TheRPGSite

By request (from a PM):

Maybe this belongs in theory--I don't know--someone can move it if it does.

Okay: so, I have this big project that's a point-based universal RPG. As such, I (and the team) try to quantify things in terms of points. Things like "Can breathe under water" and "kill-with-a-glance." Stuff like that.

Now, everyone knows that point-costs are sort of a best-effort type of thing: very, very often the ability to kill or immobilize an enemy by looking at them is worth more than the ability to breathe under water ... but that one time? Or if you're playing Water World? Or whatever: clearly the value of something in a game is situationally related.

I think most people agree on that.

So we'll go one level down:

In trying to figure out how to create things in the game (powers, characters, skills, combat maneuvers, etc.) we need to have some idea of how those things act/interact with everything else. Not just other 'Game Elements' (like how your Strength score interacts with your hand-to-hand damage) but also things in the imaginary space of the game (how does your computer skill interact with the concept of Windows in a modern day game? Solaris? A fictitious far-future operating system?).

I mean, in most cases this is pretty straight forward--right? (make a roll to find vulnerabilities or maybe to patch them).

So we'll go one level deeper:

The conclusion that we've come to is that you can look at just about everything you'd consider a game-element (something you'd pay points for) and most things you'd *do* in the game (i.e. actions you'd declare) and it all fits into some kind of ... taxonomy. Like there's some big piece of paper with at least most things you'd find or do in an RPG written down ... under headings.

So maybe there's a heading called Move and under it you'd see things like: Combat Movement (with a bunch of stuff under that) and Leave Scene (maybe) and maybe Travel. Under Combat Movement there might be stuff like Ground Movement (Walk, crawl, run) and maybe special headings for Flight, Vehicular Positioning, Tactical Maneuver for advantage, and stuff like Teleport. Probably a lot of other stuff.

If you accept that it's even possible to capture a lot of the traditional roleplaying space in this way
If you can imagine this piece of paper (big) and map your last game to it, and you can see how a lot of the action that took place (maybe a whole lot? could you get all of it?) would be reflected in those categories--then you could envision a set of 'things' that are fundamental elements of traditional roleplaying.

In computerese we could call these things the foundation-class-library. If you had a full set of this stuff--the whole sheet of paper filled out--then you could take any traditional rpg and apply that structure to it (how is a player declaring movement in D&D different from movement in Champions? And Dogs in the Vinyard?).

I think this would tell you things--maybe even interesting things.

So there's been some work on it 'round these parts.

I'm posting this because I got a PM about it and the person was interested and thought it would make a good public discussion.

What's to discuss? How about this: what are the 'top level' categories?

Is there something like this:
Character, Combat, Imaginary Thing, Imaginary Event? Or would you break it down further at the top level? Would you take out Combat and leave that under Event? Does this even make sense (yes, I know that Imaginary Event needs a lot more explanation before you could even answer that meaningfully--I'm presently thinking this is already long and maybe not all that interesting).

-Marco

And as is often the case in thse kinds of foundation class libraries, some of the implementation details are left up to the specific implementation.

So, movement in D&D might be different from movement in DitV, but it's still movement.  How movement is defined can be pushed down to a lower implementation element where it's specific costs and effects can be determined.

Is that possible, Marco?

Quote from: James J SkachAnd as is often the case in thse kinds of foundation class libraries, some of the implementation details are left up to the specific implementation.

So, movement in D&D might be different from movement in DitV, but it's still movement.  How movement is defined can be pushed down to a lower implementation element where it's specific costs and effects can be determined.

Is that possible, Marco?

Oh yeah, absolutely. Saying "I flank him" has no specific meaning in DitV. Saying "I flank him" in D&D has no meaning unless you move the miniature (assuming you're playing with a map).

The game is the implementation of these concepts (it's legitimate to say "I flank him" in both games--but the actual outcome is very different).

-Marco

D&D started started out as miniature wargame. The first essential element that set it apart from chainmail was its open end nature. A second essential element is continuity. The third essential element is it focuses on the personal level i.e. the character is king.

Beyond that just about any game can be the basis for a role-playing game. Whether it will be a fun role-playing game is another question. During the early days several wargames came out that had strong backgrounds, Star Fleet Battles, Swords and Sorcery, Freedom in the Gaxaly etc. I knew of several homebrews that took these and tried to make a rpg campaign out of them.

I almost want to say that the definition of a traditional RPG is one in which certain connections to concrete miniature and/or hex-and-counter wargaming is preserved at some level. Not willing to follow up on that at this point though.

Marco, I think your schema is a good one, but I think at best you're going to get relative taxa of foundational categories. For example, you could argue that social interaction and physical combat fall uniquely under a single 'kind' of interaction in Dying Earth, but under different kinds in AD&D1, and that both are specimens of yet a broader kind in The Pool.

I absolutely think the kind of schema you're looking for is possible and illuminating to do for any game, but whether there are any interesting patterns covering traditionality in games is likely something we'll need to look at 50 or 100 well-done examples to ascertain.

Hey, Marco. . . fuck you! I just dropped a lot of money on JAGS Revised, so you'd better not be yanking that rug out from under me before I get a chance to test drive (fly?) it ;)

On a more serious note, you're obviously looking at something for generic RPGs and I'm going to recommend the HERO approach as opposed to the GURPS and/or d20 approach. That is, rather than drive yourselves batshit crazy trying to provide situation specific rules for everything (which, despite claims, isn't a realistic goal), I think that you should stick with providing broad rules that can model many different things.

As I see it, this is currently JAGS largest weakness -- out of the box it only does rather mundane things, with no rules for constructing your own powers or abilities (which, incidentally, makes the cover more than a bit misleading). It is entirely dependent on pre-constructed lists of powers (e.g., spells) or subject specific, non-core, expansions (e.g., mutations in Have Not) in order to do things that most multi-genre systems can do out of the box.

That's a big hurdle, IMHO.

Here's a list had floating around; this is -- needless to say -- very unfinished... so it's got all kinds of stuff at different levels of abstraction, etc.

It's more of a brain dump than a real taxonomy... But it might be interesting.

The idea was to try to come up with some base elements for a really universal model. Btw: most of this comes from looking at a few games I like (D&D, GURPS, mainly) and looking at the stuff they have rules for and trying to abstract one level.

Top-Level Objects and Relationships
1) Things

• Actors (basically characters or things that behave like characters)
• Objects (things that don't act -- or behave like characters in any way)

2) Environment

• Time (combat rounds, sequencing)
• Effects of the environment (darkness, storms, heat/cold, etc.) on perception, objects, behavior (e.g. movement over terrain)
• Effects of things like fire, explosions, etc.
• Gravity (falling -- both long falls and the effect of falling down or being knocked down in combat)

3) Key Interactions

• Interaction with objects including falling, hitting, ramming, shooting etc.)
• Movement rules (falling, running, jumping, flying, swimming)
• Social interaction

Actor Attributes (physical)
Here's a list of things that might be useful to describe a character

• Mass including density and composition, including what he's made of, armored skin, etc.
• Size / height
• Shape
• How much he can carry
• What he needs to live (substance, amount, what happens without it)
• How he perceives the world (including senses, field of vision, etc.)
• How he responds to trauma / damage
• Reaction speed -- how fast he reacts to things (related to movement)
• Balance and orientation – how he gets up, falls down, etc.
• Ability to move including speed, method, etc.
• What substances are toxic to him and how he responds to poisons, drugs, etc.
• Ability to manipulate things (fine motor manipulators)
• Ability to grab / hold things
• Ability to inflict damage including fists, teeth, natural weapons, etc.

Mental Attributes would include

• Communicate (language, literacy, ability to speak)
• Learn, know, memorize (ability to pick up or have skills, ability to remember things)
• Emotions (effects of fear, courage, temptation, etc.)
• Beliefs (including delusion, loyalty, morality, etc.)
• Mental reactions to stress, trauma, etc. (e.g. SAN or Fright Checks, intimidation, etc.)

Actor (character) Capabilities
These would be feats, skills, advantages, etc. Actually, I think any specific advantage (say, eidetic memory or double-jointed) would be expressed in terms of how it affects the actor's capabilities. Stats would, also: strength makes you harder to hurt (in Champions), do more damage, etc. -- a whole laundry list of capability modifiers.

I also listed "modifiers" which were things I felt made a capability more or less useful -- for example, "Knowing something" is generally useful... but the modifier "academic" represents knowledge that's probably less useful most of the time (at least in an RPG).


Knowledge / Education


• Know something
• Learn something / find something / remember something (research, streetwise, etc.)
• Know someone
• Analyze / assess / figure out understand something (intelligence, science / forensics)

Negative Modifiers for Knowledge / Education Capabilities

• Academic, scientific, literary, historical, antique
• Highly specialized
• Esoteric
• Trivial, low culture

Positive Modifiers for Knowledge Capabilities

• Illegal / Underground

Will / Spirit


• Resist manipulation
• Overcome adversity (willpower)

Physical / Combat


• Hit something
• Hurt something (damage / disable)
• o   Penetrate armor
• o   Restrain / limit someone (disarm, etc.)
• Defend against being hit
• Defend against being hurt
• Take damage
• React fast
• Tactical maneuver (running, acrobatics)

Social


• Manipulate someone (appearance, diplomacy, lie)
• o   Intimidate
• o   Impress (etiquette)
• o   Attract / Seduce
• o   Convince / persuade (salesmanship)
• o   Ingratiate
• Understand someone (psychology)
• Communicate with someone (languages)
• Fool someone (slight-of-hand)
• Fame / High-class / Infamous (Reputation)

Professional


• Make money (professional skill)
• Make something valuable
• Heal someone

Other


• Find something / Sense something (physical)
• Hide something
• Movement (climbing, scuba diving, drive, etc.)
• Overcome hazard (fire-fighter, break fall, etc.)
• Gain access (high social class, lock-pick)
• Carry

Quote from: jdrakehHey, Marco. . . fuck you! I just dropped a lot of money on JAGS Revised, so you'd better not be yanking that rug out from under me before I get a chance to test drive (fly?) it ;)

On a more serious note, you're obviously looking at something for generic RPGs and I'm going to recommend the HERO approach as opposed to the GURPS and/or d20 approach. That is, rather than drive yourselves batshit crazy trying to provide situation specific rules for everything (which, despite claims, isn't a realistic goal), I think that you should stick with providing broad rules that can model many different things.

As I see it, this is currently JAGS largest weakness -- out of the box it only does rather mundane things, with no rules for constructing your own powers or abilities (which, incidentally, makes the cover more than a bit misleading). It is entirely dependent on pre-constructed lists of powers (e.g., spells) or subject specific, non-core, expansions (e.g., mutations in Have Not) in order to do things that most multi-genre systems can do out of the box.

That's a big hurdle, IMHO.

The JAGS Foundation Classes would be the building blocks that were used to make all those mutations, etc. In other words: those would be the broad rules you're talking about.

We can have a conversation about whether power-construction rules are a bonus or not (how do you create 'stretching' from "basic pieces?" How about "Phase through wall" without having a phase-power?). But, regardless: the basic building blocks is what you're asking for.

As for -E, that's a hell of a list. I'll look at it when I get the time.

-Marco

-E.

Nice. Fucking. List.

I hope to be able to comment on it later, but I need to digest it more.  But I thought it needed a nice slap on the back for the effort, regardless....

Quote from: Marcohow do you create 'stretching' from "basic pieces?" How about "Phase through wall" without having a phase-power?

I really hope those weren't serious questions, as JAGS sourcebooks present a number of powers and classes. The question you should be asking is "How did we create this spell/power/mutation when designing JAGS supplement X?" -- because whatever steps you to took to create those things are the real JAGS building blocks.

Quote from: jdrakehI really hope those weren't serious questions, as JAGS sourcebooks present a number of powers and classes. The question you should be asking is "How did we create this spell/power/mutation when designing JAGS supplement X?" -- because whatever steps you to took to create those things are the real JAGS building blocks.

I 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

Quote from: CalithenaI almost want to say that the definition of a traditional RPG is one in which certain connections to concrete miniature and/or hex-and-counter wargaming is preserved at some level. Not willing to follow up on that at this point though.

I'd disagree. En Garde! is undeniably old school and has no support for miniatures. Traveller's combat system used an abstracted range mechanic which allowed you to ignore miniatures entirely. Tunnels and Trolls' melee system was sufficiently abstract that miniatures weren't necessary either. You could use minis with them, but you can say the same of pretty much any RPG out there.

Quote from: WarthurI'd disagree. En Garde! is undeniably old school and has no support for miniatures. Traveller's combat system used an abstracted range mechanic which allowed you to ignore miniatures entirely. Tunnels and Trolls' melee system was sufficiently abstract that miniatures weren't necessary either. You could use minis with them, but you can say the same of pretty much any RPG out there.

I'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.

Quote from: MarcoBut we defined them in game terms using (our nascent) JCF methodology.

I may be off-base here, but I think the difference is that games like Hero give you (to some degree) the foundation classes while games like GURPS give you the derrived classes.

Since, in any give character, you're only going to (likely) use the derrived classes I don't think that's a horrible problem. In fact, there are probably some advantages: derrived powers can elegantly incorporate and enforce common fictional elements (I'm thinking of magic systems -- Even with modifiers for incantations and material components Fantasy Hero's magic system never felt like magic to me. GURPS's magic system did).

So long as you have a GURPS-like approach, where you've provided sufficient derrived classes to cover the supported genres, it's probably less important to fully document and support the foundation classes.

The exception might be super hero games, where there's a real advantage to being able to do whatever crazy thing you want.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I may be off-base here, but I think the difference is that games like Hero give you (to some degree) the foundation classes while games like GURPS give you the derrived classes.

Since, in any give character, you're only going to (likely) use the derrived classes I don't think that's a horrible problem. In fact, there are probably some advantages: derrived powers can elegantly incorporate and enforce common fictional elements (I'm thinking of magic systems -- Even with modifiers for incantations and material components Fantasy Hero's magic system never felt like magic to me. GURPS's magic system did).

So long as you have a GURPS-like approach, where you've provided sufficient derrived classes to cover the supported genres, it's probably less important to fully document and support the foundation classes.

The exception might be super hero games, where there's a real advantage to being able to do whatever crazy thing you want.

Cheers,
-E.

OK, I'll come out and admit I'm the one who asked Marco to take a question I had in PM to a public thread.

I 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.

Now Marco might tell you I'm fucking crazy. But his approach for JAGS (which I'm now going to take a closer look at) seemed a perfect base for starting this kind of effort.

This happens in industry all the time.  Foundation classes are established and people riff off those to differentiate their products/services. So I just thought - Hey an RPG Consortium Working Group built here at the RPGSite.  Working Theory, not Abstract Theory!

But that's just me...

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. (http://www.karimnassar.com/AR/)

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