New Game Idea!

[Sonja]

Believe!

<Sonja> in this game, your character is one with the universe, an avatar.
<Sonja> Anything you think or believe becomes true.
<Sonja> so if your character says "i believe i'm a turnip" then you are one
<pinkjay> i dunno, rpgs mostly have limits on what you can do, that's what makes them challenging and fun
<Sonja> yeah
<Sonja> this one would give ultimate power to the player
<Sonja> but that would create a different game
<pinkjay> what would the goal of the game be?
<Sonja> i'm not sure
<Sonja> reality would keep changing during the game
<Sonja> i guess it would be a big acid trip
<pinkjay> heh, yeah
<Sonja> maybe it would force the players to agree on the same things
<Sonja> otherwise the game wouldnt work
<Sonja> if your beliefs are in conflict
<Sonja> life if i believe i'm a turnip
<Sonja> but you don't believe me
<Sonja> then it won't work
<Sonja> but if everybody else says no you're not
<Sonja> then i'm not
<Sonja> in their world
<Sonja> and there is a disharmony
<pinkjay> what's an example of a quest in the game?
<Sonja> i have no clue
<Sonja> it could be that you are all mystics
<Sonja> maybe jesus like characters
<Sonja> sons of gods
<Sonja> gods in human form
<Sonja> and you get to create reality

I wonder if a game like this would work, or if it would simply evolve into a game like Universalis?

Any ideas?

Sonja

[Jasper]

First, I should probably say that this is not really the correct forum for such a question...it's meant for games that you have a solid commitement to, and have alreayd put some work into...not just "random ideas" which is what you've presented here.

In particular, even you apparently have "no clue" how the game will be played; how are we to comment on it?  All you've given us is a game where:

1. player's are "avatars" with semi-godhood who create things at will
2. there is "dischord" if characters don't agree

 What are the character's goals?  Why/How do avatars differ?  What is this dischord, and how is it resolved in game?  These are questions you need to being to answer yourself.  Certainly, people on this board could come up with some answers...but then it wouldn't be your game at all.

My apologies if I seem dismissive, but you haven't given us much to go on (and are in the wrong forum).

[Sonja]

Jasper,

Thanks for the info, and I must abologize for my mistake. I was looking for a forum to brainstorm random thoughts.

I like to work creatively in groups, as I find I can add ideas to people's ideas and vice versa. Is there a forum for this kind of brainstorming?

Thanks!

Peace,
Sonja

[Jeph]

I like to work creatively in groups, as I find I can add ideas to people's ideas and vice versa. Is there a forum for this kind of brainstorming?

Thanks!

Peace,
Sonja

There's a good one at RP.Net, called The Art of Game Design. If you want to stick around here at The Forge, the RPG Theory forum fits your wants best (and I see that you've already discovered it).

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I wonder if a game like this would work, or if it would simply evolve into a game like Universalis?

Now, the opinion has been put forth that this idea needs more. Maybe it does. But let's assume for a moment that this is all you need. The game is an acid trip. Goals and meaning are completely up to the players to bring themselves, if it is brought at all.

So how would this work? Obviously some form of credibilityapportioning needs to be developed. Coins have been done. Can you think of something else?

My mind goes to Villians & Vigilantes, of how my GM would apportion turns each round.

In that game, it was based on Dex. Add 10 to your Dex and that's the turn your first action. Subtract 15 from this number and that's the turn for your second action and so on.So someon with a dex of 18 would have turns on 28 & 13.

Using this, each player has a number that is likewise scales for, I guess it's technically phases per turn. In this game, a player can say anything on their turn. Anything. If a player decided to skip their turn, their stat goes up one point. If they decided to go out of turn, they may also doso at the cost of on of their turns, permanently. In the case above, it would be the 18 dropping to a 3.

Obviously the mechanics need more than a little tweeking here.
Also, such a game would need a section on how to develop goals in the game even if pure nonsense is the goal.

[Mike Holmes]

Sonja, are you familiar with Nobilis?

Nobilis gives characters tremendous powers but then limits them to the scope of a single concept for the most part (and in other interesting ways). The point is that the player chooses the limitations as a way to focus what the action is going to be about.

If you have all characters with equal ability to force their wills upon anything, then I don't see the system producing much itself. If, however, you had a way for the players to "invest" in some sort of reality, play itself could create the limitations that it would need to become interesting.

Does that give you any ideas? I'm seeing something like Amber Diceless, but with stats named whatever you like and the Auction being part of play instead of pre-play.

Mike

[LordSmerf]

A friend of mine ran a game with a similar idea.  The world existed independently of the characters, but any goal the characters came up with was accomplished with no effort and minimal time.  And there were some absurd goals "i want a rocket launcher" (in a fantasy game).  "Well i just happen to have one that i would love to give you, in fact i'll pay you to take it off my hands."  The lack of opposition meant that there was nothing going on.  What's really interesting to me is that he did it as an experiment to see how long it would take for one of the players to destroy the world.  About twenty minutes (hey, i was getting bored).

The idea is an interesting one, i just don't know that it would be worth anything unless you can define a source of opposition to player desire.  This may be from other players, but if that's the case you also need to define a reason for inter-player struggle.

Thomas