[INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
stefoid:
My aim is to provide tactical flair without the crunch. Id be interested in those players who like a good tactical fight. would this appeal to you?
(there are sections missing from this doco dealing with gear and equipment (basically there is no differentiation between gear and equipment) and about fighting mooks. If you want to read those sections, go to the link to my draft doco in my sig.)
Sections to look at are particularly the earlier sections that involve 'plays' and the last section about conflict resolution.
Quote
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5W32IfgIIkrOWYxNjg2MDEtZWQ0OS00YmIxLTk5ZTYtNDVmZjY0NWMyYjY3&hl=en&authkey=CLaJ4P4J
DarkHawkPro:
So far it looks like you have a great group tool for building a setting/story as a group. Hut when it came to mechanics my mind kinda wondered a bit.
So basically, its a climatic system with little actual dice. Where actions and their resolutions are based on a collective cooperation of the group., basically?
Callan S.:
Hi,
In terms of tactics which are like throwing a real life ball through a real life hoop (ie, dependent on physics or some other, external to the brain mechanism), it wouldn't appeal, as it's entirely based on lumpley principle sort of stuff (it even says 'the fiction always comes first'). From my observation, if such seems tactical, it's a perceptual error in confusing what one thinks would work for what actually, empirically does work. Such mechanics are, atleast part of the time, set to reward anyone who makes no distinction between one and the other.
stefoid:
Quote from: DarkHawkPro on April 27, 2011, 09:27:45 PM
So far it looks like you have a great group tool for building a setting/story as a group. Hut when it came to mechanics my mind kinda wondered a bit.
So basically, its a climatic system with little actual dice. Where actions and their resolutions are based on a collective cooperation of the group., basically?
[/b]
No -- players can make suggestions as to events that occur during story phase, particularly by bringing their own characters history and motivations into play to explain the story phase seed. Otherwise the GM resolves things - with pure narration during story phase or with the help of the conflict res mechanics during challenge phase.
none of that will make a lick of sense if you havent read the rules.
stefoid:
Quote from: Callan S. on April 27, 2011, 10:27:33 PM
Hi,
In terms of tactics which are like throwing a real life ball through a real life hoop (ie, dependent on physics or some other, external to the brain mechanism), it wouldn't appeal, as it's entirely based on lumpley principle sort of stuff (it even says 'the fiction always comes first'). From my observation, if such seems tactical, it's a perceptual error in confusing what one thinks would work for what actually, empirically does work. Such mechanics are, atleast part of the time, set to reward anyone who makes no distinction between one and the other.
Hi Callan. Im not what you mean.
The tactical nature of games doesnt come from any real life physics -- some idea of what actually would work, it comes from utilizing the game mechanics to achieve your ends. A purely abstract game like chess is nothing but tactics, based on utilizing its arbitrary mechanics.
Im hoping that the mechanics I have in place offer that kind of tactical approach, with the result being the player is able to use them to position their character favorably in the fiction.
For me, the fun part of tactical play is first designing your character to be able to overcome the kinds of challenges you expect it to face, and then utilizing the rules in the best way to overcome those challenges. planning and execution in other words.
For Ingenero, the way to do that is:
1) selection of types of plays
2) design of plays
3) when and how to utilize those plays
mechanics that influence these decisions, both in planning and execution are:
1) -2 penalty for repeat use of plays
2) large bonus for next play from successfully executing advantage seeking play (+3 / +4)
3) resource allocation decisions when buying plays
4) +1 bonus for executing purely defensive play(s) in any given round
5) decision about targeting the opposition directly (target or counter play), or targeting their actions (cross play ) as the best way to achieve your aims for the conflict.
6) resource risking to overachieve during execution of a play (risk body or soul)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page