Quote from: Ghost Whistler;629599so a game lik l5r wouldnt appeal to you either, with its rules for simulating samurai codes.

that's fair enough, but the cryptic responses i can do without.

Those responses shouldn't be cryptic, they're rather classic ways of looking at things.

But carry on with what you're doing. I do find it interesting that a number of on this site mirror Forge thinking so well- this is a idea they would have loved and is rather core to a Story-Game.

Quote from: gleichman;629600Those responses shouldn't be cryptic, they're rather classic ways of looking at things.

But carry on with what you're doing. I do find it interesting that a number of on this site mirror Forge thinking so well- this is a idea they would have loved and is rather core to a Story-Game.

if people like it, great. If they don't, fair enough. This has nothing to do with the story game nonsense that goes on here

Quote from: gleichman;629565Easily.

Rules are constraints. In basketball you must meet certain requirements to score a basket, and yet other requirements to score 3 points with one. The excitement is seeing someone manage it despite those constraints. This is the heart and primary purpose of game rules.

This approach is great for RPG combat, skill resolution and perhaps a few other areas.

However I don't see the point in constraints on role-playing or adventure design.

I'm curious; how is an approach based on relating to artificial constraints good? As opposed to a system based on logical choice and common sense?
Combat or otherwise.

Quote from: baragei;629607I'm curious; how is an approach based on relating to artificial constraints good? As opposed to a system based on logical choice and common sense?
Combat or otherwise.

If one operates without contraints, then by definition one my do anything- and any thus any challenge is removed. Imagine a chess game were a player can simply say "I win by a clever series of moves" without ever picking up a piece or actually playing a game.

Now the person claiming victory without playing the game may sound logical, and even convincing. But sounding like one's correct is not being correct- it's just sounding good enough to convince someone who really doesn't know better. Playing for real and winning by the rules however removes all question.

The same applies to RPG combat. The rules provide the enviroment in which a player proves his logic and common sense is real- by operating within the constraints of the game and gaining victory.

In any other game, operating outside the rules is viewed the same- i.e. the player has failed to prove his skill. Worse, he's a cheater. Only in table-top RPGs do we see the rejection of constraints and the destruction of the game concept as a acceptable practice (at least for some).

quite frankly if a hobby won't adopt new ideas without all this 'story game' blah then we might as well just play DnD.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;629622quite frankly if a hobby won't adopt new ideas without all this 'story game' blah then we might as well just play DnD.

New ideas that basically replace or require role-playing? Not my interest.

On the other hand, neither is D&D.

So one hopes people will find (or return to) a direction different from both of these.

Quote from: gleichman;629615If one operates without contraints, then by definition one my do anything- and any thus any challenge is removed. Imagine a chess game were a player can simply say "I win by a clever series of moves" without ever picking up a piece or actually playing a game.

Now the person claiming victory without playing the game may sound logical, and even convincing. But sounding like one's correct is not being correct- it's just sounding good enough to convince someone who really doesn't know better. Playing for real and winning by the rules however removes all question.

The same applies to RPG combat. The rules provide the enviroment in which a player proves his logic and common sense is real- by operating within the constraints of the game and gaining victory.

In any other game, operating outside the rules is viewed the same- i.e. the player has failed to prove his skill. Worse, he's a cheater. Only in table-top RPGs do we see the rejection of constraints and the destruction of the game concept as a acceptable practice (at least for some).

I'm not arguing that rules are bad. I'm arguing(from an admittedly personal perspective) that rules that restrain me from reacting in a sensible and logical manner to things that happens in a game are bad.
Game logic should be closely related to RL logic. If a game's logic and rules only makes mathematical sense on a badly drawn battlemat, chances are that I'm not very interested in that game.
Anyway, I'm derailing. This is a thread about character development.

Quote from: baragei;629635I'm not arguing that rules are bad. I'm arguing(from an admittedly personal perspective) that rules that restrain me from reacting in a sensible and logical manner to things that happens in a game are bad.

Good rules (and understanding those rules) don't cause that problem. Reality is constraints, and rules only reflect that.

Quote from: baragei;629635Anyway, I'm derailing. This is a thread about character development.

True enough, if highly focused development paths can be called character development.

Quote from: gleichman;629630New ideas that basically replace or require role-playing? Not my interest.

On the other hand, neither is D&D.

So one hopes people will find (or return to) a direction different from both of these.

I don't think you understood the idea at all.

That's fine, it wasn't terribly clear.

But how do you come to the conclusion that it precludes playing your role?

and if you can't give anything other than a cryptic response, you might as well not bother.

Using Chi creates Interesting Times. This is a straight copy of the TBZ system, however it is simpler and represents the heroes using their heroic abilities thus separating them from the rest of non heroic people - the sort of thing that should make them worthy of Interesting Times.

GM can spend IT to confer Destinies onto the heroes. As discussed the GM has ownership of what the hero becomes involved in. The hero isn't completely without a say: his actions guide wht the GM can do. If the hero doesn't want to become entangled with the Princess he's there to protect he can always bugger off and do something else. Perhaps that is how they acquire Vengeance? Vengeance isn't meant to be simply 'I are angry! Hulk Smash', it's Chen Zen when he seeks to avenge his master. It's Bruce Lee curbstomping treacherous O Hara. It can lead to bad things, but it's also an opportunity to roleplay a journey. I understand this might feel forced to some gamers, but...

Heroes can buy Experience from IT. Unspent IT can be claimed (possibly, though perversely by spending Chi - or some other exchange at least) as bonus XP at certain points/end of sesh/end of adventure.

Heroes can acquire Resources/Contacts by spending Destiny. Doing so gives bonus dice to the GM. This is meant to represent the ambiguous nature of IT: it's not Karma, a negative force in TBZ. It essentially represents an upping of the ante, in terms of the story (uh oh!) or narrative, or adventure, if you prefer. So this is meant to represent the increased cache the heroes have, their increased profile on the stage of destiny (to paraphrase Soul Calibur): it's also a convenient way to get around having to deal with currency. I don't specifically want it to replace or be the only means for social interaction however. The GM bonus (in whatever form it manifests, dice or points or whatever) is part of the whole concept behind the Interesting Times phrase; a hero spends points to get a better spaceship essentially draws attention to himself...GM gets a bonus.

Destinies allow heroes to gain Chi. Again this is how TBZ works. The things you care about, that matter to you allow you to become powerful. It's not precisely how one cultivates Chi in 'real life', but...

Destinies are capped by available IT. In other words, players need to generate IT in order for their Fortunes to have worth. A bit cheap perhaps.

Vengeance can be earned by destroying a Destiny. Again this is the TBZ mechanism and is the fundamental point: the hero has to abandon those things he cares about in order to protect them from the consequences of his actions. Pure melodrama. It's not the perfect circle it is in TBZ, because Vengeance is a separate system, but then it's not meant tobe as rigid.