Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Eero Tuovinen, January 02, 2005, 11:01:47 AM
Quote from: BankueiFunny enough, when I was designing WoS, I really was thinking about conflict in that classic Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Hero, etc. fashion. But then again, for designing conflict, I always either turn to Indian epics or Chinese ones as my source of utterly intertwined, nasty conflict. All that said, a couple of key points:
QuoteIn both the finished version, and the working version in the thread here at the Forge, I highly recommend that the players get an overview of the relationship map AND be connected to two of the NPCs on the relationship map.
QuoteThe reason I suggest this is that it puts players into defining why their heroes are involved, it takes out the work of trying to "hook" them and allows them to point towards what sub-conflicts engage them right off the bat. After that point, just keep ramping up the conflicts they've chosen as interesting for them, and ignore the rest.
QuoteAnd yes, most of the characters will not be used. I tried to throw out several sub-conflicts for the players to hook onto, allowing a group to focus on whatever ones sounded fun.
QuoteDid anyone develop any relationship traits, or get to use them as augments? Missing out on this is missing half the game. I'll be interested to hear how player engagement goes over the long term, and whether you'll try integrating this key feature of HQ or not.
Quote from: BankueiDon't forget that the NPCs are a perfect means of instigating a faster pace. All those loaded conflicts? Have someone do something drastic, and push things along faster. Rest assured that alliances will sort themselves out along the way, especially as people become more desperate to push the situation in their favor.