Ok, i think it is best if i do it like this ...
If my thread do not work in this area, just move or remove it.

First off, in case you hadn't read them yet, here are the Core Rules for the entire Project:
http://catelf.webs.com/streedrpgcorerules.htm

Now, a brief description of the entire Project:
The idea is at least 3 - 5 Core Games, each sharing the basic rules, and therefor being combineable in all aspects, if need be.
Supplements is generally called "Sibling Scripts", and is supposed to be comparatively easy to understand and add to the games.

The games' system are far more like White Wolf's "Storytelling System", than the system used for D&D.

I will adress, or try to adress several topics here with these games in mind, but it may be interesting in general, too.

However, a few of the additions to the core rules is under question, mainly the situation of "Unerring", and now also the "Terror Grid", partially on the same grounds as the "Unerring".

These will also be the first topic(s) i adress here.
#1 : Unerring and Terror
How appearences may affect in-game decisions and mentality
#2 : The Defining of the Games

Unerring and Terror
As several has pointed out, "Unerring" as they has been described in the link in the OP, may be ... incorrectly defined, since different people like and dislike, different things, and some may even be indifferent.

But due to the conversation over in the "Do CoC still has something usable for rpg's" - thread, i started to wonder ...
Do "terror" and "Fear" based on looks really have a validity?
... Should it perhaps instead be something like TSD(Traumatic Stress Disorder), based on something that actually has happened, or just on stories that may even be untrue to begin with?

I'm starting to think so.

... Odd, several people has read the posts here, but not posted ...
Isn't it obvious that i wellcome and is asking for comments, or is the current topic or this form for it ... uninviting?

Adding this post makes me a bit uneasy, because i'm not sure of this Forum's view on double ... or as in this case, triple posting.
... I'll try to make this post really well-done ...
_______________________________________________________________
As i seem to leaning towards making a list of "Fancies" that may cause unerring only if they are specified for each character (one must be chosen, more may be added to gain points to add on skills and such), there perhaps should also be a "list of fears" that may be chosen.
Those two lists can overlap, as someone may be frightened by an alien, while someone else may like the alien in question, based on looks.

This would probably be a good way to include phobias as well.

There should be levels of severity too, of course, ... or would there?
One important idea/concept for my project, is Ease of Understanding, Simple on active Rules.
Perhaps 2 levels of Fancy is enough:
Charmful, and Unnerring.
I think the equivalent for the "bad" would be:
Dislike, and Fear.

Now i am directly asking if anyone have any opinions ...

As far as getting people to read things, in general it seems most quail from going to 'linked' pages, or worse download pages. Best to copy the information to the post itself.
 
I think you mean 'unnerving'? Whether you need 'fancies' perhaps depends on what sort of range of characters are in the RPG, but for most RPGs you could perhaps assume that human-unerring would be the default.
I didn't like the automatic fumble from unnerring so much (perhaps another attribute should help vs. the fumble effect i.e. some sort of save) though I understand you're going for a simpler game here so its OK.
 
Terror grid was OK I thought.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;623957As far as getting people to read things, in general it seems most quail from going to 'linked' pages, or worse download pages. Best to copy the information to the post itself.
 
I think you mean 'unnerving'? Whether you need 'fancies' perhaps depends on what sort of range of characters are in the RPG, but for most RPGs you could perhaps assume that human-unerring would be the default.
I didn't like the automatic fumble from unnerring so much (perhaps another attribute should help vs. the fumble effect i.e. some sort of save) though I understand you're going for a simpler game here so its OK.
 
Terror grid was OK I thought.

It is different with different forums on what is suggested as "best way of adding info" ...

Yes, i meant "unnerving" originally ... but english isn't my first language, so i chalk the misspelling up to that ...

The games in the project is very centered around Anthros, .... so when i think of it, the fancies may not be as clear-cut as even i thought at first ...
the two possible fancies could be Fur and Feral Looks, respectively.
Then with added human Fancies like Naked, C&A(like T&A but gender-neutral) and Human Looks ....
.... The list becomes long fast, it seems ...
Possibly too long for my comfort.

I also find it interesting that the increased risk of Fumbling from Unerring seems like such a great problem ... perhaps if i explain it like "increased risk of critical fail" it would be better understood ...
.... Or am i missing something else here?

Yeah, i just noticed that the Terror Grid says nothing about what it is that causes shock, scare or horror ...
But really, it might need the same treatment as Un ... nerving, as in different things to be scared of, like Spindly/Skeletal Limbs, Arachnid Form, Slithering, ... and so on.

Besides, i originally defined Unnerring(Unnerving) as a mix of fancy and disturbing.

... Ok, the respective lists could be replaced by freeform-definitions, but i do not want to involve any kind of freeform in my project games ...

But also, those lists may ... as i noted, get too long fast.
And that means those lists may not be any option, either .. unless they are massively trimmed.

Perhaps ... Human, Feral, Spider, Reptile, .... and so on, and with other specifics for Fancy: Kin only, Wide (includes those that looks partially like Kin), and Jaw-Dropper(Unerring/Unnerving rules).

... Or would that end up too complex as well ...?

OK yep. Hmm anthropomorphic things? OK tricky it could be a long list. When you buy unerring specify (particular race) perhaps. I guess horror (rather than beauty) would be less species specific?
 
With the fumbling I get the system, what I was complaining about is that there's no defense against it? It just seems like something (maybe high Will) should affect it, but there's no roll to resist?
 
I have a similar issue with for-instance 4E D&D's attack powers where a single attack roll lets you (deal damage+move a target), when I believe the two separate effects should be modified by different stats & be against different target numbers (armour should protects vs. the damage, size against the move... I just don't like "streamlining" of things below a certain level.
 
Its more of a personal nitpick about Things I Don't Like rather than an objective design thing.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;624008OK yep. Hmm anthropomorphic things? OK tricky it could be a long list. When you buy unerring specify (particular race) perhaps. I guess horror (rather than beauty) would be less species specific?
 
With the fumbling I get the system, what I was complaining about is that there's no defense against it? It just seems like something (maybe high Will) should affect it, but there's no roll to resist?
 
I have a similar issue with for-instance 4E D&D's attack powers where a single attack roll lets you (deal damage+move a target), when I believe the two separate effects should be modified by different stats & be against different target numbers (armour should protects vs. the damage, size against the move... I just don't like "streamlining" of things below a certain level.
 
Its more of a personal nitpick about Things I Don't Like rather than an objective design thing.

Since i aim for simple, but also for details (yes, it is very contradictory), i think the closest to "both" would be fairly arbitrary, and broad categories, like "Human" that in that case includes Elves, most Star Trek "aliens", and possibly even trolls(depending on what version is used).
"Feral" would include essentially all furred mammals, and most anthro-variants, and a few other furred animals at well ...
.....
Perhaps i should ditch it entirely ....

Personal nitpicking is ok as long as one knows it is.
My personal nitpick is too complex rules, i remember a few times as a fairly new roleplayer, not having any idea what to choose, getting magics i had no idea what to do with in Palladium, and in another game not being able to get through the rules when trying to create a character .... so i never got to actually play that time.
I also dislike streamlining too much, or i would have preferred Freeform ... which i don't.

The main "defence" against Fumbling, including Unnerving(feels odd to spell it correctly) is normally high skill.
I have considered allowing Will as an "auto-counter" (no roll) against unnerving if the will is high enough, but it feels a bit complicated ...
... Right now, it just feels like another argument for me to ditch the idea ....

On the other hand, if one just have the basic fancy-idea, then just having the mandatory fancy-level would not result in the Unnerving-rules.
If one wants to get more in skill or such in character creation, though, one needs to add more fancies, or increase the level of the already existing one ... and if one makes that decision ... then why should the character be allowed a counter towards the unnerving-fumble?
The player made the decision to add fancy, for more power, at the cost of greater risk at getting stunned(Fumble) ... and no further defence against it than skill.
Don't that sound ... appropriate?

Quote from: Catelf;624070On the other hand, if one just have the basic fancy-idea, then just having the mandatory fancy-level would not result in the Unnerving-rules.
If one wants to get more in skill or such in character creation, though, one needs to add more fancies, or increase the level of the already existing one ... and if one makes that decision ... then why should the character be allowed a counter towards the unnerving-fumble?
The player made the decision to add fancy, for more power, at the cost of greater risk at getting stunned(Fumble) ... and no further defence against it than skill.
Don't that sound ... appropriate?

Interesting solution, actually. If taking vulnerability to a particular type of looks is a disadvantage the player has chosen, then it does bother me much less than there's no separate resistance roll.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;624073Interesting solution, actually. If taking vulnerability to a particular type of looks is a disadvantage the player has chosen, then it does bother me much less than there's no separate resistance roll.

Hmm ....
I sincerely think i'll ditch the whole thing on Unnerving from the core rules, and let it be some kind of optional rule, or a rule that is only in one of the games.

That brings me to what might be the next topic in this thread, even though this clearly risk becoming a statement rather than a topic.

The Defining of the Games
The three i was thinking of, was one Medevial-Fantasy, one Alternate Modern, and one Sci-fi.
But.
I noticed recently that any Sci-fi things i feel to be interesting may just as well fit into "Alternate Modern", at least in many cases.
So, then i have two Games set, one called Alleyways, which is essentially Medevial-Fantasy to Pulp, and Ferals, which is Modern to Sci-fi.
But what would the third one be about?

I have thought of expanding the animal attributes, super heroes, city elves, goth supernaturals, .... and a wartime-styled that really lends itself to miniature gaming more directly than the other games.

... But perhaps Alleyways and Ferals covers too broad concepts?
Let's look at them a bit closer:
* Alleyways
It is more a general idea than a specific time period, therefore the possible "timeperiod" is so broad:
It is about servitude(slavery?), gutters, fighting, magic, and a kind of "outside of society". It also may have horror-aspects.
* Ferals
It is both on ways on how Ferals would be included in regular society(The Narc-Cop that is part dog is an obvious example), and on Corporate Running (standard thing in Cyberpunk).
It is also on gangs, tech, and possible "school-rpg" influences.

Alleyways .... could do without most of the Horror aspect ideas to begin with, and Ferals could do without most of the Mecha-style high-tech that i like.

Hm, since i have, at least temporarily, ditched the ide on a CoC-styled game called Eerie, there is still another i have in mind that goes more supernatural, called Gothire.
And, if i take Mecha Armors, adds fighting and ... a few more things, then i get a variant of action-/superheroes that i call Zentai Dolls ...
Yes, that might work.
As a fifth, i'd consider CyberCross, that in setting could be described as having influences from Tannhauser and Mutant Cronicles ... and yes, it is the one that lends itself more direct to miniaturegaming than the above mentioned four games.

Comments are wellcome.