This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Recreating implied settings in a system

Started by Gunslinger, March 25, 2007, 04:20:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Gunslinger

About 10 years ago, I tried having my game group try Basic D&D.  First, the lack of character customization resulted in the players making very one-dimensional characters.  Because the players had very little investment in character creation they played their characters like they were playing Gauntlet.  "Fighter needs food badly."  I was extremely frustrated because I wanted to play Basic without having to houserule so they'd play it.

What I came up with was boiling the system down to the skeleton.  I examined each classe's capabilities and redefined through "fluff" how they worked.  By doing this, a new framework of what the characters do in the setting formed.  I looked at other mechanics with this same mentality and the setting fleshed itself out based on that and stealing ideas from material I enjoyed.  What I came up with was a complex setting based off a very simple structure.  

Sadly, 3.0 came out during that time and stole most of the momentum on this pet project of mine.  I tried porting it to the new rules but there was way too much material to incorporate.  I've recently started working on a new art direction for the material using charcoal & inks.  The goal is to present the setting outside of the rules to the players.  A part of me feels that it's gimmicky and the players will see right through it.  The other part tells me it will buy me enough time to get them into the campaign structure.  What do you think?  Has anyone tried this?
 

C.W.Richeson

I think it's a neat idea, and could be a lot of fun.  I don't think it would work with most RPGs since they're attached to a setting.  For those that don't have a clear setting and have some sort of class-like basis I like it.
Reviews!
My LiveJournal - What I'm reviewing and occasional thoughts on the industry from a reviewer's perspective.

Gunslinger

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI think it's a neat idea, and could be a lot of fun.  I don't think it would work with most RPGs since they're attached to a setting.  For those that don't have a clear setting and have some sort of class-like basis I like it.
I think you are right.  The amount of work even to translate what I had to 3.0 was overwhelming.  You'd have better luck framing what you had using Heroes.  I've found that it's easier for me to create off a skeleton than to create something new on my own, even with characters.  Might be conditioning, might also be my fear of creating something archetypical.  Making sense of what I have in front of me seems much more creative than making something on my own because I am denying myself elements of that creation.