*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 16, 2019, 08:24:35 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 105 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: [Surreality Engine] call for comments on system.  (Read 1571 times)
Will
Member

Posts: 50


« on: June 19, 2008, 02:07:15 PM »

Ok, I have been writing and rewriting this for long enough and I know exactly how it should work and it plays quite well with me running it, it's time for me to ease my deathgrip a little and let my baby out to meet the real world.

http://www.wargolem.com/games/sengine/files/surrealityengineForge.pdf

The Surreality Engine was designed for fast and furious, over the top action, specifically in a somewhat comedic vein. It has accidentally proven itself a bit more versatile than originally intended but that remains the thrust.

Play is meant to go in unexpected directions with both the players and the referees hanging on for dear life.

I would love to get some feedback on this as I feel like I am in the home stretch of getting this thing done and I think I have come up with an interesting little game here.

I have tacked on the original setting to the end of this document as an example of the sort of worlds this system is meant to encourage.

Thanks for any attention you can spare.

-Will
Logged
Will
Member

Posts: 50


« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2008, 02:27:58 PM »

I hate replying to myself, but I forgot the whole specific questions parts, I do have some of them Smiley

While any or all criticism or comment is welcome, what I am specifically looking for is as follows:

1) Have I explained this well, is the writing clear and relatively engaging?

2) Does the system do what I have described it doing. IE fast action, good amount of player control, encourage over the top play?

3) Have I struck a good balance between controlling blatant abuse and system complexity. Is it too open and abusable, is it too fiddly?

Thanks again.

-Will
Logged
tombowings
Member

Posts: 27


« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2008, 03:55:44 PM »

First of all, this is very similar to a system I have been working on myself. That being said, yours is much better than mine and it really looks like your put quite some time, thought and effort into your project.

1) I think you have explained yourself quite well, and is very clear how someone is supposed to participate as a player in the game. However, I think you should a section on Refereeing for you system to be publishable.
2) I can't really say anything but my opinion without doing any playtesting, but it does look like you have struck a good balance.
3) I would define what exactly a good/bad forte is a little more clearly. Maybe first selecting a more general topic and then a descriptor to that topic. E.I. General: Magic; Descriptor: Fire. Just something you might want to consider.
Logged
tombowings
Member

Posts: 27


« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2008, 04:38:44 PM »

One more thing, rereading your manuscript more in depth, you could describe "Enhancements" a bit than you have.

For example: do the affects of Grouped Dice and a character's Forte stack?
Logged
Will
Member

Posts: 50


« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2008, 08:31:15 AM »

Thanks for the feedback.

1) I think you have explained yourself quite well, and is very clear how someone is supposed to participate as a player in the game. However, I think you should a section on Refereeing for you system to be publishable.

I had intended the "Running the Game" section to do that, does it need more example? On rereading I am not terribly happy with the play examples, rewriting them might help in this respect.

3) I would define what exactly a good/bad forte is a little more clearly. Maybe first selecting a more general topic and then a descriptor to that topic. E.I. General: Magic; Descriptor: Fire. Just something you might want to consider.

I have toyed with broad stats with descriptors in other systems but in this case I like having them be as broad or as narrow as the player wants and the referee allows. I could expand out the list of examples and provide WHY allowing overly broad or narrow stats is a bad idea.

One more thing, rereading your manuscript more in depth, you could describe "Enhancements" a bit than you have.

For example: do the affects of Grouped Dice and a character's Forte stack?

Yes, all enhancements add to your base roll which is either the base 2 dice, or your forte or foible. I am going to add a bit about enhancements when I first introduce how you roll which will hopefully make that less buried.
 
Logged
tombowings
Member

Posts: 27


« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2008, 09:19:00 AM »

Thanks for the feedback.

No problem.

I had intended the "Running the Game" section to do that, does it need more example? On rereading I am not terribly happy with the play examples, rewriting them might help in this respect.

That might be a good idea.

I have toyed with broad stats with descriptors in other systems but in this case I like having them be as broad or as narrow as the player wants and the referee allows. I could expand out the list of examples and provide WHY allowing overly broad or narrow stats is a bad idea.

Yes, some kind of explanation might be good. Also, you could have a table of examples with the headings: Game Premiss, Too Narrow, Appropriate, Overly General.

Yes, all enhancements add to your base roll which is either the base 2 dice, or your forte or foible. I am going to add a bit about enhancements when I first introduce how you roll which will hopefully make that less buried.

That would help quite a bit in clearing things that like up.
Logged
Will
Member

Posts: 50


« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2008, 08:06:34 PM »

Ok, with the feedback I got here and elsewhere I gave the rules a twice over and hopefully clarified a few things and weeded out some points of blatant abuse.

http://www.wargolem.com/games/sengine/files/surrealityengine.pdf

I'm still unhappy with my examples of play, usually mine flow better but right now I have a nasty mental block against being able to make them flow well.

Another point I would like feedback on: Is the use of Props as opposed to Enhancements clear? It has confused some of my players in the past.

Danke

-Will
Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!