Brian Rogers (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
subplotkudzu) wrote2008-09-01 06:53 pm
subplotkudzu) wrote2008-09-01 06:53 pm
The Next Prospectus II
Here's the second round of questions as I tried to feel out this new player configuration. Part of this was an effort to make the players think more deeply about what they want from a game, and make them more aware of some of the factors that I'm juggling as I put things together.
The consensus for last round was Fantasy in an invented world with present and potent fantasy elements, the idea that things will work out with effort and an even balance between puzzles and combat. With that in mind I wanted to nail down some other factors. As I told the players "You may claim you don't care, but really and for true you do, you just don't want to think about it."
1) What should characters have as a primary goal/ occupation/motivation?
a) Exploration: some new area or land has opened up and needs to be explored, investigated and mapped
b) Conflict: the PCs are an army unit, freelancers, sell-swords, samurai, rangers or others who live by the sword and/or keep the peace
c) Politics: the settlement/town/guild has to be defended, expanded and perfected, and you're in the thick of it.
d) Finance: the PCs are merchants, caravaners or other small tradesmen who are looking to keep what they have and make something more.
e) Social Goal: The PCs are striving towards citizenship, guild mastery, marriages of true love (hopefully to rich people) or some other societal good - if you're wondering, such combat will likely tasks to be to prove yourselves to the Senate, guild grandmasters or your beloved/their parents, with the puzzles being social climbing.
2) How tough are the PCs in comparison to normal people, and do they improve?
a) they start wimpy but end competent or powerful (i.e., classic Children of Destiny from Small Town). Good for learning the rules slowly, but characters change a lot in play.
b) they start competent and become powerful - the best option for a gradual learning curve and character survival
c) they start competent and stay competent - experience is a minor factor, so this is good for not having to learn lots of rules. Character growth is in just personality.
d) they start powerful and stay powerful - as above, but the learning curve is a little steeper
e) they start powerful and get moreso - this is probably mechanically difficult, as the PCs will have a lot of options.
3) How much control should the player characters have over objectives, strategy, and tactics?
a) Almost none: The princess hires the toughest fighters in the land to enter those caves, clear out the goblins and return with the long lost royal scepter. The NPC has picked the objective (return the scepter), the strategy (go into the caves and clear them out) and most of the tactics (she only hires fighter types, so there's minimal stealth, magic or discussion - it's all bladework).
b) PCs control tactics: as above, but the PC group is more broadly skilled and can find many methods for eliminating the goblins, such as stealth, trickery or magic.
c) PCs control strategy: the PCs are tasked with returning the scepter, but can devise their own methods to do so: they can disguise themselves as goblins to sneak in, arrange for an honorable challenge with the goblin champion, seduce and marry the goblin princess asking for the scepter as a dowry, whatever, as long as they get the scepter.
d) PCs have some control over the objective: the princess actually has several quests so they could skip the scepter quest, or they could opt to take the scepter for themselves, look for a new buyer and face the princess's wrath.
e) PCs control objective: The bards say the scepter was stolen by goblins 50 years ago - I bet we could make a mint if we brought that back to the princess! Whatda' think, guys?
As a benchmark, most of my previous games have been the PCs having some control over the strategy, within the limits of the genre - the Federation starship must deal with the problem before them, but have pretty broad latitude within Starfleet regulations as to how to do so. The more control the players take over the objective the most work it is for you to figure out what the characters want and - very important - share that with me so I can prepare for your courses of action.
4) How mechanical is the rules engine?
a) Not. The game is diceless, or relies on PC resources and symbolic randomizers like tarot cards to judge the outcome of actions. Everway and Amber use this sort of system.
b) Rules Light: the engine has a single, simple die mechanic that applies to everything and is easily interpreted. The d6 System and FUDGE are like this.
c) Rules Moderate: the engine has a standard die mechanic with a character/situation exceptions. PCs are on templates for ease of use. This is D&D 3E or Feng Shui.
d) Point System: identical to Rules Moderate, but the characters are custom built from a (usually vast) array of options. Champions and GURPS are the classics here.
e) Rules Odd: the die engine is elegant but non-intuitive, like a multiple read dice pool (REIGN) where a single roll determines all aspects of success, or narration following resolution (HeroQuest) where game play goes "OK, your dramatic oratory beat his sword roll, describe how you win."
5) How much is the combat system a simulation?
a) Totally. If I get hit I want to know where, how hard, what penalties that gives me and how long it will take to heal. example: GURPS.
b) Mostly. Damage is abstracted into general "health" or "Hit Points", but there are rules for critical hits and selected hit locations. example: D&D
c) Somewhat: Damage is abstracted into health or HP, but health is just a resource that comes back quickly if I don't get killed (Feng Shui)
d) Very little: damage is a loss of resources, skills, points or abilities, but physical damage are tracked separate from social or mental losses.
e) Not: Failure, from combat to getting seduced, is a general loss of character resources - except for dramatically appropriate failures which GIVE extra resources.
Like I said, this gets crunchy. But your answers here will help me figure out the best system to use and what the invented world should look like. Thanks for your support.
The group settled on Exploration and Combat as the preferred goals, shying away from politics or social goals. The general consensus was for heroes who started competent and became powerful (Ashacat wanted to start and stay powerful, John wanted to start weak and become competent, but both had this as a second choice). Everyone agreed that they wanted control of their strategy but not their objective (except John, who wanted a little more control) - no one wanted full control of their objective. They were also centering on the curve around rules moderate - level and a moderate degree of simulation. Interesting for me as GM to know....
The consensus for last round was Fantasy in an invented world with present and potent fantasy elements, the idea that things will work out with effort and an even balance between puzzles and combat. With that in mind I wanted to nail down some other factors. As I told the players "You may claim you don't care, but really and for true you do, you just don't want to think about it."
1) What should characters have as a primary goal/ occupation/motivation?
a) Exploration: some new area or land has opened up and needs to be explored, investigated and mapped
b) Conflict: the PCs are an army unit, freelancers, sell-swords, samurai, rangers or others who live by the sword and/or keep the peace
c) Politics: the settlement/town/guild has to be defended, expanded and perfected, and you're in the thick of it.
d) Finance: the PCs are merchants, caravaners or other small tradesmen who are looking to keep what they have and make something more.
e) Social Goal: The PCs are striving towards citizenship, guild mastery, marriages of true love (hopefully to rich people) or some other societal good - if you're wondering, such combat will likely tasks to be to prove yourselves to the Senate, guild grandmasters or your beloved/their parents, with the puzzles being social climbing.
2) How tough are the PCs in comparison to normal people, and do they improve?
a) they start wimpy but end competent or powerful (i.e., classic Children of Destiny from Small Town). Good for learning the rules slowly, but characters change a lot in play.
b) they start competent and become powerful - the best option for a gradual learning curve and character survival
c) they start competent and stay competent - experience is a minor factor, so this is good for not having to learn lots of rules. Character growth is in just personality.
d) they start powerful and stay powerful - as above, but the learning curve is a little steeper
e) they start powerful and get moreso - this is probably mechanically difficult, as the PCs will have a lot of options.
3) How much control should the player characters have over objectives, strategy, and tactics?
a) Almost none: The princess hires the toughest fighters in the land to enter those caves, clear out the goblins and return with the long lost royal scepter. The NPC has picked the objective (return the scepter), the strategy (go into the caves and clear them out) and most of the tactics (she only hires fighter types, so there's minimal stealth, magic or discussion - it's all bladework).
b) PCs control tactics: as above, but the PC group is more broadly skilled and can find many methods for eliminating the goblins, such as stealth, trickery or magic.
c) PCs control strategy: the PCs are tasked with returning the scepter, but can devise their own methods to do so: they can disguise themselves as goblins to sneak in, arrange for an honorable challenge with the goblin champion, seduce and marry the goblin princess asking for the scepter as a dowry, whatever, as long as they get the scepter.
d) PCs have some control over the objective: the princess actually has several quests so they could skip the scepter quest, or they could opt to take the scepter for themselves, look for a new buyer and face the princess's wrath.
e) PCs control objective: The bards say the scepter was stolen by goblins 50 years ago - I bet we could make a mint if we brought that back to the princess! Whatda' think, guys?
As a benchmark, most of my previous games have been the PCs having some control over the strategy, within the limits of the genre - the Federation starship must deal with the problem before them, but have pretty broad latitude within Starfleet regulations as to how to do so. The more control the players take over the objective the most work it is for you to figure out what the characters want and - very important - share that with me so I can prepare for your courses of action.
4) How mechanical is the rules engine?
a) Not. The game is diceless, or relies on PC resources and symbolic randomizers like tarot cards to judge the outcome of actions. Everway and Amber use this sort of system.
b) Rules Light: the engine has a single, simple die mechanic that applies to everything and is easily interpreted. The d6 System and FUDGE are like this.
c) Rules Moderate: the engine has a standard die mechanic with a character/situation exceptions. PCs are on templates for ease of use. This is D&D 3E or Feng Shui.
d) Point System: identical to Rules Moderate, but the characters are custom built from a (usually vast) array of options. Champions and GURPS are the classics here.
e) Rules Odd: the die engine is elegant but non-intuitive, like a multiple read dice pool (REIGN) where a single roll determines all aspects of success, or narration following resolution (HeroQuest) where game play goes "OK, your dramatic oratory beat his sword roll, describe how you win."
5) How much is the combat system a simulation?
a) Totally. If I get hit I want to know where, how hard, what penalties that gives me and how long it will take to heal. example: GURPS.
b) Mostly. Damage is abstracted into general "health" or "Hit Points", but there are rules for critical hits and selected hit locations. example: D&D
c) Somewhat: Damage is abstracted into health or HP, but health is just a resource that comes back quickly if I don't get killed (Feng Shui)
d) Very little: damage is a loss of resources, skills, points or abilities, but physical damage are tracked separate from social or mental losses.
e) Not: Failure, from combat to getting seduced, is a general loss of character resources - except for dramatically appropriate failures which GIVE extra resources.
Like I said, this gets crunchy. But your answers here will help me figure out the best system to use and what the invented world should look like. Thanks for your support.
The group settled on Exploration and Combat as the preferred goals, shying away from politics or social goals. The general consensus was for heroes who started competent and became powerful (Ashacat wanted to start and stay powerful, John wanted to start weak and become competent, but both had this as a second choice). Everyone agreed that they wanted control of their strategy but not their objective (except John, who wanted a little more control) - no one wanted full control of their objective. They were also centering on the curve around rules moderate - level and a moderate degree of simulation. Interesting for me as GM to know....
no subject
no subject
no subject
I found it interesting that no one has yet opted for "players have total control over objectives." Even at the d) level the group is aksing for the GM to provide them with an explicit list of plot trails rather than trying to forge their own plot. I knew that my players would shy away from that, but I wonder about your reasons.
Could you give an example of a rules light system with a total degree fo combat simulation? Would you build something in FUDGE for this?
no subject