*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 30, 2014, 01:06:46 AM

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 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 55 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Print
Author Topic: New RPG idea Frozen Dawn RPG  (Read 4401 times)
Simon C
Member

Posts: 495


« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2009, 05:42:38 PM »

Publishing for use with an existing system sounds like an excellent idea. 

I don't know Pathfinder very well, but from what I know, it sounds like a fair match for your purposes.  When you're ready, I'd be happy to talk about what is useful and cool to put into this kind of product, and what can be left out.  You probably won't get a lot of advice on specifics of your setting, but I suspect there will be people with strong opinions about how to make a product like this really good.

Cheers,
Simon
Logged
Alokov
Member

Posts: 62


« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2009, 06:13:41 PM »

Thanks. I will certainly take you up on that when I'm ready. It shouldn't be too long (only a few months or so I hope. Since we've got a lot of it nailed down already).
Logged
Alokov
Member

Posts: 62


« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2009, 05:10:07 PM »

I've finally come up with a workable fear mechanic (I hope). It'll be a push-your-luck style mechanic based around adrenaline. You can take "fear points' or whatever I decide to call them,whenever you want, although you will have to narrate why you've gotten more scared. Taking a point gives you a bonus to physical tests (strength, speed, etc) equal to the number of points taken via the fight-or-flight response kicking in. It also gives you a penalty to precision skills (ranged weapons, disarming a bomb) and some mental skillls (solving a cryptic message left by a dead member of your cell, etc.) equal to the number of points taken. Also, once the adrenaline wears off, probably based on a die roll of some sort (or similar randomizing element) you become fatigued, giving you a penalty to physical skills, and possibly others, equal to the number of adrenaline points you took. The GM can also take fear points to get the same effects, but also has to narrate how an NPC is getting more scared. Finally, the GM can force players to take fear points when they see something scary (a dead body, a group of heavily armed guards, etc.) I'm looking for a negotiation-style mechanic for this, so the GM can't just pick the number of points the players take, but it's not totally random. I may end up using the same mechanic someone suggested for the magic system (thanks by the way.)

I know this isn't a great mechanic but, since it's my first one, I still think I did an ok job.
Logged
Alokov
Member

Posts: 62


« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2009, 06:01:54 PM »

Need to hammer out the details though, of course, and the rough spots.
Logged
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 3588


WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2009, 08:19:53 PM »

Normally in new game threads I'm asking 'what are you trying to get at', because people come up with a setting and go 'oh, it has steam powered devices' or something and I'm like "Okay, annnnddd...?" and then they ramble on about more setting that has no conflict inherent to it what-so-ever.

Here I'm the opposite - I don't know why everyones going "what are you trying to get at!!!?? Your not saying!" when you have three factions, two of which are clueless and one of which is out to get everyone and your stuck in the middle of them all going WTF - and it's due to human beliefs! It's the mega bang from hell!

Alokov, I'd take the 'what's experience are you trying to get at' questions with a grain of salt. You've already got a big ass conflict going on which is an experience in itself. It's just a matter of refining it/how much you want to refine it.

With your fear idea, I think the mechanics should tie it into the big clash of beliefs from your setting. What comes to mind with the fear mechanic is that the characters have beliefs written on their character sheets - and the more afraid they get, they more they believe in these beliefs and start living them out as truths. It could be any old belief, like all red heads are evil - at the start of play they kind of just think it a bit, but as combat comes around and players draw on fear for the extra points, that fears point rating goes up, indicating to the player that the character is starting to believe more and more that red heads really are a great evil.

Nice setting, regardless Smiley
Logged

Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>
Alokov
Member

Posts: 62


« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2009, 01:13:15 AM »

Thank you for the ideas. With this fear mechanic I was going more for the "undercover" thing. The constant fear of the Scourge, but I really would like to play up the beleifs.  The dogmatic feel of that mechanic is great, especially for the Scourge, since I was aiming very much for the "fanatical neo-con" stereotype with them. I would like there to be a way to decrease/change your beleifs, since that happens often enough in real life, but to prevent/discourage munchkins from exploiting that ability, I'm going to include a new mechanic. If a belief gets reduced to a certain level (1 at least, maybe higher, I'll have to see what the average number is) you go into a crisis of faith. You can no longer take fear points from "any" belief until you reconcile with yourself (not necessarily by regaining that belief, just by finding some way to accept your new beliefs.) Not sure how the "reconciliation" thing will work yet, but it should be interesting. There should also be some kind of cap or penalty for taking too many beliefs. I may use a similar mechanic to the one in Mortal Coil. A fixed number of points to spread between beleifs Characters can also gain and lose fear points due to pivotal story events (pretty much the same mechanic as before.) I really like the idea that the best way to fight a fanatical Scourge member may be to disilussion him rather than to shoot him, or at least that it could be an option. Again, I need to make this mehchanic more concrete and munchkin-proof but it's 5 am, so it won't happen yet.
Logged
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 3588


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2009, 01:51:03 PM »

Cool! In terms of disillusionment, if you remember the end of the serenity movie, the good guy doesn't kill the bad guy, just forces him to watch a video to show what the thing he believed in really was doing. Then as the good guy meets up with his group heading out, they get confronted by the bad guys kill team who clearly can kill them. But then, after a dreadful pause, the bad guy radios through to them to cancel the kill order. I think it was a striking message that killing would just result in more killing and so on - the only way out is the faint hope someones belief would turn. So in terms of disillusionment, you could look at how killing becomes a cycle and how to break out of it.

I'm not sure you should be so concerned about 'munchkins' - if someones just trying to play a numbers game when the games about looking at those beliefs and how they clash, well that person just doesn't want to do what the games about. You can't proof a game against someone not enjoying it. Also some people might work the numbers hard yet really care about those beliefs etc - this is just playing the game, situation normal Smiley
Logged

Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>
Alokov
Member

Posts: 62


« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2009, 02:26:29 PM »

Cool! In terms of disillusionment, if you remember the end of the serenity movie, the good guy doesn't kill the bad guy, just forces him to watch a video to show what the thing he believed in really was doing. Then as the good guy meets up with his group heading out, they get confronted by the bad guys kill team who clearly can kill them. But then, after a dreadful pause, the bad guy radios through to them to cancel the kill order. I think it was a striking message that killing would just result in more killing and so on - the only way out is the faint hope someones belief would turn. So in terms of disillusionment, you could look at how killing becomes a cycle and how to break out of it.

I'm not sure you should be so concerned about 'munchkins' - if someones just trying to play a numbers game when the games about looking at those beliefs and how they clash, well that person just doesn't want to do what the games about. You can't proof a game against someone not enjoying it. Also some people might work the numbers hard yet really care about those beliefs etc - this is just playing the game, situation normal Smiley

I should have realiized munchkins wouldn't be a big problem but I come from a long history of D&D and similar games which tend to attract munchkins. I haven't seen Serenity but that scene sounds like what I was aiming for As to how this "psychological combat" would work, i really don't want it, or any part of the game, stat or number-crunching heavy. The base difficulty of the conversion is set by the number of fear points the enemy has in that beleif. The attacker and defender take turns making arguments for their belief, then they wager points in their own beliefs on converting the other person and/or maintaiining their own outlook, sort of similar to the mechanic from Dogs in the Vineyard. It thus becomes a matter  of "how much are you willing to give up for your beliefs." If someone runs out of points in the first belief they pick, they can take points from another one. Now this is the more tentative part, the winner takes all wagered points and appliethem to whatever belief/beliefs they took their wagered points from. The ability to take points from multiple beliefs is, perhaps, less realistic, but I wanted a mechanic to prevent the person with the higher number of points in one belief from always winning, just cause the other guy ran out of points first. I took inspiration from PDQ's damage mechanic, obviously.

Very rough still but I wanted to write it down before I forgot it, as has happened to me often before.
Logged
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 3588


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2009, 04:36:49 PM »

Hmm, not really seeing it? It seems to be a stat battle - no ones giving up anything, they are just clashing swords/stats and seeing who loses. When a sword swing chops your head off, your not giving up your head - it's just coming off because of events. Giving something up is alot different than something just happening because of events.

Can you draw so much (points) from a belief that it becomes extinguished and you lose it? Thus in trying to convince the other guy out of a belief, your character might burn up several (lesser?) ones of his own?
Logged

Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>
Alokov
Member

Posts: 62


« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2009, 04:51:15 PM »

Hmm, not really seeing it? It seems to be a stat battle - no ones giving up anything, they are just clashing swords/stats and seeing who loses. When a sword swing chops your head off, your not giving up your head - it's just coming off because of events. Giving something up is alot different than something just happening because of events.

Can you draw so much (points) from a belief that it becomes extinguished and you lose it? Thus in trying to convince the other guy out of a belief, your character might burn up several (lesser?) ones of his own?

In a word, yes, if you draw all of the points from a beleif, which can be done, you lose it and have to deal with the loss somehow. I was thinking of the theological debate model. Say. for example, a Christian is trying to convert an atheist. Perhaps the Christian "wins" and the atheist becomes a theist but, in the process, the Christian stops beleiving in the divinity of Jesus, while still beleiving in a similar God. That is, perhaps, an overly extreme example, but it's the best one I could think of. For an in-game example: a church of humanity member is trying to convince a Scourge member how wonderful technology is. In the process, the Church guy reduced his faith in the divinity of humans by reducing that beleif to 0. The Scourge guy loses his fanatical hatred of all technology by conceding the battle, but, because he still had some points in that belief, he still believes that technology can be taken too far, and manages to convince the Church guy of that. Still extremely inelegant but it is only a rough draft, after all.
Logged
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 3588


WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2009, 03:54:39 PM »

Ah, cool! That's a good idea you've got - of course it'll be even better to see in complete form (or atleast a strong draft form).

This is kind of a meta suggestion, but I'd say collect what work you've completed so far on this (which definately includes this thread) into a folder on your computer or printed out. I'm saying that as a self encouragement method - it's good to think that you have already completed various works on the project. This helps encourage completing other works on it, which encourages more and it's all making something. Or maybe you don't need this suggestion, but I thought I'd post it in case it was helpful somehow. If not, you sound like your really developing what you want out of it already. I'll post with encouragement if I see threads on frozen dawn, but otherwise you seem to be working something out already. Good luck! Smiley
Logged

Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>
Alokov
Member

Posts: 62


« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2009, 06:17:35 PM »

Thanks. I will certainly do a separate folder, especially since I've gone through sevral complete drafts of the setting so far (all almost totally different) that way I can nick stuff from different drafts when I need it. Having grown up an agnostic, and been through several different belief "phases" I should be able to draw on first-hand experinece for this,, which is always cool. Also, thanks to John Wick, who introduced me too this style of "indy" game via his design blogs on Houses of the Blooded.
Logged
Alokov
Member

Posts: 62


« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2009, 06:29:27 PM »

I've decided to change the belief-duel mechanic. Whatever number of points you wager determines how shaken your beliefs are, if you win. If you lose, the difference between your final bid and your opponents determines his degree of success, as it were. This way, people will rairely walk away without some kind of point-loss inn at least one belief. Seems like a nice refinement to me, although, admittedly, still not that great,
Logged
contracycle
Member

Posts: 2807


« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2009, 10:01:30 AM »

This all rather reminds me of A Canticle For Liebowitz, which you might want to look up and read for inspiration.
Logged

Impeach the bomber boys:
www.impeachblair.org
www.impeachbush.org

"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast."
- Leonardo da Vinci
Alokov
Member

Posts: 62


« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2009, 08:39:26 PM »

I certainly will look that up. Thanks
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
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!