Subject:
|
Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 May 2002 02:08:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3218 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> Hi Frank and all,
>
> I just got around to reading this thread and it seems that you've already
> decided to bag the idea, but I wanted to make some comments.
Well, I haven't totally bagged the idea, plus, I'm always interested in
exploring game mechanics.
> > 6. If I don't go with an existing game, do I build from scratch, or do I
> > start with an existing game, and adapt it?
>
> Even if you build a new system, you'll be ripping off the mechanics that you
> like in other systems, so how does this matter?
True.
> If recruiting players is actually a problem for you, then this may be a valid
> concern. Were I you, I'd just get in a couple of weekly games -- occasionally
> rotating into new ones, and find players that you like. Then just subvert the
> group you most like and call the players from the other groups that you liked
> into your new game. You don't want to play with a bunch of sissies who won't
> try something new anyway. :-)
Good advice. I really need to get my behind down to some of the gaming
events at the local stores.
> > A brick based RPG clearly calls for a moderately detailed combat system
> > which is tactical in nature
>
> Huh? How so? I'd say that "a brick based RPG" calls for construction as some
> kind of uber-theme. Most RPG groups are engaged in breaking stuff. It's much
> more of a challenge to play a good game in which the players build! But I
> don't see how the combat system has anything to do with the brick. Just go
> with the level of complexity that you (and your group) prefer.
Hmm, construction would be interesting. It's quite a paradigm shift
though.
My basic thought on the combat system though was that when one can
construct visual representations of settings, combat should take
advantage of that, and not abstract movement and position. When
interpreting my "moderately detailed combat system" comment, it perhaps
helps to consider the range of game systems I played. If you try and put
Everway on the scale at all, just about any combat system which involves
use of a "map" and "miniatures/counters" is moderately detailed.
> > I had been thinking of trying to use LEGO pieces to build the character
> > sheet, but I think that wouldn't really work out (you'd be constantly
> > looking at the rules to determine just what skills you had).
>
> I'm not convinced...but you might consider my use of white tiles and a black
> marker cheating. :-)
My initial thought on those lines was what could you do and be pure. To
do the idea of a totally LEGO character sheet any justice though, I
think one would need to use a pen or stickers...
> > It might be interesting to produce printed tiles for all the equipment
> > used in the game. Then you can just stick the tiles onto a plate and
> > have an easy record of your equipment, and encumbrance could even be
> > based on the space taken on a plate by all your equipment.
>
> I've been thinking exactly the same stuff. Funny, that.
It certainly would simplify an encumbrance system.
> > Things like
> > arrows could be represented by bricks where different colors represent
> > different quantities (though don't use too many colors). An alternative
> > would be to just assume the quiver is the main encumbrance, and just
> > keep track of the arrows separately.
>
> Or just don't keep track. I've never seen a LEGO quiver run dry. I believe it
> is fundamentally impossible.
A good thought. What might be more important to keep track of is magic
arrows or some such.
> > Of course treasure would be represented using LEGO treasure.
>
> Silver Duplo 2x4...Cha-ching!
>
> > Even before thinking about a brick oriented RPG, I've actually had
> > thoughts about setting up a campaign world where most folks only wear
> > leather or similar light armors.
>
> You know, across the vast history of combat, most people didn't have any armor
> at all.
Hmm, I guess that depends on how you collate your statistics, or are you
not counting shields as armor? I wouldn't want to totally eliminate
armor, just make it such that most folks aren't wearing metal armor.
> I think the setting that I have most enjoyed playing in is a
> prehistoric Mekong with weak magic. There is no real accumulation of wealth,
> no armor, no steel, and almost no monsters (unless you count elephants, rhinos,
> crocodiles, bears, etc.). Playing has been challenging but rewarding. I'm
> only pointing this out to demonstrate that you can come up with very
> interesting settings based on simple principals. And overall, I think armor
> has plenty of drawbacks...try sneaking through the jungle in chainmail.
For my own tastes, I find that I like having enough magic to justify
weird things. I also find it a little more believable that a fantastical
monster would attack a group of armed humans than a elephant would.
Of course what is ultimately most important is that the world create a
setting where things happen which need the PCs to respond to them, and
that the setting provide a background for role playing to occur.
Everything else is just player preference.
> > but maybe the Dragon Masters and Black Knights are
> > declared to not be a faction,
>
> Remember Brasso as an option too. There are too many decorated shields in my
> collection.
True, and for an RPG, you really only need a few undecorated shields.
> > I would make the campaign mostly human centric, but some non-humans are
> > clearly useable.
>
> I prefer human-only games for the most part. We have plenty of racial tension
> in the real world without needing half-orcs to pick on.
I do like to have some non-humans, but I would welcome a game which made
them much less common (actually, the game I ran with the normal
distribution, almost everyone played a human, we did have one or two
dwarf characters, and in various different campaigns I ran with it,
there were other races available). What I am most interested in though
is making the races meaningfully different. That's why I don't see elves
as good choices. Halflings also kind of fall out. Dwarves are
meaningfully different in my book because of magic resistance (the
normal distribution game made dwarves particularly undesirable, yet one
of the most successful PCs in one of my longer running campaigns was a
dwarf - but he was successful largely because he bothered to understand
how the mechanics really worked, of course one player who played a mage
was probably even more successful because he was incredibly stingy in
his used of charged magic, which everyone found out when he was the
first to buy a +5 sword).
> There were several notes on constructing setting elements. I've been toying
> with a terrain system that uses 4x4 plates offset so that they are
> schematically hexagons (they border six other plates). You can assemble
> modules of terrain (with varying elevations) based on these units (which are
> each flat).
With LEGO, I'd be inclined to not use a hex system. I'd either use a
ruler for movement, or just count studs when it seems important,
otherwise, just guestimate (like we usually do in the Pirate Game).
> Building a town to base the game around is a good idea so that your buldings
> get reused. Occasionally building other stuff for the game, would be for me a
> great excuse to build more. I'm not sure how up for building huge modular
> dungeons I'd be for a campaign game, but such a thing would be great for a con
> where it can be run several times, getting maximum use of the props.
I certainly agree that the occasional construction project would be a
good thing. The only question might be if the game would stagnate
because of lack of construction time. I think the key would be to build
several buildings for the town up front, and build several outdoor
terrain modules. Of course a few baseplates and a stack of trees and
shrubs will quickly build an outdoor setting also. Players could also be
recruited to build town buildings and outdoor modules, and if a modular
dungeon system were to be used, they could build generic dungeon pieces
also. Players could either use my bricks, or a neat game might encourage
a few more players to come out of their dark ages (I don't think there'd
be a lot of interest amongst the PNLTCers).
I'm still wavering on the idea, because I think LEGO based scenery would
be so much better visually than even the prettiest paper map, and
potentially much more flexible. The biggest issue would be how to take
advantage of commercial scenario modules (I tend to use these a lot, of
course often very modified since I'm usually not running the system they
were written for - sometimes even just using them as a map. I'd also
have to do some work to make good looking caves (hmm, perhaps I should
watch to see if those Lord of the Rings sets ever come up on clearance
again) since I use them much more often than dungeons.
One thing I always need to keep in mind about RPGs though is that most
of what is visible is flesh. The core is often very small. This goes for
both rules and settings. Settings wise for example, I'm thinking that
what is key about a cave is not so much it's flowing shape, but that
there are tight spots, and things aren't rectangular. Well, a 1 stud gap
is a nice tight spot, and so long as there are some bricks sticking out
from the walls, and the walls aren't perfectly straight for long
distances, well, that captures the essence of the cave. From a rules
perspective, for example, it means that not really that many creatures
are necessary (D&D makes some creature inflation necessary because orcs
don't have levels, if they did, you wouldn't need 20 orcish races [you
might still have 3, kobolds, orcs, and ogres since relative size can be
an interesting difference]).
I am more and more inclined to start from an existing system, and modify
it to suit. Making it compatible with what can easily be represented in
LEGO is just customization of the setting.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
| Hi Frank and all, I just got around to reading this thread and it seems that you've already decided to bag the idea, but I wanted to make some comments. (...) I think this is the heaviest question here. Everything else stems from how this is (...) (22 years ago, 19-May-02, to lugnet.gaming)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
