In a couple of things i'm working on, i think that a similar model to the one you are proposing crops up. I'll try to explain it as best i can, but this ain't my forte.

In the systems i'm working on, i would say that the 'top level' is the character, or more specifically, his statistics (or object or machine etc). Everything is derived from statistics. Put your second tier as 'headings of abilities' under the characters statistics and then you have the third tier of the 'actual abilities'.

So for example, a character has a stat called Physique (with a numerical value), below this stat is listed things such as Move, Strength, Pliability, Unarmed Combat etc. Then the third tier explains the different modes. IE, taking Move; Common Move, Improved Move, Levitate, Fly, Bounding & Leaping, Brachiation, Tunneling (object), Pogoing, engine, etc etc.

So a person has a Physique of erm...5! Under the heading move, he automatically gets common move (for Physique 5 that could be 30 feet), he could then buy improved move in order to be an athlete (say, 40 feet move). Or if in a supers game take Fly.

A car with Physique 5 would take improved move & engine. If it was a plane, then he would also take fly.

So you have - Statistic > General activity or ability heading > types of activities or abilities

Looking at -E's list, all of those things could be derived from stats in the above model, simply splitting them between 'actors' and 'objects'. It would take a bit of work to include things like environment and metagame aspects though.

Dunno if i'm getting the gist or not.

Quote from: James J SkachI don't know about Marco's perspective, but this kind of misses the point.  The point is not to think about derived classes, but to really see if a set of foundation classes can be built from which thousands of derived classes can be built very easily.  And to even be able to look at different implementations of the same derived class and see how subtle changes alter the look and feel of a game.

I got the point -- that's exactly what I was thinking when I made that list I posted (including the possibility of different implementations).

If I didn't think this was a valuable exercise I wouldn't have made/posted that list.

My point above was just that I don't think such a list is *necessary* for any given game to be complete and functional and that in some cases it's better to use the derrived classes than have everyone playing with the foundation classes.

In terms of game design and theory I think this kind of thing is key and critically important; in terms of having those things available to play -- not so critical (but still valuable).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: One Horse TownIn a couple of things i'm working on, i think that a similar model to the one you are proposing crops up. I'll try to explain it as best i can, but this ain't my forte.

In the systems i'm working on, i would say that the 'top level' is the character, or more specifically, his statistics (or object or machine etc). Everything is derived from statistics. Put your second tier as 'headings of abilities' under the characters statistics and then you have the third tier of the 'actual abilities'.

So for example, a character has a stat called Physique (with a numerical value), below this stat is listed things such as Move, Strength, Pliability, Unarmed Combat etc. Then the third tier explains the different modes. IE, taking Move; Common Move, Improved Move, Levitate, Fly, Bounding & Leaping, Brachiation, Tunneling (object), Pogoing, engine, etc etc.

So a person has a Physique of erm...5! Under the heading move, he automatically gets common move (for Physique 5 that could be 30 feet), he could then buy improved move in order to be an athlete (say, 40 feet move). Or if in a supers game take Fly.

A car with Physique 5 would take improved move & engine. If it was a plane, then he would also take fly.

So you have - Statistic > General activity or ability heading > types of activities or abilities

Looking at -E's list, all of those things could be derived from stats in the above model, simply splitting them between 'actors' and 'objects'. It would take a bit of work to include things like environment and metagame aspects though.

Dunno if i'm getting the gist or not.

The approach laid out is pretty much the same thing, but in reverse.

In many games (like yours, if I read you correctly) and certainly in games like GURPS and Hero you have these Stats that provide a variety of benefits and capabilities.

In many cases this affects the stat's cost -- so in Hero, Dexterity (which helps you hit, go more often, and avoid damage) is very expensive compared to, say, Comliness which only helps you look good.

The capability-based approach reverse-engineers the cost of the stats (or traits or skills or powers or whatever) by looking holistically at all of the impacts they have on what the actor/character is capable of.

The purpose of this would be -- basically -- to look at relative costs of "things you buy with points" (e.g. Stats, Skills, etc.) and also to have a full understanding of how a given ability or attribute effects a character.

An example would be something like metal skin which probably

• Makes you harder to hurt
• Makes you heavier
• Makes you extra / completely resistant to skin-absorbed toxins
• Makes you look funny or maybe scary
• Makes your punch hurt more (because you're harder)
• Etc.

Most games would model some of these -- but maybe not all of them -- and more importantly might not charge appropriately for all of the advantages metal skin gives you.

A classic example would be 2nd-order effects: in many games being heavier *also* makes you do more damage... but it's the sort of thing a game designer is likely to miss (he'll charge for the "iron-knuckles" effect but not for the "weighs half a ton" effect).

Expressing something multi-faceted in terms of the full-spectrum of capabilities and their nth-order impacts is likely to get closer to the full picture.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I got the point -- that's exactly what I was thinking when I made that list I posted (including the possibility of different implementations).

If I didn't think this was a valuable exercise I wouldn't have made/posted that list.

My point above was just that I don't think such a list is *necessary* for any given game to be complete and functional and that in some cases it's better to use the derrived classes than have everyone playing with the foundation classes.

In terms of game design and theory I think this kind of thing is key and critically important; in terms of having those things available to play -- not so critical (but still valuable).

Cheers,
-E.

Ahhh...cool...I get you now.  Thanks for the clarification.

Quote from: MarcoI think you're missing my point here: we created those powers by looking at fiction and saying "we want these abilities."

But we defined them in game terms using (our nascent) JCF methodology.

Phase: Primary is MOVEMENT (we see it as primarily a form of movement).
Secondary: DEFENSE (you could say it "inherits" from defense)
Value: High (Movement), Medium-high (DEFENSE)
Strangeness: Very high

This description is in scratch notes (interestingly, Stretching looks similar but has GRAPPLE-OFFENSE as the primary and DEFENSE and MOVEMENT as secondary elements).

Those all UPPERCASE words are the JCF elements. If we had a full working list and costs then you could take that list and create ... let me think ...

Blink Teleport
Primary is Defense (Value: High, teleport-dodge out of the way of attacks)
Secondary is MOVEMENT (teleport. Value: Medium--you don't go far)
Secondary is ATTACK (blink to strike from behind/Above) Value: Medium
Strangeness: Very High (teleporting around the battlefield is weird)

In theory, this exercise would give you the cost for each "level" of Blink Teleport (where 'level' is defined as some kind of substantial modifier to a defense roll).

-Marco

Okay, actually, I think we're on the same page. This (i.e., a working list of elements and costs) is what JAGS needs to be a truly universal system. Right now, out of the box, it's only a generic system (i.e., not tied to any specific genre by default).

While a list of pre-built archetypes would be handy, it's still not going to make JAGS universal (because, as I mentioned earlier, you'll get stuck in the trap of having to provide an archetype for everything to accomplish that goal). Of course, if universal isn't your goal, this isn't an issue.

Well, and to be fair, Marco and I might be working at a kind of cross-purpose here.  I asked him about what he'd done for JAGS as I saw it as an interesting way to approach design in general.

So, sorry if I screw up a conversation about JAGS for my own personal goal of creating a kind of uber-foundation-class document/thingie that could be used for many design purposes - it's just something that struck me about what Marco was doing and I thought it would be a cool way to promote a kind of "theory" discussion that was different and RPGSite unique...

Kinda the way I would direct threory talk, I guess, and Marco just happened to provide the spark for me....

This is all starting to remind me of Alternate Realities.

Interesting Link J.  I've downloaded it so I'm going to start taking a look. Have you an opinion?

Quote from: James J SkachInteresting Link J.  I've downloaded it so I'm going to start taking a look. Have you an opinion?

It's got some interesting ideas, the whole notion of using object-oriented programming is interesting, but in practice it takes a lot of work.

One of those things that's a good idea in theory, but in practice I dunno that I'd try and play it.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI'm not -entirely- sure that Calithena meant "use of miniatures" so much as "a playstyle derived from the miniatures-based wargame", but I'll leave that up to...uh....them....to define more clearly.

Perhaps we'll learn more about it later.

You're right, Ape, I didn't mean that.

On the other hand, Warthur makes some points that are worth discussing more.

It won't happen on this thread, if it happens at all, because by the time I've thought through what I mean (something about the imaginary 'concreteness' of characters and situations) I'll either decide it's wrong or start it a thread all its own.

So ... here's the v1.2 cut of the JFC work. What the below link is to is a map of everything that the JAGS Revised rules track. If there is a power in the game--and that list is complete (it's not--but it's not a bad start) then it ought to be defined in some way on that chart).

So here's the basic idea:
1. Flesh it out--find stuff that ought to be on the chart ... and isn't (an example is power-consumption needs for machines--should we track that?)

2. Assign point-costs or point-cost-modifiers to each element there.

Now, I don't expect people to be able to do this--I'm posting this as a point of interest. For one thing, you need to blow that sucker up to like 400% to really read it. For another thing, I haven't included the relative *values*--even our estimated relative values for each of those things.

But ... this is what some of the work going forward will look like on the JAGS end ...

Edited To add: I've added a later version here.

http://www.jagsrpg.org/jags/content/personal/JFCv2.pdf
-Marco

Quote from: MarcoSo ... here's the v1.2 cut of the JFC work. What the below link is to is a map of everything that the JAGS Revised rules track. If there is a power in the game--and that list is complete (it's not--but it's not a bad start) then it ought to be defined in some way on that chart).

So here's the basic idea:
1. Flesh it out--find stuff that ought to be on the chart ... and isn't (an example is power-consumption needs for machines--should we track that?)

2. Assign point-costs or point-cost-modifiers to each element there.

Now, I don't expect people to be able to do this--I'm posting this as a point of interest. For one thing, you need to blow that sucker up to like 400% to really read it. For another thing, I haven't included the relative *values*--even our estimated relative values for each of those things.

But ... this is what some of the work going forward will look like on the JAGS end ...

Edited To add: I've added a later version here.

http://www.jagsrpg.org/jags/content/personal/JFCv2.pdf
-Marco

That flow chart is ah. . . interesting. I think it may have just confirmed my growing suspicions that JAGS might not be the system that I'm looking for insofar as universal adaptability goes, though it certainly looks like a big step toward making JAGS more complete as a system.

Marco,

Just wanted to pop in to apologize for not providing more input.  I was the one who nudged you about this, so I feel kinda responsble for you putting this all out in public.

Had some personal shit explode and it's been crazy.  Hell, I didn't touch the computer for almost 24 hours.  I can't even say when the 24 hour period is that I went without being on the computer.

Thanks,
jjs

Quote from: MarcoSo ... here's the v1.2 cut of the JFC work. What the below link is to is a map of everything that the JAGS Revised rules track. If there is a power in the game--and that list is complete (it's not--but it's not a bad start) then it ought to be defined in some way on that chart).

So here's the basic idea:
1. Flesh it out--find stuff that ought to be on the chart ... and isn't (an example is power-consumption needs for machines--should we track that?)

2. Assign point-costs or point-cost-modifiers to each element there.

Now, I don't expect people to be able to do this--I'm posting this as a point of interest. For one thing, you need to blow that sucker up to like 400% to really read it. For another thing, I haven't included the relative *values*--even our estimated relative values for each of those things.

But ... this is what some of the work going forward will look like on the JAGS end ...

Edited To add: I've added a later version here.

http://www.jagsrpg.org/jags/content/personal/JFCv2.pdf
-Marco

Ummm...wow...it's...beautiful.  It's going to take me a long time to digest, but I'm just curious right off the bat.  Any reason for separating the Offense and Defense at that high of a level, rather than having them both under an Uber-heading like "Action" or something?

Just curious...

Well, there could be a high-level heading--no doubt (and, in fact, there is that heading on the other side). I separated them out because of their size and when I did them in the taxonomy.

A few notes:
1. The closer you come to the center the more you are looking at "individual powers."
2. The further out you go, the more you are looking at "cost modifiers" (that is, the further down the chain).

-Marco