There are a few guiding design principles I think are important -
First, flexibility. Whenever possible, the system should be slanted towards "you can do that" rather than "you can't do that." Example: world-building decisions like "Only men can be healers", "there are no psionics" and "the mercenary company doesn't accept people with criminal records" all close doors on character and adventure concepts.
Second, scalability. If the system doesn't work well if there are only five PCs and none of them really know what they're doing, the game will never get off the ground. If the system doesn't work well when there are 30 PCs with elaborate stories and goals, then the game will strain after a while.
Third, manageability. If the game gets off the ground at all, it won't be long before it's impossible for any one person to keep track of everything. Even if someone were to physically read everything, it'd be a headache to keep it all straight. I'd be in favor of forcing PCs to keep a concise but thorough record of what they've done in their character sheet. (The character sheets should be in a thread by themselves with nothing else but an explanation of what the thread is and an index.) Ability to maintain a good character sheet (has all relevant information necessary for an authority to "get" what the character is about and what they have done but isn't an exhaustive list of everything the character has ever done) should be rewarded. A list of links to threads the character has participated in wouldn't hurt. Establishing manageability guidelines early, particularly for keeping the hierarchy straight, will prevent headaches later. In addition, having a directory allows players to have their characters seek out other PCs whose expertise they may need for a particular problem, forging new relationships between characters.
It closed last night, after I posted that. I'm doing the threads now.
I love the Idea of mercenaries. (I <3 FF8). So
Academy
Academy Beginer->Academy Advanced->Cohort.
Cohort New Merc->X->X->Captain
Is something like that desirable?
Well, it'd be more like "Training Camp > Cohort". There's no real need to have more than that. And the 'training camp' is nothing more than just weeding out people who don't post, or characters who are not good for extended play.
First, flexibility. Whenever possible, the system should be slanted towards "you can do that" rather than "you can't do that." Example: world-building decisions like "Only men can be healers", "there are no psionics" and "the mercenary company doesn't accept people with criminal records" all close doors on character and adventure concepts.
As nice as this sounds, it's sometimes less extensive and legalese to name the few things you can't do rather than the few you can. However, I agree with you that it shouldn't be tight like that. A few things, of course, will be actual rules, but mostly it's "You want to do this, you do it if you have the ability". But there are things we have to set in stone. For instance, you can't just kill off people, you can't give orders to people over your rank. And there need to be rules so things don't just get out of hand.
Second, scalability. If the system doesn't work well if there are only five PCs and none of them really know what they're doing, the game will never get off the ground. If the system doesn't work well when there are 30 PCs with elaborate stories and goals, then the game will strain after a while.
It shouldn't be like that. I don't see how that'll happen.
Third, manageability. If the game gets off the ground at all, it won't be long before it's impossible for any one person to keep track of everything. Even if someone were to physically read everything, it'd be a headache to keep it all straight. I'd be in favor of forcing PCs to keep a concise but thorough record of what they've done in their character sheet. (The character sheets should be in a thread by themselves with nothing else but an explanation of what the thread is and an index.) Ability to maintain a good character sheet (has all relevant information necessary for an authority to "get" what the character is about and what they have done but isn't an exhaustive list of everything the character has ever done) should be rewarded. A list of links to threads the character has participated in wouldn't hurt. Establishing manageability guidelines early, particularly for keeping the hierarchy straight, will prevent headaches later. In addition, having a directory allows players to have their characters seek out other PCs whose expertise they may need for a particular problem, forging new relationships between characters.
A couple of things: The only people that should need to read everything should be the captain; if they can't do it, it's probably time to split the cohort. PCs should keep track of all they do, not only to make sure that no one's cheating and giving themselves things they don't have. Then they should also be tracking their history. However, I don't think a PC should know all that info about others unless they actively ask. That's actually OOC information unless they actually tell you.
Nai, would you mind posting a summary of the ideas you have in place already? While I know that probably very little is totally nailed down, it'd help to have something like a general explanation of how adventures are run, who is in charge of who, who oversees what, and so on, both in character and out of character.
I would encourage everyone to briefly skim, at least, the USI-RPG site in order to get a bead on what the general structure of the game will likely be something like (or at least based on.) The game is based primarily on character interaction and development; it's not a console RPG-style endless series of combats, nor is a tabletop-style numbersfest. Characters have some mechanical identity, but combat and other situations are resolved without dice or numbers or anything. It'll be much easier, I think, to work on developing minor things like player species and advancement system once everyone is on the same page in terms of basic gameflow and structure.
I just didn't want to rip them off completely. They are open, actually, to playing, regardless of what the site says. You just have to find the new forum.
Edit: Okay people, we need to finalize some things and get this running, since people are losing interest.
I don't know that we need to rush into getting actual play started, but we do need to start nailing things down. I'd propose that we get things to a workable place and then start the game with the acknowledgment that it's in 'beta' in some respects, and some things are subject to change. (In the interest of the long haul, I feel as if its better to be unafraid to make big changes to problems early, rather than trying to work around fundamentally broken things. It's better to kill a broken 'smoke' spell than to end up in a world where everyone carries a wand of dispel smoke if they value their life.) Even things like geography, any pantheon, the nature of the hierarchy, etc., should be things we're more than willing to mess with even after the game starts.
Some things don't need to be defined in deep detail. For better or for worse, many of the characteristics of deity X or race Y are going to be defined by the first players to have a reason to define them. (I would like to emphasize, especially early on, a culture of player world-development. If something is undefined, like the nature of Guerrial's holy texts or the gestation period of a cat person, it might as well be defined by the first player to have a reason to care about it, although there's a very tricky balance there, as we don't want weird or inconsistent things to make it into canon.)
It also might help to preliminarily run an understanding 'test group' through a mission in order to work out issues of 'feel'. (The group is 'understanding' in the sense that they're willing to accept 'back up, let's try that a different way' and are willing to make constructive comments. ('That scene felt a bit cheesy. Did that guy have a death wish or something?'; 'I feel like all the challenges felt the same.'; 'We need to find a way to make combat go more quickly without making it boring or trivial'.)
We seem to have a mass of people who are sort of interested in various topics. It's probably just a matter of picking a few for each topic and charging them with actual creation duties. The understanding should be that this is a design process, so things like what niche a race is supposed to fill are more important than things like the nature of their courtship rituals.
@Joyd: I think that's a really good idea. Also, what you described (and what I think we should do) is more like Alpha testing than Beta testing. The testers aren't just playing the game, making a few suggestions, and having fun, they're actually there to make sure everything works properly. If something isn't functioning correctly, we need to be ready to make a major change in how it runs and test that.
I think you're "back up, let's try that a different way" thing is really important to making that sort of test work. Try playing the same scenario two or three (or more) different ways and build off of whichever one works best.
Also, I'm more than happy to be involved in the testing group. I'm willing to play the same thing in five different ways to see which works best (and, of course, make constructive comments about how to improve it).
Sorry, that was poorly worded. I meant that we might be willing to launch the game in a beta format. The test adventures would be pre-launch, and very rough, likely. Because there's so little numbers involved, there's no sense of "Joyd, let's try that again with your arrows doing 1d4 instead of 1d6", but there might be 'feel' issues to work out.
Sorry, that was poorly worded. I meant that we might be willing to launch the game in a beta format. The test adventures would be pre-launch, and very rough, likely. Because there's so little numbers involved, there's no sense of "Joyd, let's try that again with your arrows doing 1d4 instead of 1d6", but there might be 'feel' issues to work out.
Alright, sounds good. And even after we finish the test adventures (Alpha testing), I think we should still do some Beta testing (which would involve things like "Joyd, let's see what happens if your arrows do 1d6 instead of 1d4").
Also, I think we should use the alpha testing to get a feel for what the numbers should be like. Once we've hammered out how we want the game to feel, that will let us set up a sort of power scale that we can base more specific numbers off of.
I'll start writing on the guide what we know now. We should get a few things set in stone while I"m working on that. One or two races (besides humans) to play with, a few starting sections, and a beta list of the ranks. That's all we need.
Did I do a good enough job with drakelings to make them one of the starting races? I can clean them up more if we want.
I am also volunteering for alpha/beta testing, or even to help build part of the world. I've done world-building before, and it's lots of fun.
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
Just my opinion, but I think a non-standard race like that needs to wait for an update. We want to get the game itself running before we throw a curveball. However, this is up to everyone, not just me.
Let's get a few sections on place (three or four), two ranks each (starter and leader), a handful of ranks above that. We can do without currency for now.
Depending on how it's organized, we could have me be the captain (NPC) and have the WPLs each be one rank below captain (NPC), and we'll upgrade when we have the people and the know-how.
Just my opinion, but I think a non-standard race like that needs to wait for an update. We want to get the game itself running before we throw a curveball. However, this is up to everyone, not just me.
Agreed. While I really like the idea of a Drakeling race (or something similar) once the game gets going, I think we need to keep it to simple, generic races (like humans and things very similar to humans) for the initial testing. The drakeling would completely lose its flavor (and its fun) if we made it something simple and generic, so I vote we keep it out for now (but definitely put in either drakelings or something similar once we get going).
Let's get a few sections on place (three or four), two ranks each (starter and leader), a handful of ranks above that. We can do without currency for now.
Depending on how it's organized, we could have me be the captain (NPC) and have the WPLs each be one rank below captain (NPC), and we'll upgrade when we have the people and the know-how.
That seems like a good idea. I think currency should go in at the same time as more specific numbers and similar ideas (i.e. beta testing).
Also, just wondering, but how are we going to decide who the WPLs are for this project?
So I'm curious. From what I have read so far though all of the info threads it seems that there is a pretty good framework in place for the game. It would seem that it is time to start testing things out. Any idea of when that is because this does sound whole heartely fun and interesting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally commissioned through High~Light Studios
Well, we could start immediately, but that would require a lot of guessing from me about what we want. Which I can do, I guess, but I was hoping that the players themselves would do this sort of thing.
Its almost like we need a group to test though the training process and character building and see what problems they hit and start by resolving those issues.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally commissioned through High~Light Studios
Its almost like we need a group to test though the training process and character building and see what problems they hit and start by resolving those issues.
I would agree with this. It's sort of like WotC making cards--you can test them and you can do your damndest to not print broken things, but you still end up printing the occasional Tarmogoyf.
We, however, can run test versions, find the Tarmogoyfs, and kill them in "development" so they don't hurt the final game--and stuff like that is generally easier to find by testing than by theorizing.
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
Well, some of the things that are stopping us from starting right now is lack of actual content. We have ideas for the systems, but that's just about it. We still don't know where we're set, we have no idea what magic can be used, what skills are available, what skill packages are available... We've got the building framework in place, but we haven't even put in floors much less walls.
Ok then you say that we have somewhat of just a skeleton then it is time to step up and create an actually system using what we have. Lets go to each of the topic threads and complete the ideas all the time creating what would appear to be the first characters. They should embody the major archetypes we should make a mage, a warrior, a ranged combat expert, a healer/buffer or both, and maybe one character is is very similar to being a jack of all trades.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally commissioned through High~Light Studios
I've been trying with all my might to avoid jacks of all trades. They're fine, normally, but generally players hate it when they reach the glass ceiling a jack of all trades has.
But yes. We need to go from threat to thread, nail down the details, and get this going. This is the community project, so the community needs to set things in stone.
The jack of all trades was just an idea. I really couldn't think of what to name a hybrid class but anyway I suppose the major things to address first are the threads of magic, character advancement, and race. This should help in the building of our characters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally commissioned through High~Light Studios
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I love the Idea of mercenaries. (I <3 FF8). So
Academy
Academy Beginer->Academy Advanced->Cohort.
Cohort
New Merc->X->X->Captain
Is something like that desirable?
Sigil: an MMORPCCG ">Mexus: An MMORPCCG
First, flexibility. Whenever possible, the system should be slanted towards "you can do that" rather than "you can't do that." Example: world-building decisions like "Only men can be healers", "there are no psionics" and "the mercenary company doesn't accept people with criminal records" all close doors on character and adventure concepts.
Second, scalability. If the system doesn't work well if there are only five PCs and none of them really know what they're doing, the game will never get off the ground. If the system doesn't work well when there are 30 PCs with elaborate stories and goals, then the game will strain after a while.
Third, manageability. If the game gets off the ground at all, it won't be long before it's impossible for any one person to keep track of everything. Even if someone were to physically read everything, it'd be a headache to keep it all straight. I'd be in favor of forcing PCs to keep a concise but thorough record of what they've done in their character sheet. (The character sheets should be in a thread by themselves with nothing else but an explanation of what the thread is and an index.) Ability to maintain a good character sheet (has all relevant information necessary for an authority to "get" what the character is about and what they have done but isn't an exhaustive list of everything the character has ever done) should be rewarded. A list of links to threads the character has participated in wouldn't hurt. Establishing manageability guidelines early, particularly for keeping the hierarchy straight, will prevent headaches later. In addition, having a directory allows players to have their characters seek out other PCs whose expertise they may need for a particular problem, forging new relationships between characters.
It closed last night, after I posted that. I'm doing the threads now.
Well, it'd be more like "Training Camp > Cohort". There's no real need to have more than that. And the 'training camp' is nothing more than just weeding out people who don't post, or characters who are not good for extended play.
As nice as this sounds, it's sometimes less extensive and legalese to name the few things you can't do rather than the few you can. However, I agree with you that it shouldn't be tight like that. A few things, of course, will be actual rules, but mostly it's "You want to do this, you do it if you have the ability". But there are things we have to set in stone. For instance, you can't just kill off people, you can't give orders to people over your rank. And there need to be rules so things don't just get out of hand.
It shouldn't be like that. I don't see how that'll happen.
A couple of things: The only people that should need to read everything should be the captain; if they can't do it, it's probably time to split the cohort. PCs should keep track of all they do, not only to make sure that no one's cheating and giving themselves things they don't have. Then they should also be tracking their history. However, I don't think a PC should know all that info about others unless they actively ask. That's actually OOC information unless they actually tell you.
Discussion threads going up now.
My helpdesk should you need me.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Edit: Okay people, we need to finalize some things and get this running, since people are losing interest.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Some things don't need to be defined in deep detail. For better or for worse, many of the characteristics of deity X or race Y are going to be defined by the first players to have a reason to define them. (I would like to emphasize, especially early on, a culture of player world-development. If something is undefined, like the nature of Guerrial's holy texts or the gestation period of a cat person, it might as well be defined by the first player to have a reason to care about it, although there's a very tricky balance there, as we don't want weird or inconsistent things to make it into canon.)
It also might help to preliminarily run an understanding 'test group' through a mission in order to work out issues of 'feel'. (The group is 'understanding' in the sense that they're willing to accept 'back up, let's try that a different way' and are willing to make constructive comments. ('That scene felt a bit cheesy. Did that guy have a death wish or something?'; 'I feel like all the challenges felt the same.'; 'We need to find a way to make combat go more quickly without making it boring or trivial'.)
We seem to have a mass of people who are sort of interested in various topics. It's probably just a matter of picking a few for each topic and charging them with actual creation duties. The understanding should be that this is a design process, so things like what niche a race is supposed to fill are more important than things like the nature of their courtship rituals.
I think you're "back up, let's try that a different way" thing is really important to making that sort of test work. Try playing the same scenario two or three (or more) different ways and build off of whichever one works best.
Also, I'm more than happy to be involved in the testing group. I'm willing to play the same thing in five different ways to see which works best (and, of course, make constructive comments about how to improve it).
Winner of the Weekly Signature & Avatar Contest Weeks 51, 59, 78, & 118.
I don't care if I was framed for murder if I only got a warning I would let it go.
Alright, sounds good. And even after we finish the test adventures (Alpha testing), I think we should still do some Beta testing (which would involve things like "Joyd, let's see what happens if your arrows do 1d6 instead of 1d4").
Also, I think we should use the alpha testing to get a feel for what the numbers should be like. Once we've hammered out how we want the game to feel, that will let us set up a sort of power scale that we can base more specific numbers off of.
Winner of the Weekly Signature & Avatar Contest Weeks 51, 59, 78, & 118.
I don't care if I was framed for murder if I only got a warning I would let it go.
My helpdesk should you need me.
I am also volunteering for alpha/beta testing, or even to help build part of the world. I've done world-building before, and it's lots of fun.
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
Let's get a few sections on place (three or four), two ranks each (starter and leader), a handful of ranks above that. We can do without currency for now.
Depending on how it's organized, we could have me be the captain (NPC) and have the WPLs each be one rank below captain (NPC), and we'll upgrade when we have the people and the know-how.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Agreed. While I really like the idea of a Drakeling race (or something similar) once the game gets going, I think we need to keep it to simple, generic races (like humans and things very similar to humans) for the initial testing. The drakeling would completely lose its flavor (and its fun) if we made it something simple and generic, so I vote we keep it out for now (but definitely put in either drakelings or something similar once we get going).
That seems like a good idea. I think currency should go in at the same time as more specific numbers and similar ideas (i.e. beta testing).
Also, just wondering, but how are we going to decide who the WPLs are for this project?
Winner of the Weekly Signature & Avatar Contest Weeks 51, 59, 78, & 118.
I don't care if I was framed for murder if I only got a warning I would let it go.
Edit: Tomorrow, after I go desk-shopping, I'll be starting to put up a guide for this. I'll leave placeholders for anything undecided.
My helpdesk should you need me.
My helpdesk should you need me.
I would agree with this. It's sort of like WotC making cards--you can test them and you can do your damndest to not print broken things, but you still end up printing the occasional Tarmogoyf.
We, however, can run test versions, find the Tarmogoyfs, and kill them in "development" so they don't hurt the final game--and stuff like that is generally easier to find by testing than by theorizing.
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
My helpdesk should you need me.
But yes. We need to go from threat to thread, nail down the details, and get this going. This is the community project, so the community needs to set things in stone.
My helpdesk should you need me.