Sounds like Mo's got dibs on Milady DeWinter. *knifeintheback* *poison* *strangledwithlace*
Also, Joshua, Our Steel is the King's Law SCREAMS! (or even better BLEEDS!) "post-Dogs Musketeers!" while Steel on Steel could be anything. My vote has to go with the original title.
Second Draft: Our Steel, King's Law [was Steel on Steel]
36 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
by spaceanddeath » Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:07 pm
*flutters lashes* Could I be ever so evil?
And Josh, I'm with Jonathan. The original title is far better.[/b]
And Josh, I'm with Jonathan. The original title is far better.[/b]
- spaceanddeath
- Tamarin
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:20 pm
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
by Brand_Robins » Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:22 pm
Dude, I want to play a villain and Defile the Kingdom's Maidens!
Seriously Josh, this is shaping up to be pretty tight. I like the combination of trait-generated RP and boardgame level directness to the rules. I'm reminded of Pendragon's hunting sub-game, and can see this beign a lot of fun to play out.
Even more, I'm impressed by the kind of "trianing wheels for learning to RP together" element of your use of the team ingridient. Learn to work together and communicate, or else you will suck! Very well done.
Ditto the create as you go element. I like the way you've gone with it in this game, the contextualization is enough that it should work for the best possible cross section of players.
Now with all the nice stuff out of the way, questions:
1. It says players may vote to replace a trait used in battle with a new trait, and that the recieving player may turn this down to get VPs. If they do so, does their old trait go away (leaving them with only 2) or do they keep the old trait and get the VPs? This is probably me being dense, but I was unclear.
2. When you're rewriting any and all of your descriptions after your relation is captured, does this happen before or after the vote above? From the position in the text it seems after. Is this right?
3. I feel real dumb about this one, and am sure I missed something, but ... um... exactly what does Breaking Ground do? I see lots of references to "Break Groud or this" and "can't break ground to 0" but no clear explination of what breaking ground causes to happen.
For the rest, I'll actually have to play before I can comment. The maneuvers list looks good, and your fencer's eye is evident in its setup. The actual interaction of the bits, however, is beyond me to figure out while I have a head-cold.
Seriously Josh, this is shaping up to be pretty tight. I like the combination of trait-generated RP and boardgame level directness to the rules. I'm reminded of Pendragon's hunting sub-game, and can see this beign a lot of fun to play out.
Even more, I'm impressed by the kind of "trianing wheels for learning to RP together" element of your use of the team ingridient. Learn to work together and communicate, or else you will suck! Very well done.
Ditto the create as you go element. I like the way you've gone with it in this game, the contextualization is enough that it should work for the best possible cross section of players.
Now with all the nice stuff out of the way, questions:
1. It says players may vote to replace a trait used in battle with a new trait, and that the recieving player may turn this down to get VPs. If they do so, does their old trait go away (leaving them with only 2) or do they keep the old trait and get the VPs? This is probably me being dense, but I was unclear.
2. When you're rewriting any and all of your descriptions after your relation is captured, does this happen before or after the vote above? From the position in the text it seems after. Is this right?
3. I feel real dumb about this one, and am sure I missed something, but ... um... exactly what does Breaking Ground do? I see lots of references to "Break Groud or this" and "can't break ground to 0" but no clear explination of what breaking ground causes to happen.
For the rest, I'll actually have to play before I can comment. The maneuvers list looks good, and your fencer's eye is evident in its setup. The actual interaction of the bits, however, is beyond me to figure out while I have a head-cold.
- Brand_Robins
- Squirrel Monkey
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:52 pm
by Joshua BishopRoby » Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:26 pm
Alright, new draft uploaded, retitled to by popular demand.
I've added Examples of Play and fixed the errors and unclear bits that were raised in this thread. Thanks very much, everyone, and if I missed your comment, please bring it to my attention.
Now I just need to take a hard look at the maneuvers and their numbers, to fine-tune them till they sing, and whip up a Character Sheet and Sentry Sheet.
Anything else this thing needs, folks?
I've added Examples of Play and fixed the errors and unclear bits that were raised in this thread. Thanks very much, everyone, and if I missed your comment, please bring it to my attention.
Now I just need to take a hard look at the maneuvers and their numbers, to fine-tune them till they sing, and whip up a Character Sheet and Sentry Sheet.
Anything else this thing needs, folks?
Entries: ; Reflection; and - Blogging at:
- Joshua BishopRoby
- Marmoset
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:48 pm
by Joshua BishopRoby » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:10 am
and
After running Dogs with that damn-handy GM Sheet, I doubt I'll ever design a game without a GM Sheet of its own.
After running Dogs with that damn-handy GM Sheet, I doubt I'll ever design a game without a GM Sheet of its own.
Entries: ; Reflection; and - Blogging at:
- Joshua BishopRoby
- Marmoset
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:48 pm
by Brand_Robins » Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:06 am
On the new text:
Page 1, Ariving paragraph 1: "Sympathy" -- huh? Should that be "Hated Crime" as in "Players should chose their hated crime and their relation?"
Page 2,3: The descriptor thing is clearer now. I think my confusion was due to the fact that fact that descriptors go permenantly dormant once used hasn't been introduced in the text yet. In that case I can see the logic of "replace" but in the text as it stands it does seem odd. You don't take the old descriptor away and put a new one in its place, you add a completly new descriptor to compensate for the one you've permenantly burned.
(Sorry to be so stuck on that point. It just became clear to me why I was confused in the first place.)
What happens to PCs whose Fear is over their Will? It says what happens to NPCs, but not PCs. (I mean we can assume that if your will goes under fear you're out of the fight as a criminal is, but the official word would be a nifty thing.) Actually, for that matter, PC Fear and Will doesn't seem to have a mechanical effect on the game at all, so I know I'm missing something.
Why shouldn't a criminal just Break Ground at every chance? "I lose, I break ground and get closer to getting away. I lose again and break ground to get closer to getting away...." I know there is a penalty for having broken ground, but it seems like it might often be worth it in order to bleed off the distance towards getting away. Would it perhaps be better to make criminals break ground upwards?
On the subject of Breaking Ground, the new entry (excellent!) says that when you break ground you're at a penalty the next round. However, it doesn't say what that penalty it. I assumed that it depends on the maneuver that made you break ground (so as to balance the penalty against the option that you have to chose against to keep it from being obvious) -- but many of the manuevers don't have a specific penalty associated with breaking ground. (Parry, for example, lets you break ground with no penalty mentioned.) So, like, what's the deal, yo?
So, niggles! Niggles!
Page 1, Ariving paragraph 1: "Sympathy" -- huh? Should that be "Hated Crime" as in "Players should chose their hated crime and their relation?"
Page 2,3: The descriptor thing is clearer now. I think my confusion was due to the fact that fact that descriptors go permenantly dormant once used hasn't been introduced in the text yet. In that case I can see the logic of "replace" but in the text as it stands it does seem odd. You don't take the old descriptor away and put a new one in its place, you add a completly new descriptor to compensate for the one you've permenantly burned.
(Sorry to be so stuck on that point. It just became clear to me why I was confused in the first place.)
What happens to PCs whose Fear is over their Will? It says what happens to NPCs, but not PCs. (I mean we can assume that if your will goes under fear you're out of the fight as a criminal is, but the official word would be a nifty thing.) Actually, for that matter, PC Fear and Will doesn't seem to have a mechanical effect on the game at all, so I know I'm missing something.
Why shouldn't a criminal just Break Ground at every chance? "I lose, I break ground and get closer to getting away. I lose again and break ground to get closer to getting away...." I know there is a penalty for having broken ground, but it seems like it might often be worth it in order to bleed off the distance towards getting away. Would it perhaps be better to make criminals break ground upwards?
On the subject of Breaking Ground, the new entry (excellent!) says that when you break ground you're at a penalty the next round. However, it doesn't say what that penalty it. I assumed that it depends on the maneuver that made you break ground (so as to balance the penalty against the option that you have to chose against to keep it from being obvious) -- but many of the manuevers don't have a specific penalty associated with breaking ground. (Parry, for example, lets you break ground with no penalty mentioned.) So, like, what's the deal, yo?
So, niggles! Niggles!
- Brand_Robins
- Squirrel Monkey
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:52 pm
by redivider » Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:16 pm
Josh,
This game is in great shape as is, with a strong structure and cool swordplay & dumasesque setting content. The examples are evocative, the card guessing mechanic looks fun, the hated crime and relation rules are a nice touch. I have a minor point a larger one and a medium one.
You might consider switching the recuperating at tower section and the arresting criminal section since some of the concepts from arresting show are implied or referenced in the recuperating section.
So the bigger issue is that the cool detail and strategic choices seem to conflict with the time constraint, particularly since you are trying to fit more and more action in each one hour session. There is turn based action, card and dice mechanisms, choices of tactics, lists of moves to consult, and your examples suggest you want players to give rich descriptions. Given all this would seem that it would be very unlikely to have time to arrest more than a few criminals in the 40-50 minutes you have available for the arresting phase of each session.
Maybe I'm overestimating the time required but I'd suggest dropping the escalating 2-10 criminals per session and make it something like 1 the first session then session 2-9 would have the number caught the previous session plus 1. (That way you stay within the realm of possible- if they never catch more than 4 they will never face more than 5). Another alternative would be to use another time restraint.
My medium point is that I'd change the victory condition. In your sample game the players have already lost since Andre escaped. The all or nothing victory incentive doesn;t seem to add much to the game. Maybe a range of victory conditions - or avoiding certain punishments - based on how many criminals are caught or the percentage caught.
looking forward to maybe trying this out sometime
This game is in great shape as is, with a strong structure and cool swordplay & dumasesque setting content. The examples are evocative, the card guessing mechanic looks fun, the hated crime and relation rules are a nice touch. I have a minor point a larger one and a medium one.
You might consider switching the recuperating at tower section and the arresting criminal section since some of the concepts from arresting show are implied or referenced in the recuperating section.
So the bigger issue is that the cool detail and strategic choices seem to conflict with the time constraint, particularly since you are trying to fit more and more action in each one hour session. There is turn based action, card and dice mechanisms, choices of tactics, lists of moves to consult, and your examples suggest you want players to give rich descriptions. Given all this would seem that it would be very unlikely to have time to arrest more than a few criminals in the 40-50 minutes you have available for the arresting phase of each session.
Maybe I'm overestimating the time required but I'd suggest dropping the escalating 2-10 criminals per session and make it something like 1 the first session then session 2-9 would have the number caught the previous session plus 1. (That way you stay within the realm of possible- if they never catch more than 4 they will never face more than 5). Another alternative would be to use another time restraint.
My medium point is that I'd change the victory condition. In your sample game the players have already lost since Andre escaped. The all or nothing victory incentive doesn;t seem to add much to the game. Maybe a range of victory conditions - or avoiding certain punishments - based on how many criminals are caught or the percentage caught.
looking forward to maybe trying this out sometime
- redivider
- Tamarin
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 2:45 am
36 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to Game Chef 2005 & 2006
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests