|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on May 18, 2004 21:51:10 GMT -5
I agree with Merk. We could always make up a bunch of concepts and file them away for expanding at a later time. Godlings, outcasts, and 'more than human' seem very similar to each other; as if they were the same concept, but approached from 3 different directions - perhaps we could connect them together in some fashion more closely?
|
|
X
Peasant
No-name
Posts: 16
|
Post by X on May 19, 2004 22:20:32 GMT -5
Y'know what's odd? Several years ago, in a message board far, far away (I think it was called the Park; the RPG board)...I started developing a world that I called the Shadow World. No joke...funny, hey?
Anyway, my version of the Shadow World was that it was a world where all creatures of our world's myths and folklore originated, for the simple fact that everything in the third dimension has a shadow...including Humanity.
Vampires and werewolves populate the Shadow World as humans do the World of Light ruling practically all of the major continents; Kraken rule the depths of the blackened oceans; Dragons, both alive and undead, rule the bleak skies above; Yeti tribes brutalize the frozen northern wastelands...you get the picture.
Humans, on the other hand, are as common as these creatures were in our myths and legends: rare unfortunates. And in fact, in a side venture of mine I had the humans nothing more than cattle, fodder for the vampiric and lycanthropic masses that dominate the Shadow World. At best, lost travellers in a world gone mad...
How does one travel between the World of Light and the Shadow World? By esoteric portals called shadowgates (think Stargate for all intents and purposes, only medieval it out some).
Blah blah blah, that's the (extremely) shortened version of mine.
If you see something you like, feel free to use it. I pretty much gave up on the concept, and moved on to create a different realm: Sunderland.
But that's...quite different.
What system?: Freeform RPG...it'd be more unique that way.
What time period?: Let the people decide, maybe via poll...it'd be more unique that way. Me? I say medieval with a few technological tweaks (how can a phantom train exist in a world that hasn't even developed the technology to create a steam-driven train??).
Or, better yet, use the Shadow World as just that: the shadow of the world. The era can be chosen by the GM/DM/writer, as the Shadow World is in fact the constant dark duplicate (again, through myths and legends) of the World of Light...
What mood/theme?: Are you seeing a pattern here? >grin<...ditto the answers above. Me? I like dark n' gritty. Humans are constantly trying to survive in a wasteland of a world (quite different than our lazy selves in rl!), and facing near impossible odds...playing on humanity's strength of Adaptation (stubborness). A few other social commentaries wouldn't hurt things either...as long as they're not blatant, in-your-face.
So says my coin; take care.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on May 24, 2004 13:47:08 GMT -5
Mm, your "Shadow World" idea sounds very interesting, X. Thanks for joining us to post it. Now, we haven't made much progress on deciding which of these proposals to use. I was thinking about it over the weekend and combining them will almost certainly be more trouble than it's worth. Some of them seem to be mutually exclusive, particularly the ones that talk about alternate realities (Planeshift, Otherland, and X's Shadow World). And while theoretically Godlings and More than Human could be combined I think there's still some problems. Actually, Outcasts I think could be added onto anything since all it really specifies is that the characters hide their powers. But to try to add Godlings and More than Human together would make both types of characters seem less "special." Personally, I think we should go for Planeshift (it's my fav, but I made it up so I'm biased ). It might be hard, but I'm up for a challenge. And if we decide it's too hard then we could always put it aside and do one of the other ideas. We also might be able to pull in some of the elements of X's Shadow World (that some worlds/planes are opposites of each other). I think we can also slap the "hidden" element from Outcasts onto it no problem. What does everyone else think?
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on May 24, 2004 14:30:38 GMT -5
The one thing I can see against planeshift is that while its a novel idea, the system itself is too huge. Despite the fact that we're all dedicated and can probably churn it out with all the details, it seems too complex for an average internet user to be able to pick up and start playing right away (or within a few hours of reading, anyway). Especially since we're designing this to catch peoples' attention, if we're going to bring in obscure facts about little towns in some corner of another universe, it tends to turn people off if they don't know about it. Having DMed Planescape for a while, planeshift rings a giant bell in my head, and I'm definite that this issue will come up at some point in the future; best to address it now.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on May 25, 2004 12:54:48 GMT -5
That's a very good point, but I think we're going to run into that with any of these proposals. To create not just a system, but a world by definition seems to suggest that there will be "too much" information. I see what you're saying that having several different planes/dimensions/worlds and detailing them all can cause an information overload, but that could just as easily happen in a game restricted to a single plane/dimension/world. I sorta envisioned this project as having several "parts," a system part and a world part. The system will be the mechanics of exactly how you play the game (i.e. what you would find inside of the D&D PHB or DMG) and then we'd also have a setting to use the game in (i.e. what you would find in a D&D campaign world setting book, like Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms). The world or setting is the part that we're mostly discussing now, and it will be, by deffinition, loaded with information about the people and places within it. But if the average internet user wanted to pick up our system and start using it they wouldn't have to use our setting if they didn't want to wade through all the info, they could make up their own. That's kinda what I thought we were doing in this thread, making proposals and discussing our setting (or theme, as I (perhaps innacurately) called it). I thought it would be easier to make up rules if we had a world to base it on. Some of the rules would be setting-based (such as the plane-shifters' shifting ability or a "more than human's" mutation), but some would be generic (how combat is handled in a play-by-post), and this would be the part that could be easily picked up and used by the average internet user. If we decide to base our rules off of the D20 system (as somebody suggested earlier) then most of the work on the generic system has been done for us, all we have to do is adapt that to a play-by-post. This is why I thought it would be best to have a specific setting to work with because it gives us more to do and it might give us examples to use when smoothing out the rough parts. I guess I was kinda vague on this before. Sorry, I'm making this up as I go along. So, anybody have any comments/suggestions on what I just said? Any more theme/setting proposals? Thoughts on the existing proposals?
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on May 26, 2004 8:47:57 GMT -5
That's true. The only reason I pointed out planeshift in specific is because the mere nature of the game requires different locations to be well fleshed out, and moreover, for each of them to be unique, which isn't inherent in the other games. We could conceivably run any of the other games in a single neighborhood in a single town, but planeshift requires us to write down whole universes. This isn't to say that the idea isn't workable though - maybe if we toned down the scale or modified the idea a bit.
Other than that, I'm not a big fan of the D20 system. It seems very strongly tailored to the AD&D system which is heavily biased towards high-fantasy (despite all the permutations). Its simply not expandable enough and there would have to be too many custom rules to make it effective.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on May 26, 2004 15:57:38 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess I can see what you're saying. I tried to find a quick way to tone it down, but each time I think up a solution it leads to more problems. What proposal do you think we should use?
And what don't you like about D20? The way I understand it, it seems pretty generic (of course, the only experience with it I have is with D&D so I'm extrapolating from that). Remember that we're just using it (or whatever other system we decide on) as a sort of springboard. We want to tailor-make this for a play-by-post style, so it'll require a lot of changes no matter what system we use (unless we make up our own, but then that's lots more work anyway). What D20 could provide is a (fairly) simple way to store basic characteristics (ability scores) and knowledge/training (skills and feats) along with a simple modifier-based rolling system (the combat part of which we're probably going to re-do to make it shorter). We can make up our own skills and feats (and even make new ability scores if we need to). I don't see what makes it biased towards fantasy if all we're using is the basic structure.
|
|
X
Peasant
No-name
Posts: 16
|
Post by X on May 26, 2004 22:59:06 GMT -5
The thing with d20 is that you have to, legally, label it as such, and that makes it essentially the property of Wizards of the Coast (Hasbro?). They can then take any or all of the ideas that falls underneath this licence and develop it however they see fit. Are you willing to lose all uniqueness to your work? Me? I say keep full creative control...to the point of copyright. Besides, if it's being used as a Play by Post RPG world, then why bother bringing d20 tabletop rules over to it? It's almost pointless... And just for the record, I have no personal beef with Wizards of the Coast (outside of the fact that 3.5 came out way too quick for this cat), I just don't like the idea of outsiders having full creative control over the creator(s) in -any- medium. And I'd hate to see you guys ripped off like that...assuming you're not on a publisher's payroll and looking to fill a deadline through piracy. Say it ain't so... Seriously, correct me if I'm wrong, but Wizards of the Coast (who owns the d20 licence) has that power...and with that said, make it a point (ie: hawkeye) to detach your ideas from anything that may be even remotely similar to anything found in d20. This is a game to some, but a business to others... Sorry for being so anal guys, but I had to write this post. And please, don't take it as patronizing in any way. I don't mean it that way. I'm just droppin' my say as a F.Y.I./reminder...
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on May 26, 2004 23:33:42 GMT -5
I really think that we should create our own system. One that puts far more emphasis on the character and roleplaying than on stats and numbers. Combat should last no more than a few rounds (as previously discussed), and so huge amounts of combat-based skills and stats should be unnecessary. We should, however, allow the GM of each game to tailor the game to their needs (allowing each game to have a unique flavor of light/dark, fantasy/realism, epic/modern, etc.) so perhaps a more universal and all-encompassing set of stats are in order. I highly suggest that you take a look at White Wolf's system. Though it is far from perfect, it is definetely a step in the right direction, IMO.
|
|
X
Peasant
No-name
Posts: 16
|
Post by X on May 27, 2004 2:57:13 GMT -5
We should, however, allow the GM of each game to tailor the game to their needs (allowing each game to have a unique flavor of light/dark, fantasy/realism, epic/modern, etc.) so perhaps a more universal and all-encompassing set of stats are in order. Agreed. And in keeping with this ideal, we need to always be in respect of it. Maybe all we can do is suggest rules...multiple rule variants. Themes (eras) in the least. If Joe Blow wants a high fantasy, action-heavy story, then we (this project) should, idealistically, be able to cater to that want. If Suzy Q wants her story to be semi-realistic, character-heavy gothic, then she should be able to get that from the same set of rules. See what I'm sayin'? By keeping things generalized, you (theoretically) keep the audience's attention...because they can fill in the 'blanks', thus create their own unique world from a unique concept. Without having to do too much work. The Shadow World should be nothing more, and nothing less, than a catalyst for roleplayer's and writer's imaginations...at least, that's what I think. -shrug- The only thing with this is, we have to come up with a system (a world, essentially) that will cater to everyone. Sci-fi, fantasy, contemporary, and so on. And the only way to this that I can just now come up with is have different eras of the same world, with the writers (DMs/GMs, etc) creating their own history of said planet. Crossovers will be a pretty cool possibility as well. Example: Borrowing a friend's fantasy campaign and incorporating that as history into your modern campaign. ?
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on May 27, 2004 7:46:23 GMT -5
All right, unique system it is. Whoever suggested D20 (I forget who) made it sound like it was in the public domain and we could do whatever we wanted with it and still keep our rights to our stuff. If we'll have to turn everything over to WotC if we ever wanted to market it (which I doubt will happen, but it's good to keep it in mind anyway) then we absolutely shouldn't do that. I just thought it would be easier. So X suggested that we make a world that could cater to everybody. Any ideas? I mentioned before that in my original concept of Godlings that different planets had different tech levels and some planets were completely isolated so they would develop independently of the universe at large. Should we go with this concept? We don't need to take the whole "Godlings" idea, just the different and isolated planets idea.
|
|
|
Post by Sharess on May 29, 2004 12:51:38 GMT -5
Merkuir I got an idea if you really don't want to fouce on combate but rathe ron the role playing you could ues the amber system. Amber is a diceless game and it actully works out fairly well and as soon as I get them out of the storeage shed I can post more about the subject.
As for combate only lasting a couple of rounds, well sorry but I don't think that that is a very realistic. Think on some of the chactoers that you have made in the past I'm sure that you have made some tanks that were in it just for the fighting. I will however applude y'all for the trying to make the system more about role playing then hulk smash.
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on May 29, 2004 23:23:06 GMT -5
Amber looks promising; I'm looking it up right now. Thanks, Sharess.
As for combat lasting only a few rounds, its only a matter of increasing the realism of the game. Realistically speaking, it only takes one good hit from a sword to kill an average person. One or two bullets. Even one punch can kill. Its all a matter of factoring in the sheer seriousness and danger of combat.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on May 30, 2004 19:00:29 GMT -5
I like dice games for a few reasons. First, rolling dice adds randomness, and I like having the "element of suprise," so to speak. I like it where not even the DM can say exactly what will happen. The second reason isn't about dice per say, but is about combat and statistics (which I feel like go with dice, but I don't know anything about Amber so for all I know it actually does have statistics, but I'm assuming it doesn't). I do enjoy roleplaying and I think it should be the focus of these games, but I also enjoy the level-up feeling. I do collaborative writing online, and it is very much like free-form roleplaying because there are no dice. When I come here, I like to have dice. I like to be able to have numbers that tell me who won the battle and I like to have numbers to tell me that my character is getting better at what she does. As I said already, I don't know anything about Amber and how it handles combat, but in my writing group we've done battle scenes before and it's often hard to determine who wins. Nobody wants their characters to get hurt, and especially immature roleplayers act out combat very unrealistically, where they always narrowly avoid danger. Now, you could avoid combat altogether, but roleplayers have a long history of combat and I don't think you'll find many players who are willing to give it up completely. I'm not saying that I don't think free-form or diceless roleplaying is fun, I'm just saying that most gamers like having dice in their games, so I think we should accomodate them.
However, I'd like to hear more about Amber and how it's done, and if it sounds good to everybody maybe we will use it or base our system off of it. (But remember that if we do use Amber we'll run into the same intelectual property issues that we'd have if we used D20.)
|
|
X
Peasant
No-name
Posts: 16
|
Post by X on May 30, 2004 21:11:52 GMT -5
Having a die system isn't going to eliminate the problem of players being too attached to their characters...all they have to do is submit a number that benefits their characters.
There are automatic die rolling systems out there, that I've heard of, but what are the rights that protect it (the concept/software)? Is it even a feasible option?
Also, Merkuri, I like your concept with the system of planets that have varying technological levels (I think its' pretty damn cool to be honest), but I have one question: What's to keep the more advanced culture from landing and conquering the planet with a lower tech level, and or corrupting it's social and technological advancement?
Asteroid belt?
Polluted (debris-filled) atmosphere?
If you can answer that question while keeping in mind the most advanced stage of technological development there is in the planetary system (use it as the devil's advocate for all intents and purposes), then the planet thing'll fly.
As to the whole combat thing...I say develop the world (or system of worlds) first, and then worry about playtesting, number-crunching aspects of it all.
Words first, numbers last (my humble opinion).
Planet(s), People, Society.
...everything else will just fall into place...
|
|