Topic: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
Started by: Aussigamer
Started on: 9/26/2006
Board: First Thoughts
On 9/26/2006 at 12:20am, Aussigamer wrote:
[Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
Name: Flechette Rifle (Storm Bringer)
PL: 7
Type: Semi/ Automatic magazine feed
Held: 2 handed
Damage: 4d12(-4), Ballistic x3 (19-20)
Single:
Average: 22, recoil: 7
Burst:
3 rounds: 44, recoil: 21
5 rounds: 49, recoil: 23
10 rounds: 55, recoil: 26
20 rounds: 66, recoil: 31
50 rounds: NA, recoil: NA
100 rounds: NA, recoil: NA
Combat Modifier: -1 TH
Base Range: 111m
Weight: 24kg
Cost: 4,725
Ammo
Type: Magazine feed, 22 rounds cap
Cost: 5cr per shot
Notes: This early version of the Gauss gun is still very useful and deadly.
basically I am looking to have a format for the dispalying of new gear, thus the need for the set out of the weapons is pretty important.
So thoughts please.
On 9/26/2006 at 1:09pm, Adam Dray wrote:
Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
Perhaps I missed another post that would give me more context, but what is this about?
Is this for D20 Modern or something of your own creation?
On 9/26/2006 at 10:07pm, Aussigamer wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
Hi Adam,
As with all designers here I am designing my own system ,under the working title of Nexus, thus the preface of [Nexus].
Yes it is a d20 game system and has elements of d20M/ F and D&D but it is it's own beast now.
The information I put up is not for d20modern but yes I suppose could be used for it, but the problem is that combat modifier, recoil and automatic fire would be lost.
Hum I also thought that it was pretty concise in what I am after. A good format for showing information about something.
Would you want more information, if so what, or think that the list needs altering to be showing it this or that way.
Rick
On 9/26/2006 at 10:54pm, Matt wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
(I assume this follows on from this thread)
We don't really have much context as to how this block of stats will be used in play or pre-play (like scenario or character generation). So we can't really suggest much that's constructive, bar in really abstract terms.
I might suggest you look at how this information is used when you play.Then look at ways to group the commonly used items for easy reference, and take a long hard look at which elements actually get used at all.
Or maybe that's not what you're asking for? Maybe you're more interested in how to layout this material on a page, in which case talking to a graphic designer will help (try the connections forum to find one). Or alternatively ask about resources for learning good layout skills (publishing may have some threads on this topic).
-Matt
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 21453
On 9/27/2006 at 12:57am, Aussigamer wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
Matt wrote:
(I assume this follows on from this thread)
yes but this is a different idea stream
We don't really have much context as to how this block of stats will be used in play or pre-play (like scenario or character generation). So we can't really suggest much that's constructive, bar in really abstract terms.
I can not make you read the entire works of mine but you also seem to say that I need you to do that, dammed if I do and dammed if I don't really here.
I am just after some ideas about the look and feel not the actual data, as thats what I asked.
I might suggest you look at how this information is used when you play.Then look at ways to group the commonly used items for easy reference, and take a long hard look at which elements actually get used at all.
yep I am doing that as well, but feedback is good for me as well. Other systems have their own style for displaying the data and I am just trying to get a idea what others like.
Or maybe that's not what you're asking for? Maybe you're more interested in how to layout this material on a page, in which case talking to a graphic designer will help (try the connections forum to find one). Or alternatively ask about resources for learning good layout skills (publishing may have some threads on this topic).
Yes a bit of that as well, though I am not able to do it to that level of publishing it. It is more the general layout, should this go before that or maybe this need to be included or such right now.
Thanks Matt for you reply
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 21453
On 9/28/2006 at 3:18pm, nikola wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
Look, man, you keep putting up these threads where you say, "Do you understand this?" and when people ask "What is it?" you get upset.
Maybe you want to start a thread answering Jared's big three questions?
1: What's this game about?
2: What do the characters do?
3: What do the players do?
Otherwise, no one but you has the context to comment.
On 9/28/2006 at 4:23pm, joepub wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
Joshua is trying to say the same thing I said in a previous thread: The kind of questions you are asking aren't well suited to armchair speculation and input, which is what this forum is.
I have a suggestion for you: It seems you have the system well firmed up, and you even have stat blocks for some stuff.
Start playtesting.
Playtest with several groups that have no overlapping members. Get someone else to GM one of the groups, and just sit in as a player.
Watch how people process your rules - what they struggle over, what they ignore, what order they use information in.
You'll be able to answer your gun information question better with this kind of data.
On 9/28/2006 at 10:11pm, Aussigamer wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
Look what ever I seem to be unable to get any real input no matter which direction I bring the topics or discussion in form.
You complain that you don't know the system and then when I try to explain it there too much info opr what ever, so in the end enjoy this little site and be happy with what ever little click you seem to have going here that seems to not really want to help.
Others have posted simliair stuff and it seems that because its not s d20 system then "Hay this is cool and we should chat" seems to happen.
Don't bother posting anything defedning yourselves as it will in the end only be for your selves as I am quitting this site.
On 9/28/2006 at 10:17pm, Mcrow wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
I just want to point out that this has nothing to do with your game being d20. IIRC there are d20 publishers on these boards.
If you want people to help you, post a link to your rules and ask a very specific question relating to that file.
I bet people here will be more than happy to help.
On 9/28/2006 at 11:08pm, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
Eh, Mcrow, I think it is very much about being d20, myself. I also think that that's not something anybody should take on themselves; if nobody here understands d20 game design, what's to be done? It's not like there's a big guarantee on the front page assuring that Forge regulars (whoever those are) are honor-bound to provide useful commentary on your game design. The only way to get useful comments is to succeed in communicating with the various individuals who make up the board. If your design doesn't click with anybody here, then it doesn't. And it would be ingenious to claim that it isn't because the game's a d20 derivative when it clearly does affect the reception.
Now, I'm sure you're reading this and thinking that "no it's not the d20 thing that's the problem, it's Aussigamer who isn't providing us anything useful to base a discussion on", and I agree about that. But it's not like those cannot both be factors, especially as people are as people do: Aussigamer is clearly a very focused old-school gamer used to completely different game design discussion than people here. It should be self-evident from the threads thus far that everybody is writing at complete cross-purposes and getting frustrated because of that; while we don't certainly understand what Aussi is trying to discuss with a random weapon stat block, it's also clear that he isn't grogging what we mean by all these questions about player purpose or whatever. As far as he's concerned, the D20 system already answered all those questions and he's just implementing some low-level mechanical variants. If you've never considered a game with different parameters it's pretty difficult to answer questions about those abstract matters. Complete cross-purposes = no communication has happened = it's pretty useless to even try to analyze whose fault it is or whatever, when nothing has actually even happened yet communications-wise.
Aussigamer & d20: I'm personally a pretty big fan of d20, and I also spend too much time tinkering with the system. Despite that I've yet to see the crux of Aussi's design effort in terms of what he's trying to achieve. What's been discussed so far has been some minor tinkering of the initiative and combat systems in a way that I interpret mostly as a typical house-rule effort; he likes a more realistic game, and is busily hammering the d20 system to accord with this vision, one rule at a time. As far as I can see most of those changes are detrimental to the fundamental strucuture of d20 as an opportunity-balancing system (which it very much is in it's basic form), but that's also clearly not what Aussi is looking for. As far as I understand he seems to want something like Runequest or AD&D 2ed. out of the system. More power to him, I say.
Aussigamer and communication: I don't remember if this has been suggested, but what I'd be interested in seeing is Aussi writing some actual play reports for us. Doesn't even need to be about Nexus if he doesn't have any suitable stories about that, any game goes. By discussing play and implementation of mechanics in an actual play context, perhaps we could isolate some useful perspectives on the design that are getting lost between stat blocks from this perspective.
Because, like it or not, what has thus far been discussed is laughably trivial from a real game design perspective, and really not worth starting a thread about. I guess it's a continuing progression of frustration on Aussi's part, when he isn't getting the positive feedback he expects. But posting these nigh-trivial context-less questions about whether we like his stat blocks are prone to triggering just this kind of wrangling. I'm sure the stat block could be discussed meaningfully in time, but asking for it when nobody here even knows what the characters do in the game is an useless gesture. Like, I notice the stat block doesn't have an intimidation bonus factor for the friggin' huge gun, what's up with that?!? Shouldn't my character get an intimidation bonus for having a big gun? No idea, because I don't know what the game is trying to do; if it's all about intimidating people, then it would be fun to have such a statistic, but if it's not about intimidating, then it's just a waste of space. This same principle holds for each and every line of these stat blocks, and that's why we can't comment on whether it's a good stat block or not.
I've been wracking my brain to think of a productive venue of conversation about Aussi's game, but I'm coming up empty, really. I consider this no more a "failure of the Forge ethos" than failing to converse with a chinaman, in case somebody thinks to take this up as an example of whatever. Sometimes communication fails, and that's that. There are better places for discussing d20 variant designs, as Aussi himself has noted.
On 9/28/2006 at 11:24pm, joepub wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
It sounds like you guys want to talk about the bigger issue here (can The Forge cater to this type of designer?), and so do I.
I just want to point out that this has nothing to do with your game being d20. IIRC there are d20 publishers on these boards.
If you want people to help you, post a link to your rules and ask a very specific question relating to that file.
I bet people here will be more than happy to help.
Incorrect.
Aussigamer DID do just that.
He uploaded all his files to a site, and linked the site in several threads.
You... did need to register on his site or something, but still...
He asked very specific questions in some threads, and "just posted stuff" in other threads.
I asked him about his game's "premise" in another thread, and he answered that. Fairly well, too.
He stated what he was trying to capture about d20, and what he was making his own.
But... I think there was a failure to connect GOALS with MECHANICS.
I wasn't getting a clear idea of "my game includes this rule BECAUSE X"
Aussigamer and communication: I don't remember if this has been suggested, but what I'd be interested in seeing is Aussi writing some actual play reports for us. Doesn't even need to be about Nexus if he doesn't have any suitable stories about that, any game goes. By discussing play and implementation of mechanics in an actual play context, perhaps we could isolate some useful perspectives on the design that are getting lost between stat blocks from this perspective.
I suggested to him, more than once, to playtest Nexus and post about how it goes.
I didn't suggest AP exactly, though.
Like, I notice the stat block doesn't have an intimidation bonus factor for the friggin' huge gun, what's up with that?!? Shouldn't my character get an intimidation bonus for having a big gun? No idea, because I don't know what the game is trying to do; if it's all about intimidating people, then it would be fun to have such a statistic, but if it's not about intimidating, then it's just a waste of space. This same principle holds for each and every line of these stat blocks, and that's why we can't comment on whether it's a good stat block or not.
This is totally the issue I was having. I didn't care if his recoil mechanics were good. I cared about WHY they existed, and what GOALS they served.
I wasn't getting those answers - maybe because I was failing to answer the questions well.
So...
Questions:
1.) How do we support designers who are more "tweaking" than "creating"? If they're concerned with icing and we're concerned with baking, can we still work together?
2.) How do we ease someone into the design mentality of "mechanics in your game re-enforce what your game is about"?
...Because that's not Forge-indie-hippy advice. That's good advice. Old skool gamers, dirty hippy gamers, applications outside of the game world - everyone can benefit from that adviceadvice.
3.) The Forge has a mandate to support indie games. Last I checked, Nexus was an indie game. Are we not failing to connect to a section of our mandate here?
On 9/29/2006 at 12:16am, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
joepub wrote:
It sounds like you guys want to talk about the bigger issue here (can The Forge cater to this type of designer?), and so do I.
But that's a site discussion topic, isn't it? What I'm interested in is understanding Aussi's specific case. Which is probably also only within the topic insofar as Aussigamer decides to come back and continue struggling with our dimwittedness. So let's try to keep the generic philosophy focused on the question of Aussi's game design, right? (Or start a new thread at site discussion about it, I guess.)
This is totally the issue I was having. I didn't care if his recoil mechanics were good. I cared about WHY they existed, and what GOALS they served.
I wasn't getting those answers - maybe because I was failing to answer the questions well.
This is pretty much the crux of the issue as far as I understand it. From Aussi's replies it seems to me that he isn't really understanding why we obsess over this stuff. The reason for that should be pretty clear: from the viewpoint of D&D heritage design the question of goals is so obvious that it's not even really a question. The purpose of a roleplaying game is to have these adventures, see, and the GM runs the adventure. There needs to be rules so you can determine what happens realistically and fairly, so of course you'll need recoil mechanics, because guns have recoil, right? Indeed.
But when you're that convinced about your design goals it's easy to completely misinterpret and ignore questions directed at those goals. It's like designing running shoes and having to answer questions about why somebody would want to jog. You want to focus on the structure of the air cells under the ball of the foot, and the other guy keeps pestering you with his comparisons of tennis and jogging. (And, in Aussi's case it seems there's a bit of wanting to be congratulated for the air cells, and here we ignore them completely.)
Reading Aussigamer's threads, what I notice is that pretty much the only feedback that's been meaningful for him has been the concrete mechanical suggestions, even the unsuitable ones. So I guess that's the level where discussion should be focused, despite the inherent difficulties of jumping right into gritty details. What Aussi wants (not commenting on what he needs, note) is feedback on his clever alterations of d20 mechanics, so offering him high-level critique of the concept of adventure gaming doesn't seem very fruitful.
Aussi: does this seem like striking true at all, or am I just full of hot air? Or should we just concede defeat and end the thread?
3.) The Forge has a mandate to support indie games. Last I checked, Nexus was an indie game. Are we not failing to connect to a section of our mandate here?
This was kind of the angle I wanted to defuse in my last post by reminding everybody that not Aussigamer and not anybody else is entitled to some automatic effort just by existing and posting at the site. Heck, I've myself posted design threads with zero response, I should know what I'm writing about. I don't see how our mandate could be anything more than a honest effort at communication. But because nobody here is omnipotent, we're sure to fail at times, especially when somebody like Aussi comes along with very inflexible notion of what kind of communication he wants.
My point being that if Aussi wants to continue trying, I'm willing to continue, too. But I'm not going to twist myself into a knot because somebody somewhere isn't responsive to my efforts at dialogue.
On 9/29/2006 at 1:48pm, Mcrow wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
I will still say that it is not a problem with the system being d20 based. I don't think people are looking @ the thread and saying " d20, eh, I'm not even gonna look @ that thread because I don't like d20".
If anything its a combination of not having people here that play d20 a lot (so they don't feel useful on the subject) and the fact that despite reading his posts, I'm still not entirely sure what kind of input he wants. Now, admittedly it could just be me not getting it.
Also, I'm sorry if I came off a little harsh.
On 9/29/2006 at 3:28pm, Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
Joshua wrote:
Look, man, you keep putting up these threads where you say, "Do you understand this?" and when people ask "What is it?" you get upset.
Maybe you want to start a thread answering Jared's big three questions?
1: What's this game about?
2: What do the characters do?
3: What do the players do?
Otherwise, no one but you has the context to comment.
Those aren't my Big Three Questions.
- J
And "Nexus" is already a game, albeit out of print. And a terrible title to boot. Change it or suffer!
On 9/29/2006 at 4:05pm, nikola wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
You're right. Those are my big three questions. I was trying to remember why I considered them so important, though. I figured it was because of you.
It's not!
On 9/29/2006 at 5:32pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: [Nexus] Does this have the information you might need?
Hey.
The failure is with you guys. When the dude wants to talk about flamethrower-distance or the appearance of his stats, and you don't get it, then don't post. I'm getting a little annoyed with the reflexive "answer the big three!" responses I'm seeing a lot. Some people need them. Others don't.
Eero's right in that what Rick wanted was clear - he wanted a skill-heavier, more detailed experience for the d20-ish game he's designing. Do you have expertise in such a game? Then align with his goals and help him. Oh, you don't? Then don't post. You'll note I didn't, except at one point to tell people to stay on track with the flamethrower, and that's why not.
I see no reason at any point, in his threads, for any of you to have decided to "enlighten" him and talk about tennis vs. jogging, in Eero's terms. He wanted to make these fancy shoes for jogging. He's not clueless. Help him with what he wants! He didn't ask for deconstructive higher-level perspectives and I don't blame him for getting irritated when you all tried to drag him that way.
This thread's closed. If you want to be scolded more, bring it up in Site Discussion. I'm not real happy with what I've seen.
Best, Ron