[A System w/ No Name] Basics
Callan S.:
Good question. Something like a set amount of points the GM has, and it costs him a certain amount of them to call a skill check, costing more to increase OR decrease the skill difficulty. Also monsters cost points to introduce a combat with. Have it the amount of points recover per real life hour of play (up to a certain limit) and the GM also has a special cache of points which increase a bit per session, that he can draw on if he feels he needs more currency in a hurry, but are obviously something saved for a special occasion.
Also I'd have the instructions tell players to write say three things that are important to their character. Then when a skill roll or monster comes around they write down something that is related to those important things that is to do with the roll, and draw a line from the important things to it on a sheet. The record how many times the suceed or fail at these things and drawing a sense of what that'd mean in the fiction, from that record.
Before you try and think of ways of breaking it, I'm working from the assumption that how your playing is much like working as a group to build a sandcastle. Ie, people might push for their own designs on parts of the sandcastle, but no ones looking for a way to kick the thing over. If so, there's not much point looking for a way to break it. It is worth checking whether it allows people to creatively push others without others being a complete pushover ('everyone just agrees'), nor a complete stone wall ('GM's word is final'). I think what I suggested allows participants some strength, but not absolute strength. Anyway, that's my suggestion.
Marc Truant:
Quote from: Callan S. on February 04, 2011, 11:49:20 PM
Good question. Something like a set amount of points the GM has, and it costs him a certain amount of them to call a skill check, costing more to increase OR decrease the skill difficulty. Also monsters cost points to introduce a combat with. Have it the amount of points recover per real life hour of play (up to a certain limit) and the GM also has a special cache of points which increase a bit per session, that he can draw on if he feels he needs more currency in a hurry, but are obviously something saved for a special occasion.
Also I'd have the instructions tell players to write say three things that are important to their character. Then when a skill roll or monster comes around they write down something that is related to those important things that is to do with the roll, and draw a line from the important things to it on a sheet. The record how many times the suceed or fail at these things and drawing a sense of what that'd mean in the fiction, from that record.
Before you try and think of ways of breaking it, I'm working from the assumption that how your playing is much like working as a group to build a sandcastle. Ie, people might push for their own designs on parts of the sandcastle, but no ones looking for a way to kick the thing over. If so, there's not much point looking for a way to break it. It is worth checking whether it allows people to creatively push others without others being a complete pushover ('everyone just agrees'), nor a complete stone wall ('GM's word is final'). I think what I suggested allows participants some strength, but not absolute strength. Anyway, that's my suggestion.
I'm not sure about that first idea, but I definitely do like the second about writing the three important things. We have something like that, Characteristics, that are just basic ways of helping to sketch out a character...and if the GM sees it fit in any given situation, it'll either help the roll or increase its difficulty. It still needs a bit rounding out, but that's the basic idea.
As far as your sand castle analogy goes, what I'm thinking is including a system similar to Wushu where players can veto any given decision if they so wish. My friend actually became really interested in Wushu the other day, so we'll see where that goes.
Callan S.:
I'm kind of thinking what puts you off the first idea is "But then as GM I wont have absolute power!". When really that's the idea. It depends - if you can say "I want absolute power as GM, then sort of give the impression players have agency but really it's just me allowing their actions as I will, on a moment to moment basis. Then I can cut them off whenever something I think, all by myself rather than as a member of a group or activity, isn't right, I'll cut them off. But not too often or that'll destroy the illusion of player agency" then cool, you know what you want and hey, okay, that's what you want. But if you can't admit that's the arrangement when it is (jeez how many times have I GM'ed under that arangement? Alot! I'll admit it!), well you've got a problem there and it doesn't just end at saying whether you like the idea or not. Really.
Is it terrible to bring up the idea? It just seems fact to me. If you can say the above, then you know what your doing and want to do it and okay. But if your telling yourself your doing X when really your doing Y - I dunno, is it horrible to point out the denial? Heh, probably still is, actually - that's (conflicted) human nature. Anyway, if there's a third scenario rather than just my two, I'm not insisting the two I described are the only ones that could be present. I just think they are the only ones present.
Quote
Wushu where players can veto any given decision if they so wish.
That'd really be nothing to do with the system I described, as it's absolute strength/a free veto. Creative push and pull doesn't involve one party going 'NO!' at all. So player veto is about as bad as GM veto (actually, given the GM is just another player, it's exactly the same thing)
Quote
Characteristics, that are just basic ways of helping to sketch out a character...and if the GM sees it fit in any given situation, it'll either help the roll or increase its difficulty.
I think this will make your players come to lothe writing out characteristics. Because they will be accutely aware of how any characteristic could be swung around and turned into a penalty against them. They will have a strong urge to try and min max them so they only ever give a benefit (and that's the optomistic players!), they will make them generic as possible, or they will just find a real disinterest in writing them at all and will grugingly write the minimum required. Characteristics will become the unfun of your game - players basically being penalised for being creative. Or if they end up getting more bonuses from creatively writing characteristics than penalties, why not just make characteristics only ever give bonuses/never penalties? I'd really suggest either characteristics give a bonus to a roll, or nothing happens and there is no penalty.
Okay, those are my iconoclastic ideas!
Marc Truant:
UPDATE!
We modified the hell out of the old rules. A lot less math is involved this time around...and we stripped it down to the VERY very basics.
The new conflict resolution system is influenced mainly by Risus while the skills and attributes system are still influenced by World of Darkness... The new rules and whatnot are detailed in the document.
horomancer:
Hey there. Just viewed the doc in your first post, it is the updated version correct? Mainly I'm confused as there is no mention of equilibrium anywhere, so I don't understand what people are talking about, but oh well
I've worked on my own system on the side and it has many parallels to yours. I like the minimalist approach to stats and skills, though i do not see anywhere on what die is used for the game. I assume d6.
Some points- You have ranged and melee combat as their own separate skills and dice pools. I could see combat being a mix bag of these two and wounder what happens when I switch from one to the other then back? Do I need to keep track of both die pools? If I see i'm loosing in one pool can I switch to another skill and suddenly have a full dice pool again?
If I read static resolution correctly, either i pass or I don't on a static challenge, correct? No rolling of dice to meet a static number, just Stat+Skill >= DC. I could see that being a very frustrating thing as a players when they are off by 1.
In your system is there a method to factor in fumbles and other extreme failures? It doesn't have to be tied in directly to the dice, but I think something should always be present to cover the unexpected screw ups.
All and all it looks solid. Some minor suggestions for you-
1. Let players add skills for very specific and highly trained professions. Someone wants to be a doctor? Let them have a medical skill as apposed to just rolling Technology. Having such a mechanic goes a long way in letting players make custom characters, and keeping some players from trying to BS their way through a situation with inappropriate skill rolls.
2. Thematic Batteries. I saw it digging around the archives on this site. A player makes up a personality quirk for their character. At anytime they can invoke the quirk for a minus on a roll, but doing so grants them a bonus on a future roll. The example given was a character known to be a 'Reckless flyboy' driving an airship. The player forced a roll for a fairly mundane task of docking an airship at a -1, which granted them a +1 they could use later in game during a daring air chase. Simple, effective, and encourages players to take chances. You could use it for settings where mana may seem out of place, but you still want players to have that boosting option for rolls.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page