Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Charlie Gilb, August 17, 2009, 09:15:01 AM
Quote from: Charlie Gilb on August 17, 2009, 09:15:01 AM-Does this resolution system seem devoid of meaningful player choice? I had put a previous draft of my rules in First Thoughts, and Luke had made this comment. I wasn't sure what to make of it at the time, but I think I am seeing it now.
Quote from: Marshall Burns on August 25, 2009, 01:36:06 PMI really, really want to help here, but I'm having a very hard time separating your vision of a postapocalypso game from my own (as presented in The Rustbelt). It's difficulty because they're so similar, but I know that there's a difference.
Quote from: Marshall Burns on August 25, 2009, 01:36:06 PM1. The carry-forward amounts? Try adjusting them, based on what the situation currently is just after that outcome. F'rinstance, somebody ends up with somebody else pinned down? Give that first guy a bonus on the next round. That way, what you narrate matters.
Quote from: Marshall Burns on August 25, 2009, 01:36:06 PM2. If you want cool escalation, don't increase the die size; make the consequences of staying in the fight more severe. (This is mostly what DitV actually does. It's also what The Rustbelt does, behind all that crunch you don't like, and what Poison'd exactly does, without any crunch at all.)
Quote from: Marshall Burns on August 25, 2009, 01:36:06 PM3. Be stringent about justifying, through narration and roleplaying, the use of traits. (You may already be doing this; I can't tell.)
Quote from: Marshall Burns on August 25, 2009, 01:36:06 PM4. Disallow repetition outright. Or, impose a penalty for it, as in Sorcerer.
Quote from: Lance D. Allen on August 25, 2009, 02:34:55 PMFirst, as Marshall sort of points out, the fictional content of the narration is only important at two points in this example: At the beginning, when you decide which dice to roll, and at escalation, when you decide which dice to switch to.
Quote from: Lance D. Allen on August 25, 2009, 02:34:55 PMWhy do you get to add in Stubborn and Manipulative? Eric was somewhat stubborn. Ben wasn't at all manipulative.
Quote from: Lance D. Allen on August 25, 2009, 02:34:55 PMI see no reason, mechanically, not to keep rolling until you run out of dice. Like, absolutely none. Obviously Eric got bored of the conflict more than any other reason.
Quote from: Lance D. Allen on August 25, 2009, 02:34:55 PMI can definitely see where the problem is exacerbated with combat. Chances are, you're totally willing to hurt and kill an opponent, so there's no reason not to start at d12s as soon as you can justify it in the fiction. Now there's no escalation, so that's one less choice. There's also no good reason to de-escalate. Also, what happens if you give in combat? Escalation in your current system isn't an option, so it looks like you can be forced to give fairly easy in combat.
Quote from: Lance D. Allen on August 25, 2009, 02:34:55 PMWhat if they can simply take the pain to match, instead of escalating?
Quote from: Lance D. Allen on August 25, 2009, 02:34:55 PM Maybe instead of getting 2 dice for being stubborn, you can get 1 die, twice, for narrating your stubbornness, or 1 die, three times for narrating how manipulative you are.
Quote from: Charlie Gilb on August 25, 2009, 03:57:19 PMMy thoughts at the time were that the increased die size would yield potentially greater consequences. When rolling d4s, the most you Pain you would ever take from a failed Push is 3. For d12s, it would be 11. I am not sure that this is a good or bad way of doing it, but that was the reasoning that informed my decision at the time. I feel like I am totally missing your point here. :/