Topic: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Started by: Clinton R. Nixon
Started on: 11/18/2004
Board: CRN Games
On 11/18/2004 at 8:31pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Any good RPG can, with a minimum of effort, be used to play Jedi.
I thought of this yesterday after sending the following e-mail to a friend:
Dude,
I was just reading this thread:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=157235
And I realized, man, I want to play Star Wars with The Shadow of Yesterday.
Key of the Calm Sea
Your character keeps his anger in check, no matter what harm is done
to him. Gain 1 XP whenever someone makes a cutting remark to your
character and you do nothing. Gain 2 XP whenever someone does your
character harm and you do nothing in anger. (Bringing them calmly to
justice for a crime does not count.) Gain 5 XP whenever someone does
your family or friends harm and you do nothing in anger.
Buyoff: Attack, in your full angry glory, one who slights you or does you harm.
The Dark Side does bring much power, much quicker, it seems.
So, as an experiment, anyone can mention their favorite game in this thread. If I'm familiar with it, I'll tell you how to run Jedi with it. My credentials: my first defining experience with narrativism was in a year-long Star Wars campaign that basically was about the rise in power of my character and his subsequent fall into the Dark Side as his anger at the Empire grew.
On 11/18/2004 at 9:07pm, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Nobilis.
On 11/18/2004 at 9:19pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Ben Lehman wrote: Nobilis.
Man, first one out's a hard one. Thanks, Ben. I've not played Nobilis, and read it once, so I expect corrections on this.
Nobilis would be great for a super-weird far-future (for Star Wars) game of Jedi. The Empire won long ago. The populace is ruled with an iron fist. You play the Jedi of the past. Like Obi-Wan, when you were struck down, you became more powerful than they could have conceived, and joined with the Force.
The Force, however, is balance, neither good nor evil. So, characters are embodiments of ideals both Light and Dark, empowered with the Force, locked in a struggle for the fate of the Universe. I'm imagining fights over solar systems.
Alternately, the Nobilis system would work really well for a straight-up game of Jedi of the Old Republic, where they were quite powerful and unsubtle.
On 11/18/2004 at 9:37pm, inky wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
To me, the interesting parallel between Nobilis and Jedi is how they both have this idea of "you're a semi-ordinary person who can do stuff at a mortal level, or you can call on your power and leap to superhuman effect". I think you could probably do a pretty decent movie-level-of-power SW game with Nobilis if you kept the "doing mortal stuff", "using your power" and "luck & defending against the power" attributes, and found some suitable replacement for the "power in your stronghold" attribute. Tony did a superhero conversion of Nobilis, maybe he's got a suggestion.
Oh, right, probably the thing to do is to have two force attributes, "Control of the force" and "Power of the force", and let people get extra tokens when using the latter by turning towards the dark side.
On 11/18/2004 at 10:20pm, rafial wrote:
Re: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Any good RPG can, with a minimum of effort, be used to play Jedi.
I thought of this yesterday after sending the following e-mail to a friend
Prior art! I advanced this very thesis in an email to the UGAX list back in August, in which it was learned that you can't use PTA to play Jedi, not because the structure of the game doesn't fit, but because Matt will reach out with the Force and choke you to death if you try. So be warned.
But now I challenge your Jedi-Fu (with a tip 'o the pin to Johnzo) -> Play Jedi with KPFS
On 11/18/2004 at 10:25pm, Matt Snyder wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
I was going to toss you a softball and say Dust Devils. That's too easy, so I'll be a bitch. It may not qualify if you're not familiar, but what the hell. I'm so close to it I can't see it a Star Wars (but maybe ... ) -- Nine Worlds.
See, now you've got me thinking on it. What if The Choice isn't about natural vs. supernatural, but rather about patience, good, understanding vs. anger, violence and rage? That might work. Still, there the urges to worry about... hmmm...
Clever axiom.
On 11/18/2004 at 10:33pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Re: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
rafial wrote:Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Any good RPG can, with a minimum of effort, be used to play Jedi.
Prior art! I advanced this very thesis in an email to the UGAX list back in August, in which it was learned that you can't use PTA to play Jedi, not because the structure of the game doesn't fit, but because Matt will reach out with the Force and choke you to death if you try. So be warned.
But now I challenge your Jedi-Fu (with a tip 'o the pin to Johnzo) -> Play Jedi with KPFS
I knew I'd seen it before. It makes sense it was you. KPFS? Quit sending me softballs, man.
Kill Rebels for Palpatine
You're a Dark Jedi, one of hundreds turned out by the Sith Academy in the rising days of the Empire. Almost every one of you has minimal power, but that's the way evil empires work: churn out a hundred expendables instead of one good soldier. Because you're not powerful enough to actually use, you get a mid-level Empire job. Maybe you're a Stormtrooper, or maybe an overseer of a colonized village. Either way, it blows, and being you ain't so great either, so you use the little power you have to lord it over everyone around you.
On 11/18/2004 at 10:37pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Matt Snyder wrote: I was going to toss you a softball and say Dust Devils. That's too easy, so I'll be a bitch. It may not qualify if you're not familiar, but what the hell. I'm so close to it I can't see it a Star Wars (but maybe ... ) -- Nine Worlds.
See, now you've got me thinking on it. What if The Choice isn't about natural vs. supernatural, but rather about patience, good, understanding vs. anger, violence and rage? That might work. Still, there the urges to worry about... hmmm...
Clever axiom.
Matt,
You're right - Dust Devils doesn't need changing. (Man, I still want to run my Firefly Dust Devils campaign. Why can't I make it happen?)
As for Nine Worlds, I hate to admit this, but I haven't read the whole thing. Here's my observations: natural vs. supernatural works great. In the real movies (i.e. not that recent dreck), good Jedi barely ever use their supernatural powers. They're good guys with a lot of power that they keep in check, because overusing it is the downfall of them. (The two that do throw fucking lightning and stuff? The bad guys.)
Given that, playing Jedi in Nine Worlds is a struggle of choosing to be human over being a dark god.
On 11/18/2004 at 10:41pm, rafial wrote:
RE: Re: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Kill Rebels for Palpatine
Dude. Ewok village massacre.
On 11/18/2004 at 10:44pm, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: Re: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
rafial wrote:Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Kill Rebels for Palpatine
Dude. Ewok village massacre.
This must be made to happen.
yrs--
--Ben
On 11/18/2004 at 10:51pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Re: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Ben Lehman wrote:rafial wrote:Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Kill Rebels for Palpatine
Dude. Ewok village massacre.
This must be made to happen.
--Ben
Aren't all three of us going to be at GenCon SoCal? Hmm.
And, yeah, eviserating Ewoks for Dark Force Points is making me giggle uncontrollably.
On 11/18/2004 at 10:52pm, rafial wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
So what really are the defining elements that provide "Jediness" ?
• You stand apart from others
• You have k3wl powerZ
• At some point, you must make a choice(tm)
Damn, that's pretty much the standard isssue RPG character right there... To not do Jedi, you'd have to find a game that explicitly disavows one of those elements. Maybe Elfs?
Aw, damn, nope: Gungan Jedi
On 11/19/2004 at 12:56am, hix wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
The Farm. If you're familiar with it. (And maybe this'll help me get a grip on the rules).
On 11/19/2004 at 5:42am, Blankshield wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Breaking the Ice
James
On 11/19/2004 at 5:46am, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Blankshield wrote: Breaking the Ice
James
Apologies - no idea what that is. Hook me up with a link, though, and I'll be glad to check it out.
On 11/19/2004 at 5:53am, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
hix wrote: The Farm. If you're familiar with it. (And maybe this'll help me get a grip on the rules).
Again, not hard with a little setting-work. The residents are captured and tortured Jedi in the Farm, which is a Sith/Imperial torture camp. Everything's stripped away from you, especially your lightsaber, and you're pitted against the Overseers, each other, and yourself.
Rules changes:
- You can make a Willpower check in any situation to perform minor Jedi-like psychic acts. In a fight, you can use this to perform physical feats. On success, those successes act as bonus dice to a real check which determines the final result. On failure, take Strain equal to the amount you would need for a success.
The point: to torture and kill the majority of Jedi, while creating a few super-nasty Dark Jedi in the process.
On 11/19/2004 at 6:44am, Blankshield wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Clinton R. Nixon wrote:Blankshield wrote: Breaking the Ice
James
Apologies - no idea what that is. Hook me up with a link, though, and I'll be glad to check it out.
I only have the print copy that Emily handed me a gencon, but a search for all terms here with "breaking the ice emily" pulls up some threads, including a pair of actual plays.
thanks,
James
On 11/19/2004 at 3:59pm, Emily Care wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Hey Clinton,
This is the way coolest thread in the galaxy.
Go here for BtI.
Here's my entry:
Great Ork Gods.
best,
Emily
ps James, it might have been Julie that gave you the copy at GenCon. I think Vincent said she put them on display. Thanks jrs!
On 11/19/2004 at 4:13pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Emily Care wrote: Hey Clinton,
This is the way coolest thread in the galaxy.
Go here for BtI.
Here's my entry:
Great Ork Gods.
Ok, Breaking the Ice is the first really hard one. I'm going to read it and get back to you on that.
Great Ork Gods falls into that camp of "you play bad people, so how can we use it for Jedi?" Those are easy, although this is one of the hardest of the bunch, because you play bad, stupid people. I'm delving into Zahn's Star Wars continuation books for it. I would retitle it:
Custodians of the Empire
After the wars are over and the Republic has pushed the Empire to the farthest fringes of the galaxy, ex-Admirals and Moffs of the Empire scrabble over what little bit of power they can get. You are Dark Jedi, all on a far-away farm planet ruled by seven powerful Imperials (the Ork Gods). They command all of you, and you may be loyal to one at one moment, and another the next moment. To find favor in their eyes, though, you must be ruthless, not even letting another Dark Jedi stand in your path. Wipe out resistance at any cost!
On 11/19/2004 at 5:05pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Well, I've already done a thread on a HQ conversion myself. And TROS has been done to death this way.
I'd say Sorcerer, but that's been done a lot, too, I think, and further, just falls under your "playing bad people" concept...
Playing SW is Universalis is like...playing anything else in Universalis. :-)
Here's a possible challenge to the principle - Trollbabe. Is it too focused to make a good SW game? (Or not, in your opinion, a good game?) Similarly, Donjon? I mean at some point a game has to be specific enough that it just can't be used without changing it entirely, right? "My Love for You is Way Outta Line"?
Are sim games not "Good Games?" How about Savage Worlds? Adventure!? Uh, Hero System? If you think Hero is bad, then how do you explain that it can do Star Wars so well (light sabre - Killing Attack: Hand-To-Hand 2d6, Double Armor Piercing)? Or doesn't it?
D&D?
Mike
On 11/19/2004 at 5:38pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Are sim games not "Good Games?" How about Savage Worlds? Adventure!? Uh, Hero System? If you think Hero is bad, then how do you explain that it can do Star Wars so well (light sabre - Killing Attack: Hand-To-Hand 2d6, Double Armor Piercing)? Or doesn't it?
D&D?
Mike,
No offense, but what are you talking about? All of the above games would run Jedi excellently, including D&D. What's up with that first question? It sounds really defensive.
Mike Holmes wrote: Well, I've already done a thread on a HQ conversion myself. And TROS has been done to death this way.
I'd say Sorcerer, but that's been done a lot, too, I think, and further, just falls under your "playing bad people" concept...
Playing SW is Universalis is like...playing anything else in Universalis. :-)
Here's a possible challenge to the principle - Trollbabe. Is it too focused to make a good SW game? (Or not, in your opinion, a good game?) Similarly, Donjon? I mean at some point a game has to be specific enough that it just can't be used without changing it entirely, right? "My Love for You is Way Outta Line"?
Man, I was hoping for Sorcerer, too. That's easy - and works for good and bad Jedi.
Trollbabe - it's Jedi all the way. You're human, but not, trapped between the need to love and be loved, yet be a stoic center of non-emotion and power. Replace "Magic" with "Force" and you're hooked up. (Ok - more explanation. Fighting is still fighting. Force is for long-term uses of Force to do things like find out where the lost Jedi is, for example.)
Donjon is big cartoony Star Wars action. There's an early Star Wars novel that I can't remember the name of. It's written by one of those interchangable B-string fantasy guys, like Alan Dean Foster or someone. Anyway, it's totally a dungeon crawl with Luke and Darth Vader both trying to go through these caverns to get some magic crystal that makes your Force powers the bad-ass. That's Donjon Jedi.
My point in the axiom, which Wilhelm expounded upon wonderfully, is that no game really has to be changed much, because all role-playing games are basically about Jedi.
On 11/19/2004 at 5:54pm, Paul Czege wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Hey Clinton,
My point in the axiom, which Wilhelm expounded upon wonderfully, is that no game really has to be changed much, because all role-playing games are basically about Jedi.
Nicotine Girls?
Paul
On 11/19/2004 at 5:57pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Just a question, Clinton. Asked and now answered. I'm trying to figure out what your principle tells us. So far it seems that all games are good. Rather, everyone throws good games at you, per your request, so that proves the principle, but doesn't say anything about what it's good for.
I know, I'm probably taking it too seriously.
Clinton R. Nixon wrote:Well, it seems that you're saying that Jedi are: People who have adventures. In which case it's hard not to agree. Again, I'm just not sure what that says about anything.
My point in the axiom, which Wilhelm expounded upon wonderfully, is that no game really has to be changed much, because all role-playing games are basically about Jedi.
Apparently I'm not getting the point.
Mike
On 11/19/2004 at 6:53pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Mike Holmes wrote: Just a question, Clinton. Asked and now answered. I'm trying to figure out what your principle tells us. So far it seems that all games are good. Rather, everyone throws good games at you, per your request, so that proves the principle, but doesn't say anything about what it's good for.
I know, I'm probably taking it too seriously.
Actually, I think it's been proven to either be wrong, or illogical at this point.
Illogical:
By Wilhelm's analysis, any game where you play people which powers which stand apart from the norm and have to make a Choice(tm) can be used for Jedi. This encompasses 99% of RPGs. The ones it doesn't are still good games, and my axiom implies I like games about gifted people who have to make a choice.
Wrong:
Blankshield pretty much wins the competition - Breaking the Ice is not about Jedi. (However, playing it as two Jedi on a date would be awesome, and if I ever play this game, that will be exactly what I do. There's a good Astro City comic about superheroes on a date that I'll re-read first.)
You mentioned you don't see the point. To be honest, this was just a thread for fun more than anything. I had a great time translating Dogs in the Vineyard to Jedi, and so I thought I'd take challenges.
Forget about it, folks. I forgot that this is a serious place.
On 11/19/2004 at 7:48pm, rafial wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Forget about it, folks. I forgot that this is a serious place.
All work and no Jedi makes Jack a dull boy.
And I just have to toss in my parting shot: My Life with Master Yoda
"Go into the tree, you must!"
Oh, and the book you were thinking of was Splinter of the Mind's Eye by Alan Dean Foster. It was, to my memory, the first SW novel that was published after the original novelizations came out, and at nine or ten or whatever I was, I thought it was the most freakin awesome book I had ever read, and I liked it even better than the movie!
On 11/19/2004 at 8:09pm, Paul Czege wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Rafial,
It was, to my memory, the first SW novel that was published after the original novelizations came out...
I believe it came out after the Star Wars novel, and before the Empire Strikes Back movie. But it definitely came out before the Return of the Jedi movie. Remember the Luke/Leia mudfight/kissing scene?
Paul
On 11/19/2004 at 8:11pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
C'mon, Clinton, give me a break. I said I was probably taking it too seriously. Not good enough?
Here I go again:
I, Mike Holmes, do solemnly apollogize for taking this thread too seriously, and do avow that it's a great topic for discussion, and request that everyone ignore my past participation in it, such that it can proceed as before. And, once again, I request that in the future everyone remember how much of an anal retentive fuckhead I can be about these things.
Better?
The Jedi dating idea for Icebreaker made me laugh hard enough to almost get me fired. :-)
Mike
On 11/19/2004 at 8:24pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Mike Holmes wrote: C'mon, Clinton, give me a break. I said I was probably taking it too seriously. Not good enough?
...
The Jedi dating idea for Icebreaker made me laugh hard enough to almost get me fired. :-)
Mike,
You know I kid.
So, back on track - Nicotine Girls works! I got my hold on it while I was being mopey. So, not all Jedi can be Luke Skywalker, right? Shit, most of them can't be Count Dooku, for all the ass he is. (No offense to Christopher Lee, who I am afraid will kung-fu me into next week.)
The burnouts, the kids who by the luck-of-the-draw get some little glowy midi-something up in their blood, the punks and weirdos and "why the hell did I have to come to a special school?" kids that smoke behind the Jedi Academy gymnasium - that's Jedi Nicotine Girls, or as I call it, Jedi Burnouts.
Only rule change needed: the Methods are Sex, Force, and Cry. I imagine this to be like Kevin Smith writing Ender's Game or better yet, Ender's Shadow.
On 11/19/2004 at 8:53pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
LOL
Outstanding. :-)
Kevin Smith should be informed.
Mike
On 11/19/2004 at 9:00pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Paul Czege wrote: Rafial,
It was, to my memory, the first SW novel that was published after the original novelizations came out...
I believe it came out after the Star Wars novel, and before the Empire Strikes Back movie. But it definitely came out before the Return of the Jedi movie. Remember the Luke/Leia mudfight/kissing scene?
Paul
I remember that! I read it only about seven years ago, and thought, "Wait a minute..."
And now I know how a game of Jedi Breaking the Ice (or Breaking the Laws of Nature, in this case) ends.
On 11/19/2004 at 11:20pm, Emily Care wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
And now I know how a game of Jedi Breaking the Ice (or Breaking the Laws of Nature, in this case) ends.
And if you don't want to go down that road, as I see it you've got easy peasy, Han and Leia as the two characters. Leia's conflict is that she wants to save the Rebellion from being crushed by the Empire, Han's conflict is that he just wants to make some dough and go back to his peaceful little gig, bootlegging.
Saving Leia from the Star Destoyer would be their first date. Leia getting them out of line of fire would give her bonus dice for that scene, and the "safe haven" being a monster infested trash-compactor would be her re-rolls. Having R2D2 crack into the computer and get the plans for the death star (incidentally saving them too) would pull in dice from her conflict.
Han's conflict obviously gives him his big break with Leia when he gets put in that block of carbonite...
best,
Emily Care
ps I can see a Jedi version of GOG where you are a Sith invading a rebel colony taking out Jedi and you get the difficulty reduced for sacrificing a stormtrooper in some appropriately gruesome and amusing way. The Gods would be dead Jedi/Sith calling down some aspect of the force on the still breathing characters.
On 11/20/2004 at 10:00pm, joshua neff wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Are you guys talking about Splinter in the Mind's Eye? It was, as far as I know, the first Star Wars non-movie novel to come out, between Star Wars ("A New Hope") and Empire.
On 11/21/2004 at 5:18am, Michael S. Miller wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Cool topic. I haven't been doing anything but working and sleeping all week, so this is a fun read. I've got TWO for you, and my thoughts on why they wouldn't work:
[insert toungue in cheek] Baron Munchausen--Jedi don't brag [/tongue-in-cheek] Oops, unless they're telling instructional parables. "Tell us, Master Yoda, of the time you brought a dozen criminals to justice on Arbra-Three, where we all know that no sentient being can commit an evil act."
InSpectres--because the game is about *mundane folks* in a weird world and, as previously mentioned, Jedi ain't mundane. Aw crap! Jared has those "weird agent" rules that I never use. Dagnabbit, strike this from the list.
Okay, I talked myself out of them. Twas fun.
Of course, now I want to play a Jedi version of Discernment. The scholars could be Dark Jedi interrogating a prisoner or Jedi Masters testing the character of a new candidate.
On 11/21/2004 at 8:13pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Michael,
"Discernment" is high on my want-to-play list. Jedi Discernment would just rock.
On 11/29/2004 at 11:54pm, John Harper wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Ummmm. Let's see here....
Le Mon Mouri (I have no idea)
Monkey, Ninja, Pirate, Robot (Why do Jedi want plutonium? To power their lightsabers, of course!)
Creeks & Crawdads (Another variation on very stupid Jedi.)
Scarlet Wake (Obvious. And it would rock.)
Puppetland (This Jedi can move things with his mind. This Jedi cannot harm innocent beings.)
On 12/6/2004 at 8:44pm, dunlaing wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Enemy Gods?
Star Wars D20?
On 12/7/2004 at 2:39am, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
dunlaing wrote: Enemy Gods?
Star Wars D20?
Enemy Gods - same idea about the "ghosts" of dead Jedi as I've mentioned before.
Star Wars d20 - I'm laughing very loudly right now.
On 12/14/2004 at 3:51am, jknevitt wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Star Wars d20 - I'm laughing very loudly right now.
Ditto.
Hm. How about ... Unknown Armies?
I'd toss you a bone and suggest RUN, but that's barely in alpha test. :)
On 12/14/2004 at 4:06am, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Unknown Armies:
The Force-o-mancer, a postmodern magick type
The Force-o-mancer is a huge Star Wars geek. He's online on the bulletin boards, he reads every book, he's always at the Meetup group. He's dissected the philosophy of Jedi down to a science, and definitely was part of that weird attempt to get "Jedi" recognized as a religion in Australia.
The paradox is that while you profess a philosophy of power through a peaceful soul, action through inaction, power only comes through the "Dark Side," fury unleashed.
Blast style: Force-o-mancers have two charges. The minor blast is the classic telekinetic blast. The significant blast is Force Lightning.
Get a minor charge: Take an insult to your face, walking away with a smile on your face.
Get a significant charge: Be physically damaged by an attack and walk away, making some Star Wars reference.
Get a major charge: Have a body part severed by someone who hates you.
Taboo: Continue to not succumb to the "Dark Side." While you get charges by ignoring pain and suffering, you have a limited time to utilize that power. Minor charges last a month before they disappear. Significant charges require you crack down on the enemy within a week. Major charges only last one day before you must fly out in glorious anger.
Spells: They're all Jedi powers.
On 12/14/2004 at 4:10am, jknevitt wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Let's call that a practice run.
How about:
Legend of the Five Rings
James Bond
Teenagers from Outer Space
Cyberpunk 2020
On 12/14/2004 at 4:22am, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
jknevitt wrote: Let's call that a practice run.
How about:
Legend of the Five Rings
James Bond
Teenagers from Outer Space
Cyberpunk 2020
You know, you hit four games I haven't played or read in one post. (John might smack me for L5R. What can I say? I like 7th Sea more.)
So, an idea for 7th Sea instead:
The Gnostic Blades
The Church has it all wrong. The world is the devil. Flesh is the devil. Only the spirit is pure. Through meditation and training, you have seen the secrets of the universe, and now you are a Blade, one who defends the heresy against the workings of the Inquisition. Your rapier drips with holy light as you slash through tainted flesh.
It's another magic school combined with a swordsman academy - salt and pepper it as you see fit.
--
And just to try:
Cyberpunk 2020: Jedi on the Edge
Essence is what makes you human, what makes you holy. But, there is a rise of cybernetic psychos, those who have sold their Essence for power. You must touch the same source of power to combat them. Armed with a powerful hand-laser (the sign of your kind) and the Cult of the Light on your side, you use your cybernetic powers to eliminate those Essence-free husks while trying to maintain your own Essence.
(This is culled from some Googling. Maybe I've got C:2020 all wrong.)
Seriously, I've never seen TFOS. But couldn't you just do Teenage Jedi From Outer Space?
And James Bond? Imagine Ewan Macgregor as James Bond. Then give him psychic powers and have him fight evil Cold War psychic spies, who are all led by an ancient Stalin, still alive from his own dark psychic mastery.
On 12/14/2004 at 2:33pm, Vagabond wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Ok, looking through my pile of small press stuff I came up with a couple that might be kinda tough:
Pantheon by Hogshead
Zero by Archangel
On 12/14/2004 at 8:20pm, apparition13 wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
In order of increasing difficulty...?
Lord of the Rings
Buffy
Warhammer (fantasy or 40k)
Call of Cthulhu
Is it still Jedi without the philosophy/cosmology (ie: light side and dark side; easy to succumb to the dark while difficult, though not impossible, to be redeemed)?
On 12/15/2004 at 10:45am, pete_darby wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Just thinking... why would Jedi Sorceror be all about the bad guys? I mean, it seems every time the Knights get to whip out the whup ass, they have to whine on about power, responsibility, temptation, yadayadayada, just like them damn sorcerors... "Sure, I'll just use my uber kewl powers to get myself out of a jam this time..."
Jedi Pantheon? We get to write the score script right? Too easy.
Otherwise, are we talking setting or mechanics, because, if it's setting, jedi's tougher. Otherwise...
CoC: You say insanity, I say dark side, let's call the whole thing off.
warhammer: underlying clunky gamy system, but crit tables with limb loss, sounds good to me.
Buffy: Dramatic editing, good. Kewl Powerz, good. Bonuses for snappy lines... replace with gnostic cliche's and you're onto a winner.
LotR: Hey, didn't Peter Jackson adapt the Jedi to become the Wizards in his movies? I don't remember much telekinetic badosity in the books...
On 12/15/2004 at 10:11pm, Bob Goat wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Clinton,
Give me jedified De Profundis and Elfs...
Keith
On 12/15/2004 at 10:58pm, Roger wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
What about a strictly "realistic" system -- something like d20 Modern, or some version of Traveller without any psionics. No magic, no powers, no psychokinesis, no deals with supernatural entities.
Is it possible to run Jedi in a system which fundamentally says, "No, really, the Force does not and cannot exist"?
I suppose if one takes the Dark Side metaphorically, and runs, say, a game about professional athletes and the temptation to turn to illegal steroid use, there might be some shades of Jedi in that.
Cheers,
Roger
On 2/5/2005 at 5:57am, DrAwkward wrote:
RE: Clinton's Fourth Axiom of Game Design
Paranoia? Actually, that's probably not so hard, especially when you think about clones for a minute.
Kobolds Ate My Baby?
My Life With Master?
And, while not a suggestion, I just want to make people consider the possibilities for a fun Jedi campaign using Space 1889.