Subject:
|
Continuing Brainstorming for Castle Game....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:44:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
20 times
|
| |
|
|
For those just joining us, a number of people have been discussing ideas for
a possible online Lego inspired RPG for Castle/Medieval Fantasy. I am just
moving it here to .fun.gaming to keep things tidy...
In lugnet.castle, Matt Hein writes:
> Is D&D really due that much credit for
> establishing the so called 'standard' for
> RPGS? And what types of stats are you
> speaking about? Dexterity, Hp, Mp and
> magick, Skill, Agility, etc...
>
> Okay...I only have three types of stats,
> Ap, Attack and Magikal Aptitude. How many
> types of stats are in a D&D game? Six?
> Eight? I prefer to keep it simple...
I agree that simple is good. Perhaps I spoke out of turn. Yes, D&D has six
attributes that affect several stats and (in the newest edition) a huge list
of skills. What you have so far seems simpler and more reasonable. My
comment was only to try to prevent scaring away people who are new to RPGs
whose experience is limited to D&D (not that D&D is all bad, I happen to
like it, but some people don't).
> And I'm not going to mess with the 'character
> has to act in a role or certain way' state
> of mind because that only limits the game.
> For creating characters, I made my own
> custom system.
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/~1112/DraKen/Status
>
> And if that isn't original, then I'll be damned...
Quite. Actually I really like some of your ideas, and I hope to go back and
read more thoroughly when I get the chance. How much of this new game we
are discussing will be based on yours? All of it? Or are we just picking
your notes for ideas?
> > It's okay my friend. I didn't mean to offend.
>
> Right...
>
> > I was just following along with the subject
> > line of this thread. I was under the impression
> > that we were all brainstorming ideas that could
> > then be discussed and debated for a potential
> > future as-of-yet undefined Lego Castle related
> > RPG online.
>
> Yes, we're brainstorming most of the health
> schematics, but I believe the armor point
> system is most fair. I'm not sure why you
> suggested calling it DC when I wrote AP
> earlier. (conflict of interest? Or just a
> misintrepretation of how to phrase health?)
It wasn't my intention to override any previous idea. Like I said, I didn't
realize the term AP was so solid. It is fine.
> > I didn't realize that you already have ideas
> > like AP set in stone on several pages on your
> > site. It really is semantics I guess, so AP
> > is fine with me, if we (we meaning the communal
> > group developing the game) agree to it.
>
> Not exactly set in stone. If the community
> decided to utilize a new damage system, I
> would easily change it on the DraKen
> *advanced* [1] page. But with my private
> project, I am very defensive towards
> changing it for the sake of acceptance,
> or whatnot. (I remember when I was
> pressured not to call it an RPG...)
> Everything's so technical these days
> ...sheesh.
I most certainly would not want you to change your personal project at all.
I guess I am confused as to where the line is between your personal project
and the communal game that has been offered to develop here.
> [1] DraKen Advanced is the combat extension
> of Uldeseen realm. Normal DraKen is not an
> RPG unless the player decided to elect a GM.
> (and rules are variable.)
>
> Speaking of online gaming, how would it be
> possible to implement the combat function
> into all of this? Should the moderator simply
> act on supposition when it comes to the
> character values?
Well, that is a tough one. Moderator supposition based on tidbits of info
from stats and/or player input is all that is used in Starship. But as has
been mentioned, this might have some drawbacks unless it is made clear to
moderators to be fair, and clear to players that the game should be taken
not-so-seriously (so that they aren't offended if a GM says their character
gets blown up).
But the supposition method allows for some great storytelling by email or on
message boards. The only other option I can think of is to actually take
the time to establish firm rules for combat resolution (which could be quite
an undertaking if players expect detail and stats for a variety of factors).
A firm set of rules would probably call for the moderator to use die rolls
(or some similar random determination) modified by character stats and
battlefield conditions. It will take a lot of work to get everyone to agree
on how the rolls and stats might work, and in the end the player is still
left with the same thing: having to trust the moderator to be fair and honest.
I admit some bias (having worked for months on SS, and liking the results)
towards the supposition method, so maybe there is some advantage to the
other method I am missing.
Anyone else have thoughts?
-Hendo
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brainstorming ideas for Game Project....
|
| (...) Is D&D really due that much credit for establishing the so called 'standard' for RPGS? And what types of stats are you speaking about? Dexterity, Hp, Mp and magick, Skill, Agility, etc... Okay...I only have three types of stats, Ap, Attack and (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.castle)
|
70 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
