Hi, folks;

I've been away for about a year, but I am back and I actually have some content for your perusal. Those of you who recall my (perhaps too-ready) willingness to provide critical feedback: here's you chance to get even. I am posting a link and a set of questions about my current (beta) rules for GLASS:

[hr]
GLASS: Generic Live Action Simulation System
©2003–2006, David Carle Artman. All rights reserved.
http://www.davidartman.com/GLASSv0-9.pdf

Are the current Attributes and Abilities cost-balanced well enough to begin to playtest; or should I do a major repricing before I attempt to run guided test sessions? Specifically:

1) Am I facing a problem of scaling by having both Flat Costs and three types of level-relative Costs?
-- Refer to http://www.davidartman.com/GLASScosts.pdf for more details.

2) Is there any "Paying To Suck" that you perceive?
-- I have tried to avoid it, but might have failed in some ways.

3) Is it virtually pointless to put levels into Restore (versus buying several level 1 Restores)?

4) [For those with time]: Use 300 Experience to make a character in GLASS; and post its Attributes, Abilities, and Defects, along with their Final Costs. What's the most "overdog" or "broken" character that you can create?

Extra Credit:
*) Is there a fundamental disconnect between the Action- & Roleplaying-heavy Goals and any of the Abilities? Why or how?

**) Are the current rules sufficient to develop your own Abilities and, thus, characters? If not, what game effect is not represented or what system is incomplete or unclear?
-- I encourage you to try to make your "old reliable" characters from any genre using GLASS, to find such holes.

[hr]
Feel free to ask follow-up questions to clarify my questions; though I request that you read the bulk of GLASS before you ask follow-up questions like "What do you mean by Attribute?" and so-forth.

Thank you all for reading, and thank you tenfold if you post replies;
David "Czar Fnord" Artman

David,

I hope you don't mind me replying to this thread, instead of more recent GLASS threads. This has definite rules questions in it, so it seems a better place to start.

David wrote:
Are the current Attributes and Abilities cost-balanced well enough to begin to playtest; or should I do a major repricing before I attempt to run guided test sessions?

David wrote:
1) Am I facing a problem of scaling by having both Flat Costs and three types of level-relative Costs?

David wrote:
2) Is there any "Paying To Suck" that you perceive?

David wrote:
3) Is it virtually pointless to put levels into Restore (versus buying several level 1 Restores)?

David wrote:
Is there a fundamental disconnect between the Action- & Roleplaying-heavy Goals and any of the Abilities? Why or how?

Heya,

Are the current Attributes and Abilities cost-balanced well enough to begin to playtest; or should I do a major repricing before I attempt to run guided test sessions?

I hope you don't mind me replying to this thread, instead of more recent GLASS threads.

{Playtesting encouragement and questions}

My doubt is the Slay ability.

One obvious option would be to disallow identical abilities: so that once you've bought Level 1 Restore, your only option to increase your power is to buy Level 2 Restore.

I feel that the emphasis on combat (or at least damage-creating) abilities is likely to push people towards combat rather than roleplaying. ...you could end up with a situation where people resent use of the combat system because it stops them roleplaying.

Hi David,

I've had a chance to read through your system document. Here are some specific questions and comments that have come to mind.

1. What is the precise sequence of events for successful use of hostile touch abilities? Obviously, with an Unlimited weapon skill you keep swinging (or whatnot) and you do damage each time you hit. But suppose you're using a skill like Scar, let's say without Incantation or Slow Limitations. Do you call "Scar [level]" before you attempt to hit? How much time or how many swings do you have to hit the opponent after you call it? (If it's just once, that seems to create a low chance of success, especially when most abilities are once-per-reset. But if there's no time or #swings limit, that seems likely to create confusion when there's a long delay, as well as make attack abilities very powerful.) Or can you call it immediately after a successful hit (which couldn't be true with Incantation abilities)? How about for a range Ability -- most likely you only get to throw one packet, but do you call it before you throw it or after (if) it strikes someone?

2. In section 3.4, under Attribute Costs and Limits, the description of attribute costs is unclear. When you say "Level 1 costs 1 Experience; Level 2, 4 Experience; Level 3, 9 Experience, and so forth" it's not clear whether if I'm buying an Attribute for a new character and I want Level 3, I have to pay 9 Experience in all, or 14 in all. From later sections it appears you meant the latter, but the text should be clearer on that point right here.

3. Toughness makes the character permanently immune to all one-handed weapon and thrown weapon attacks. Isn't this a problem?

4. Are Boost effects cumulative? If so, expect lots of level-1 Boosts (same issue as the "why buy high-level Restore instead of multiple cheaper low level ones?") and a lot of fairly tedious buffing. Since Boosts appear to last (with no gestures required) until the next reset (that is, potentially through multiple encounters and combats), you're likely to see an orgy of Boost buffing after each Reset. In fact, why even buy expensive high levels of Attributes, when multiple level-1 Boosts are vastly cheaper? And even if cumulative Boosts aren't allowed, it's still cheaper to buy Boost loaded up with Limitations (since they can be activated at leisure, shortly after play resumes from each Reset) than it is to pay for Attributes.

5. The Not While Moving Limitation is such a no-brainer for some Abilities (Resurrect, Lock, Unlock, Wreck, Divination, Language, probably Repair and Restore unless they're bought at increased range, and Boost as used in #4 above) that it essentially lowers the cost of those Abilities while barely limiting them. (Resurrections on the hoof have been pretty rare in my LARP experience!)

6. "Immediate" and "Permanent" as Ability duration descriptors really mean the same thing, don't they? For example, Lock is "Permanent" while Unlock is "Immediate"; Harm is "Immediate" while Restore is "Permanent," and so forth, but this is unnecessary confusion. The effect of "Unlock" is every bit as permanent as "Lock," unless the locks somehow automatically re-lock themselves. And the effect of "Lock" is every bit as immediate as "Unlock," since apart from Limitations that add a few seconds' delay, there's no provision for Abilities taking long periods of time to execute.

7. Speaking of Resurrect -- can't we get away from this? Resurrect is a crappy unreliable band-aid covering a gaping wound in this kind of LARP play. The "wound" is that in a LARP system with long-term character effectiveness advancement via Experience points, no one wants to lose a character because it involves the player's loss of not just the character as a fictional identity but of the right to participate fully in future play, a right likely earned over the course of months or years. (Face it, having a character with fewer points than other participants' characters means subordinate, constrained, limited participation. Everyone claims and pretends that this isn't true but it obviously is and everyone knows it.) Hence, when Resurrect is not reliably available, players turn their characters into cowardly odds-calculating optimizers (and are rewarded for doing so). Of course, when Resurrection is reliably available, those same characters become lunatics with no fear of death (and no drama at all if they do die, if subsequent Resurrection occurs). Not to mention that Resurrect kills verisimilitude in any genre and, when its availability is controlled by GMs by means of friendly NPCs, invites outright corruption. The way to avoid all these problems is to put the character's life at risk but not the player's experience points -- that is, don't allow Resurrection but let the player's experience points reliably carry over to a new character.

I have some other more general issues to discuss, regarding the goals you've claimed for the game. Those goals are admirable, and you've done well in moving toward achieving them. But you realize, of course, that you're dragging along a lot of old "LARP systems work this way!" and "LARP systems need this!" baggage. Would you be willing to kill a few more of those sacred cows, if it helped you to more thoroughly achieve the goals you listed in section 1.2?

- Walt

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and post such thorough point, Walt. I will address each in turn:

Walt wrote:
1. What is the precise sequence of events for successful use of hostile touch abilities? ... Or can you call it immediately after a successful hit (which couldn't be true with Incantation abilities)? How about for a range Ability -- most likely you only get to throw one packet, but do you call it before you throw it or after (if) it strikes someone?

Walt wrote:
2. In section 3.4, under Attribute Costs and Limits, the description of attribute costs is unclear. When you say "Level 1 costs 1 Experience; Level 2, 4 Experience; Level 3, 9 Experience, and so forth" it's not clear whether if I'm buying an Attribute for a new character and I want Level 3, I have to pay 9 Experience in all, or 14 in all. From later sections it appears you meant the latter, but the text should be clearer on that point right here.

Walt wrote:
3. Toughness makes the character permanently immune to all one-handed weapon and thrown weapon attacks. Isn't this a problem?

Walt wrote:
4. Are Boost effects cumulative? If so, expect lots of level-1 Boosts (same issue as the "why buy high-level Restore instead of multiple cheaper low level ones?") and a lot of fairly tedious buffing. Since Boosts appear to last (with no gestures required) until the next reset (that is, potentially through multiple encounters and combats), you're likely to see an orgy of Boost buffing after each Reset. In fact, why even buy expensive high levels of Attributes, when multiple level-1 Boosts are vastly cheaper? And even if cumulative Boosts aren't allowed, it's still cheaper to buy Boost loaded up with Limitations (since they can be activated at leisure, shortly after play resumes from each Reset) than it is to pay for Attributes.

Walt wrote:
5. The Not While Moving Limitation is such a no-brainer for some Abilities (Resurrect, Lock, Unlock, Wreck, Divination, Language, probably Repair and Restore unless they're bought at increased range, and Boost as used in #4 above) that it essentially lowers the cost of those Abilities while barely limiting them. (Resurrections on the hoof have been pretty rare in my LARP experience!)

Walt wrote:
6. "Immediate" and "Permanent" as Ability duration descriptors really mean the same thing, don't they? For example, Lock is "Permanent" while Unlock is "Immediate"; Harm is "Immediate" while Restore is "Permanent," and so forth, but this is unnecessary confusion. The effect of "Unlock" is every bit as permanent as "Lock," unless the locks somehow automatically re-lock themselves. And the effect of "Lock" is every bit as immediate as "Unlock," since apart from Limitations that add a few seconds delay, there's no provision for Abilities taking long periods of time to execute.

Walt wrote:
7. Speaking of Resurrect -- can't we get away from this? ... Hence, when Resurrect is not reliably available, players turn their characters into cowardly odds-calculating optimizers (and are rewarded for doing so). Of course, when Resurrection is reliably available, those same characters become lunatics with no fear of death (and no drama at all if they do die, if subsequent Resurrection occurs).

Walt wrote:
Not to mention that Resurrect kills verisimilitude in any genre and, when its availability is controlled by GMs by means of friendly NPCs, invites outright corruption. The way to avoid all these problems is to put the character's life at risk but not the player's experience points -- that is, don't allow Resurrection but let the player's experience points reliably carry over to a new character.

Walt wrote:
I have some other more general issues to discuss, regarding the goals you've claimed for the game. Those goals are admirable, and you've done well in moving toward achieving them. But you realize, of course, that you're dragging along a lot of old "LARP systems work this way!" and "LARP systems need this!" baggage. Would you be willing to kill a few more of those sacred cows, if it helped you to more thoroughly achieve the goals you listed in section 1.2?

Hey, Dave?

Have you played LARP systems other than NERO and it's direct derivatives?  Are you familiar with nTeraction, or other attempts to fix NERO?  It's quite possible that all the problems your attempting to solve are already solved:

Madrigal: http://www.larp.com/madrigal/system2.shtml
Aralis: http://www.aralis.net/

Thank you for taking the time to post....

Ben wrote:
Have you played LARP systems other than NERO and it's direct derivatives?  Are you familiar with nTeraction, or other attempts to fix NERO?  It's quite possible that all the problems your attempting to solve are already solved:
Madrigal: http://www.larp.com/madrigal/system2.shtml
Aralis: http://www.aralis.net/

It seemed to me that, given your list of "things I'm trying to accomplish," that you were trying to fix basic holes in NERO (despite it's name, the system is used all over the country, including the south, particularly SOLAR.)  I just thought I'd point you at some other people who are more-or-less attempting the same thing.

yrs--
--Ben

Hi David,

David wrote:

Walt wrote:
1. What is the precise sequence of events for successful use of hostile touch abilities? ... Or can you call it immediately after a successful hit (which couldn't be true with Incantation abilities)? How about for a range Ability -- most likely you only get to throw one packet, but do you call it before you throw it or after (if) it strikes someone?

I try to define this in the Call definition (2.7, pg.5, ln.31), but I guess I was a bit ambiguous. Basically, the Call of an Ability is always and only made after a successful hit. I abhor "declarations" of effect attempts that, then, do not go off because of a miss--that's noise.

But Incantations and Counts always and only occur before the attempt to hit is made. In essence, this is the reason they are limiting: not only do they delay an attempt to use the Ability, but they can forewarn potential targets.

David wrote:
I think that a friend and I have solved this:
Boost HAP - Increases HAP to #.
Restore HAP - Increases HAP to # or to the target's normal full value, whichever is less.

Thus, there might still be Boost buffing, but it's not any more efficient than buying the Attribute outright. Boost is, basically, the "Aid" of GLASS. It's a way for a character to be defined by their ability to buff up others. It also allows for item-based buffs and for a way to exchange HAP for HAP (ex: Boost Health defined as Draining: one is shifting Alacrity into Health)--in short, flexability. For a price.

Does that help it out?

David wrote:

Walt wrote:
5. The Not While Moving Limitation is such a no-brainer for some Abilities (Resurrect, Lock, Unlock, Wreck, Divination, Language, probably Repair and Restore unless they're bought at increased range, and Boost as used in #4 above) that it essentially lowers the cost of those Abilities while barely limiting them. (Resurrections on the hoof have been pretty rare in my LARP experience!)

Hmmm... Not sure this is an objection... might be a presumption/prejudice.

For instance, someone with Thrown Resurrect could also be using a Movement Ability (say, Flight) to stay out of reach of enemies. Angels do this, I hear. :-)

Lock can be applied to a Bind or Root, and someone might very much want to be moving out of combat as they Throw Lock onto the Bind/Root.

Divination is literally "ask a GM a question": what makes that, inherently, something that requires navel-gazing, inertness, or inactivity? I can see someone asking for Divination while they are in mid-combat: fencing back and forth with a GM EC and using Divination to ask about, say, the EC's weaknesses.

David wrote:
Locks do re-lock themselves, unless Wrecked (8.2 pg.19 ln.11). The moment the Locked object is "cycled" open and closed (or "bypassed" to use GLASS terms), the Lock re-engages.

David wrote:

Walt wrote:
7. Speaking of Resurrect -- can't we get away from this? ... Hence, when Resurrect is not reliably available, players turn their characters into cowardly odds-calculating optimizers (and are rewarded for doing so). Of course, when Resurrection is reliably available, those same characters become lunatics with no fear of death (and no drama at all if they do die, if subsequent Resurrection occurs).

Sounds like you would forbid it, as a GM. It's not required--and, in fact, MANY game types would never have it: Assassin, most "realistic" paintball scenario play, one-off (convention) games.

But if I don't have it, someone will add it because...

Walt wrote:
Not to mention that Resurrect kills verisimilitude in any genre and, when its availability is controlled by GMs by means of friendly NPCs, invites outright corruption. The way to avoid all these problems is to put the character's life at risk but not the player's experience points -- that is, don't allow Resurrection but let the player's experience points reliably carry over to a new character.

Not every genre. Not nearly every genre, at all. In fact, I'd say that any "realistic" genre set in our future by more than, say, 200 years would HAVE to allow Resurrect: we will be able to copy someone's mental state and physical state and spool out a replacement anytime someone "dies." (Most futurists agree with this presumption, by the way.) Yes, this will be problematic--as you have clarified in the dichotomy above.

David wrote:
However, do you think it is mis-priced? (It costs the same a Health 3: a normal person's Health).

David wrote:
The goals section is primarily there for reviewers: I can't see it lasting into production (or, maybe only in Designer's Notes). My motivations are pretty crystal-clear, though: I have seen the same issues come up again and again in both contact and non-contact LARPs:
- unbalanced, overly-detailed, and/or pointless Abilities
- noise and confusion
- missed effects (see noise and confusion)
- inflation of effects (i.e. allow damage buffs and defense buffs, and soon everyone's a walking tank swinging for 10 each hit)
- abashed gameplay (e.g. some effects undermine player acting, others require it, others make no thought of it; I try to keep acting at the fore)

David wrote:
I just want to see those problems resolved once and for all.

ALSO, I want to see a standard system employed world-wide, to allow for character portability and for "living" worlds within LARP.

David wrote:
However, if you see other cows mooing around and chomping my grass--err, GLASS--then point them out. The last thing I would like to do is undermine a popular mode of play, while pursuing my own agendas. (Unless you try to claim shouting out each effect each swing is "popular": then I have to just disagree.) :-)

- Long-term character advancement, the buying of new and/or improved skills with experience gained over months or years of play. Ever wonder why so many LARP organizations come and go in an endless cycle of formation, expansion, decay, and dissolution? Could it be because it's a lot more rewarding to start a new group than to join an old one? And could that be because long-term character advancement makes the whole business a pyramid scheme in which new players with low-level characters discover that they’re only there to stoke the egos of the long-term players with high-level characters? Try this for a radical idea: fair consumer trade. For instance, players who all pay the same fees to participate in a game all get to play comparably effective characters.

- If it's occasionally seen in the genre, let's simulate it no matter how stupid we look doing so. If a middle school wants to put on a play, but they don't have the tech to put the actors in flying harnesses, then they don't perform Peter Pan. They don’t have the cast point up in the air to show when they're flying. They simply choose a different play. Lots of really good fantasy and SF novels have been written in which no one ever becomes invisible. So why do so many LARP systems have some silly "invisibility" mechanism? Why promote a "flying" mechanism that doesn't look like flying, feel like flying, or have any of the natural real-world effects (such as getting a wider view, travelling quickly, or reaching an otherwise inacccessible place) of flying? I know why, because "some people will expect it to be in there as an option." In other words, it’s a sacred cow.

Suppose you took out the flying gesture. How many experienced LARPers would then look at GLASS and say, "I don’t want to play this, there’s no provision for flying characters!" Now, how many people unfamiliar with LARP would look at GLASS as it is and say, "Oh my god, this is supposed to be live action but you have to point up in the air and pretend you’re flying! How lame is that?" (It doesn’t help to say, "that’s optional." People see it in there, they assume it’s in there because it’s supposed to happen. And they should assume that, because it should only be in there if it’s supposed to happen.) Which group do you think is larger? Which group better represents your potential customers (given that, by definition, experienced LARPers already have systems that they’re familiar with)?

- Involuntary player-character death. Try this for a rule: a PC can only die if the player agrees, at or shortly before the time it happens, to allow it. This has many benefits in ongoing LARP play, not the least of which is to make PC death more likely, when it’s dramatically appropriate. Involuntary PC death is the mangiest, maddest, most spongiform sacred cow in the whole pasture. The debate for tabletop role playing over "how can a game be challenging/suspenseful/realistic if it’s not possible for any player-character to get killed by any lucky mook?" pretty much ended decades ago. (In LARP, it hasn’t even gotten started yet.) Sure, there are players out there, tabletop and LARP alike, who will claim that having control over whether or not their characters die would instantly make the game uninteresting. But if the risk of PC death is so important to them, why do so many of them use systems with multiple safety nets including multiple hit point pools (when you use up your X points, further damage starts reducing your Y points), survival into negative hit points, hero points (reward points redeemable to reverse an outcome), resurrection, social conventions against directing damaging attacks against down-but-curable characters, dice fudging, and (in some LARP) appealing to review boards over technicalities? You can get rid of all that crap by letting players decide when character death is OK. For instance, suppose it worked this way: you go "down" in combat if you run out of hit points or get zapped by powerful magic or whatever. Normally, when down, you cannot perform any action, you cannot be further harmed, and you cannot resume action (regardless of how you are helped by other characters) until the end of the scene or combat. However, at any time you may ignore being down, and choose to resume (or continue) free action instead, by announcing "I commit!". Once you do so, if you’re down again during the same ongoing scene or combat, your character dies, with no further recourse. (I’ve already said how I feel about resurrections!) By continuing to fight or act instead of going or staying down, you’re saying that the current action is so important to you, the player, that if your character is thereby killed, you, the player, would accept that as a "good death." (This is the rule in Crossroads, the same system that has the color coded effects.)

- Hit points. Boffer combat isn’t well served by counting hits against points. Most limb "hits" are light touches and grazes that wouldn’t do much real damage if delivered with real weapons. On the other hand, you can connect with a swing that would cut a guy from stomach to spine, and he calls out "one!" (or silently counts "one" to himself) and keeps fighting. Furthermore, flailing away with a weapon is pretty easy but real defense takes practice, skill, and usually training that relatively few players have, so most boffer LARP combats are over quickly and undramatically unless the number of hit points is inflated (which then makes the counting more difficult). How about, instead, "one good solid body hit puts you out of action and anything else has no effect?" Okay, then you might have players using their limbs to block hits in an "unrealistic" fashion. But is that really a problem, if it improves the overall physical quality of the fighting? (How realistic is dodging bullets or arrows, when they’re represented by easy-to-dodge toy projectiles?) Or instead, consider "a touch has no effect if you make any defensive movement to block or dodge it, whether or not you actually do block or dodge it, but if for any reason (including fatigue) you can’t or don’t make a defensive movement, the touch puts you out of action." Or simply, "when you know you’re beaten, fall down." Do you think that last option would cause more problems or arguments than standard systems (trying to judge what’s a hit, miscounting, accusations of "rhinohiding," and so forth)? And yes, there are ways to add things like armor and Toughness to these alternative systems.

Now, by this time you’re probably:

(a) gasping in awe of the untapped possibilities for better, more streamlined, more socially functional LARP play that present themselves when you get away from clumsy conventions held over from tabletop systems that are themselves long outmoded,

or (b), annoyed at my ridiculous notions that reveal my contempt for LARP and my ignorance of how LARP is supposed to work,

or perhaps (c) thinking, "fine ideas for some other game system but not mine," meaning that you can see some merit in a few of the ideas but you’re fearful of breaking too many of the expectations you started out with.

Let me know which it is, and I'll know how best to continue.

- Walt

First, let me thank you again for your help. You clearly have more experience with boffer LARP than I do, and your insights are valuable. I am going to use this post to address simple clarifications and redirects. I would like to think more before I address your larger points of sacred cows. (I don't know yet if I am at your A or C conclusions--you can be sure I wouldn't accuse you of B.)

Does incanting and counting include the name of the ability?

If so, how do players distinguish this from a call?

If not,  I'm incanting without revealing what ability I'm incanting for, so if I have several abilities that all have incant and count, do I have to even decide at that point which one I'm using, or can I decide later, after I hit?

Once I finish incanting and counting, how long do I have to hit and call it? A minute? An hour?

If missiles are involved can I fire as many as I want?

Can the eventual hit and call be against a completely different target than whoever was nearby when I incanted and counted?

Can I incant for one ability, then incant for another, then call either one after I hit?

Have I convinced you yet that it would be easier to just list out the precise sequence I asked for than to keep answering these questions individually?

I would hope that a GM playing an EC would not be trying to simultaneously perform GM functions such as answering Divinations. Otherwise I already know the EC's weakness: "Easily distracted while in combat by being made to answer GM requests such as Divinations!"

...such occasions would be rare, given how these Abilities are usually used in boffer LARP play.

If my front door worked this way, then every time I put the garbage out and wanted to leave my front door unlocked behind me, I’d have to smash the lock with a sledgehammer, then I install a new lock when I return.

...some do but are easily prevented from doing so (the average door lock -- you can either release the lock mechanism, or simply not close the door)...

I think what you want to say is that Locks that are Unlocked  (but not Wrecked) always have the capacity to re-lock but whether they automatically do so or not, and whether they can be easily prevented from doing so or not, depends on the desires of the lock's creator and/or the nature of the device.

...so if I'm trying to use your lock/unlock system to deal with a drawbridge, I get a drawbridge that re-raises itself once it's been lowered and walked across, defying the laws of gravity

...What you should see is a player saying, "Hey Joe, thanks for resurrecting me. Sure would have hated to have to start over at first level."

"easy to play" ...new players shouldn't have to learn to react in-character in special ways to lots of different effect calls ...bringing the number of hostile effects down to seven, and color-coding them so no calls at all would be necessary.

...what are you willing to give up to optimize the core business of your boffer combat rules?

I don't see the slightest chance of this happening, regardless of the merits of your system as developed so far.

How do you plan to persuade them otherwise?

The alternative is attracting new players, but GLASS isn’t different enough to attract players who aren’t already attracted to other similar systems. A worldwide publicity campaign might overcome all these problems, but if you have the budget for a worldwide publicity campaign I’d suggest spending it to promote something that’s commensurately profitable instead, like shampoo or doggie treats.

Yes, I claim that shouting out each effect each swing is popular. Lots of LARPers do it; that’s what popular means.

Man! That one went long. I had to cut out these Asides:

(Aside: One thing I think makes GLASS nice is that I give players creative control over Incants, rather than require a list of strings to memorize, like SOLAR/NERO spell lists. And I want just ONE player to say, "By the Power of Greyskull!" before they Slay. I'm easily amused by obsolete pop culture references.)

(Aside: I thought of a Resurrection On The Hoof--and it happens EVERY day in the real world!--resucitation of a flatline victim in an ambulance. The "ambulance" in a GLASS game (remember: no vehicles!) is a character with something like Sharable x2 Immaterial or Flight (yep, I need another Movement Power--hmmm... or maybe I need Vehicle Abilities, in general) and is bringing along the victim and the Resurrect user. ;) Note: Sharable is supposed to indicate that the player(s) brought along is(are) considered to be moving; another assuption/oversight....)

(Aside:You said something about it's impossible to make a time travellers game? Not true: Through The GLASS House, a character could be made (prolly in a sci fi game) and could be portable to any other game with a similar Power and Success Level. All I need is a toggle in the database for the GMs, for their games, that says, "Accepts characters from any time"--or "Accepts characters from contemporary and earlier times," if there is a "canon" being followed in the game--to open their game to time travellers. And it wouldn't be "broken" because it's all standardized effects with balanced costs.)

David

Hi David,

Two parts to this response too. I’ve dropped all the resolved points; I was going point by point with the rest but the very first "point" turned into an interesting rant. So I’m posting that first, then I’ll follow up with other (frankly less important) comments in other areas.

David wrote:

...What you should see is a player saying, "Hey Joe, thanks for resurrecting me. Sure would have hated to have to start over at first level."

Bummer. What lame role players (and wimpy gamists) you must see regularly; so many of the issues you have pointed out stem from poor immersion or trying to bend the social contract....

Now for the rest...

David wrote:

"easy to play" ...new players shouldn't have to learn to react in-character in special ways to lots of different effect calls ...bringing the number of hostile effects down to seven, and color-coding them so no calls at all would be necessary.

Cool idea. Thanks for preventing me from ever adopting it, by mentioning it. :P

David wrote:
Seriously, though, I don't think color could work too well (if I may be so bold):  First, it's hard on the color blind (whoops!). Also, you are supplanting one arbitrary symbol (color) for a concrete one (word). While that's quiet (a GLASS goal, darn you!) it is no more easy to learn, per se--you just feel that it is (maybe you're visually oriented?). What has REALLY made it "easy" is the number of effects. And, meanwhile, you may have noticed GLASS Calls are quite unequivocal (sc1.2 pg3 ln25)--I don't believe in dumb-ass "genre-laden" verbals either. Especially when MIS-calling them makes them fizzle (SOLAR: dumb-ass AND vicious, all in one rule!). And what about handling? ("I know my blue packet's in this bag, I know it" *rummage, rummage* "Found a red one!") And what about "cheats" by players: seeing that fist full of blues and running for the hills, when the packets themselves are supposed to be "invisible?" (Your example of a violet sword and OOC knowledge is the same; but I guess you don't see that as bad.) What about at night? (Yes, night time is tough on packet hits with effect Calls, too; but at least GLASS players don't hunt around on the ground to see what color hit them: they hunt around the fighting area to see who's yelling at them and pointing).

David wrote:
But you and I really wandered into the same GENERAL mental space on that, though, huh?

David wrote:
I wish I could persuade you to be a GLASS Cutter....

David wrote:
Please do not forget: it ain't "all about boffer;" it's "all about live action." I want this to be useful in paintball. Cthulhu games. X-Files. Superheroes (I never seen a Super LARP--is that because no one wants to play one, or because no one has rules that can handle the flexability?). Folks gotta be able to be out of ground reach, out of anyone's reach, and out of visibility but in reach..

David wrote:
If I go "all about action heavy ONLY" and disregard systemic means to simulate the fantastic, then I have SCA (or basic scenario paintball: laser tag). SCA is doing fine without MY rules. ;)

But I DO recognize the kernel of your question, and it keeps me up nights: Where do I draw the line between requiring action & role playing and enabling the fantastic (or merely enabling the mundane, for a player than is sub-mundane in some mode of play)? It's a push-pull that smells a lot like abashedness, unless I can come up with a "meta-meta-rule" that allows me to test if a rule properly balances action orientation v. fantastic enablement.

David wrote:
Do you REALLY want to help me, in this regard? Then suggest means to reach such a worldwide market (sincerely or hypothetically). Want to say I am a foolish dreamer? Do so behind my back, please. Feel free to link to this thread, as proof. :)

Walt, I am taking your points on the road: look for a new GLASS thread to try to address some of the sacred cowness. I appreciate your points (I am shifting towards A on your list) but  don't think I am chucking out GLASS's character development, Abilities, or general playstyle just because of a few doubts. I might go for "the next wave of LARP" in another product--I have wrestled with non-contact LARP resolution mechanics, here at the Forge, already--but this product will be released with its current focus, goals, and style (and follow-ups: The GLASS House and some Setting expansions). There's still thousands of players out there who might make use of it; the utility of a portable system is undeniable, in the LARP space.
[hr]
As for this thread's remaining viability: I still encourage anyone who doesn't now think GLASS is screwed to answer the cost balance questions, in the absence of resolution of my setting, reward, death, and taxes issues (and "is there a God," in my spare time). Take it as given that (a) there will be a FABULOUS system for driving conflicts and inter-player relationships, (b) it will encourage the SIM/GAM style of competitive play that is GLASS's roots and focus, and (c) I will address issues of playability and marketability.

I really do just need different eyes to find over-powered or under-powered Abilities, at this point. In particular, Question 4 and Extra Credit **. (Question 3 is resolved by a rule change; see above.)

I do not think this thread should be closed, yet, but I would like it back closer to its tracks.

(See you on the other thread, Walt.)

Fair enough, David. I'll see you at the new thread. (But perhaps not right away; I'll try to be less overbearing there and I'm hoping others will join in with creative ideas.)

As for this thread... David's system document (pdf) is very readable and the cost formulas are laid out pretty clearly, and it follows fairly familiar Champions/Hero System lines. Anyone with experience with contact LARP or with Champions/Hero or similar tabletop play experience (or both) should be able to give David good additional feedback on the cost balances.

- Walt

New GLASS Mechanic, for cost considerations:
[hr]Term: Scope - A Scope represents a limitation or specialization of a Ability that maps to some arbitrary element, class, or type of game world effect. When designing a game, GMs will choose three--and only three--Scopes for the game world. These Scopes can be anything in terms of "flavor" but they should be evocative and reflect the game world. A base Ability is assumed to affect or resist all Scopes by default; but some GMs will not allow an Ability to be bought without a Scope.

For example, a fantasy game world might choose Physical, Magical, and Spiritual Scopes. A modern game might opt for Cutting, Smashing, and Energizing. A far future game might choose Energetic, Biological, and Cybernetic.

Limitation: Scoped - (Offensive, Combat, and Defensive Abilities ONLY) The Ability is characterized by a particular game world Scope. It is only applicable to effects or resistances with the same Scope or with no Scope. The player must add the Scope term after the normal Call for the Ability (ex: Harm 3 Scoped to Fire would have a Call of "3 Fire!"). -2

Disadvantage: Vulnerability - Choose one Scope; the character suffers double effects from that Scope. X Experience (X is TBD based on Starting Experience--probably will be a factor if it)
[hr]
This system basically allows for GMs to have a rock, paper, scissors interrelationship of effects, thus satisfying a certain desire for tactical decision making in GLASS. If that tactical focus is paramount in the game or game world, the GMs might well require every applicable Ability to have a Scope Limitation.

Scopes are limited to three to minimize granularity of effects and to maintain character portability. It doesn't really matter what the Scopes are, as a character moves from game-to-game, so long as their Scoped Abilities are consistently mapped to the new game world's Scopes in a 1:1 relationship.

Thoughts on this addition? Does it provide useful nuance, or does it needlessly complicate the game and make more noise?
David

THREAD IS CLOSED: Costs are all different, as are the points of contact and some applicabilities.

Please direct future attention to this thread:
[GLASS] System Test Document v1.0 (beta)

Thanks;
David