Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566260I am not really a fan of the activityoints approach.

What are your reservations?
Too fiddly?

Quote from: jibbajibba;566261What are your reservations?
Too fiddly?

Fiddly is one part of it.

I think it goes down the path of turning the action roll (which in my opinion should be simple and directly correlate to what your character is doing) into a subgame on its own (where you are allocating results strategically...a bit like playing a hand rather rolling a die). Just personal preference but these kinds of approaches are really not my cup of tea.

Quote from: jibbajibba;566244Future War was just an idea because I think the market isn't saturated. Going down a fantasy route is a bit like trying to introduce a new tomatoe sauce on the market. Historic stuff is an option but I know Brendan has a Roman game and I think those projects are really quite personal and require in depth research so maybe not the best for a collaborative effort. (and I totally saw the PCs as rements left behind on some fringe world after the major powers had reached stalemate and moved on, some strong factions, bands of renegades and the dream that the major powers might be back to save them all at some future point).

Historical is definitely a possibility. But like you say it requires research and one thing we'd probably run into is disagreements over the history.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566262Fiddly is one part of it.

I think it goes down the path of turning the action roll (which in my opinion should be simple and directly correlate to what your character is doing) into a subgame on its own (where you are allocating results strategically...a bit like playing a hand rather rolling a die). Just personal preference but these kinds of approaches are really not my cup of tea.

I can see it feels a bit gamist. The points do become a hand in effect. You decide whether to all out attack, defend, go first at a lower chance to hit or wait and take an aimed shot. However, I think there is a degree of reality to it. The choices are choices you make in an actual conflict its just the mechanics are gamist.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566264Historical is definitely a possibility. But like you say it requires research and one thing we'd probably run into is disagreements over the history.

Over the interpretation of it for sure

Quote from: jibbajibba;566265I can see it feels a bit gamist. The points do become a hand in effect. You decide whether to all out attack, defend, go first at a lower chance to hit or wait and take an aimed shot. However, I think there is a degree of reality to it. The choices are choices you make in an actual conflict its just the mechanics are gamist.

I think it is only realistic if the choices reflect real ones, but I am not seeing the connection between what action points represent and your decision to put them in initiative or attack. I am sure folks could come up with explanations, but I doubt they would hold in all cases. Especially when the AP are keyed to a random roll. I real life I might be able to opt to attack with lighter and faster strikes over heavier more potent ones, but I am not drawing from a randomized resource pool in order to make that choice. But my bigger issue is the management of these points will become its own game (regardless of how realistic or not realistic it is).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566268I think it is only realistic if the choices reflect real ones, but I am not seeing the connection between what action points represent and your decision to put them in initiative or attack. I am sure folks could come up with explanations, but I doubt they would hold in all cases. Especially when the AP are keyed to a random roll. I real life I might be able to opt to attack with lighter and faster strikes over heavier more potent ones, but I am not drawing from a randomized resource pool in order to make that choice. But my bigger issue is the management of these points will become its own game (regardless of how realistic or not realistic it is).

All fair points.

I think it was snap attack versus aimed attack.

I agree its a gamist apporach

Quote from: jibbajibba;566275All fair points.

I think it was snap attack versus aimed attack.

I agree its a gamist apporach

I think another important consideration is this will be viewed as an rpgsite game if we end up actually finishing and taking a gamist approach does run counter to the site's overal philosophy of gaming. While I personally think there is nothing wrong with gamist design if that is what people want, I do think we should make an effort to make a game that reflects the site's spirit.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566279I think another important consideration is this will be viewed as an rpgsite game if we end up actually finishing and taking a gamist approach does run counter to the site's overal philosophy of gaming. While I personally think there is nothing wrong with gamist design if that is what people want, I do think we should make an effort to make a game that reflects the site's spirit.

Not sure I want to sign up for a OD&D retroclone that tells people to Fuck off if they say the word story or refuse to smoke pipes in any public place they happen to be in .....

If we make a game it should be one that is well designed, original and fun... everything else I am not worried about ....

Quote from: jibbajibba;566291Not sure I want to sign up for a OD&D retroclone that tells people to Fuck off if they say the word story or refuse to smoke pipes in any public place they happen to be in .....

If we make a game it should be one that is well designed, original and fun... everything else I am not worried about ....

I hear you and I do think original and fun should be our priority but...

I think we need to respect the reputation and atmosphere of the community here because anything we design collectively will be seen as a reflection of the site. I am not saying it has to be a retroclone but making a storygame or something heavily gamist in my view wouldn't be something I think is appropriate for this venue. I wouldn't want to work on anything that might be perceived as a slight against therpgsite community.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566314I hear you and I do think original and fun should be our priority but...

I think we need to respect the reputation and atmosphere of the community here because anything we design collectively will be seen as a reflection of the site. I am not saying it has to be a retroclone but making a storygame or something heavily gamist in my view wouldn't be something I think is appropriate for this venue. I wouldn't want to work on anything that might be perceived as a slight against therpgsite community.

I don't see anything heavily gamist emerging to be honest but I don't think we need to be precious about the site. The people that post here are actually quite mixed. Anyone that takes this concept seriously has a voice here even if that is a voice of dissent. I actually think the fact that a group of people from here could end up with a retro OD&D clone, a 2e Clone, a version of Traveller, or a new spin on savage worlds is a strength of this site rather than a weakness.

The one commonality we share is dissent.

I'm not going to use GNS theory buzzwank in any of my posts because GNS theory is bullshit. Just getting that out the way.

As for AP, I think its an interesting idea. It evokes strategy and tactical depth to the game but I don't think this team is going to be to "up" for acical depth or strategy in the game. I have a good feeling that we're going to be going rules-lite here and that we're going to have interests spread over in more than combat. My primary concern though is the fiddliness of it. Because of the extra step that basically decides what you can do for the turn and that lenthens turns. We're going to want fast and hard resolution mechanic here.

Scifi is a good genre to run on so I can handle that. If we're going twith a "D10" mechanic then we're going to have to have a lot of skills and horizontal abilities so we don't suffer from the tiny range. Additionally, it seems like it would be better to make a classless system. Lastly the debate over the "feel" of the game should just be put to a vote or decided upon by the project leader. We all have our tastes, what we need is a focus.

For feel I vote for gritty, naturalistic, with pcs and npcs being on equal footing. But I am game for alternatives. I think if we go dice pool (and I am not really clear on which mechanic has the most popularity at this stage) having npcs and pcs follow the same rules (same number of hp, same basic attacks, etc) goes a long way to reigning in concerns about the gm juggling enormous dice pools (because it tends yo produce fights with smaller numbers of combatants....PCs are less apt to take on twenty opponents at a time).

I am on board for no classes and having a focus on skills. I do thin we should tread cautiously on social skills however and am more in favor of these being a last resort when the GM is unclear outcomes. For knowledges, I would like to suggest doing something similar to what i did in slayers, which only has you make a knowledge roll when you are operating outside of your skill level.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566363For feel I vote for gritty, naturalistic, with pcs and npcs being on equal footing. But I am game for alternatives. I think if we go dice pool (and I am not really clear on which mechanic has the most popularity at this stage) having npcs and pcs follow the same rules (same number of hp, same basic attacks, etc) goes a long way to reigning in concerns about the gm juggling enormous dice pools (because it tends yo produce fights with smaller numbers of combatants....PCs are less apt to take on twenty opponents at a time).

I am on board for no classes and having a focus on skills. I do thin we should tread cautiously on social skills however and am more in favor of these being a last resort when the GM is unclear outcomes. For knowledges, I would like to suggest doing something similar to what i did in slayers, which only has you make a knowledge roll when you are operating outside of your skill level.

I agree the same mechanics for PCs as NPCs monsters. I would keep the biochip idea as the PCs ace in the hole as only their side has this tech. Makes them special and its a useful game tool for a bunch of reasons.

I think its shaping up. No need to worry about social skills if its a scifi military campaign as we know soldiers have no social skills

So we need to take a vote on

• Genre - so far the options are SciFi, Historical, Fantasy, generic - with SciFi currently carrying the day
• Mechanic - AP pool, d10 +skill + stat , d20

Generally the board has kind of decided on

Crunch - low, a fast game is desired any extras should be clearly optional
Feel - Gritty seems to have been the only one hinted at.


Re team roles and the like. It's BSJ's baby as far as I can tell. I would vote for him as team leader. If he gets fed up with it or whatever we can change it but if he is happy to lead the process. I have some Project Management experience if its needed.

so vote

genre - I go SciFi with a future war setting

mechanics - I go d10

• Genre - so far the options are SciFi, Historical, Fantasy, generic - with SciFi currently carrying the day
• Mechanic - AP pool, d10 +skill + stat , d20

Genre: i am on board for future war (post apoc as well) and I would do historical if the concept were solid and interesting enough.

Mechanic: d10