I figured that, O Master of the Static. That's why i thought you might like to see what we did along these same lines, either to adopt and adapt or to avoid.

-clash

Well, I've got it. I can see a quick overview is not going to happen. Three pages, but they are complex! We shall see, of blind rodent with excellent hearing...

What would you say is the major difference between what you are talking about here, and the way you make a power in champions/hero?  Are there just more things to measure on each power?

Quote from: KingSpoomWhat would you say is the major difference between what you are talking about here, and the way you make a power in champions/hero?  Are there just more things to measure on each power?

If I am reading him correctly, Spike's looking for a flexible, customizable, but balanced system to do something like charms in Exalted, or Chi-based combat, without lists of special moves and effects. Generally, list based systems, like most magic and powers systems, constrain PC thinking along certain lines. He wants something more free-form in contruction.

-clash

Sounds about right.   I like champions, but it can be bland as wet cardboard sometimes.  

Of course, this was supposed to go beyond just the charm system into more 'overall' mentalities, where we figure out the ways to strip excess lists out of games while not going utterly, randomly free form...

So offering building blocks of actions that have specific game-mechanic meaning that can be combined to create - well, combined actions?  Or combined with lists of descriptors that have specific game mechanic meaning?

So an ala carte menu - one from column A, two from Column B, once from Column C makes "feat" X - and it translates to these specific game mechanic meanings?

I'm just trying to get a handle on what you're suggesting...

-Jim

Quote from: James J SkachSo offering building blocks of actions that have specific game-mechanic meaning that can be combined to create - well, combined actions?  Or combined with lists of descriptors that have specific game mechanic meaning?

So an ala carte menu - one from column A, two from Column B, once from Column C makes "feat" X - and it translates to these specific game mechanic meanings?

I'm just trying to get a handle on what you're suggesting...

-Jim

Well... rules systems generally only include so many 'meta game' mechanics. Initative, damage, offensive and defensive bonuses.  That's hardly an exhaustive list (range for example could be added... or special effects like 'disarming' which would be mechanical in nature)

When buying a level of a 'martial art' or 'spell' or what have you, the player gets to define the meta-game aspects within a given framework.  Buying additional levels has two effects. The first is the ability to make a 'higher level technique' which can have different 'bonuses' and has more 'points' the second, if I use my 'dynamic combat thread' idea, is that it gives them additional uses of their 'style' in combat, more uses before they 'fatigue it' and it starts taking penalties.  recall that the primary resource management in my dynamic combat idea was the actual techniques themselves. You can only dodge so many times before fatigue and the enemy getting used to you dodging makes it nearly useless. Any technique can be used for any type of maneuver it has a value in (purely defensive moves, like dodge, could be used to make an extremely weak attack, in theory... still working out the details here...), being better at some than others.  Of course, I'm trying to think of a good way to avoid the 'pure offense, pure defense, pure etc' type of building, and I have some ideas about that...

'Weapons' for example, would get a bonus to each metagame aspect, at the disadvantage of being useless unless you are currently weilding it.  While unarmed techniques are 'weaker' they can always be used.

Make sense?

I'm having trouble, so I thought I'd try to make it more declarative (it helps me think about these things) to see if I'm even on the right track.

Quote from: SpikeWell... rules systems generally only include so many 'meta game' mechanics. Initative, damage, offensive and defensive bonuses.  That's hardly an exhaustive list (range for example could be added... or special effects like 'disarming' which would be mechanical in nature)

• Games have one-to-n categories of mechanics.
• Each mechanism category affects resolution in certain defined ways.

Quote from: SpikeWhen buying a level of a 'martial art' or 'spell' or what have you, the player gets to define the meta-game aspects within a given framework.

• Abilities are ranked by level purchased.
• Each level of of Ability is defined in game terms by what category of mechanism it impacts and how it affects that category.
• A to-be-determined framework defines the number of mechanism categories that can be impacted by a single ability and to what extent a mechanism category can be affected (perhaps determined by cost/benefit ratio?).

Quote from: SpikeBuying additional levels has two effects.

• There are two effects of buying an additional rank.

Quote from: SpikeThe first is the ability to make a 'higher level technique' which can have different 'bonuses' and has more 'points' the second, if I use my 'dynamic combat thread' idea, is that it gives them additional uses of their 'style' in combat, more uses before they 'fatigue it' and it starts taking penalties.

• An additional can be used to add an additional mechanism category or a bonus to an existing mechanism category.
• An additional rank can be used to increase the fatigue points of the ability - that is, the number of times it can be used effectively in combat before an opponent can begin to ignore the penalties it imposes.

Quote from: Spikerecall that the primary resource management in my dynamic combat idea was the actual techniques themselves. You can only dodge so many times before fatigue and the enemy getting used to you dodging makes it nearly useless. Any technique can be used for any type of maneuver it has a value in (purely defensive moves, like dodge, could be used to make an extremely weak attack, in theory... still working out the details here...), being better at some than others.  Of course, I'm trying to think of a good way to avoid the 'pure offense, pure defense, pure etc' type of building, and I have some ideas about that...

'Weapons' for example, would get a bonus to each metagame aspect, at the disadvantage of being useless unless you are currently weilding it.  While unarmed techniques are 'weaker' they can always be used.

Make sense?

More stuff I have to figure out but sound interesting.

Is that even close?

Sounds like you have the hang of it, James. You missed the 'player defined' part, but I suspect you just didn't retype that part. Oddly, your declarative sentences were a mite challenging for me. Weird, eh?

Quote from: SpikeSounds like you have the hang of it, James. You missed the 'player defined' part, but I suspect you just didn't retype that part. Oddly, your declarative sentences were a mite challenging for me. Weird, eh?

amazing how different minds work - the non-declaratives were what drove me to write it that way so I could grok it better....

Just to make sure - that belongs under the "to-be-defined-framework" bit, right?  That within that framework, the player gets to define the ability

Quote from: James J Skachamazing how different minds work - the non-declaratives were what drove me to write it that way so I could grok it better....

Just to make sure - that belongs under the "to-be-defined-framework" bit, right?  That within that framework, the player gets to define the ability

Right.  The player builds their 'charms' using/within a framework of game mechanics that express 'in game' facets of their 'charm'.


I think I sprained something in my brain....

Quote from: SpikeI'll try again from home. I sometimes get the weirdest 'blocks'. From Afghanistan I couldn't make reservations for a resteraunt in London but I could, er... accidentally... find all sorts of pretty pictures.

You know, when I was in the USAF, I could never look at Flying Mice/Better Mousetrap site.  It was always block as being a porn site.
 
BTW Spike, even though I'm not really ready to comment on this one yet, I really dig your initial stated endeavor.  Keep it going!

Quote from: Zachary The FirstYou know, when I was in the USAF, I could never look at Flying Mice/Better Mousetrap site.  It was always block as being a porn site.
 
BTW Spike, even though I'm not really ready to comment on this one yet, I really dig your initial stated endeavor.  Keep it going!

Huh! I wonder if it's other peeps on the same machine? Wierd!

-clash

Quote from: Zachary The FirstYou know, when I was in the USAF, I could never look at Flying Mice/Better Mousetrap site.  It was always block as being a porn site.
 
BTW Spike, even though I'm not really ready to comment on this one yet, I really dig your initial stated endeavor.  Keep it going!

Actually, more likely that the firewall labeled it as games.  WotC, BW, and other such RPG sites are normally blocked at government work stations.

Quote from: GunslingerActually, more likely that the firewall labeled it as games.  WotC, BW, and other such RPG sites are normally blocked at government work stations.

Normally, you'd be right, but with the USAFE firewalls, it specifies what it is labeled under.  For example, Palladium's forums or RPGnet were classed under "Entertainment, Games".  Flying Mice showed up under "Pornography".