Just (another) game idea

[jphannil]

Wow, I like that idea (of one +1 trait per session), I like it a lot. Because it does the thing I want it to do but it is much much more simple in bookkeeping-wise and very elegant.

The amount of points to be spread in session and the way they can be spent could be modified to fit in particular genre. For example one point per two sessions and application only in succeeding only in more difficult tasks than your trait would emphasize perilous and slow advancement (I would possibly use it in a lord of the rings game). 5 points per session and application when trait is used would be a supers-game style.

The thing I want to see is not a single goal (like peril or other stuff) but rather a possibility to change the goal of the game with changing something (this is a generic game and therefore I want it to support many kinds of approaches), which I think this suggestion of yours will make possible.

Player may also want to add the +1 to trait BEFORE the trait is used. That might suit for some genres.

Hope you won't charge anything for this :)


There is one problem, however. That is how to handle the narrow and broad traits with this system. My first take would be that 3 raises worth of narrow traits gives one raise of broad traits.


Best regards

[Mike Holmes]

5 points per session and application when trait is used would be a supers-game style.

Sounds cool. Each bump could be described as a particular power stunt (ala MSH).

The thing I want to see is not a single goal (like peril or other stuff) but rather a possibility to change the goal of the game with changing something (this is a generic game and therefore I want it to support many kinds of approaches), which I think this suggestion of yours will make possible.

Hmm. I'm not sure I see what you're saying. If you're saying that it doesn't particularly support anything (and hence doesn't get in the way of anything), I'd agree. But that's not so much a positive as lack of a negative. Which may be the best you can hope for in this case, I guess...

Player may also want to add the +1 to trait BEFORE the trait is used. That might suit for some genres.

Hmmm. I assumed that they'd get the bonus for the roll in question. Else they'd not have much incentive to hold on to it.

There is one problem, however. That is how to handle the narrow and broad traits with this system. My first take would be that 3 raises worth of narrow traits gives one raise of broad traits.

Again, it might work based on the Veruca Salt principle ("I want it now.") Wise players would wait, but it's more fun to take the bump now. And given that they may need it in the short run, and can make sure it counts, I think that'd work.

Mike

[jphannil]

Hmm. I'm not sure I see what you're saying. If you're saying that it doesn't particularly support anything (and hence doesn't get in the way of anything), I'd agree. But that's not so much a positive as lack of a negative. Which may be the best you can hope for in this case, I guess... a

Well, I'm saying that as this is a generic game I cannot fix everything. As in the example I stated, if I say that 5 points are distributed and can be activated when trait is used, then it would be a supers game, not a generic game. However, now as I can set the amount of xp/session distributed I can change the suitability of the game to different settings, and that is a positive thing. In text I must of course advice the xp/session numbers so that gm:s can set it. However this will require some playtesting.

[jphannil]

The new version is in the web (same address). The new features are:

1) Added notification that not defined traits cannot be used in affinity.

2) There is now only 'bump' method in experience.

[Mike Holmes]

What's left? Are you looking to publish? Have you talked to Luke (Abzu)? :-)

Mike

[jphannil]

I haven't yet thinked at all about publishing. I may have all the system-wise aspects handled, but the thing I need is playtesting, playtesting and then some more playtesting. In addition to that I need to refine the text, the one I have is really not anywhere near publishing material.

After these I could think of such a thing, however I know nothing of publishing stuff so I need to catch up on that subject before I can think more of that.

[Mike Holmes]

Yep, playtesting, definitely, and, of course it'll need editing and such. But looking forward to what you can do here (for playtesting you might want to try Indie Netgaming; see the sig), publishing is the next step. My point above was that if you get the playtesting out of the way quickly, that you might be able to get the game into Luke's publication. For which Rich does the editing - could be a good way to go for a game like this.

If not, then check out the Publishing forum and start thinking about other formats.

Mike

[jphannil]

Is there a thread of that publishing/editing stuff somewhere ?

[Mike Holmes]

There's a whole forum full of stuff further down on the main index of fora. If you want to look into Luke's project, check this thread from Publishing:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8562

Mike

[jphannil]

I've talked with Abzu and he says that the system is promising. However he also emphasizes good playtesting, and as I agree, I will be starting a series of IRC-based games for testing and fun :). It's going to start in the beginning of next year.

As I see it, before playtesting is on it's way this topic can be closed. I'll address to this further when playtesting has brought some results and modifications.

I would like to thank Mike for your excellent advice, without you the system wouldn't be so nice as it is now imho. Nice christmas time for all and happy new year.

(I'll be reporting the progress on actual play when something happens)

Best regards