After some excellent discussion in the Wake up! thread, I've really been working to focus and fine-tune Dreamspire, its "aboutness," what

The Wake up! thread had many good points, and perhaps the most important of these is identifying that pivotal mechanic and conflict that drives the game. I had suggested the very vague Quest mechanic along with the currency of Pawns. I'm still headed in that direction, with a firmer notion of how it will work.

To that end, I've started a new post here that will describe that crucial mechanic as I've got it worked out thus far:

The struggle in the game -- why players care, as Scott so rightly puts it -- is finding one's way out of the nightmarish game being played by rival royals and the guild(s). You guys recommended various ideas on handling pawns to symbolize this struggle, and others mentioned use of Check and Endgame to do similar things. All on the right track, as I see it.

So, here's what I'm working on to "gel" those various ideas. Characters will be able to collect Black Pawns and White Pawns. Black Pawns are useful, even powerful tokens that help characters improve effectiveness, empower supernatural abilities, fend of oblivion, and so on. But there's a catch. Get too many Black Pawns (8, to be precise, just like a front row in chess), and you enter the Endgame. Your character is in Check. Only with some kind of "repentance" and maybe a little luck can you avoid Checkmate.

Conversely, White Pawns aren't as immediately useful. You can't alter rolls or empower magical Talents. But, what you can do is gain control of a scene. White Pawns become a kind of currency for narrative control of what I'll call a Gambit, (a scene). Typically, that control resides with the GM, or Grand Master -- oozing chess here. Obviously, White Pawns are powerful in their own right, as they represent almost raw creativity and self-control. The catch: earn 8 White Pawns, and you enter the Endgame as well. However, in this case it means you've earned enough self-control and creative authority to address your Quest. You, as a player, can take over the direction of the game in order to address your Quest and earn the right to escape Dreamspire once and for all. The other players, meanwhile, may be eager to help. They might also be eager to hinder your escape for a number of reasons, which makes things awfully interesting.

I know you folks will have questions, which I'll be happy to answer. I'm sure I've overlooked details -- for example, how do two characters who enter Endgame compete for control? Cut me at least some slack .My brain is nearly fried after working on Cartoon Action Hour! layouts for 6 hours last night (after full day's work) and nearly revolutionizing the way I think about my game!

Matt,

Okay, I just read this and haven't really had time to process it. That said, I'm pretty interested in seeing where this goes. The idea that entering the Endgame phase will bring with it all sorts of imbedded conflict is pretty cool, and I want to see what that ends up looking like. As I envision it now, a person who enters Check (or who is close to getting there), becomes the center of attention - everything maneuvers around him, and he becomes the most important piece in the game, if only for a short time. That's pretty damn cool.

So what do you need help with? What questions do you have for us?

- Scott

hardcoremoose wrote:
So what do you need help with? What questions do you have for us?

So far, so good. What you haev may engage the players and give structure to the game. But what you haven't said yet is what the Quests are, or how they are assigned to a character. How do I as a player know what to do to give my character a quest. You mentioned that it's a CharGen issue. Fine. So can I choose as my quest to find a cat? Is that too short a quest, too long, too hard, too easy, about the right sort of thing, not at all what we're looking for (I hope so)? How do I know? How is it stated? Written on the character sheet?

Give us solid mechanics man, solid mechanics. How is this accomplished?

Also, the way it sounds now, you can't address the quest at all until you enter endgame. Is that how it's supposed to sound? Is there no way to incorporate the quest during non-endgame play? Mechanically?

You also need to be more clear on the Pawns thing. Do I have unlimited access, and when doing something I essentially purchase the pawn into my pool? Or do I spend the pawns from my pool? If so, where do they come from, the GM spending Pawns? I don't precisely get it.

And where are my machination mechanics!?! How does the player get embroiled?

Mike

The more I hear about this game, the more I like it.

I'd love to hear suggestions for folks on what type of character behavior or action should earn each type of Pawn.

Somehow, Holmes, I knew you'd chime in and call me on all my bluffs. Kick a man when he's down, will you?!? Nevermind that you're right.

So, I'll address your questions as best I can, considering the ideas above are fresh out of the oven.

To answer what Quest is and does, I think you first have to answer how the character becomes trapped in the nightmare realm of Dreamspire, how he or she came to this world from reality. The possible answers are many. Some include: deep depression after losing a loved one; escape from real-world trauma or horror (abuse, war, painful illness, etc.); loss of the creative spark of life (a barren mother, a procrastinating artists, etc.); punishment for a great transgression (commiting abuse, betraying a loved one, etc.).

Once you've done that, then you can begin to constuct a symbolic goal for your character to achieve. Some example, taken from those above, might be: finding/rescuing the soul of your loved one who's died; healing a perilous wound in the character or another character to alleviate the trauma; creating something longasting in the realm (like a guild or perhaps a hospice); saving or freeing someone who'd been betrayed or enslaved, perhaps, thus earning your redemption.

These are general examples. A character Quest should be more specific, and symbolism is encouraged. For example, taking the first example above (death of a loved one & finding their soul), the player (and GM) might determine the loved one's soul is contained in a vessel of stained glass that sheds scintilating lights while hanging as a decorative element in the Menagerie -- the royal hall of House Magirious. Getting that wondrous ornament from a House obsessed with beauty and art will be no small feat, and certainly something the character couldn't attempt without some authoratative control on his part. One does not just waltz into King Daldianus' hall and demand an object of his affection.

In terms of keeping track of the thing, i.e. the format, Quest appears on the character sheet (or whatever the player uses to manage his character). It is simply a short paragraph -- two or three sentences, perhaps -- that describes the character's noble ambition.

Players may -- indeed, should -- address their Quests at every possible turn. They are not limited to doing so by Endgame. Rather, Endgame is the phase at which they can earn game control resolve their Quest. This may be glorious victory (and escape from the realm) or even not-so-spectacular defeat (Checkmate, and personal oblvion whether death or otherwise).

Pawns, namely white pawns, have everything to do with Quest in terms of mechanics. As you earn a White Pawn, you mark a step in gaining creative control, which you should orient around your quest. Gaining control of a Gambit should address the conflicts at hand, but in such a way that some progress, however minor, is made toward your goal. It might be learning some information, gaining a new contact, earing a new item to help your quest, and so on.

As I've said, I haven't completely answered sufficiently for myself how the Pawns mechanics work -- what the exchange rate might be, how they're spent from this pool or that, and how they're "kept" as the meter cranks up toward 8. Usually, an idea this fresh needs some sleep on my part, but I will indeed be thinking hard about how this whole Pawn "economy" works. Meanwhile, I look forward to suggestions!

And machination mechanics? Good grief, man, I can barely keep up with prolific posters like yourself. But design that fast? ... Ok, I'm thinking about it, definitely!

Hi Matt,

First off, I like the use of Gambit for "Scene," and the pawn stuff sounds really neat. I'm seeing Dreamspire as a sort of dark Wonderland with a Machiavellian twist. If the Premise is (for example) the one about "What will you do to escape being a Pawn?" Then we're talking about manipulation and constraints on free will. What kinds of Quests play into that? How does one become independent or (alternatively) of higher status (not-Pawn)? What does one need to sacrifice to become autonomous? Does one need to sacrifice anything in the first place?

These ideas may give you some starting points to set up quest-structure and options for players. Deliver someone from/into Bondage. Make an exchange. Force a move. Feint (false quest). Castle (escape from danger). Conceal preparations. Find a resource/set up a position. Sacrifice someone else in your -- or another's -- stead. In keeping with the chess theme, there's a lot of good ideas to work from. You might look at some classic strategies, such as Fool's Mate, and see if they offer inspiration for quests.

Best,

Blake

...how the character becomes trapped in the nightmare realm of Dreamspire... a procrastinating artist...)

I read through the Dreamspire threads, and I'm real interested. But I want the meat of the thing. I know you're still hammering it out, so I'll be patient!

My suggestion would be to drop the traits and make your metasystem the ONLY system. Screw traits. Player effectiveness is measured in how they play the chess-y system. In-game, rather than pre-game, choices are what matters, especially with the setup of "you are sucked into this wicked conspiring world."

Can't wait to see more ...

First off, Pawns, Black and White: First, a running tally should be kept of total Pawns earned/used. I think White Pawns should be earned, and Black Pawns you should be allowed to use (therefore counting them part of your tally) whenever you feel like it. With the detail that getting 8 black pawns puts you into a very perilous endgame, I think people will be reluctant to use Black Pawns, but will if the situation calls for it. Add to this that it is possible to get out of check, which will lower your tally, but keep you in risk.

Also, while I think playing the Great Game is all well and good, I think you should focus on the Quest for Redemption. ::can just see Mike's PM now..:: Any playing of the Game should be focused toward accomplishing your Quest for Redemption, and any Game play which is not toward that end should be penalized somehow, bringing the character closer to Check and Mate.

As for quests, your opening ideas for them are great. Symbolic Reparations for past wrongs, or perceived wrongs... awesome. But, however, I think that Quests should hold an additional, innate danger to them. What will you do to accomplish your quest? What will it cost those around you? What will that cost end up costing you?

To harken back to my play example from the other post, Imagine that the Knight once betrayed his friends or liege out of cowardice. That was how he became trapped in Dreamspire. Now he has to make the ultimate sacrifice to save others to redeem himself. So in the example, he does make the ultimate sacrifice, and gives himself up to Dreamspire, allowing his companions to escape, but forever trapping himself.

That exemplifies the double-edge of Endgame, even if it's good endgame. He redeemed himself, but by the very action of redemption, he dooms himself. That would make for some awesome emotional scenes, especially at endgame.

Also, just the whole idea of endgame and redemption/checkmate would create one of two situations, in my mind. 1. The players would be scheming against each other to achieve their own redemptions, which would entail them playing the Great Game on their own, internal level. 2. They would attempt to make sure no one was left behind, and they'd all work toward achieving their endgame and redemption in the same scene (as in my play example). Either way would create a very emotionally intense game, especially in the endgame. I think you ought to channel it down these two avenues (or a few more, if there are others I haven't considered) of cooperative or competitive.

Finally, some ideas about chess-terms: Gambit, IIRC is a risky maneuver to gain advantage. Therefore, I think that only certain scenes should be called Gambits, which limits the power of White Pawns (which, if I understand how they grant Narrative Power, is actually fairly impressive) to important instances. Other scenes/encounters should be called something else, possible Passes (as in Pawns in Passing).

That's all for now, but count on me chiming in again. I am enthused about this game, and determined to own one of the first hardcopy issues.

Egads. Due to the sneaky influence of The Moose and others, this game is sliping dangerously close to Narrativist territory. Are we exploring this strange world, or are we looking at some narr Premise like, "Can one escape from the prison of ones own mind?"

There are also hints of Gamism slipping in.

Are these inclusions intentional?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Egads. Due to the sneaky influence of The Moose and others, this game is sliping dangerously close to Narrativist territory.
...
Are these inclusions intentional?

When I first heard about Dreamspire, I immediately leapt to a lot of conclusions about how good a Mervyn Peake(amongst others) inspired RPG could be.

But reading the couple of threads here, I'm struck by how much BETTER Dreamspire is going to be than my preconceived version! It looks like its shaping up to have so much fascinating content in addition to a fantastic style.

I look forward to reading more!

Zak Arntson wrote: Not by me, though it may sound like it. I think most Sim games are bogged down by an unnecessary System. Using a Chess System as a way to explore the Setting or Situation would be far more satisfying than another Traits/Skills + funky metasystem.

BTW, can one tell the difference between people who are in certain states by looking at them? I could envision characters that are just arrived as looking more human, or "real". The more involved in the game, the more they could start looking like abstract representations of some archtype. Their appearance would become more cardboardy and simple, until they finally started to look very much like mobile chess peices, monochrome and glossy. Just an idea.

Ok, a few comments . . .

Mike has rightly voiced concern that the game is "slipping" into Narrativism. Fair enough, as I can see why he'd say that. Namely, because the game specifically encourages players who enter "Endgame" to take what I call narrative control.

Now, whether what I call narrative control is actually specific Narrative Drift or actually a specific mechanic to facilitate a shift in Stance is something I can't answer because I can't sufficiently explain Stances for my own good. In other words, I can't answer because of my own cofusion over terms.

If it is Narrativist drift, that's fine by me. As I've said, the game is supposed to be subversive in that it encourages "traditional" play, but then "drags" players to a powerful, dramatic moment over which they have control of their own fate. I don't see this as confusing, wrong or bad design. I see it as something that tries to blur the boundary of what people think role-playing is about, what games can do, and hopefully expand their experience of what's possible. (That's a common theme in Dreamspire, by the way -- the blurring of boundaries. It uses stark imagery, the black and white theme as a demonstration that such clear borders aren't so clear after all. Peek behind the curtain and you realize the house you've been fighting for are as corrupt as their enemies. The world is a murky, gray place in the end. Come to terms with that, and you're on your way to Endgame.)

Second, this discussion about ignoring/eliminating character attributes absolutely baffles me. Zak Arntson suggested leaving them out entirely, and Ron has mentioned in another thread (I think) that he sees them and immediately doesn't care/wants to ignore them.
Why? What do I gain by elminating them? In my view (and, granted, my view's much better informed) I lose a lot, and gain maybe some focus of "what players do" in the game (and, again, in my view LOSE some of what players do in the game). What I lose is a deal-breaker -- a game that's off-putting for "traditional" gamers because they see a character sheet and scratch their heads wondering what the deal is with just these Pawns and a Quest paragraph. "Where's the stats? This game sucks … ooh, neat! A new Deadlands supplment!" ;)

Of course, these Traits aren't just some marketing scheme to get "normal" gamers to buy Dreamspire. Traits -- and Talents -- have a foundational role in the game . . . the simulationist game. Why is it that Forgers have such a hard time addressing simulationist play without implied criticisms, without injecting what are usually Narrativist tools and techniques. Why do I have such a hard time doing the same? I submit that we have an unspoken bias, a communal attitude. Stats+Skills? That's so[i/] 1991. It constantly fascinates me; narrativism play and design seems to have some kind of gravity that tugs on so much of the discussion here on the Forge in such a way that aspects of simulationist play that works for many folks are trodden upon. I do not mean this in an accusatory way; I am genuinely intrigued by my observations regarding this, and part of my effort with these posts and with Dreamspire is to create something that demonstrates the forward-looking value of sim. games.

Traits and Talents are going to be in Dreamspire, so there's really no point in discussion otherwise, though it probably is worth discussion what Traits and Talents are about, what they do, and how I might improve them. That's not to dismiss comments from Zak, Ron, Mike and everyone else. I'm not saying "Fuck off, they're in." I'm saying "What I'm trying to do with the game would suffer without their inclusion." If I've commuincated poorly what the game's about, my apologies. I have, however, made at least a couple comments saying the game's simulationist, and I've read a couple frustrating comments while thinking "Go back and read my posts again."

Trait and Talents do a good job, in my view, of modeling interesting characters in this very specific setting. There, how's that for reeking of Sim., Mike? The attributes are not complicated, nor are the associated Talents. I've done my best to make these very simple. Combat mechanics are not much different from the rest of conflict resolution. There are no "weapon stats." The mechanics of the game -- which I spelled out earlier -- are very simple, and complimentary to what one does in the game. (Talents are really the secret weapon for characters -- they let you really interect with the world, and they're suitably broad so characters may use their Talents in myriad ways to overcome conflict and challenges.)

Rather than shoe-horning this game into what "I wouldn't do if I were you" I'd be much better assisted by, "What do those Traits represent, and how do they compliment what you do in the game?" I really do appreciate everyone's feedback. Really. That's why I post this stuff here. I encourage everyone to go back and read some of my original posts. If my vision of what the game's about and what players do and care about isn't yet clear, I'll be happy to answer that again however I can.

Finally, the metagame mechanics (Quest and Pawns) are obviously crucial, and this thread really is about those. I've been working on a solution to the Pawns mechanics/economy. I'll post it as soon as I get something coherent (it's almost there!).

P.S. Ron has mentioned in the past he thinks the attribute+skill paradigm is flawed. I don't see it that way, though he has a way of convincing folks. A topic for another thread, perhaps, Ron? I'm interested, I'm just not interested in this thread!

Matt,

Here's the relevant Forge material on the attributes/skills topic:
Attributes and skills, but not both?

You are right that my take on the topic is aligned with Narrativist goals, but you are not correct in thinking that it's a "creeping bias" - I fully acknowledge the concept as being embedded within Narrativist design. In that thread, I allude to some thoughts regarding Simulationism and attributes/skills issues, and I suppose that might make for a good RPG Theory thread one of these days.

(Although in passing, I can also say that I dislike a common mode of posting, which is to say, "Ron, please hold forth on game issue X," and to expect me to leap to it instantly. I'll do it, but it usually takes a while to get a good response composed.)

As for a desire to get good and well-designed innovative Sim games going, I'm all for it. But since you're treading into thematic issues as a focus on play in this game, as Mike H says, you're getting pretty hybridized, perhaps into that "helper" zone that Gareth and I are discussing in the Confused by N & S thread in GNS Discussion.

In that case, my attributes/skills distinction is valid, as an option for the game we're discussing in this thread. Any of my suggestions are only options; I cannot tell you what to do. Please don't write them off as "obvious Narrativist bullying" or "bias," not when your game is so demonstrably a candidate for considering their inclusion.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote:
What's important to the denizens of the Dreamspire, and why? That's important. For example, perhaps all of the denizens are trapped from outside. This would give them all the potential goal of obtaining whatever they need to escape. For those who are constructs of the Realm, what sort of human needs do they have. Heck, do people need to eat and breathe in Dreamspire? Are their physical forms subject to violence? Can they die from violence?

Quick Question: So, like, what happens if the clock is destroyed, but the character was still alive? For that matter, what happens if the PC decides to destroy his own clock?

Wolfen wrote: Quick Question: So, like, what happens if the clock is destroyed, but the character was still alive? For that matter, what happens if the PC decides to destroy his own clock?

Matt Snyder wrote: Now, whether what I call narrative control is actually specific Narrative Drift or actually a specific mechanic to facilitate a shift in Stance is something I can't answer because I can't sufficiently explain Stances for my own good. In other words, I can't answer because of my own cofusion over terms.

If it is Narrativist drift, that's fine by me. As I've said, the game is supposed to be subversive in that it encourages "traditional" play, but then "drags" players to a powerful, dramatic moment over which they have control of their own fate. I don't see this as confusing, wrong or bad design. I see it as something that tries to blur the boundary of what people think role-playing is about, what games can do, and hopefully expand their experience of what's possible. (That's a common theme in Dreamspire, by the way -- the blurring of boundaries. It uses stark imagery, the black and white theme as a demonstration that such clear borders aren't so clear after all. Peek behind the curtain and you realize the house you've been fighting for are as corrupt as their enemies. The world is a murky, gray place in the end. Come to terms with that, and you're on your way to Endgame.)

Second, this discussion about ignoring/eliminating character attributes absolutely baffles me. Zak Arntson suggested leaving them out entirely, and Ron has mentioned in another thread (I think) that he sees them and immediately doesn't care/wants to ignore them.

Why? What do I gain by elminating them? In my view (and, granted, my view's much better informed) I lose a lot, and gain maybe some focus of "what players do" in the game (and, again, in my view LOSE some of what players do in the game). What I lose is a deal-breaker -- a game that's off-putting for "traditional" gamers because they see a character sheet and scratch their heads wondering what the deal is with just these Pawns and a Quest paragraph. "Where's the stats? This game sucks … ooh, neat! A new Deadlands supplment!" ;)

Traits -- and Talents -- have a foundational role in the game . . . the simulationist game. Why is it that Forgers have such a hard time addressing simulationist play without implied criticisms, without injecting what are usually Narrativist tools and techniques.

Why do I have such a hard time doing the same? I submit that we have an unspoken bias, a communal attitude. Stats+Skills? That's so[i/] 1991. It constantly fascinates me; narrativism play and design seems to have some kind of gravity that tugs on so much of the discussion here on the Forge in such a way that aspects of simulationist play that works for many folks are trodden upon.

Ok, finally I get around to replying. Sorry for the delay, Mike. Been busy . . . and tired!

Anyway, this is a helpful bit of information, particularly your explanation of Narrative "backtracking" and related comments. You, along with a private message from Ron, have helped me clear up some confusion. I'm pretty confident I'm on the right track, and as rant-y as I sound, I really do appreciate everyone's help in this regard.

I do indeed hope the Pawns mechanic will be a good transition vehicle, and I've been working like crazy to work it out. I'm almost there -- finally decided on how pawns are exchanged, and largely what they're used for. Now all I have to do is finish writing it up!

Mike Holmes wrote:
All I'm saying is that if you use traditional mechanics, you'll get traditional play. G,S, or N, independent.

Mike Holmes wrote:
So you must proceed with care. You say that your system will be careful, but I see some bad signs already...

Mike Holmes wrote:
Cool, that sounds like you have some good ideas. When can we see them?

Mike Holmes wrote:
The game as I've been reading it seems to be focused on exploring this Grand Game. Well, where are the mechanics for such? Yes, traits/skills is a fine way to address this if you like, how will you slant them towards providing the appropriate focus.

Or will this just be GURPS: Dreamspires?

Mike Holmes wrote:
I will agree that many handlings of the split are flawed, from a simple mechanical POV. There's a simple mathematical reason why, but almost nobody sees it. All I can say is that you have to be careful. But go with it, and see if you can put it together correctly.

Matt wrote: So, when one of the next unlucky bastards to get trapped in Dreamspire comes along, he'll assume the role of constable. Most of the poplulace doesn't miss a beat, and sees that, oh hey, another constable's just appeared -- maybe he came from another burrogh or shuttled in from the Station . . .

Matt Snyder wrote: As for the mathematical reason, can you explain,

Matt Snyder wrote: * What's important to Dreamspire's denizens? Often, it's precisely what's important to folks in the real world, but in dreamspire things are more corrupt. So, things like greed, lust, power & dominance.

An explanation of Dreamspire's Traits and Talents:

Characters have five defining traits. They are: Wits; Charm; Passion; Prowess and Vigor.

Character also have 8 (or more) Talents. These are broad descriptors that 1) Define part of who a character is and 2) indicating his relative ability at a fairly broad range of skills, abilities and even magic.

So, for example, the game's featured "Rook" archetype character example has the following Traits and Talents:

TRAITS
Wits: 3
Prowess: 1
Passion: 2
Charm: 1
Vigor: 2

He's a clever, resourceful and alert fellow, as indicated by his Wits score. His prowess score makes him not too nimble, nor particularly good in physical confrontations. He is Passionate, which indicates his strong willpower, dedication and general verve. His charm indicates he's poor in social situations, while his vigor indicates moderate health and stamina, as well as brawn.

TALENTS
Spy: d8
Delver: d12
Sneak: d10
Guide: d4
Locksmith: d6
Knife-fighter: d8
Skeptic: d6
Climber: d4

We can see here that the Rook is a utility character -- someone who can move around the realm and get the job done, so to speak. He has a number of very useful Talents that cover a reasonably broad range of skills and abilites, but he isn't a particularly good warrior or diplomat, say.

Let's take an example: Our Rook is spelunkering about in the subterranean Labyrinth and comes to a near dead end -- a steep wall (funny, it wasn't there before was it?). Now, without any relevant conflict, he'd just scale the thing and play would progress. However, a pair of shades pursue our Rook, and he must escape. What better way than up and over? So, the player asks the Grand Master whether he can climb the thing. The GM decides to let him find out for himself by making a guess (at a pretty easy task). So, the player rolls his Climber talent (d4) with a number of d4 equal to his Wits rank. He rolls a 1, 2 and a 4 for a final result of 4 (keep whichever die you want). The challenge was exactly that, and he succeeds. The GM informs the player, with some lovely description, that the damp stone is tricky, but not impassable, and the Rook knows he could climb it with some extra effort (challent threshold 6). So, the player decides to climb the thing, but wants to spend a few Pawns to make sure he can ascend successfully. So, he Sacrifices 3 pawns and rolls his Climber talent. This time, however, rather than his Wits trait as a modifer, he must use his (poor) Prowess as an indicator of how many dice to roll. In this case, it's only one die (d4), and he rolls a 3. But, thanks to his sacrificed pawns, he gets +3 -- up and over!

Alternatively, the Rook could have simply used his supernatural talent Delver. This lets him open locks and portals, and even create doors where there are none, and passageways to far reaches of the realm. In that case, he might have rolled his Devler talent (d12) with a number of d12s equal to, say, his Wits or maybe Passion, depending on how he wants to go about it and whether he can convince the GM the trait he wants to use is relevant. Using such a supernatural Talent might cost a pawn or two (for no bonus, just to power the ability, though he could add a bonus w/ more pawns), and he would then describe his character's creation of a passage through the wall itself, which then disappears after he passes through.

So, as you see, this isn't any kind of additive Stats + Skills, though they certainly are causally related. Rather, it's a means by which players might apply a number of character aspects to solve conflicts and problems -- everything from combat to court diplomacy and so on.

Is this a little clearer, I hope?

Hmmm. We need to know more about how CharGen and Pawns work. Can Pawns always be "Spent", or are some tasks just impossible for some characters?

I can say right off that if you choose to go with a fixed cost point based CharGen (which would include trading off of templates) that you will have an "exchange rate" like I mentioned in my rant. It will be hard to calculate, but it will be there. You have included two things that make the calculation difficult, "delinking" Stats and Skills (lots of systems going this way these days), and cross-product value calculation. The first enters a slightly subjective element and so almost fixes the problem (actually for some player types this exacerbates the problem). The second is just more difficult math.

The problem with hiding behind math is that if you fool the players, and they can't figure out the rate, some players will end up randomly with less effective characters than other players. Which they'll then assume means that the game is broken as "Unbalanced". Or they'll figure out the math and then you have the original problem all over again.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Hmmm. We need to know more about how CharGen and Pawns work. Can Pawns always be "Spent", or are some tasks just impossible for some characters?

Your example left me with a question about pawns.

If "filling up a row" i.e. 8 pawns moves to end game, isn't this a little inconsistant with burning 3 pawns to get a +3 to climbing a wall. If you only get to do this 8 times in your character career, shouldn't the effect be more dramatic (like automatic critical success, or something)?

Or am I missing a key element.

Valamir wrote: Your example left me with a question about pawns.

If "filling up a row" i.e. 8 pawns moves to end game, isn't this a little inconsistant with burning 3 pawns to get a +3 to climbing a wall. If you only get to do this 8 times in your character career, shouldn't the effect be more dramatic (like automatic critical success, or something)?

Or am I missing a key element.

Matt Snyder wrote: I did indeed indicate that "accumulating" 8 pawns of one or the other variety caused one to enter Endgame. This is no longer the case -- now the issue is relative. Should the difference of your current total of white and black pawns ever equal 8 (or greater, I guess), then you enter endgame. You might have 0 Black Pawns and 8 White to do this, or 57 Black Pawns, 49 White to do this. The exchange of Pawns in the game will be pretty fluid, with players and GM Sacrificing and Capturing Pawns regularly to various effects and consequences.

there are only 60 starting sets of attributes

This may be a stupid question, but could you explain endgame further?

Originally, if a character accumulate 8 black pawns, (s)he enters an endgame where the character can enter check and has some mortality issues. 8 white pawns, and the character takes narrative control.

Now, a character enters endgame when the difference between the two is equal or greater than 8. I assume then that whatever one is higher determines the endgame's 'color'?

Also on the subject of endgame, what is the in-character understanding of it? (I'm new, and I'm going to be avoiding jargon I don't totally understand, so bear with me) For example, if a character enters black endgame, they enter check and may die, as I understand things. How does this get played out? Does it take the form of bad luck, or does he get sick, or something else?

As another random question, I'm curious to see what other words from chess jargon are finding their way into this game. I could blather out several (tempo, openings, midgame), but this is a real minor curiosity on my part.

in any case, i'm interested in reading more.

Nevermet wrote: This may be a stupid question, but could you explain endgame further?

Originally, if a character accumulate 8 black pawns, (s)he enters an endgame where the character can enter check and has some mortality issues. 8 white pawns, and the character takes narrative control.

Now, a character enters endgame when the difference between the two is equal or greater than 8. I assume then that whatever one is higher determines the endgame's 'color'?

Nevermet wrote: Also on the subject of endgame, what is the in-character understanding of it? (I'm new, and I'm going to be avoiding jargon I don't totally understand, so bear with me) For example, if a character enters black endgame, they enter check and may die, as I understand things. How does this get played out? Does it take the form of bad luck, or does he get sick, or something else?

Nevermet wrote: As another random question, I'm curious to see what other words from chess jargon are finding their way into this game. I could blather out several (tempo, openings, midgame), but this is a real minor curiosity on my part.

Matt Snyder wrote:

Nevermet wrote:
Endgame has everything to do with a character's predetermined Quest. So, that means each character's Endgame will be different. It's up to the player to decide how this get's played out. There are only a few parameters that define the character's fate -- as in how much "damage" he might have, etc.

ok.
...hmm.
I wish I had an articulate response or question to ask to continue this, I don't at the moment. Sorry.
Thanks for the response.