*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 02, 2014, 01:12:01 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
46709 Posts in 5588 Topics by 13297 Members Latest Member: - Shane786 Most online today: 29 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Print
Author Topic: [Steampunk Crescendo] Out on a limb  (Read 9316 times)
dindenver
Member

Posts: 1049

Don't Panic!


WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2012, 01:39:14 PM »

Dave,
Is "to defeat the Antagonist" a perfect Goal or a horrible one?
  I don't want to say it is a horrible one, but it would be pretty bad, because a Goal needs to take at least 4 steps to accomplish and an Antagonist can be defeated in one step.

Am I probably going to have to choose, at any given moment, whether to pursue my Goal or my fight vs the Antagonist?
  Players are able to pursue the Antagonist, their Goal or both at their discretion. The only limiting factor might be the particulars of the scene they are in. but that is merely a limit of how creative you can be, not a mechanical or social contract one.

What problem does your game solve?
  Well, this is the problem, I know what it solves, but I don't know how to describe it without sounding like every RPG designer ever.
  This game lets you gain power without leveling up, it lets you change the setting in a way that matters to you and it provides a real 'punk dystopic setting to do it all in. You can redeem yourself, your antagonist or even the whole world.
  Does that sound good? How can I punch it up or open it up to a wider audience, or make my audience notice it among the sea of other RPGs?
Logged

Dave M
Author of Legends of Lanasia RPG (Still in beta)
My blog
Free Demo
Dan Maruschak
Member

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2012, 04:05:38 PM »

it lets you change the setting in a way that matters to you and it provides a real 'punk dystopic setting to do it all in. You can redeem yourself, your antagonist or even the whole world.
Dave, I don't know that this will be helpful to you or not, but this strikes me as a contradiction. If the world is fixable it's not a dystopia, is it? The combination of the gonzo "dirigibles with howitzers" stuff with the broody stuff is hard for me to wrap my head around, too. (This is part of the reason I was turned off from your game way back during the game chef playtest: I thought it was about morally conflicted people being crushed under the boot of society, but in play it seemed like you were most excited about an experience like the Van Helsing movie that had none of the elements that I thought were supposed to be interesting in the game).
Logged

my blog | my podcast | My game Final Hour of a Storied Age needs playtesters!
David Berg
Member

Posts: 997


« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2012, 06:46:12 PM »

Players are able to pursue the Antagonist, their Goal or both at their discretion. The only limiting factor might be the particulars of the scene they are in. but that is merely a limit of how creative you can be, not a mechanical or social contract one.

Huh.  Well, then, I must admit that I'm confused by the AP experiences you report.  I figured maybe folks were whiffing on Goal-seeking because going after an Antagonist was easier or more fun or something.  I was wondering if perhaps "design your character to crush a specific enemy, then go out and do that" was a huge part of the game.  I mean, that sounds fun to me, and fairly unique (Misspent Youth sorta does that, but in a different way).

This isn't a Game Development thread, and you didn't list the Antagonist factor among the stuff that's most important to you, so I'll move on.  Just wanted to toss it out, though.

This game lets you gain power without leveling up, it lets you change the setting in a way that matters to you and it provides a real 'punk dystopic setting to do it all in. You can redeem yourself, your antagonist or even the whole world.

Hey, I like that!  Except for the "without leveling up" part. 

I think this describes both the fictional content and the activities of play in a pretty appealing fashion:  "Gain power and bring meaningful change to a punk dystopia!  Will you redeem yourself, your antagonist, or the whole world?"

The next thing I personally would want to know is something about system and social form.  Lite/crunchy, cooperative/competitive, make stuff up/problem-solve, etc.  What skills are demanded of me, and how will I be relating to my fellow players?

Then logistics: duration, number of players, age.

Depending on the answers to these, they could be folded together into a single pitch or presented separately.  I'm not really sure what's ideal on that front.  "A creative, collaborative roleplaying game.  3-6 players.  2-4 hours." -- that might cover it.  But if you have something more interesting to highlight about the gameplay, that might be preferable.

Do I work together with my fellow players to change the dystopia, or do we just take turns pursuing individual changes separately?

What do I have to be good at in order to do well at this game?  Math?  Strategy?  Acting?  Authoring?  Convincing?  Humor?  Listening?

The more distinctive the answers, the better!  If it's just "you have to have a decent imagination and be able to portray a character" then that can go down in the hierarchy.

So, here's a stab at it:

Steampunk Crescendo
Future nightmare or better tomorrow?
Gain power and bring meaningful change to a punk dystopia!  In a land of vampires, magic, and super-science, to what will you aspire?  Will you redeem yourself, your antagonist, or the whole world?
Collaboratively define the world as it is, and then author the personal quest your character will undertake to change it.
A roleplaying game for 3-6 players.  ~4 hours.
  • Quick-to-learn, quick-to-use ruleset.
  • System gracefully resolves player/GM conflicts.
  • Characters improve and change while you play.
  • Gripping stories and engaging tactical combat.

What do you think?  A step in the right direction?
Logged

here's my blog, discussing Delve, my game in development
dindenver
Member

Posts: 1049

Don't Panic!


WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2012, 10:28:40 AM »

Dan,
  I appreciate the feedback. Believe it or not, your feedback was some of the most valuable to my original design.

If the world is fixable it's not a dystopia, is it?
  Typically, PC Goals have been more personally oriented and less fixing the world. Even some of the really big Goals have been about fixing a small part of the world. I saw opening Orphanages, Creating a safe enclave for vampires and wiring the Bronx for electricity as some of the biggest changes players tried to affect with their characters. I think the world is still a dystopia, even if all three of those are realized, no?

  As to the juxtaposition of Dark and Brooding setting vs. Player Empowerment. I hear you. And it was a design issue, I really struggled with. In the end, there are limits on what the PCs can do, but it is up to the group to acknowledge, use or obey those limits. When I GM'd I pretty much followed the players lead and when you played with me, out group was in a pretty over-the-top mode. Sorry if that ruined the experience for you. The reality is, it is a tough balance to allow the characters to be vampires, Mages, inventors and more (possibly all at the same time) and say, but don't get carried away. So, what I did was put tools the GM can use to create boundaries and guidelines for their players but then try not to overemphasize them so that the GM does not see that as "the game."

  I did credit you as a playtester and give you a thanks in the credits and I do mean it, your help was invaluable, thanks again Dan.
Logged

Dave M
Author of Legends of Lanasia RPG (Still in beta)
My blog
Free Demo
dindenver
Member

Posts: 1049

Don't Panic!


WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2012, 01:11:17 PM »

Dave,
  Thanks for brainstorming with me, it is REALLY appreciated.

I figured maybe folks were whiffing on Goal-seeking because going after an Antagonist was easier or more fun or something.
  yeah, this is an accurate assessment, players that didn't go after their Goals were ones that either did not take initiative, or were having mroe fun doing  something else to remember their Goal.

Lite/crunchy, cooperative/competitive, make stuff up/problem-solve, etc. 
OK, I am always bad with Lite vs. Crunchy. Personally, I don't care and I have a lot of tolerance for crunch. Plus I have played some old school games that really raised the bar on what is "crunchy."
  I would say it is less crunchy than Dresden, more so than InSpectres. It would fall into a similar category as Dogs in the Vineyard in that the mechanics matter, but there is no real way to "game" them.

What skills are demanded of me, and how will I be relating to my fellow players?
  So, skills that players need:
Tactics, the way dice are used, you will either need a mind for tactics or be willing to take help from a fellow player that does. There are not maps and figures, but I have fond players that don't like "tactics" can be overwhelmed with the dice mechanics at first.
Narration, you need to be comfortable setting scenes, you will be doing that in play. And there are cases where you as a player has a lot more authorship than usual. These are rare, but if you do
Planning, you need to be able to figure out at least 4 discrete steps in your Goal if you want to pursue them.
Creativity, the scene framing and character narration is divided more evenly among players. You will need to be able to improvise based on actions taken by other players and the GM in order to tie what is happening with what you want for your character.

Duration, number of players, age:
I think 3 hours is probably the minimum to get anything out of this game. A 6 player game where each character achieves at least one Goal would take about 30 hours. As to age, I am bad at this, I know I have had 15-year olds play. There is not a lot of mature content and the math is pretty simple. Maybe 13 and up? I know this works with 3-8 players. I am not sure if it works for one-on-one. Not sure it would though.

Steampunk Crescendo
Future nightmare or better tomorrow?
Gain power and bring meaningful change to a punk dystopia!  In a land of vampires, magic, and super-science, to what will you aspire?  Will you redeem yourself, your antagonist, or the whole world?
Collaboratively define the world as it is, and then author the personal quest your character will undertake to change it.
A roleplaying game for 3-6 players.  ~4 hours.

    Quick-to-learn, quick-to-use ruleset.
    System gracefully resolves player/GM conflicts.
    Characters improve and change while you play.
    Gripping stories and engaging tactical combat.

Great start!

Maybe:
Steampunk Crescendo

Bring meaningful change to a steampunk dystopia!  In a land of vampires, magic, and super-science, to what will you aspire?  Will you redeem yourself, your antagonist, or the whole world?
The Mastermind will make an Antagonist that you and your friends will work together to defeat! What will you do?
A roleplaying game for 3-6 players.  3+ hours.

    Quick-to-learn, easy-to-use ruleset.
    Conflicts are resolved using a map-less tactical system.
    Solid and compelling setting with room for player customization.
    Characters improve and change while you play.
    Events unfold in a compelling and logical manner.

  Is that any better?
Logged

Dave M
Author of Legends of Lanasia RPG (Still in beta)
My blog
Free Demo
David Berg
Member

Posts: 997


« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2012, 06:27:16 PM »

Cool, I think this is sounding more and more like a decent pitch.


Here's a question, pertinent to both your last comments and your proposed blurb:

What's the interaction between "I pursue my character's quest to change this part of the world" and "I work together with my friends to defeat an Antagonist"?

Do I take turns doing one and then the other?  Are the two one and the same?  Might I wind up doing only one, and not doing the other?

I tend to like pitches that sound unified.  Lists of disparate features leave me worried about coherence.  But that might just be me.


Separate question: if I spend those 3+ hours, does that mean I've had one satisfying session out of many, or that the game's over?
Logged

here's my blog, discussing Delve, my game in development
dindenver
Member

Posts: 1049

Don't Panic!


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2012, 09:38:39 PM »

What's the interaction between "I pursue my character's quest to change this part of the world" and "I work together with my friends to defeat an Antagonist"?
Characters can experience nine basic outcomes:
1) Character achieves their Goal and defeats the Antagonist
2) Character achieves their Goal and does not affect the Antagonist
3) Character achieves their Goal and is defeated by the Antagonist
4) Character does not interact with their Goal and defeats the Antagonist
5) Character does not interact with their Goal and does not affect the Antagonist
6) Character does not interact with their Goal and is defeated by the Antagonist
7) Character indulges their Drawback and defeats the Antagonist
8) Character indulges their Drawback and does not affect the Antagonist
9) Character indulges their Drawback and is defeated by the Antagonist
  The significance of this is, the Player decides. There are mechanical benefits to pursuing your Goal and their are mechanical benefits to pursuing your Drawback. But apart from that, each player decides for themselves which is more fun for them and they can pursue it without any constraint or restraint. Like InSpectres, this is a game where you can't railroad the players, even if you try (this isn't a challenge to precocious players, just a design goal I think I met)...

If I spend those 3+ hours, does that mean I've had one satisfying session out of many, or that the game's over?
So, in a single 3 hour session, you can see on average one player achieve their goal and the group will face at least one major antagonist. It took about 30 hours of play to get a group of 6 players enough scenes for each of them to achieve at least one Goal. We could have continued on, but Dresden was just released, so we played that instead. I've had about 30 different people play it. There were about two people who had real issues with the system and maybe 5 or so who were underwhelmed. The rest had fun and I even had people seek me out for additional sessions after their initial session.
For me the goal was to design a game where the GM was encouraged to say "Yes" and then give them tools to deal with the consequences of that. That is part of the reason why the player picks their own goal and they get a goal tracker. With the player determining if heir actions work towards their Goal and with a set number of steps, it becomes a clear guide to players and the GM where the player is on the race to their goal. This is something a lot of games do not do very well. It was a major part of my design goal to give the players and GM a facility to know what was an acceptable Goal and what was an acceptable number of steps to get there, And then I gave the players who would deny themselves their Goal a bonus for wallowing in their Drawback. It is an interesting and fun dynamic.
On top of that the dice mechanic is fun and challenging and the setting is inspiring.
  Is that a better picture? I feel like I am doing a horrible job of explaining my game (hence the request for marketing help).
Logged

Dave M
Author of Legends of Lanasia RPG (Still in beta)
My blog
Free Demo
David Berg
Member

Posts: 997


« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2012, 11:24:44 PM »

Goals/Antagonists

It sounds like a short but accurate answer about how Goal-seeking and Antagonist-thwarting relate would be:

"The game provides no specific relationship between these activities, but does allow you a fair amount of choice in how they intersect for you."

Correct?

I'd want to know that pretty soon after reading pitch blurbs about both features.


Session/game length

Alas, telling me "1 goal per 3 hrs, 6 goals per 30 hrs" doesn't help me. 

Let's say I sit down to play for 4 hours.  What are my most likely outcomes?

Antagonist: by "face" do you mean "resolve (e.g. defeat)" or just "encounter"?

Goal: Suppose I am actually pursuing my Goal.  Am I most likely to come close, make no progress, get halfway there, or achieve it?  If I'm 1 of 4 players does that mean I have a 1 in 4 chance of achieving it?

Is it expected that at the end of those 4 hours I will be in a satisfying place to stop, and will want to start from scratch with a new character the next time I play this game?  Or is it expected that I'll be mid-mission or mid-story and will be disappointed if I don't get another 5 sessions to finish what I've set out to do?


Goals optional

You've pointed out that wallowing in your Drawback is a viable alternative to pursuing your Goal (that should go somewhere in the pitch!).  I assumed that playing up the Drawback was a means to an end, which I guess would have to be thwarting your Antagonist (or is there another end I'm missing?).  But your outcomes #8 and #9 make me unsure.  If they're both just failed attempts at #7, then cool, I understand the risk that things might not work out. 

But if wallowing in your Drawback and not affecting your Antagonist is, like, something a player might want to do, then I'm not getting any sense of a unified appeal for this game.  If I can play it to wallow and fail and ignore Antagonists and indulge in dystopian superscience, and my buddy can power up and be awesome and achieve goals and defeat Antagonists and change the world with magic, what's tying us together at the table? 

Is some of the stuff you're describing as player-driven actually group-driven?  So my buddy and I would not be playing so oppositely at the same table? 

Or are we simply expected to enjoy inhabiting the same world and engaging with the same mechanics?
Logged

here's my blog, discussing Delve, my game in development
dindenver
Member

Posts: 1049

Don't Panic!


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2012, 12:23:00 AM »

"The game provides no specific relationship between these activities, but does allow you a fair amount of choice in how they intersect for you."
Correct?
Well, this is what I mean by player-driven Goals. If a player cares about it, the mechanics enables them to do this in a way that is transparent to them, the other players and the GM. If they don't care, the mechanics don't force them along a track.

Let's say I sit down to play for 4 hours.  What are my most likely outcomes?
  I have run a ton of Convention games. all of them with 4-hour time slots. consistently, the players get to a good end point. about 50% of the time one player is even able to accomplish their Goal. There is time enough for character relationships to build, exploration to happen, one or two small conflicts and one final showdown. I have played long term campaigns and they work well and allow other players to take advantage of the Goal system at their own pace.

Antagonist: by "face" do you mean "resolve (e.g. defeat)" or just "encounter"? I mean a full blown conflict with a satisfying result.

Goal: Suppose I am actually pursuing my Goal.  Am I most likely to come close, make no progress, get halfway there, or achieve it?  If I'm 1 of 4 players does that mean I have a 1 in 4 chance of achieving it?
OK, technically every player in the group could achieve their Goal in about 5-6 scenes (easily accomplished in 2-3 hours). But that would depend on every player pushing for their Goal equally hard. Basically, the way it works is, when you perform an Action, you have to declare an Action Type (sort of like Moves in Apocalypse World I think). One of the Action Types available is "Inspired Act" and it lets you advance your Goal marker one slot (in a conflict you take a penalty to your current action equal to your current Goal level). Do this 4 times and your Goal is complete. At which point Goal is set to 0 and your character selects a new Goal and Drawback.

Is it expected that at the end of those 4 hours I will be in a satisfying place to stop, and will want to start from scratch with a new character the next time I play this game?  Or is it expected that I'll be mid-mission or mid-story and will be disappointed if I don't get another 5 sessions to finish what I've set out to do?
  Wow, are those my only choices?   lol
  So, after 4 hours, you can easily continue with the same character. A decent story arc should be completely resolved, but there should be plenty for the party to do if they chose to. But if the game were to end then, it would not leave that unsatisfied feeling behind.

You've pointed out that wallowing in your Drawback is a viable alternative to pursuing your Goal (that should go somewhere in the pitch!).
  OK, when you create your character (Remember, you don't do this until after the GM has announced who the first Antagonist is and what the rumor is that they are doing), you select a Goal and a Drawback. The Guidelines for something like this, "Pick a Goal that you can actually accomplish (world peace is right out), but that would require multiple steps to accomplish (crossing the street or defeating a vampire are out as well since these can be done in one step). Then select a Drawback, it should be something desirable and beneficial to your character that the pursuit of which would hinder you Goal. A great Actual Play example was a character that wanted to build a new hospital in the Bronx, his drawback was he was too charitable. Meaning if he indulged his charitable side, he wouldn't have enough money to build a hospital and if he saved money to build a hospital, he couldn't spend it on charities. Mechanically, the difference between them are that whenever one increases, the other decreases. Either can be used for a bonus during an Action with the correct Action type, but Goal Resets it all to 0 when you hit +4, while Drawback bottoms out at +3, never resetting except through player efforts. So, the advantage of wallowing in your Drawback is you have this Bonus you can call on any time and all you have to do is do something you already wanted to do (but thwarts your Goal).

Is some of the stuff you're describing as player-driven actually group-driven? Or are we simply expected to enjoy inhabiting the same world and engaging with the same mechanics?
OK, so before characters are made, players discuss different elements of the established Setting and figure out what they are in the mood for as a group. Then the GM is selected and they introduce the first Antagonist (as well as a good idea of what plots/schemes the Antagonist is up to).
Then the Players make characters that are opposed to that Antagonist.
Then the GM adjusts the Antagonist (or adds additional Antagonists to the mix) to suit the final characters.
Then players take turns settings scenes.
No player can set a second scene until the GM gets a chance to set their first one.
The GM can't set a scene until all of the players have had a turn setting a scene (this gives the players a chance to research magic or inventions or otherwise use their resources to prepare for trouble).
This keeps going until the session ends. Typically, the GM uses their NPCs to set the stage for conflict during the player scenes and then sets up a big conflict on their scene (if it is an appropriate time). GMs can add more Antagonists at any time without the need to announce what they are up to or who they are even. Once the GM is selected, everything after that is initiated by a single player (although other players can join in if they think they can help/do something interesting).

So, during the brainstorming phase, players get a chance to let everyone know what they are looking forward to being able to do. During the GM/Antagonist phase the players get to know what direction the GM is taking so that the players can make a cohesive group if they want. Once that first Antagonist is under their collective belts, then the comradery/trust is built between the characters and the players and the direction of the game is established and new Antagonists can be a pleasant surprise.

  Does that make sense? I am really not sure where I am losing you (that's why my posts are getting longer and longer, lol), sorry.
Logged

Dave M
Author of Legends of Lanasia RPG (Still in beta)
My blog
Free Demo
David Berg
Member

Posts: 997


« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2012, 10:37:32 AM »

Hey, if we defeat the Antagonist in session 1, will there be a new one in session 2?

Quote
"The game provides no specific relationship between these activities, but does allow you a fair amount of choice in how they intersect for you."
Correct?
Well, this is what I mean by player-driven Goals. If a player cares about it, the mechanics enables them to do this in a way that is transparent to them, the other players and the GM. If they don't care, the mechanics don't force them along a track.

By "these activities" I meant Goal-seeking and Antagonist-thwarting.  I get that the Goals are player-driven, I'm just wondering if the player's choice is "Goal or Antagonist"... as opposed to, say, "Goal and Antagonist".  So, am I correct that, for that specific issue, there is "a fair amount of choice"? 

I'm not saying "total freedom" because the GM and the rest of the group may do things to the Antagonist that impacts the relationship between the Antagonist and a given Goal.

As for the overall description of the game, it's starting to sound more like Antagonist-thwarting tends to operate on the per-session unit as an immediate objective which is satisfying to complete in 3-4 hours, while Goal-pursuing tends to be less urgent and tends to operate on the multi-session level with no one upset if they don't complete a Goal in a given session.  That seems to fit with your play experiences, right?

I'm thinking that if I got together to play this game with my friends, and we scheduled 2 or more sessions, I might invest more heavily in my Goal, and view session 1's Antagonist showdown as a big event, but not the climax of my story.  I'd be thinking about changing the world via getting my Goal, and fighting this Antagonist is something I may or may not need to do along the way.

On the other hand, if my friends and I scheduled this strictly as a 1-shot game, I would approach it differently.  I might go really hard after my Goal at the expense of all else in hopes that I had time to reach it before we had to stop play.  But more likely, I'd treat Goal-pursuit as a side issue and Antagonist-thwarting as the main event, which would culminate in the climax of the game, wherein my friends and I succeed or fail at defeating our foe.

Other attitudes are of course possible, but these seem obvious and thus fairly likely.  Are they consistent with your play experiences?

If I have this right, then the pitch must be changed!  Something like "Focus on defeating a mutual Antagonist in a single session, pursue world-changing Goals across multiple sessions, or pick a spot in between!"
Logged

here's my blog, discussing Delve, my game in development
dindenver
Member

Posts: 1049

Don't Panic!


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2012, 03:36:42 PM »

Hey, if we defeat the Antagonist in session 1, will there be a new one in session 2?
So, the trick is, the GM announces the identity and rumors of one antagonist before the characters are made. But the GM is able to create as many Antagonists as needed. The last one shot I ran featured a gang of six antagonists (A Lister Crowley and 5 members of his inner circle).

So, am I correct that, for that specific issue, there is a fair amount of choice?
Yes, the only limit on your ability to pursue both simultaneously, is your creativity (meaning, can you think of a course of action that fits both requirements).

That seems to fit with your play experiences, right?
Yes, it is much easier to hit the mark on taking out the Antagonist in a single session and more time is usually required to hit your Goal.
Logged

Dave M
Author of Legends of Lanasia RPG (Still in beta)
My blog
Free Demo
David Berg
Member

Posts: 997


« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2012, 07:01:36 PM »

Latest idea; may not be concise enough, but I think the presentation of the game is more accurate:

Steampunk Crescendo
Will you redeem yourself, your enemy, or your world?

In a dystopian future of vampires, magic, and super-science, you face three challenges, three opportunities.  Will you join with your friends to oppose the Antagonist controlled by the game's Mastermind?  Will you indulge in the Drawback that defines who you've been?  Or will you push on to achieve your Goal, and in so doing, bring meaningful change to your world?

The Goal and Drawback are always at odds.  As you proceed toward the session's climactic confrontation with your Antagonist, which will you pursue, and how hard?  How much bang you get for each scene is limited only by your own creativity.


A roleplaying game for 3-6 players.  3+ hours, one or multiple sessions.

    Quick-to-learn, easy-to-use ruleset.
    Conflicts are resolved using a map-less tactical system.
    Solid and compelling setting with room for group customization.
    Characters improve and change while you play.


Two things that may not deserve to be emphasized:

"Redeem" -- That's just an example, right?  Redemption doesn't have to factor in at all, does it?  If it does, great, but if it's optional, change the tagline.

"Map-less" -- If this game is very similar to the classic map-based skirmish game (e.g. Warhammer 40k) and the main difference is "no map", then cool, your wording works.  But if that's not the case, then I'd sub in another adjective to distinguish what defines your tactical system.  What's unique about it, at least in the context of dystopian punk RPGs?

And, one thing I made up -- "defines who you've been".  Sub in whatever it is about a Drawback that actually compels players to wallow in them (fictionally, I mean).
Logged

here's my blog, discussing Delve, my game in development
David Berg
Member

Posts: 997


« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2012, 07:11:58 PM »

I may be burning out on pitch-crafting, so let me jump ahead and say that the next things I'd advise would be:

1) envision who'd want to play this game, and write down as much about them as you can
2) look at that, and take your best guess as to where they hang out, and where they'd be receptive to hearing about this game
3) go there and tell them about it
4) assume that a lot of people will be willing to give it a glance, but not buy instantly; have something cool, free, and inspiring to show them during that glance (e.g. badass web page with book excerpts)
5) make it easy for them to buy if they decide to; have your PayPal button (or whatever) set up

I wrote that in conceptual order.  Chronologically, obviously you need to do #4 and #5 before #3.

I can help you brainstorm #1 and #2 if you want, but it'll be all guesses on my part.  I'm not particularly plugged into the marketplace or anything.
Logged

here's my blog, discussing Delve, my game in development
dindenver
Member

Posts: 1049

Don't Panic!


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2012, 09:33:56 PM »

Dave,
  Looks pretty good.

But if that's not the case, then I'd sub in another adjective to distinguish what defines your tactical system.
So, there is no need for maps or figs. But there is a need for tactics. Every time you roll, you roll three dice: one to get your scene stakes, one to overcome your opponent and one to defend against your opponent. You decide AFTER the dice are rolled, so there are real strategy and tactics that go into how those dice are played.
  What is a better way to say that than mapless? I am sure there is one, I just haven't thought of it yet...
Logged

Dave M
Author of Legends of Lanasia RPG (Still in beta)
My blog
Free Demo
David Berg
Member

Posts: 997


« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2012, 10:29:11 PM »

"Use strategic dice-bidding to resolve conflicts"? 

"Bidding" isn't the perfect term... it might be close enough... but maybe you can come up with a better one...
Logged

here's my blog, discussing Delve, my game in development
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!