[ASH: A Saviour’s Heart] Full Game and System-Specific Questions
Thriff:
Rubbermancer,
I would like to call you Rmancer, or Rman, or Rubbs. Are any of these acceptable to you?
And well, gosh… I don’t think I’ll ever forget the concept of the “evil weenie”.
I love the way you write, you are a really good writer. Congratulations on that!
After reading your suggestion, I agree. I want all Sessioneers to have “floppy pseudo-meat” on their minds at all times. An excellent Sessioneer will be largely determined by their floppy pseudo-meat capacity, the more adept they are at identifying and appreciating the sublime beauty of multiple floppy pseudo-meats for any given context will determine their success as a Sessioneer.
I like the imagery of The Mechanical Soil for an Evil Weenie Tree in Your Mind. It’s important that this source of evil weenies be natural, unlike a factory which is rigid and mechanistic. Evil weenies must also be bountiful, and trees are good at continually producing things (leaves, more leaves, acorns, and fruits...)
I want the Sessioneer to be reacting to the PCs’ actions, but also prepared to introduce fiction elements that are either pre-determined or (more likely) impromptu dramatic or practical challenges to their Seek or Code. Evil Weenies. Exactly.
Please name some of these games of “leveling down”. I’d like to read some more games!
And no, I don’t think either $10 scenario applies to ASH’s Integrity mechanic. Could you explain what you meant Stefoid?
Thanks,
T
Rubbermancer:
Quote
After reading your suggestion, I agree. I want all Sessioneers to have “floppy pseudo-meat” on their minds at all times.
Haha, I was kidding, but OK, AWESOME! In that case, feel free to rip my words directly, if you want.
As for leveling down games, the one that still stands front and centre in my mind is Don't Rest Your Head, plus multiple take-offs in the same series, from Evil Hat. http://www.evilhat.com/home/dryh/ It's wickedly fun, although I tend to replace a lot of the setting content with ideas of my own.
Rubbermancer:
Blarr, and yeah, you can call me any and all of those things, or Joachim, or Joe. Some people also call me Shaving Ronald's Car. I realized belatedly that most people tend to use their real names here. Wonder if I can get my handle changed... Sorry about that.
Thriff:
Hello all,
At the risk of being obfuscatory (I am very much beginning to appreciate the irony of that word), I’m posting ASHrpg V2.00 in the same thread as V1.00.
Welcome.
So, let’s try again shall we?
Simply put, V2.00 is “doing less, better”. The language is simpler, layout polished, design goals refined, and many mechanics have been altogether purged. Blessedly.
Thank you to everyone whose comments have helped me return with V2.00. I sincerely appreciate it.
It’s a good sign that I don’t need to summarize the game in my next post. Just read the thing, it’s barely 25 pages of text.
http://ashrpg.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ashrpg-v2-00.pdf
In-game terminology following...
My Questions
1.) Yes there are now elements of the setting in this version, but that’s not my focus of this release. I want to focus on system mechanics. I’ve provided enough setting details to understand the important system choices.
2.) Is my writing style easy(ier) to read? Is ASH accessible to you as a prospective player?
3.) Design goals. Have I achieved them? To what degree? Where are my strengths and weaknesses relative to my stated design goals? I want to invite general responses to this question (specific is nice too).
4.) I know you’re going to complain about the term “Heart”. I’ll admit that it still sounds somewhat cheesy to me, so you don’t have to argue too hard. I want to stick with it for a bit, feel it out. If you have anything constructive to say about this term choice, let me know. Otherwise… well, we can nitpick later.
5.) I used X, Y, Z for character names/places in my examples. This makes reading the examples easier (I think) for a first time reader. But I’ve sacrificed the aesthetic of this game’s setting. I plan to change X, Y, Z to names once I’ve filled-in Part Two: Setting. What do you think?
6.) When considering Domains I feel the same way I did about 30+ pages of my last release. Worried.
Are Domains too restrictive?
I included them because they have setting importance (fundamental fabric of the world). They (I hope) encourage players to consider problems from a particular mind-set, namely: organics, matter, and knowledge (Druid, Elementalist, Auromancer respectively). I want to include Domains to foster player creativity and a stronger sense of identification with one aspect of reality.
Argue me on this one…?
7.) The new application of Context Bonus. Do you like the idea of having re-tries for the RPS? (Remember, at most you’ll get 4 re-tries (if your opponent doesn’t bother to try). More likely it’ll be 0 or 1).
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to ASH,
T
stefoid:
Quote from: Thriff on September 24, 2011, 11:40:51 PM
And no, I don’t think either $10 scenario applies to ASH’s Integrity mechanic. Could you explain what you meant Stefoid?
An issue for me (with my own game and yours) is the desire to encourage players to take their motivations/seeks/codes into account when making decisions without actually impacting that decision with meta-game mechanics. This might not be an issue for you, if so , dont worry about it.
Integrity is a stick - if the character does not follow their stated motivations, they get hit with the stick - they loose $10.
Ingenero uses a carrot, (sort of - its in a state of flux, but for the sake of argument) - if the character does not follow their stated motivations they dont get the carrot - they miss out on making $10.
I think the carrot is the softer approach, and therefore less of an issue for me personally.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page