1.) What is your game about?**
>>> It's about legends, torn from their homes. They've lost everything, including themselves.
2.) What do the characters do?**
>>> Struggle to rebuild themselves and reclaim their memories, then draw upon and challenge the conflicting drives of Light and Dark.
3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?**
>>> The players throw their characters into conflict, and they seek to gain allies in the fight against Darkness. The GM strives to create an interesting, captivating setting full of potential allies and enemies; the GM challenges the characters and pushes them.
4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?
>>> The setting is large, multi-layered, complex, and loud. It's a maze of people and things, a crazy mix of everything. It's a setting defined by Light, Darkness, and the Egos of heroes and villains.
5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?
>>> The character creation occurs in-game, by testing your character and attempting to regain his memories.
6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?
>>> In the early game, the game rewards placing your character into conflict as often as possible. In the later game, it rewards playing to the style of the character and walking the line between Light and Dark.
7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?
>>> In the early game, every conflict gains something. Later game... TBD
8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?
>>> TBD. Rotating focus player, other players do other things, and GM handles Darkness and the City.
9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)
>>> It draws upon prior investment in characters that interest them. Rest TBD.
10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?
>>> The early game mechanics are very simple, generally a 50/50 chance of winning - the only thing that changes is the scale and scope of rolls. Rest TBD. Insert Madness-style death spiral for Light and Dark.
11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?
>>> In the early game, the player never knows if he's going to win, but he knows he'll get something regardless - so it makes sense to drive towards conflict. Later game mechanics force the player to rely upon Light and Dark, but they must be careful not to go to far.
12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?
>>> TBD
13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?
>>> TBD
14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?
>>> A mix of sheer-awesomeness and style of the legends, and fighting against the opposed draws of Light and Dark.
15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?
>>> Character creation (Remembrance) is a big part.
16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?
>>> The bringing back of old characters, because it's very cool to revisit old ideas in a new light. The setting, because it draws on a bunch of ideas I already like. The remembrance mechanic and ideas, because it allows character shaping in-play.
17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?
>>> TBD
18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?
>>> Probably release for free online, as a PDF.
19.) Who is your target audience?
>>> Mostly me and my friends, I suppose.
Showing posts with label Misc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Misc. Show all posts
10/23/09
8/23/09
Magic, Game-Games, Story-Games, Jacob, and Me
I've posted a massive rant over on SG. It's actually kind of interesting. I did this instead of reading "Only Revolutions", so I hope someone gets some use out of it!
(I may expand this, either here or there. Any ideas, folks? Tell me stuff!)
Two personal thoughts.
Some time ago, I created an RPG ("Struggle") with very competitive elements. It was designed for two players, very quickly, and it wasn't perfect. But it had some good bits. My friend and I tried it, and had an interesting story. We both enjoyed ourselves; but it was clear that I enjoyed it more than he did. He seemed kind of... let down, after. But he decided to play it again.
So we did, much to the same result. He said to me after, "I think you've got some good ideas here, and this could be a good game. But it's not a game for me.". He stated the competitive elements (and the fact that they overwhelmed the story at times), as one reason. I think Rob had a similar moment here ("I'm sure this is great, but it's just not for me"), and it's actually got me thinking about a few things.
The other thought involves Magic. I've played that for longer than I've played RPGs, but probably less often - at least 7 or 8 years, though. And every time I play in a "serious" environment, like a tournament or at a card store (with strangers), I feel kind of "meh". Not bad, but not great.
But when I'm with friends, playing, I enjoy myself much more. And it's not just who I'm playing with. We still play to win, always, to the best of our ability. But A) We try to do it in fun ways, and B) We don't really care all that much.
But, primarily, the "fun" I get when playing Magic is the same "fun" I get when playing many RPGs (Beast Hunters comes to mind, as does Baron Munchausen) - throwing each other into tricky situations and watching them escape. It's racing to find the right solution. It's doing something clever or tricky. It is, on occasion, drawing the right card at the right time.
I'm rambling here, but the main point is this: Both RPGs and board/card games have spectrum of playing styles, both within types of games and within a particular game. This isn't really news, but it affects people all the time - and I daresay there's interesting, not-fully-explored design lessons in that fact.
(I may expand this, either here or there. Any ideas, folks? Tell me stuff!)
Two personal thoughts.
Some time ago, I created an RPG ("Struggle") with very competitive elements. It was designed for two players, very quickly, and it wasn't perfect. But it had some good bits. My friend and I tried it, and had an interesting story. We both enjoyed ourselves; but it was clear that I enjoyed it more than he did. He seemed kind of... let down, after. But he decided to play it again.
So we did, much to the same result. He said to me after, "I think you've got some good ideas here, and this could be a good game. But it's not a game for me.". He stated the competitive elements (and the fact that they overwhelmed the story at times), as one reason. I think Rob had a similar moment here ("I'm sure this is great, but it's just not for me"), and it's actually got me thinking about a few things.
The other thought involves Magic. I've played that for longer than I've played RPGs, but probably less often - at least 7 or 8 years, though. And every time I play in a "serious" environment, like a tournament or at a card store (with strangers), I feel kind of "meh". Not bad, but not great.
But when I'm with friends, playing, I enjoy myself much more. And it's not just who I'm playing with. We still play to win, always, to the best of our ability. But A) We try to do it in fun ways, and B) We don't really care all that much.
But, primarily, the "fun" I get when playing Magic is the same "fun" I get when playing many RPGs (Beast Hunters comes to mind, as does Baron Munchausen) - throwing each other into tricky situations and watching them escape. It's racing to find the right solution. It's doing something clever or tricky. It is, on occasion, drawing the right card at the right time.
I'm rambling here, but the main point is this: Both RPGs and board/card games have spectrum of playing styles, both within types of games and within a particular game. This isn't really news, but it affects people all the time - and I daresay there's interesting, not-fully-explored design lessons in that fact.
4/8/09
The Foundations of Gamism
In my mind a so-called "gamist" game has certain requirements to be truly effective and engaging:
First: Each player (including the GM figure, if any) must have equal opportunity. Not equal power (effectiveness) but the equal chance for power.
Caveat: If there are "sides" or "teams" (player VS GM, for example), each side or team must have
equal opportunity. In a case of one GM and five players, for example, the GM's opportunity for
power should be roughly five times that of a player.
Second: This opportunity must work in the system, and it must be enforced.
Example: 3.0 & 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons - The CR system should match the GM's opportunity
to that of the player-team. However, it doesn't work very well and isn't enforced.
Third: There must be different domains (physical attacks VS magic attacks, power VS quickness, etc...) and different choices within each domain. Some choices should be better than others, especially situationally, but each domain should be roughly equal in opportunity.
Fourth: Choice is the basis of the game. Some choices NEED to be better than others. Choices will fall roughly into two catagories: Pre-Game/Between Game (for example, character building) or during game. Some games will emphasize the importance differently, but different players will enjoy the pre- or during- choices in different ways.
Fifth: Randomness is not needed, but may be useful. The game should not really too heavily on randomness, however - it should rely on player skill.
Sixth: There must be a way to "win" or at least some clear indicator of success, and players should not be made to feel bad becasue they are more effective (or "win") more than other players.
There's more, but this is a start to me putting some thoughts together. More later. Any ideas, folks?
First: Each player (including the GM figure, if any) must have equal opportunity. Not equal power (effectiveness) but the equal chance for power.
Caveat: If there are "sides" or "teams" (player VS GM, for example), each side or team must have
equal opportunity. In a case of one GM and five players, for example, the GM's opportunity for
power should be roughly five times that of a player.
Second: This opportunity must work in the system, and it must be enforced.
Example: 3.0 & 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons - The CR system should match the GM's opportunity
to that of the player-team. However, it doesn't work very well and isn't enforced.
Third: There must be different domains (physical attacks VS magic attacks, power VS quickness, etc...) and different choices within each domain. Some choices should be better than others, especially situationally, but each domain should be roughly equal in opportunity.
Fourth: Choice is the basis of the game. Some choices NEED to be better than others. Choices will fall roughly into two catagories: Pre-Game/Between Game (for example, character building) or during game. Some games will emphasize the importance differently, but different players will enjoy the pre- or during- choices in different ways.
Fifth: Randomness is not needed, but may be useful. The game should not really too heavily on randomness, however - it should rely on player skill.
Sixth: There must be a way to "win" or at least some clear indicator of success, and players should not be made to feel bad becasue they are more effective (or "win") more than other players.
There's more, but this is a start to me putting some thoughts together. More later. Any ideas, folks?
1/9/09
Pickup Gaming / Dedicated Gaming
Okay.
I've been thinking.
I need to have two groups.
Group One will be the pickup group. This will be a "loose"-er group, in the sense that it's not critical whether people show up or not. It'd probably be dungeon-crawling D&D 4 game. Everyone knows the rules, so if you feel like coming any given week, just right up a character and come. It'd be more just hanging out, playing the game for the game. For the folks that don't really care or just want to play a game.
Group Two will be the dedicated group. They're the ones who are interested in trying new games, discussing games, and flexing their play styles and ways of thinking. They want to help develop and test games, think critically about their games, and be more involved.
I think this'd be a fine way of things for everything. Here are the problems I see.
A) Not enough people for Group Two, right now. I know of one definitely, and maybe another one or two maybes.
B) Scheduling. There's probably one or two people interested in both, but maybe too busy to work both into a schedule. I've got about enough time for it, but...
C) People have too-high expectations of D&D. Essentially the game would be what it is (a game about exploring areas, combat, interesting tactical encounters)... Not anything else (Especially not making a story! No, no, no!).
Well, there are some problems. But assuming more people can be found for Group Two, I think this is close to an ideal solution.
Any ideas, please?
I've been thinking.
I need to have two groups.
Group One will be the pickup group. This will be a "loose"-er group, in the sense that it's not critical whether people show up or not. It'd probably be dungeon-crawling D&D 4 game. Everyone knows the rules, so if you feel like coming any given week, just right up a character and come. It'd be more just hanging out, playing the game for the game. For the folks that don't really care or just want to play a game.
Group Two will be the dedicated group. They're the ones who are interested in trying new games, discussing games, and flexing their play styles and ways of thinking. They want to help develop and test games, think critically about their games, and be more involved.
I think this'd be a fine way of things for everything. Here are the problems I see.
A) Not enough people for Group Two, right now. I know of one definitely, and maybe another one or two maybes.
B) Scheduling. There's probably one or two people interested in both, but maybe too busy to work both into a schedule. I've got about enough time for it, but...
C) People have too-high expectations of D&D. Essentially the game would be what it is (a game about exploring areas, combat, interesting tactical encounters)... Not anything else (Especially not making a story! No, no, no!).
Well, there are some problems. But assuming more people can be found for Group Two, I think this is close to an ideal solution.
Any ideas, please?
1/6/09
I'VE GOT A NEW BLOG!
Well, I'm starting up a new blog.
It's not for the faint of heart or those who don't give a fuck what I think.
But for everyone else, it's a place to get a bit of insight into my mind.
It should also be considered an open discussion ground, so feel free to say absolutely anything in a comment to any of my posts.
So far, I've talked a lot about poetry (especially Kipling) and a little about how crappy my life is.
I plan to expand the topics somewhat, soon.
Get there here: Disaster-Lysander.
It's not for the faint of heart or those who don't give a fuck what I think.
But for everyone else, it's a place to get a bit of insight into my mind.
It should also be considered an open discussion ground, so feel free to say absolutely anything in a comment to any of my posts.
So far, I've talked a lot about poetry (especially Kipling) and a little about how crappy my life is.
I plan to expand the topics somewhat, soon.
Get there here: Disaster-Lysander.
12/24/08
The Death of RPGs as an Industry
So, WotC is laying off some pretty big names...
I've heard 4E sales aren't where they should be.
And GenCon is filing for bankruptcy, and may be taken over by a shadowy collective of investors.
Game stores aren't really what they used to be (at least numbers wise)...
Omens seem pretty dim. But, there's hope. My understanding is that many smaller publishers are doing ok. Even if the "industry", that is to say the stores and large companies, falls... roleplaying will still survive... and dare I say thrive?
People will still make amazing games. And play them. And what else matters?
I've heard 4E sales aren't where they should be.
And GenCon is filing for bankruptcy, and may be taken over by a shadowy collective of investors.
Game stores aren't really what they used to be (at least numbers wise)...
Omens seem pretty dim. But, there's hope. My understanding is that many smaller publishers are doing ok. Even if the "industry", that is to say the stores and large companies, falls... roleplaying will still survive... and dare I say thrive?
People will still make amazing games. And play them. And what else matters?
12/23/08
Been a while...
Since I've posted. I'm not really sure it's worth it. Is anyone actually reading any of this or getting anything from it?
There's no way to know for sure, but there's no point if this's just going into thin air...
There's no way to know for sure, but there's no point if this's just going into thin air...
12/17/08
Logo
Some may wonder about my user logo.
Guess what? I'm not telling here.
But if anyone really wants to know, ask me.
Guess what? I'm not telling here.
But if anyone really wants to know, ask me.
11/24/08
Dragon's Tears (A New Spring)
Vincent Baker says it's a new spring for game theory and design, here. I hope, maybe, that the tears of the Red Dragon as he mourns will be roses upon the newly warmed ground.
In other words, I'm gonna try some things here, and I appreciate anyone who takes the ride with me (and especially those who help me along the way).
I've played around before, but I'm gonna try to get serious.
In other words, I'm gonna try some things here, and I appreciate anyone who takes the ride with me (and especially those who help me along the way).
I've played around before, but I'm gonna try to get serious.
We're really lucky.
I was watching Blue Harvest, the Family Guy Star Wars special today. I had the DVD and watched one of the special features, Seth MacFarlane interviewed George Lucas.
I can't recall exactly what Lucas said, but it was something along the lines of "I just think of a movie I'd like to watch, and I say 'Well, nobody's made that movie, so... I'll make it'.".
We, as roleplaying / story gamers and game designers, are really lucky. We get to make the books, comics, movies, and television shows we want to read or watch. And we get to do it with our friends. There's nothing quite like the games we play, and I think we should really appreciate them.
That's all.
I can't recall exactly what Lucas said, but it was something along the lines of "I just think of a movie I'd like to watch, and I say 'Well, nobody's made that movie, so... I'll make it'.".
We, as roleplaying / story gamers and game designers, are really lucky. We get to make the books, comics, movies, and television shows we want to read or watch. And we get to do it with our friends. There's nothing quite like the games we play, and I think we should really appreciate them.
That's all.
11/21/08
In the beginning
There was a networking class!
Seriously, though, go here for my general purpose blog. This one's just for games. Roleplaying, usually, but I might talk about card games, board games, and video/computer games.
Posts'll be divided into a few categories: Games: for me talking about other people's games, Design: for games I'm attempting to design, Theory: for roleplaying theory and discussion, Links: Posts which are mostly links to other places and my ideas on them, and Misc: Everything else.
Some categories may overlap. Also, posts will be subdivided. For example, Design will be labeled as to which game I'm talking about.
Thanks for reading, all! Questions, comments, etc... welcome!
Seriously, though, go here for my general purpose blog. This one's just for games. Roleplaying, usually, but I might talk about card games, board games, and video/computer games.
Posts'll be divided into a few categories: Games: for me talking about other people's games, Design: for games I'm attempting to design, Theory: for roleplaying theory and discussion, Links: Posts which are mostly links to other places and my ideas on them, and Misc: Everything else.
Some categories may overlap. Also, posts will be subdivided. For example, Design will be labeled as to which game I'm talking about.
Thanks for reading, all! Questions, comments, etc... welcome!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)