that theres little nuisance or carry-over, you can't see me or hear me.... kind of difficult!
:)

[Mike Holmes]

I get that this is what you want. And, given that, go for it, create the game you want to play. But will it appeal to anyone but you? I mean, will it distinguish itself from all of the other generic and "toolkit" RPGs out there in some way that will make people want to play? Forget GURPS, will the game be better than EABA? Ask Greg Porter who has made a superior generic game, how hard it is to overcome the 800 pound gorrilla in this area.

Again, that doesn't mean you shouldn't make the game. But it might give you some perspective.

Mike

[Mark Johnson]

Autocrat,

Sorry about the tangent here.  This is a bit out of the realm of game design, but the questions may be relevant for me to figure out your intentions.

Is it more important to you to develop the "best" game possible or to have a "commercial" game?

Would you be actually be satisfied if you put tons of work into the game and it never gets much use other than as a web game?

Is this game going to be a self contained unit ("Use this one book to model any possible style of gameplay!"), an ongoing project... ("Coming in July our Iraq War supplement includes all new rules for  invisible WMDs!") or something in between?

The question is relevant because I am trying to figure out if your want of multiple systems is trying to satisfy an aesthetic urge (you want a game that can do anything any number of ways) or a commercial urge (you want to appeal to different types of group playstyles).

Later,
Mark