So after taking some time of from Powers That Be. I've decided to consider a couple of new ideas. One, based on the thread over in GNS Model Discussion: Good Gamist Design, i've decided that i want to limit what the GM can do in a single Mission. I've been thinking about a pool of d6's in the middle of the table that the GM can draw on for conflict. Once all the dice are gone, the mission is pretty much accomplished with no more mechanical interference from the GM. Essentially i would like to create a knowledge base for the Players so that they know what they might potentially face and be able to plan their actions accordingly.

The problem is that i also want a little bit of mystery. I don't want you to know exactly what your opposition will be in a given situation, but to know within maybe 4 dice or something.

I'm also thinking of simplifying stats down to simplify Level and Aptitude such that Aptitude is safer to gain (it only costs 1 point of Favor per point,) but Level is more useful as it is still used to determine how much "damage" you can suffer before death.

I don't know if anyone is really interested in this project other than me, i just thought i'd solicit some input.

Thomas

I did something similar with MARKED (which should still be on the first page here), in regards to limited pool size, and actually made it a focus of the design: the GM/Universe has a pool of 100 dice to use per session.

Exhausing the pool nets the player a choice of bonuses for their character, and ends the session.

To spice things up, the GM can escalate any Conflict up to 'Nightmare' level, which means he's rolling 12 dice against the player (as opposed to the 4- or 8-dice pools he'd normally be using). So you can't be totally sure the Weak Goblin isn't going to pull out the Armageddon Bomb or something.

Maybe something like that would help? Mind you, in mine the character is incapable of dying so pulling out Armageddon Bombs to drop at your feet is okay, I'm not sure what level of escalation would be managable in PTB.

Well, the focus of the game is really more pitting the players against one another instead of against the GM. Escalation of that nature isn't really something i was looking for. Currently i'm thinking about using the sum of all player's Levels and Aptitudes for the pool. I'll take a look at MARKED and see what i can steal...

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

Check out my Black Fire, linked within the Gamism: Step On Up essay, as well.

Best,
Ron

Oh, i knew i forgot to mention something. The whole idea really begin to take shape after i read Black Fire... Thanks Ron! I was going for a similar sort of idea only with the GM having the limited pool and the Players having a constant of some sort...

Thomas

I'm doing something similar with Danger Patrol. Each game is played as a series of seven chapters, and the "opposition pool" for each chapter escalates as you approach the big showdown at the end. The amount of opposition remaining is always visible out there on the table (I call it the "Danger Level").

For me, the mystery of how much danger is left isn't much of an issue. Obstacles have to be overcome in order to reduce the Danger Level, and it's not known to the players *what* they'll have to face in order to wipe out the threat. They only know how close they are to "winning", in a metagame sense.

One thing you might try is to use different dice to mix it up and keep the players on their toes. Something similar to MARKED, actually. Say you have 12 counters on the table that represent 12 remaining dice for the GM to use. When the GM cashes them in to make a roll, he might pick up d6s or he might pick up d10s, depending on the difficulty of the challenge. So the players know that there are 12 dice left in the GM's toolbox, but they can't be 100% sure exactly how much "challenge" there is remaining.

You might need to add a layer that regulates how often the GM can use larger die sizes, or make the GM reward the players in some way if he bumps the dice up (I prefer the latter).

Now I'm off to look at Black Fire again. I forget how Ron addressed this.