Topic: Two Little Dice, So Much Time
Started by: Galfraxas
Started on: 4/26/2002
Board: Indie Game Design
On 4/26/2002 at 4:00pm, Galfraxas wrote:
Two Little Dice, So Much Time
Howdy Forge Folks,
I've just uploaded a new system to my website. It's called Two Little Dice, So Much Time (2LDSMT for short). It's available as a rather small .pdf file, and I'd love to here people comments on it.
2LDSMT
On 4/26/2002 at 4:36pm, Laurel wrote:
RE: Two Little Dice, So Much Time
I got a "page unavailable for viewing" message from Geocities.
On 4/26/2002 at 4:45pm, Matt Snyder wrote:
Link correction
Laurel wrote: I got a "page unavailable for viewing" message from Geocities.
I did to. Try this: 2LDSMT
EDIT: Strange, I'm sure I got that link to work. When I use link from the Forge, it doesn't work, but when I paste the same link into my browser it works. Try this at home, kids!
http://www.geocities.com/galfraxas/2LDSMT.pdf
On 4/26/2002 at 5:58pm, Galfraxas wrote:
Crap.
Okay, Geocities doesn't allow Hotlinking direct to individual files from websites outside of Geocities anymore, so you'll have to type in the web address and download it that way. I also botched a couple little bits of HTML coding, but that should be fixed now too. Everything works now. Just go to my website and click the link to the file. If you don't know what it is, here's my site again.
The 43rd Dimension On The Left
Tim Boser
On 4/26/2002 at 8:12pm, Laurel wrote:
RE: Two Little Dice, So Much Time
A sentence or two to help players appreciate the difference between dominant and recessive traits beyond the Game Mechanics/dice rolls under Building A Character would be useful.
By "Highest Score" under The Rules System do you mean the highest score on a single die or the cumulative value if they were allowed 2d6?
What do you mean by 'inciting a roll' under Fate Points? To be clear, are you saying that if a player wants to grab the directorial power from the current GM at any time, they can spend a Fate Point to create a situation that would allow them to make a character Roll-Off of their choice? Who decides on the difficulty, the GM or the player spending the Fate Point?
Has 2 Little Dice been play-tested? I'm curious how the GM-shifting technique would actually stand up in a combat scene involving multiple PCs and NPCs.
I can envision the following:
GM1: "Nathan takes a bullet to the head and dies."
playerA: "But that's not fair!"
playerB: "Don't worry, playerA. Hey GM! I spend a Fate Point to have my character be fast enough to jump in the way with my Primary Trait of Catlike Reflexes."
GM1: "That'll be hard for him to do."
(roll-off commences... GM gets 1+3; Player \ gets 6+6... PlayerB just got 2 Fate Points for the cost of 1 and the GMship, becoming GM-B)
GM-B: "Frank jumps in the way and punches the assassin. The gun goes off, harming no one. Nathan saw his life pass before his eyes."
I'd personally worry about player groups being able to so smoothly transfer the directorial power without a)fumbling b)get pissed off/jealous at each other.
I'm also not a big fan of Karma systems like Fate Points that are based on Fortune (in this case, rolling 6s), because puts all the reward on luck, not on preformance.
On 4/26/2002 at 9:08pm, Henry Fitch wrote:
RE: Two Little Dice, So Much Time
Hey, man. There's a game called "The Fifth Trait" on your sight, right? Downloading it isn't working. And now I'm a bit worried, because that sounds like a disturbingly perfect title for a game idea I had earlier today. You didn't telepathically gank my idea or anything, eh?
On 4/26/2002 at 10:50pm, Galfraxas wrote:
Everything Should Be Fixed
Okay, everything should be fixed. I've revised 2LDSMT, updated all the links, and it should all work now.
Tim Boser
On 4/27/2002 at 7:37pm, Laurel wrote:
RE: Two Little Dice, So Much Time
After reading the revised edition (and the editions were helpful) here's the next batch of questions.
When players are rewarding a Fate Point to another player at the end of the game session, what are they rewarding them for? Good roleplay, pity for the weakest link, bringing the chips and dip to the game session, all of the above?
If the current GM rolls 6s, do they get Fate Points? Can GMs spend Fate Points?
Can players purchase new Traits or upgrade recessive traits while the game is going on, or do they need to wait until the end of the session?
Can players "loan" Fate Points to one another if they really want to, before the end of game?
What happens if the GM and a player ties? Does the current GM keep control of the directorial power?
Can a "new" GM disrupt the event resolution of a previous GM such I described in my example of play in a post above?
What happens if two players want to take a simultaneous action using the same or similar traits, or one character uses their trait action to enable/interfere with the trait action of another character?
Comment: Since the purpose of the Roll Offs is to establish who has the highest roll rather than a specific target number, it doesn't really matter if the dice are d6. d10, d20, or even playing cards would all be equally sufficient for example, in case those were handy but d6 weren't. All that matters is that everyone in the game session is using the same type of randomizer for balance.
On 4/28/2002 at 7:33pm, Galfraxas wrote:
RE: Two Little Dice, So Much Time
To Answer The Questions:
1. It's solely each particular players decision why they think another player deserves the Fate Point. It could be because of a joke that player made, some really good roleplaying, some in game event the person giving the point thought that the person recieving the point handled well, or yes, because that player brought chips and dip to the game.
2. The GM can gain Fate Points through the usual means a player could get Fate Points.
3. Adding New Traits and Upgrading mid-game is something I think should be decided on by the group playing the game. I know of some roleplaying groups that allow for the expendature of experience and the modification of characters mid-game, and others that choose to wait until the session is over.
4. Yeah, loaning Fate Points is possible, but I feel that's a decision left up to the particular group in question.
5. Yeah, a new GM can mess with the event resolution of another GM, but can only do so in respect to the character he created and any NPCs involved in the current scene. In the example you mentioned, the new GM could have his personal character or an NPC knock the person being shot at out of the way of the bullet, if they were conceivably fast enough.
6. On the similar actions and interference thing, it would be resolved in a series. The first roll off would be made, then the new GM would be given the chance to narrate at least the results of his action. If the player performing the similar or interfering action still wished to continue with the action he had in mind before the roll off, and the possibility still remained for such an action to occur, then a new roll off would be made. This would continue until a GM gained control long enough to continue the story.
Response to your comment: You are correct about the use of different kinds of randomizers to play the game. I just used 2d6 in the rules because d6s are the easiest to come by. The entire game could be played with just 2d6 shared among the group.
Tim Boser
On 5/7/2002 at 6:06pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Two Little Dice, So Much Time
Tim,
I must say this, painful as it is - this game doesn't fly at all. Its rules all rely on consensual agreement rather than on functioning system; it's a poster child for why System Matters. Throw out "system" (which is what you're doing) and you throw out everything but "well, everyone has to agree."
Here's what I mean by throwing out system. Apparently a Roll-Off "is called for" when "one or more characters may be able to change the flow of the story." Who calls for it? What defines may be able to change the flow, as opposed to may not be so able? A roll by itself is not system; system relies on a mechanic to set parameters, whether of narration, resolution, or improvement, or anything else.
In other words, the whole thing is an IIEE disaster. What determines when something really happens in the game-world? Narration? Roll? More Narration? Roll to pre-empt that second Narration? It's an infinite regress; if two players are disinclined to let the other get his way, they just keep rolling.
The best example is Death - I'd put the GM saying, "Krogarr takes a laser bolt to the chest, burning clear back through to his spine," as may be able to change the flow of the story, so I call for a roll. We roll. I succeed. What then? What happened? I narrate something or other, which by definition will change the "flow of the story" yet again, so now the other guy rolls. Say he wins, and thus, "Haha! Krogarr trips on his ego and dies!" So then I ...
Oh, "good" players won't do this to one another? That brings us back to the consensual thing, in which everything goes smoothly because we all agree to make that happen - which in reality means that one person subtly bullies everyone to get his way.
That's what I mean by throwing out system - you have no meaningful event-constraint imposed by the dice mechanic. The "change the flow of the story" thing is vague to the point of nonexistence.
Other issues:
1) Building a character has no standards. Everyone just "agrees," presumably. What if they don't? Four people get together to play, and they make characters that are completely incompatible with one another. What happens? They "talk about it"? Say everyone thinks someone else ought to change. What happens?
2) Dominant/Recessive Traits as terms is pure gimmick, and empty gimmick at that. You are simply presenting Really Good and Only OK abilities. It has nothing to do with the meaning of the terms you're using.
3) It is completely unclear to me who determines when "a Roll-Off is called." The use of passive voice in this phrase is the source of the problem. After all, if I can call a Roll-Off when "the story flow" looks like it "may" change, then why bother spending a Fate Point? I would do that when nothing at all is happening?
Tim, again, I'm being a ghoul here, but this is why I think one-page RPGs are usually worthless. You have rules, but they don't seem to do anything.
Best,
Ron
On 5/7/2002 at 7:02pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Two Little Dice, So Much Time
Ron Edwards wrote:
Tim, again, I'm being a ghoul here, but this is why I think one-page RPGs are usually worthless. You have rules, but they don't seem to do anything.
I would build on this and say that one-page RPGs half unfinished rules because vital information is left out, much like this recipe for seven layer cake:
To make a seven layer cake you will need:
• flour
• sugar
• eggs
• milk
• some of that white powder that's used for baking. I forget what it's called.
Combine ingredients and bake. Frost when finished.
There is too much assumption on the part of the designer that the reader knows what the hell they're doing. Fact is, people are clueless. Most of how we do the things we do is learned by watching others, parents, friends, older siblings, people on TV, etc. This is why most of the people who play RPGs today learned from a group. Very few decided to look at this D&D stuff, bought a game, read it, and learned to play.
One page RPGs are generally written by enthusiasts. Probably someone's first attempt at writing an RPG in the first place. It's the hobby at its purest, and I love it for that, but fact is, not RPG can or should be only one page or even ten pages. An RPG needs careful explanation on how to use it. And the simpler the rules, the more careful explanation there needs to be. Sort of like how the rules for Chess are simple but the strategy of using those rules fill volumes.
Now, to address 2LDSMT specifically:
It seems like Ron is correct in that you've thrown out the system, but what little you have shows that you're still thinking within a system. For example: there is no "hit point" system for combat, but if a chaacter receives an injury that would kill a person, then the character dies making an effective hit point system out of description. This is problematic since the descriptions are not a definate as numbers, so who to say when the character should die? Since 2oLDSMuT is emphatically a "story" game, how about the character only dies when the GM narrates it so? Add to this that the GM should only narrate it if it is dramatically appropriate, perhaps with player consent or a player can only kill his own character and NPCs?
I don't like the way the round-robin GMing is handled. As written, it seems like the other players sit there like simpletons while the GM tells them a story until they reach a point where a roll can be called for.
Let me tell you, I hate RPG combat. Nothing is more boring that sitting there with your dice waiting for your turn to miss. This seems to make the entire game like that, but is just my impression. What you need to do is flesh it out more, it'll probably need to be at least ten pages before it's adequeately clear on how to use it, and twenty to be optimal. But don't go by these numbers, make it as long as it needs to be.
On 5/8/2002 at 1:31am, Galfraxas wrote:
Interesting....
I'm not going to defend 2LDSMT. I had an idea for a possible game, wrote some notes on paper, and turned it into what you have seen in that .pdf file. After thinking it over and reading what you guys have written here, I too have come to the conclusion that it just wouldn't work. I will, however, leave the document online for those who want to see one way not to do things. Next time, I'll try to avoid what I've done here. Thank you all for your comments.
Thanks again,
Tim Boser
On 5/8/2002 at 1:15pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Two Little Dice, So Much Time
Hey, Tim
Don't worry about it. I'll bet we've all written something not unlike 2LDSMT at one point or another. I know I have. What matters now is what you do with it. You could take some of the concepts from it and make something that works better or just remember why 2LDSMT didn't work and avoid those pitfalls.
RPG design is an art. Make no mistake about that. But it's a weird art since even after you finish writing the thing, it still isn't done until someone plays. RPGs in play are an art in itself. So, RPG design is an art that begets another art. I can't think of any art that is used for another art except maybe computer programming, but I'm sick of drawing parallels between RPGs and computers.
I look forward to your next attempt. You might want to keep in mind practicality (see the thread in RPG theory) and my recipe for seven layer cake. It's a common problem I've seen in free RPGs. DOn't feel bad, but you know, try not to do that anymore :)