Hi guys.
I've read these forums for a while and just registered to post a link to my blog, where the pdf of my prototype ruleset is hosted. It's just two pages but it explains the core mechanics of Clout Interactive Story-Telling System (CISTS). I've run the numbers through my program and some hands-on dice testing, but I would love to hear some thoughts from the veterans of game creation.
In a nutshell, CISTS is about rolling X number of D6, rerolling some of the lower results based on skill level (to reduce variation for more skilled entities), adding and subtracting circumstantial modifiers, and comparing against a Difficulty Rating (DR).
The other pages in the blog describe the Clout project in more detail, if you're interested. Below I've linked the download page for the PDF:
http://cloutgames.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/an-introduction-to-cists/ (http://cloutgames.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/an-introduction-to-cists/)
I eagerly await your comments and criticism.
Thanks,
Clout
Hi,
I've looked at alot of designs over the years. This seems to fit a certain paradigm where basically the outcome of a particular attack is very definate, but the outcome of larger things becomes increasingly beyond the scope of the written rules. Like the outcome of the battle starts to be beyond the scope of the rules and way out of the scope of the rules the outcome to the entire campaign. The rules don't reference and thus don't control the outcome of the campaign (whether a campaign is multi session in length or just one session in length). Not that this isn't common amongst traditional game designs. I'm just wondering how you intend the overall campaign result to be determined? GM just decides in the end? I had a GM once who said basically you can do whatever you want, but you will end up at X in the end.