The Forge Archives

Independent Game Forums => lumpley games => Topic started by: Ayyavazi on March 30, 2009, 06:16:53 AM



Title: With Your Permission?
Post by: Ayyavazi on March 30, 2009, 06:16:53 AM
Hello Lumpley.

So, I'm going to make a long story short. I started seriously developing a game system, and devised a conflict-resolution mechanic I wanted to term "rampaging d6s" After figuring out some flaws, I developed a task-resolution mechanic termed "die-by-die exchange". The two worked together to resolve conflicts.

Then, I read Dogs in the Vineyard. That's when I realized my resolution mechanics almost mirrored the see and raise mechanics of Dogs. Mind you, my resolution doesn't remind you of gambling or anything, but the heart of rolling dice, escalation, and meeting "bids" is all there. So here's my dilemma. I want to go forward with my system. I designed it completely apart from yours all on my own. But, it still mirrors your earlier work, and so I wouldn't feel right moving forwar without your approval. I don't even know if I legally could.

So, I'm asking if you'd mind if I go forward with my system. I'm easily willing to include your name in whatever form you'd like, giving you credit for inspiration and such.

Thanks for your time,

--Norm


Title: Re: With Your Permission?
Post by: lumpley on March 30, 2009, 07:37:33 AM
Hey Norm.

As I understand it, you don't need my permission at all unless you're reproducing my words, so please do go forward. (Even if you did need my permission, I'd give it.)

When I've arrived independently at something similar to someone else's work, I've included a note like "a similar resolution system appears in Vincent Baker's game Dogs in the Vineyard, so check that game out if you like it." You aren't obliged to do that, but it seems like good practice to me and if you do I'll feel good about it.

-Vincent


Title: Re: With Your Permission?
Post by: Ayyavazi on March 30, 2009, 12:05:06 PM
Hello again,

Thanks a bunch! I really appreciate your approval. And I will definitely include such a phrase in my game. It seems only fair.

Given your approval, I was wondering if you'd mind answering a few questions I have about utilizing the resolution mechanic in question.

In Dogs, it seems that every roll is a conflict, there is no set difficulty when the character is trying something in which the environment is the contender. There's no jump checks, for example. This all seems fine by me. In fact, you offer an example where in the intro sequence for a player, die rolls could represent glare and other things. I really like how this might play out in my system and world, and was wondering. Given the choice, which would you pick: something similar to your method for character vs. character conflicts, and set difficulties for one-person tasks, or to use the system for solo acts and non, with the GM utilizing Chaos Dice and Environment dice when presented with a task such as jumping a great distance?

If this isn't the right place, or if you don't want to answer, that is of course fine. But I would love to have some of your insights, since the systems are becoming more and more similar as I work on mine and realize the brilliance of yours.

Cheers,
--Norm

P.S. I'm not sucking up here. If I wasn't impressed by your game, I wouldn't have said anything about it.


Title: Re: With Your Permission?
Post by: lumpley on March 30, 2009, 12:16:39 PM
Well, Dogs has its equivalent to your chaos- and environmental dice (if I guess correctly what they are). When a character's doing something that obviously requires a roll, but there's no person in opposition, the GM rolls "demonic influence dice." So, the latter.

-Vincent


Title: Re: With Your Permission?
Post by: Ayyavazi on March 30, 2009, 12:42:22 PM
Thanks for the prompt reply. I was leaning that way myself, but I think you pushed me over the edge.

I'm also going to shamelessly adopt your stats as dice idea. I was working with a graduated stat system where you earned more dice and had to roll under your stat. The statistics analysis was weird, and though it fit the theme of the game, it was just too cumbersome and not elegant enough. It did offer gradations of gain though, which the stats as dice system doesn't quite have. What I mean is, a stat increased by 1 die in my old system about once every six experience points. Now, it would increase on a one-for-one. Though simpler, it also means characters can gain or lose power faster. Then again, that fits the theme I was going for even better.

Do you have any suggestions on stats you might use for a fantasy game with this system? I was thinking of these:

Body
Spirit
Mind - This might be derived from Body and Spirit

or, this list:

Body
--Strength
--Stamina
--Acuity
Soul
--Connection
--Spirit
--Mystery

Mind

--Charisma
--Ego
--Concentration
--Preservation
--Integrity
--Insight
--Intelligence
--Wisdom
--Awareness

The second set is derived from combinations of one stat of each of the two other sets.

Or maybe it should be re-worked to be more integrated like your stats are to allow escalation?

--Norm


Title: Re: With Your Permission?
Post by: lumpley on April 01, 2009, 09:04:47 AM
You know what stat scheme I chose for my game. What stat scheme you should choose for your game, I have no idea!

-Vincent


Title: Re: With Your Permission?
Post by: Paul Czege on April 01, 2009, 09:38:19 AM
Given the choice between comprehensive but generic stat names (Body, Mind, Spirit) and evocative stat names that telegraph a game's themes (Artful, Graceful, Powerful), I recommend the latter.

Paul


Title: Re: With Your Permission?
Post by: Ayyavazi on April 02, 2009, 02:05:24 PM
Thanks again Lumpley.  You've made a valid point. The stats I use should showcase the game's themes, and I'll have a better idea about that than anyone. And Paul, thanks for your input too. I'm having a problem where I want to be designing 3 rpgs at once, and am still hammering things out for my primary one. Anyhow, thanks again.


--Norm