Here goes something.

1) What is your game about?
War!  Specifically, the war between Sol (yay!) and Draconis (boo!) for the Eridani colonies.

2) What do the characters do?
Try to capture colonies for resources, through any means they deem needful. Advise thier superiors in terms of overall strategy.  Try to destroy the Draconian mothership.  If the Mothership is destroyed, they've won the war.

3) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?
The players direct squadrons of Dragonslayers (named for thier mecha and thier mission: sort of a cross between the Psi Corps of Babylon Five and the Mobile Infantry of Starship Troopers) by portraying thier squadleader and spending points to take control of thier underlings for a turn.  They also win resource points they can spend on themselves and improving the NPC fleet.

The GM controls the Draconian invaders.  He creates dynamic colonies weakened by the war itself, and attacks them, making sure that there is a broad spread of resource types across them.  He forces the PC'S into action by portraying a cast of characters that, even if they are friendly to the PCs, are at cross purposes.  He reinforces his fleet intelligently with colonies he has Invaded, and the players fleet with somewhat crappy jack-of-all-trade Cruisers - unless the players intervene and say "We need a Battleship, we need a corvette, we need fighters, we need tanks, we need spare parts, or we are not going to win."

4) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?
This space fantasy setting has warmachines that make doing foolishly brave things deadly but worthwhile.  The need for resources explains why they don't just bomb the planet, blast apart the space stations, and be done with it.  There is no (small, convenient) FTL radio, meaning that the players cannot just ask thier mothership for advice.  The psionics give a good reason to say either "He's lying" or "He's hiding the truth" or even "He's psychically sheilding his thoughts - he has something to hide!"  The isolated colonies, resentful of thier old Solar Confederation control and willing to listen to the Draconians, provide juicy adventure seeds.

5) How does the character creation of your game reinforce what it's about?
You create a four-man squadron, spending the most attention and points on it's Commander, encouraging you to sacrifice one of them or even the commander if it's needful (ouch).  The way that thier abilities stack encourages you to give them different abilities, however, and the process is streamlined, with a few example Traits but no set ones - plus if your leader bites it (as there is, sometimes, no way to prevent) there's the "I am assuming command of this squadron" rule, where one of your underlings steps up to the plate.  There are three stats you set - Charisma, Wits, and Stamina - plus Bravery which applies to all actions and fluctuates throughout play.  These stats serve as both hit points and dice pools.

6) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary?)
7) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in this game?
The game rewards tactical and strategic thinking through it's wargame elements.  It rewards bravery by increasing the Bravery stat through Motivations and through players saying "damn, that takes guts".  It rewards acting like a good leader to your underlings by the players judging if you're acting like one and giving you back points that let you take control of your underlings.  In addition, you can always retreat from conflicts, or from a colony entirely.

8) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?
During the more RP heavy, "we're here to save this colony" segments, the GM provides adversity and provides a situation that's about to crumble.  Players can invent minor details that help them out with successful die rolls: "I herd us towards cover." "Roll Wits+Bravery against twice the Tension."  "Rawk!  3 successes!" "Your squad dives behind a rock formation!  +2 dice against attack!"  However, they cannot invent ships and war machines: those MUST be made present through negotiation and resource allocation before the RP part.

9) What does your game do to command the players attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)
It shows how screwed up the colonies are because of the war and what opportunistic bastards the Draconians are, encouraging you to end it quickly!

10) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

During conflict, say what's at stake.  ("Do I win the war" and "Do I save the colony" are not kosher.)  Describe your methods of getting this, then roll Bravery+Other Stat+Trait+Equipment, trying for 5's and 6's on d6.  Roll either against twice the apparent Tension (how screwed up/mentally invaded the colony is) or an opponents Bravery+Other Stat+Trait+Equipment+Tension.  Multiple individuals may roll together if and only if they spend points in thier Relationships to get underlings to help them in a specific way: otherwise the leader of the mob gets their stats and everyone else contributes thier stats, minus 2. (Yes, this applies to the squadrons.  Yes, this means someone with a 1 in a stat is actually hindering the mob).  Multiple people can have different compatible Stakes, in which case they all roll against twice Tension!

If fighting against someone, then the winner inflicts Consequence on the loser equal to the number of successes they have above yours.  Each Stat but Bravery has a linked number of "fail notches" under it.  You may take Consequence by subtracting Bravery (it demoralizes you) or by checking off the appropriate stat's Fail Notches.  You then roll again with new actions relating to the conflict.  Subtracted bravery lowers your dice pool.  If all the Fail Notches on the appropriate stat are filled in, then... you lose the conflict and gain a d6 to contribute to Traits.  If it's all your Stamina fail notches, you fall unconsious and if you or the GM consider it appropriate roll against twice Tension or die.

During any conflict, you may give a Motivation die to the GM to use against the party to gain a point of Bravery back for doing something courageous related to your Motivation.

11) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?
I'm not sure.  I like that Bravery = Morale affecting the team, however.

12) Do characters in your game advance?  If so, how?
When they do brave things, they gain Bravery.  When they do inspiring things, they gain Relationship points.  When they fail, they gain Traits.  When they succeed in thier mission, they get resources and hence equipment and NPC allies.

13) How does the character advancement or lack thereof reinforce what the game is about?
It makes them occasionally lose battles; it rewards bravery and inspiring leadership; and it rewards military and tactical success on a strategic level.

14) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?
Besides fun?  I want them to get PISSED at the Draconians.  I want to make them conflicted over which colonies to help - the more screwed up one where people are dying?  Or the one with more Titanium alloy deposits?

15) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?
Colony creation, to screw up the colonies and make the players really want to save them all.  Technology - what it can and can't do - especially can't.  The psionics receive little color deliberately, it's up to the players to decide if "I go Akira on thier ass, throwing one of thier tanks at them with telekinesis!" is kosher: save that they're all telepaths.

16) Which part of your game are you most excited about? Why?
The leadership system and the idea of I Am Assuming Command.  The fact that you're manipulating the fate of a planet.

17) Where does your game take the players that other games can't, don't, or won't?
To a place where your weapon and purpose is the manipulation of societies and thier militaries on a scale a star system's width.

18) What are your publishing goals for your game?
PDF it at first.  If people bite in enough numbers, perhaps a digest paperback?

19) Who is your target audience?
Wargamers.  Narrativists.  Narrativist Wargamers.  Space Opera fans.

Heya,

He reinforces his fleet intelligently with colonies he has Invaded, and the players fleet with somewhat crappy jack-of-all-trade Cruisers - unless the players intervene and say "We need a Battleship, we need a corvette, we need fighters, we need tanks, we need spare parts, or we are not going to win."

The psionics give a good reason to say either "He's lying" or "He's hiding the truth" or even "He's psychically sheilding his thoughts - he has something to hide!"

There are three stats you set - Charisma, Wits, and Stamina - plus Bravery which applies to all actions and fluctuates throughout play.  These stats serve as both hit points and dice pools.

the GM provides adversity and provides a situation that's about to crumble. 

It shows how screwed up the colonies are because of the war and what opportunistic bastards the Draconians are, encouraging you to end it quickly!

Roll either against twice the apparent Tension (how screwed up/mentally invaded the colony is)

11) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?
I'm not sure.

Technology - what it can and can't do - especially can't. 

18) What are your publishing goals for your game?
PDF it at first.  If people bite in enough numbers, perhaps a digest paperback?

Troy_Costisick wrote:
Heya,

He reinforces his fleet intelligently with colonies he has Invaded, and the players fleet with somewhat crappy jack-of-all-trade Cruisers - unless the players intervene and say "We need a Battleship, we need a corvette, we need fighters, we need tanks, we need spare parts, or we are not going to win."

-So do battles take place in space as well as on the ground?

The psionics give a good reason to say either "He's lying" or "He's hiding the truth" or even "He's psychically sheilding his thoughts - he has something to hide!"

-I like this.  But let me ask, if a PC says an NPC is lying, is the NPC really lying?  Or is it still up to the GM?  What I'm really asking is how much weight does narration by players have?

There are three stats you set - Charisma, Wits, and Stamina - plus Bravery which applies to all actions and fluctuates throughout play.  These stats serve as both hit points and dice pools.

-I really like your character creation system.  How do your stats provide arenas of conflict in your game? IE, how are the dicepools used specifically?

the GM provides adversity and provides a situation that's about to crumble. 

-How does your system help the GM do this?

It shows how screwed up the colonies are because of the war and what opportunistic bastards the Draconians are, encouraging you to end it quickly!

Roll either against twice the apparent Tension (how screwed up/mentally invaded the colony is)

[

-How is Tension decided, and how do the mechanics work?

11) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?
I'm not sure.

-If you can explain Tension, you can probably answer this question.

Technology - what it can and can't do - especially can't. 

-Why is this important to your game?

So where's the draw for narr-junkies come in?

Do you have any reason (as players) to treat NPC colonists as anything other than replaceable units of Human Resource?  Or is the address of premise somewhere else than in interacting with colony NPCs? 

What kind of cool scene do you imagine where people say "Wow!  That's a big decision, and it'll have big consequences, and there's no right or wrong answer.  Let's answer it!"?

...huh.  huh.

Either this is actually a nifty Gamist exercise after all, or I need to come up with some recurring themes.  I wanted a "war is hell, but can you wring meaning from it" vibe, actually.

There is one thing I can think of that would help with the expendable NPC problem, however. 

Quantified Relationship dice.  You may gain relationships with people or groups, and offer someone you have a relationship with dice if they follow a suggestion (they or the GM can roll the dice at any time), or burn out a relationship by being a mite abusive and reducing your Relationship score with them to hit thier Fail notches in a conflict. You can't gain bravery or relationship dice for an action you took dice for in this way.

When you act in a way that makes the players think defines your relationship as you've described it on your character sheet, you regain dice to give. 

Should someone die, you lose your Relationship with them with no easy way to replace it.  Sometimes characters die for pointless reasons (it is, after all, a war), and you lose your relationship with them.

Your squadleader has a relationship with the rest of thier Squad!  This is how they whip them into action above and beyond the call of duty.  Ruby's player gives dice to her NPC squadmember Alice - "I want Alice to blast the guards telepathically," she might say, "to protect the squad.  I'll give the GM 2 dice to have her do so."

I can't BELEIVE that I didn't post with this stuff before, because my group wants to make a system for roleplaying relationships that's cool.

If this isn't what you mean... help me out here.  I want the players to have reason to go for the really tense colonies, ones without resources that are particularly useful, because it's the right thing to do.  A choice, say, between getting medical supplies to an invaded town or getting the gas you need and letting the colonists die... I fully expect some players to try to have thier cake and eat it too, and that's fine.

Part of the colony creation system will ask, "How is this colony screwed by the war?"  Another will ask, "Is this colony tactially useful at all?  If so, how?"  The GM is encouraged to make the Level Of Screwed inversely proportional to the Level Of Tactical Use...

...because it's easier to invade colonies that aren't tactically useful except in as much as they distract the Dragon Slayers from their mission, and the Draconians are cold blooded imperialist reptilian bastards.

I may have my answer.  If that doesn't fly, tell me why.

The potential question that leaps out at me is this:  Can you fight a war and still stay human?  Is our humanity, quirky and contradictory as it is, a strength or a weakness?

You describe the Draconians as cold-blooded (and, I presume, coldly logical).  And these folks are the enemy.  They are saying, essentially "Our way is better, and we're going to prove it on the field of battle."  So what is it about humanity and its ideals that our warriors bring to the field to oppose that?  Is it the Jim Kirk version where emotion is more effective than logic?  The Men-In-Black version where our sheer craziness and irrationality is something that superior races can't cope with?  Or something else?  Or is the path to victory being more cold-blooded and unfeeling than the Draconians?

That would be a fascinating question (to me) to answer in play.

TonyLB wrote:
The potential question that leaps out at me is this:  Can you fight a war and still stay human?  Is our humanity, quirky and contradictory as it is, a strength or a weakness?

You describe the Draconians as cold-blooded (and, I presume, coldly logical).  And these folks are the enemy.  They are saying, essentially "Our way is better, and we're going to prove it on the field of battle."  So what is it about humanity and its ideals that our warriors bring to the field to oppose that?  Is it the Jim Kirk version where emotion is more effective than logic?  The Men-In-Black version where our sheer craziness and irrationality is something that superior races can't cope with?  Or something else?  Or is the path to victory being more cold-blooded and unfeeling than the Draconians?

That would be a fascinating question (to me) to answer in play.

When the players address practical, sensible missions they gain resources that let them push toward victory in the war as it is currently defined.

When the players address ideological, stupid missions they gain resources that let them redefine the war.

So if they go all ideological, all the time, they get to determine the nature of the conflict ... and lose it.  Literally, a "moral victory" but no other kind.

If they go all practical, all the time, they get to win the battle, but their enemy gets to define what it is that they've won.

If they do something in-between?  That's what you define in play.

How's that work for you?

Heya,

They do.  The characters mecha are optimized for ground combat but useful for space combat.

Anyone can veto character or GM narration on the grounds that it's totally lame and out of genre, but be overruled by a unanimous vote of "no, that's actually very appropriate and cool."  The military strength of the opposition is determined during the wargaming phase, and cannot be overruled.  The GM can immediatley send Draconian ships to oppose the players, however, this pulls them away from the fleet defending the Mothership for the next session/wargaming turn.

Vitality (nee Stamina) is rolled for any action involving physical strength and stamina, including resisting injury or death.
Presence (Charisma) is rolled for negotiation, talk, and for the use of non-passive psychic powers (a passive psychic power would be, oh, say, the GM saying "but he's lying.")
Wits is rolled for mental challenges, using complex technology, repairs, instinct and such.
Dexterity (new stat) is used for speed, reaction time, and aim.

With a colony creation system I ripped off of Dogs in the Vineyard's town creation system with a little bit of my spin.  My friends who are helping me with the game says that THIS is too much like Dogs for thier comfort, so I'll scrap it and make up my own colony creation system, but same idea

Good question.  The characters themselves have motivations to fight in this war - if not end it - that are determined by players.  Sort of like Issues from PtA or, um, Motivations from the new edition of Exalted.  These also give you Xp by letting you give dice to the GM.  Is that a good answer?

"If you don't climb that mountain, the Draconians win!" :D

Hmmn...  It reinforces the idea of a creepy, unseen enemy presence - or the massive layers of "War!  What is it good for?  Screwing up normal life!"

may be able to player-fiat a hunting gauss rifles (so the colonists can defend themselves),

TonyLB wrote:
When the players address practical, sensible missions they gain resources that let them push toward victory in the war as it is currently defined.

When the players address ideological, stupid missions they gain resources that let them redefine the war.

So if they go all ideological, all the time, they get to determine the nature of the conflict ... and lose it.  Literally, a "moral victory" but no other kind.

If they go all practical, all the time, they get to win the battle, but their enemy gets to define what it is that they've won.

If they do something in-between?  That's what you define in play.

How's that work for you?

Space: I would prefer space and only space to only planet, and space and planet to space and only space.

Player Lame Rule: EXPLICIT RULES OH YES.

Conflict framing: "I want to convince him that we're here to help!"  "All the tasks you roll for will be Presence+Bravery."  "Suits me fine!  I start by saying..."

Dogs: Well, I'd rather be inspired by dogs than rip it off, saavy?

Motivations:I don't know, dammit.

...The Draconians Win!: I was kidding.

War Is Hell: That's A message I want it to give.

Fiat Player: "I try to find some weapons for these people."  "All right, roll Wits+Bravery for all tasks in this conflict."  "I start by asking them if they hunt."

ElliottBelser wrote:

TonyLB wrote:
When the players address practical, sensible missions they gain resources that let them push toward victory in the war as it is currently defined.

When the players address ideological, stupid missions they gain resources that let them redefine the war.

So if they go all ideological, all the time, they get to determine the nature of the conflict ... and lose it.  Literally, a "moral victory" but no other kind.

If they go all practical, all the time, they get to win the battle, but their enemy gets to define what it is that they've won.

If they do something in-between?  That's what you define in play.

How's that work for you?

...Morale or Influence.  The most plentiful, strategically useless, and unquantifiable Resource you can win for a tactical victory allows the players to redefine what the war is being fought for in some way, but it doesn't win the war.  How, though?

The last post is brilliant.

In a way, that's no Fiat, since they're entering Conflict for it. Maybe have them spend resources to bring them in, but when needed, rather than during Wargame.
Spend X Morale to have the Colonists willing to defend themselves and equipped to do so, etc.

...a friend pointed out that I've been describing political victories with Morale, not moral ones.

I am fine with this.  mr. Sluagh on this forum said, "So, you hurt everyone around you and still maintain the moral high ground?"  And I went, like, "Well, you lose Epsilon Eridani but the other Eridani see what the Dracs are up to.  ...Ow.  OW.  I like it but OW."

So Motivations turn into worldviews.  Three suggested ones: Idealist, Pragmatic, Cynical.  I eagerly await the player who informs me with a grin that his squads score in Idealist went from 10 to 1, and his score in Cynical went to from 0 to 11, by the end of the game.