Notices


Gaming by Prose - Fight Smart, Fight Fast

   
Wow, a lot of activity and discussion since I checked this thread last. I second Silver's recommendation to avoid the Freeform tag, since there are certainly mechanics associated with this game. Misc is much better.

In fact, I'm surprised by how much mechanics discussion there seems to be - this is almost a full-blown homebrew system, as opposed to a few simple house rules! I hadn't thought that such an amount of redesign was your intention, Ensou, although I suppose I do see the (potential...) benefit of trying to quantify what would otherwise be a pretty free-wheeling system of integrating imagination, and "common sense" applications of skills, to other types of rolls.

My thanks, Silverkiss.

So how? Misc, or Homebrew?

Also, tobias, what do you mean by 'You might want to note something out the "sandbox" nature of it'



Not really, Sharp. I did not touch the classes and gears, but on the more baser parts of the system. But yes, it is larger than just some house rules. And no, the changes I made were to actually give more freedom to integrate player creativity into the game, instead of more quantitative number crunching, and to bring more common sense to the skills. If I understand your assessment properly.

If you noticed, instead, that it is less imaginative and less common sense, can you highlight where I made those mistakes? I will bring them back to my workshop.

The mechanics discussion is my fault...I was trying to start a discussion of how such creative things could be done in game. I still think that's valid, but I suppose there's something to be said about just going without if that's what's wanted. I just find a "mechanical" base helpful, in my experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ensou View Post
Not really, Sharp. I did not touch the classes and gears, but on the more baser parts of the system. But yes, it is larger than just some house rules. And no, the changes I made were to actually give more freedom to integrate player creativity into the game, instead of more quantitative number crunching, and to bring more common sense to the skills. If I understand your assessment properly.

If you noticed, instead, that it is less imaginative and less common sense, can you highlight where I made those mistakes? I will bring them back to my workshop.
Yeah, I realize that what I posted above was a bit difficult to parse. Let me elaborate a bit.

What I meant was this: I like the idea, in general terms, of rewarding player imagination and common sense applications of skills to combat, etc. Being able to cast entangle at a wall, and then climb the wall? Definitely clever. Rolling a tumble check to add to your trip modifier, or bullrush? Definitely an interesting idea.

So the base premise, I have no problem with. The reason for my somewhat cryptic "potential..." was that I fear that, in some cases, too stringently trying to apply mechanical solutions - that is, numbers and rules - to a system based on imaginative impulse and spur-of-the-moment insight can ultimately stymie those same imaginative impulses and spur-of-the-moment insights. Take as a case study the problem of "party roles" in
I have little experience with other systems, so I'll keep my comments to 3.5.
D&D 3.5 The existence of roles in the party is an inevitability, and likewise, it's good to have an understanding of basic roles and responsibilities so that the PCs, and players, can learn to work together as a team. But when this concept is taken too far - when "there are roles that some PCs are better-suited to fill than others" becomes "every party must have a front-line fighter, a sneaky/scouty type, a divine caster, and an arcane caster", then things have gone too far. The system has become too systematized, and limited itself.

The party roles example is a more abstract one, but I think the same lesson applies to the ideas that are being toyed around with here. As I said above, being able to do things like add a skill check to an attack roll, or what have you, is a really intriguing idea. But if things get to the point that you're telling your players "OK, getting a 15 on your Intimidate check gets you a +1 to attack, a 20 gets you +2..." then what you've done in the end is simply create more rules, rather than open up existing rules to new and imaginative interpretations.

The flip-side of all of this is that the GM has to have a firm grasp on how much of a reward can be given out for this flash of player-genius or that one, and must also be the final arbiter when it comes to players who might be trying to
Example: "No, I should totally get to get a bonus to my damage roll from a Concentration check, because my PC is concentrating really hard on doing extra damage!
take advantage of the system. But I think a balance can be found - or, I'd like to hope so - without the need for excessive homebrewing.

Does that help?

I think I just need to be clearer here then. The amendments I make are towards qualitative benefits, not quantitative. I did not mention about +1 to anything based on a roll. It was tobias giving that as an example. The first page, and the link to page 6 for tobias questions being covered by me, should show you better what my design philosophy is. The whole point is to reduce number crunching, and more on player engagement in decisions.

As for the firmness of DM deliberation of actions, I agree. I homebrew aspects I did not think was done well enough to the kind of play I want to offer to test players. I suppose how the original systems are made, are suited to a specific kind of play, of which I do not really like.

The other thing I thought of using for character creation is what Shadowrun did with character points. I wonder if that will be more appealing to players.

Game setup postponed till Jan 2012, Dec month is hectic.

But my question still stands; what are your thoughts on character creation done through character points similar to Shadowrun or Legend of 5 Rings?




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status