[A System w/ No Name] Basics
Silverwave:
You might want to check out the somehow new Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3rd edition for the mechanic called Reckless and Conservative dice and Stance tracker. Basically, you have a slider (made out of puzzle set pieces that you clip together to form a tracker) with a number of red and green dots and between them a kind of separator which represent "neutral" stance. The more you push toward the red side, the more Reckless you are (you throw more Reckless dice), the more you go on the green side, the more conservative you are. Reckless dices tend to generates more successes (some sides have multiple successes on them) but can get you fatigue or bad side effects (call banes). The Conservative dices gives you less chances of failures (there is almost a single success on each side of the dice) but can cause a delay on your action.
It represent wether your character is being cautious and take his time to make sure he succeed (conversative) or rush head down carelessly in hope of getting better results but risking more (reckless). It's a mechanic of risk vs reward.
I feel like your Equilibrium mechanic tend toward this risk vs reward idea. Maybe you could get some idea from it.
Callan S.:
Marc, well there's a system that plays alongside a story, and there's story that is derived from the very movements of the mechanic itself.
From my observations, the system that plays alongside a story - whenever things get serious, people shunt that system to the curb (it's the optimal game move to do so). So that systems only every used for non serious, unimportant stuff and...what's the point of that? You could already decide the unimportant stuff by sheer fiat. So that's one observation on a system that plays alongside a story.
Marc Truant:
Quote from: Callan S. on February 03, 2011, 03:37:07 AM
Marc, well there's a system that plays alongside a story, and there's story that is derived from the very movements of the mechanic itself.
From my observations, the system that plays alongside a story - whenever things get serious, people shunt that system to the curb (it's the optimal game move to do so). So that systems only every used for non serious, unimportant stuff and...what's the point of that? You could already decide the unimportant stuff by sheer fiat. So that's one observation on a system that plays alongside a story.
The point is to mix storytelling with gaming simply. Storytelling is always fun, sure, especially making decisions based in someone else's setting and interacting with a world they run...
But without the factor of random chance with some sort of challenge, then you can always just assume you'll have things your way. That was the big problem my friend and I had when we ran games with hardly any system. We felt like we were too easy on the players, and we also felt like it provided too much room for the player to mess around without any sort of consequence.
And what's the fun in that? I mean, you can derive something from it, yeah, but there's also a lot of fun in knowing that you won't always come out on top... Plus, and maybe I'm the only one on these forums who thinks so, nothing is more exciting than a dice roll. Will I hit? Will I miss? Will I be able to flee this angry mob? Can I successfully convince the edgy bouncer to let me in? What will happen if I fail to open this locked safe, which holds the antidote to my poison?
Storytelling, like I said, is fun in itself, but adding a little math to it and giving a little challenge and random chance? That's why I play tabletop RPGs in the first place.
Callan S.:
Marc, I'm actually arguing pro dice rolls/mechanics involvement, rather than against them (which is probably what your used to encountering).
The parts of your mechanics which are to do with skill rolls or combat - they seem the same as most traditional designs. And to me most traditional designs are like glove puppets - the GM control the difficulty number absolutely and the modifiers absolutely and even the narration of outcomes pretty much absolutely, as much as a guy controls a glove puppet. But then the GM pretends the glove puppet decided someone didn't come out on top, not him? C'mon!
With your equilibrium, it might be a straight forward mechanic, but wherever you are on the equilibrium chart, there you are. No one can juggle some numbers and get the mechanic to produce whatever result they want from the moment. In that way it's not a glove puppet like skill checks are in possibly all mainstream RPG's and in your game too.
I don't know why 'GM chooses any DC he likes' skill checks didn't die years ago. I guess because when the GM chooses a DC the players like, they think the mechanics great. When the GM chooses a DC that's too high, the players blame the GM. It's a mechanic that never recieves blame itself, only praise.
Marc Truant:
Quote from: Callan S. on February 03, 2011, 05:09:50 PM
Marc, I'm actually arguing pro dice rolls/mechanics involvement, rather than against them (which is probably what your used to encountering).
The parts of your mechanics which are to do with skill rolls or combat - they seem the same as most traditional designs. And to me most traditional designs are like glove puppets - the GM control the difficulty number absolutely and the modifiers absolutely and even the narration of outcomes pretty much absolutely, as much as a guy controls a glove puppet. But then the GM pretends the glove puppet decided someone didn't come out on top, not him? C'mon!
With your equilibrium, it might be a straight forward mechanic, but wherever you are on the equilibrium chart, there you are. No one can juggle some numbers and get the mechanic to produce whatever result they want from the moment. In that way it's not a glove puppet like skill checks are in possibly all mainstream RPG's and in your game too.
I don't know why 'GM chooses any DC he likes' skill checks didn't die years ago. I guess because when the GM chooses a DC the players like, they think the mechanics great. When the GM chooses a DC that's too high, the players blame the GM. It's a mechanic that never recieves blame itself, only praise.
Hm. I think I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from.
As much as I'd like to take a more experimental tone with this system, whereas mechanics affect the story a lot more, the mastermind is really my creative partner. It's not to say I'm not experienced with design myself, but I'm more or less putting his own desires into rules and terms as well as encouraging him. Of course, some ideas are mine, but they have to go through the big man first! Sometimes we clash heads, but this is really just us trying to create a solid system where we can run our own campaigns.
The idea to share it with everyone else isn't something he entirely agrees with, but I remain convinced that if we do create a solid system, why keep it to ourselves?
But back to the main point, your point, the amount of control a GM exerts over any given scenario with our system is completely up to them and their players. If somebody wants to railroad, then they can... Though I hate railroading as much as the next guy, the system has no means to prevent it, and who am I to prevent it? If they want to control the game as an extension of their own, and only their own, narrative, then that's fine.
And it's also quite fine to create a liquid narrative where players' choices have a much larger effect on the story. Again, it's all up to the GM and their players, or if you'd like, the players and their GM.
If you had a hand in the creation and development of this system, however, what would your personal suggestions and touches be?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page