Topic: Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
Started by: Colin the Riot
Started on: 1/30/2003
Board: RPG Theory
On 1/30/2003 at 7:40pm, Colin the Riot wrote:
Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
I'm a big fan of both the Pool and Donjon, and I'm looking at possibly combining the two in the following way.
What I want to do is play the Pool as is, but when you roll, each success (a roll of 1) is a narrative fact that the player can declare for the GM to weave into the outcome. If they choose to waive the right to these facts, then they gain a die.
I want to do this because I'm too wary of relinquishing control by allowing full MOV's, but I very much like the idea of allowing the players facts that I can then incorporate into my own descriptions.
I've no head for mechanics (which is why I'm looking to more rules-light games in the first place) but will this work? Where would it break? Is there something I'm overlooking as to how this will work out?
Thanks in advance.
P.S. I posted here, because I'm looking for people's actual play experiences with these games. I'm not really theorizing, ro designing my own game. I hope this is the place to ask...
On 1/30/2003 at 8:56pm, Matt Wilson wrote:
RE: Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
Hey Colin the Riot:
What I want to do is play the Pool as is, but when you roll, each success (a roll of 1) is a narrative fact that the player can declare for the GM to weave into the outcome. If they choose to waive the right to these facts, then they gain a die.
I read that and think, hey, I'm rewarded for not declaring facts. What happens when I waive them? Does the GM get the power to declare? Do I fail? Stalemate?
And do you still need a minimum number of 1's to succeed like you do in the Pool? That means you'll never declare just one fact.
I'll steal an idea from my own game for you: how about you get to spend any 1's you roll to declare facts, and not set a minimum number? You'd have to define what a fact can get you, like walloping a mook, leaping over a short wall, etc. Or you set a minimum # of 1s based on a difficulty level, and every 1 over that number is a fact. Every 1 you roll less than that is a fact the GM gets to use against your sorry butt.
Aaaannnd, if you roll more 1s than you want to spend on facts, you can store them as additional dice to spend on rolls later.
Pretty different game by that point, but hey, that can be fun.
-Matt
On 1/30/2003 at 10:31pm, Colin the Riot wrote:
RE: Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
Thanks for the comments Matt,
To clarify, you only need a single 1 to succeed at your proposed action. However many 1's you roll is how many facts that player can declare. The GM must narrate the outcome that the player proposed, and include the facts declared. If you succeed and choose not to declare, the GM totally narrates the outcome, and you earn a die. If you fail, the GM narrates your failure at your proposed action, and you lose any dice you gambled.
I think this will fit well, because relevant skills, plus spare dice to gamble will mean the possibility of additional successes, which mean more facts.
On 1/30/2003 at 11:59pm, James V. West wrote:
RE: Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
I think it sounds cool, but I've never played Donjon (yet). I'd first have to play that game and get a good feel for it.
But the idea of letting ones be facts is intriguing.
On 1/31/2003 at 4:09am, J B Bell wrote:
Mutant Child of Pool & Donjon Already Stalking Our Child
You might check out Paganini's as-yet-untested, but very cool, Cornerstone.
--JB
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 4785
On 1/31/2003 at 7:26am, Colin the Riot wrote:
RE: Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
You're right. That is very cool.
On 2/1/2003 at 3:34am, Bob McNamee wrote:
RE: Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
I'm hoping we can test Cornerstone out in Indie netgaming soon...
BoB McNamee
On 2/2/2003 at 8:40pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
Bob McNamee wrote: I'm hoping we can test Cornerstone out in Indie netgaming soon...
So am I, but every time I mention it no one replies! C'mon guys, give me some encouragement! :)
On 2/3/2003 at 2:06am, Bob McNamee wrote:
RE: Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
Maybe we could do something Farscape-like with it, the next game or so after our Soap Episodes.
On 2/3/2003 at 5:33am, Colin the Riot wrote:
RE: Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
Give me a heads up when this goes down. I really want to try it out as well. Basically everything going on in Cornerstone's goals is what I wanted to happen by modifying the Pool.
On 2/3/2003 at 7:32am, Paganini wrote:
RE: Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
Hey Colin,
In that case, why don't you join the Indie-netgaming@yahoogroups.com group? It's devoted to organizing electronic play of Indie RPGs. It's where I'll be setting up the Cornerstone playtest.
On 2/3/2003 at 6:10pm, Colin the Riot wrote:
RE: Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
I am already a member. Thanks.
On 2/3/2003 at 7:37pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
Oh, right!
(pries foot from mouth with crowbar)
You're the Colin who started the non-zany fantasy PBeM.
Duh!
Sorry about that.
On 2/3/2003 at 7:44pm, Colin the Riot wrote:
RE: Squishing Donjon and the Pool together
C'est moi.
It's going really well, I think. It's hard for me to guage because it's the first I've ever run, but I'm pleased. I'll post about it in actual play after a few turns go by. The players seem to be playing off of each other much better than I imagined.
Colin