Topic: [Timestream] Rules Revision
Started by: Nathan P.
Started on: 10/22/2004
Board: Indie Game Design
On 10/22/2004 at 1:31am, Nathan P. wrote:
[Timestream] Rules Revision
So its been tough, what with school and the ALCS (go Sox! Woooo!) to get any work done on Timestream, but I finally hacked out a full revision of the rules. What I'd like to get some feedback on, if at all possible:
1. I've been fighting to close the distance between the "core" mechanic and the actual Travel/TM rules since I started writing the game. Do the current rules seem like they all fit together, or do you see this seperateness in them still?
2. Do you see dynamic character change coming out of the rules as written? This is one of my main design goals, and I feel its there, but I could be just deluding myself.
3. How is the character sheet? Is there anything that needs to be on there that isn't, or that is there that's unnecessary?
4. What strikes you as particularly cool? Anything that would drive you up the wall? I know this is kinda a survey question, but I am interested.
5. Anything else?
You can grab the files here . Or click the link in my sig.
Thankies,
On 10/22/2004 at 2:29am, TonyLB wrote:
RE: [Timestream] Rules Revision
(1) The separateness is very much present. As a single example: The Range Aspect talks about the time travellers range. But then the time travel range table makes no reference to the Aspect. Indeed, I couldn't see how the Aspect would conceivably be retrofitted into the table.
(2) Playtest it. That's the only way to be sure. That said, my intuition is that you're deluding yourself at least a little about how really, really hard it would be to overcome a -6 Obstacle. The odds are against you, and because the "Extending Conflict" ability just pushes you closer to the gaussian mean, it actually makes your odds progressively worse.
(3) I don't get why you didn't put the Capacities at the top of each Column, rather than offsetting them in the somewhat confusing manner you did. It seems (to my eyes) to sacrifice ease of use for aesthetics.
(4) I don't see how Travellers and Manipulators would have very much in common. Indeed, I didn't see that even travellers from different eras would have much of a reason for their goals and obstacles to be intertwined.
(5) Are Obstacles intended to be local to the native timeframe, so that a Traveller could get rid of them by going to the past or future? Adding cultural conditions like "Social Norms" to a time travelling game seems very... odd. What's the rationale?
Anyway, interesting draft. I enjoyed reading it. I think you're ready to get some friends together and playtest it face-to-face. There's nothing like face-to-face playtesting to show you what's really happening in your system.
On 10/23/2004 at 2:58am, Nathan P. wrote:
RE: [Timestream] Rules Revision
(1) The separateness is very much present. As a single example: The Range Aspect talks about the time travellers range. But then the time travel range table makes no reference to the Aspect. Indeed, I couldn't see how the Aspect would conceivably be retrofitted into the table.
Good catch, there. Yeh, that needs to be tweaked. But I was more talking about a feeling that there's a core game, with all this time travel stuff just thrown onto it. Again, it's getting less, but I don't know if it's gone yet.
(2) Playtest it. That's the only way to be sure. That said, my intuition is that you're deluding yourself at least a little about how really, really hard it would be to overcome a -6 Obstacle. The odds are against you, and because the "Extending Conflict" ability just pushes you closer to the gaussian mean, it actually makes your odds progressively worse.
Aye, I'm working on it...I don't have the luxury of a group ATM. And I'm not sure it would be that hard, if you use your higher Arena's to your advantage. You're point is well taken, though, I do need to get a game going.
(3) I don't get why you didn't put the Capacities at the top of each Column, rather than offsetting them in the somewhat confusing manner you did. It seems (to my eyes) to sacrifice ease of use for aesthetics.
Aesthetics. The thought was the color-coding would link them. Thanks for pointing out that that doesn't work for everyone.
(4) I don't see how Travellers and Manipulators would have very much in common. Indeed, I didn't see that even travellers from different eras would have much of a reason for their goals and obstacles to be intertwined.
Well...why do any characters from any fairly open-ended game get together? Does codifying character goals mean that I have to provide a structure for them to fit together? That's an honest question, because I don't feel that I do. Maybe I'll head over to Theory with it.
(5) Are Obstacles intended to be local to the native timeframe, so that a Traveller could get rid of them by going to the past or future? Adding cultural conditions like "Social Norms" to a time travelling game seems very... odd. What's the rationale?
Well, the example character is a TMer, so she can't escape her cultural conditions without help...but no, Obstacles are supposed to be getting in the way of the Goals. Theoretically, escaping an Obstacle would put you in a place where you couldn't acheive the Goal, either. That particular example may not the best.
Anyway, interesting draft. I enjoyed reading it. I think you're ready to get some friends together and playtest it face-to-face. There's nothing like face-to-face playtesting to show you what's really happening in your system.
Thank you for reading, I appreciate it. I really do want to playtest face-to-face....we'll see what happens.
On 10/25/2004 at 11:35pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: [Timestream] Rules Revision
Nathan P. wrote: I was more talking about a feeling that there's a core game, with all this time travel stuff just thrown onto it.
Totally. You've got a tidy generic core system -- which you could replace with GURPS or D20 or whatever -- and then special time-travel rules, compatible with that system -- but which you could translate into GURPS or D20 if you wanted. I've said this to you before in PM, but let me say it again slightly differently here: Time Travel (and Manipulation) are tools in this game -- not driving forces in their own right. Quite unlike demons in Ron Edwards's Sorcerer, where your tools have minds of your own, or even superpowers in TonyLB's Capes, where the use of power generates moral debt which is both a danger and a resource.
Now plenty of people are happy to buy RPGs that give them tools and let them as players provide the driving force (witness about 2,000,000 GURPS supplements). But you seem to be wanting something more -- in which case something about Time Travel/Manipulation itself should be so dangerous, or so much in danger, that everything players do is informed by that problem.
On 10/25/2004 at 11:51pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: [Timestream] Rules Revision
I don't know that Time Travel should be fundamentally dangerous... I'm a big fan of giving players permission and incentive to explore the centerpiece of a game. But I agree with Sydney that it should be more central.
If it were me writing a time travel game (which it's not, and won't be until I invent a real time machine to add hours to my schedule) I'd write the Time Travel rules first, and then figure out how other things like Combat and Socializing are special cases of time travel.
On 10/26/2004 at 4:58pm, Nathan P. wrote:
RE: [Timestream] Rules Revision
Thanks for rephrasing that, Sydney. I think I finally understand what you're getting at.
What you're both saying is making me think. A lot. Which is good. Thanks again.
Sorry if this sounds like I'm not really responding - I'm just mentally flailing right now, and I don't think typing any of it out will make any sense. So once I have some coherency I'll get back with something meaningful.