Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Chad, January 07, 2006, 04:13:13 AM
Quote from: Justin Marx on January 07, 2006, 05:12:36 AMHi Chad,First of all, the setting is tres cool. I'd like to play this a lot. Are you going with the myth of Zhang Zhung + Taoism only or are you adding in the pre-Buddhist Bon religious elements of Tibet as well?
Quote from: Justin Marx on January 07, 2006, 05:12:36 AMA quick question - how much can the GM use the 'dramatic' double dice bonus in play? If it is whenever he likes, is it to be encouraged or discouraged in the text? Or is the cool stuff only for the players and big NPCs? Double dice is pretty powerful, then again it looks like you'll need it in order to make reversals and seize the narrative. As you said in your referred thread, forcing players to come up with cool stunts on a moment-to-moment basis becomes pretty difficult but the mechanic is so chunky that it pretty much means that winning a fight depends on cool narration, and narrative fatigue (like in Feng Shui) will set in. Is having a smaller bonus, such as +1 or +2 dice, inappropriate? Does a reversal have to require double the aggressers dice, or can it be less?
Quote from: Justin Marx on January 07, 2006, 05:12:36 AMThe Yin/Yang dichotomy is a useful paradigm and a very flavourful way of evoking the setting through play. In regards to the trait balance, how are the Yin/Yang dice divided? So if I have a 'Body' aptitude of 3, how many dice do I get to divide between Yin/Yang?
Quote from: Justin Marx on January 07, 2006, 05:12:36 AMAs for working for non-combat actions, it seems pretty solid to me. This is The Tao after all, this is the Way everything should work. However, flavour text and good descriptions of how the balance applies to different types of conflicts would be necessary. For instance, how much of the death/night aspect of Yin applies (for instance, the occult, witchcraft etc.)? I would love to see a social conflict play out with this mechanic. Can different aptitudes be played against one another, such as a Body vs. Mind conflict, or is the choice of traits circumscribed?
Quote from: Justin Marx on January 07, 2006, 05:12:36 AMIs this Pulp-gamist at its finest, or is there a general theme of preserving the balance of the world in the story through mechanics in play? From a larger story consideration, how is this theme tied into the reward mechanism?
Quote from: Justin Marx on January 08, 2006, 09:38:22 PMWith the 'zooming-in' you mentioned, being applicable per trait, what you are basically looking at is specialising every trait in two ways using the polarity. This means that every trait needs to be defined and having tactical play choices - so for instance I CANNOT use Yin and Body to attack - I can only use it to defend, for example. The yin/yang traits need to limit tactical options, otherwise they become meaningless, you can do anything with anything and all it requires is narration in a different way. And cool tactical options is the key to good gamist play.This is a thorny issue. Have you thought which set traits you would use in play? If you have a small list of traits, you can then define actions using Yin/Yang. Let's hear 'em!
Quote from: Chad on January 09, 2006, 04:05:18 AMThe Primary Stats could be: Body, Mind and Social as these seem to resonate with Tibetan buddhist tradition of the three gates of activity: Body, Speech and Mind.and are time honored processes for categorizing PC action.
Quote from: Chad on January 09, 2006, 04:05:18 AMI never have been a 100% clear on what Gamism as a RPG model meant. I often understood it to be derogatory style of play in which players are copeting with each other and the GM. Which I don't think is something I would like to encourage. I have also understood it to mean a mode in which system mechanics are used for tactical advantage, and forms another layer of tactical gaming alongside a good story - now that i like!