Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Sir Privy Toastrack, August 04, 2004, 12:09:36 PM
Quote from: statisticaltomfooleryMost importantly, underlying it all, you've got neat setting which isn't reinforced by the system at all: your temperaments and virtues and sins do nothing in the game. There's no reinforcement that the players should have goals, or desires, and that the game should be about those.
Quote from: statisticaltomfooleryThe answers to those, and a system which reinforces those might be a whole lot more interesting to myself. Trimming down combat to something which is quick, extraordinarily rules-lite, brutal, and deadly, along with some general notes on how combat worked might be much more effective,
Quote from: statisticaltomfooleryI think another problem with the tactical wargame combat model with medium to high rules complexity is that it encourages this very contemplative, very "well, if I move two steps, perform this move, followed by this move, I gain +.4 expected damage per turn", which seems about as far away from the feel of the period you're trying to recreate as possible.
Quote from: ThorTo emphasize the Virtues make them vital to the progress of the character. Players who go against their Virtues/Humors, which they choose in the first place, should be unfulfilled humans who don't get ahead in life.
Quote from: statisticaltomfooleryYou shouldn't have a player pick a sin, make an interesting plot, and then get rewards for steadfastly ignoring it. You should make it such that the plots and mechanics reward the player for interesting, game-advancing play. For me, at least, it's the exploration of one's roles, one's desires, and one's beliefs, and how it's hard to achieve without sacrifice, that's the interesting part.
Quote from: statisticaltomfoolerySometimes people betray their principles, and it works. Does it work for only a little bit? Does it work, but leave them haunted inside? Does it work, but leave them in the pitfires of hell?
Quote from: statisticaltomfooleryI'm not sure we're disagreeing. You're saying: "There need to be consequences." I'm with you 100%. I'm just saying that the right way to do this is far, far away from: "You hath committed a sin. Take a -2 to all actions till your confess." The choices a player makes with regards to how they will play, or not play their various attributes should drive the game.While I'm not advocating this mechanic in particular, the SA's in TROS are an excellent example: the game has a rich combat system, but is driven by the Spiritual Attributes at hand: if a GM is failing to pay attention to what the players believe in, the game will have a good chance of breaking down.That's the kind of feel that the system should have here: it should be natural, based on the setting, system, and everything, to be exploring the issues at hand. The cudgel of standard personality mechanics (play this way or else!) should have no room.