Request Editors and authors wanted for game design

[Eske]

Cool. Structure is much more important than one could imagine, especially for people who know nothing of the game. They only have the book - no help or people to tell you about how the game elements work. This is a general problem.


anothe tip: If you don't put it on your PC sheet, people won't use it!


There was a second Ed of Demon, I think, where the best new aditino was a rule that was already in the game, only it didn't appear on the PC sheet. And it's quite logical; players use their sheets to decide their actions.

 

[Grey]

Yeah, getting a good sheet put together is on my list. Slapping a simplified character creation synopsis at the bottom of the sheet works wonders, too.


Oh, and does this have a structure closer to what you've suggested?

 

[Eske]

Yeah, getting a good sheet put together is on my list. Slapping a simplified character creation synopsis at the bottom of the sheet works wonders, too.
Oh, and does this have a structure closer to what you've suggested?

Are we talking about PC sheets exclusively?


I am not sure what structure you are referring to.


Make the elements that you think are important to a great game most visible.


Regarding the overall structure of your book (1: Setting, 2:Rules, 3:Setting), I would love to hear what you come up with.


How many times have you playtested the game? I would make sure to create a questionnaire for each player where you ask provocative questions about the system. And

 

[Grey]

The link was about .pdf structure.


There have been... between six and twelve one-session playtests a year for the last three to four years, and one two-year long weekly campaign. Not yet with any kind of questionnaire, but that might not be a bad idea.


Really, right now the best playtest would be to hand the .pdf over to a GM and their group, let them play it for a while without any input from me, and then see how it went.

 

[Eske]

The link was about .pdf structure.
There have been... between six and twelve one-session playtests a year for the last three to four years, and one two-year long weekly campaign. Not yet with any kind of questionnaire, but that might not be a bad idea.


Really, right now the best playtest would be to hand the .pdf over to a GM and their group, let them play it for a while without any input from me, and then see how it went.

Oops, missed the link from your previous link. Will take a look.


And I agree that if possible, find someone who has never heard of Crucible before and lock them up in a room without windows for a month. Then give the survivors a questionnaire.


You know, it could be fun helping you out with these sort of meta-gaming elements; it takes a village and all that. So let me know if you feel like you need an editor or someone to give fresh perspectives on


the various elements in your game. Or we could come up with that questionnaire together. Or something like that.

 

[Eske]

Okay, saw your PDF and it contains only setting information, right?


Let's imagine Crucible when it comes out as PDF. There are several ways of doing this. so here is what I see as the best way of doing it.


Take your setting-only PDF and edit it so most setting elements have 1) setting-specific rules, 2) Prominent characters and 3) story ideas


This way is the most demanding way of doing it, but also the best.


I think you should divide your flagship book into only two main parts, setting and rules. If you have time to do it, integrate them so they are seamless; explain the rules as they become relevant for the setting and give as many examples of rules based on the setting


I'll try to find a game that you can "steal" the structure from. Or take a look yourself at some different games that might resemble yours a bit.

 

[Eske]

@Gre rey: I was reading a review of Roanoke, and to my surprise, it compared it to Crucible! I sort of thought that that was weird, so I made a search for how many RPGs out there are named Crucible or have Crucible in the name. There are ... many more than I expected. There is especially one game called Crucible that is well established.


I thought that would be good to know for you. But maybe Crucible is a working title?


Another thing: If I read l5r, which concepts should I be looking for? You mentioned it as perfect, but could you please point to some of the best concepts, so I don't have to read it all?

 

[Grey]

Hm. I'll look into that in more detail - I'd only seen it used by a software company.


It's not always productive to isolate mechanics - you have to look at L5R as a complete system with the elements working in synergy. But the rolling mechanics, progression system, combat and mass combat rules stand out.

 

[Eske]

As you may know, I am finishing my product Modus, an RPG that is based on a modular concept. The following game element was created as an example of a Module that can create context and conflict. It also lures the players into expanding on the setting. since they are encouraged to participate in deciding what has to be done. The players themselves decide who they love, etc.. thereby adding important NPCs to the setting.


You get rewarded when:

1. You grant your lover a wish
   
2. Foil your enemy’s plans
   
3. When you help your friend in need
   

You lose rewards when you:

1. Hurt the one you love
   
2. Help the one you hate
   
3. Ignore your friend in need.
   

The rewards can be mechanical, fiction-based or something else.





The different things you have to do for these NPCs is best described as classic quests. Those are used to build the setting and make room for further conflict.


Do you think it will work? Do you have any ideas about how to change it for the better?


I would appreciate any response.


Thanks in advance.

 

[Grey]

Hm. That looks really familiar.


So the players come up with NPCs, and when they fulfill an 'objective' for those NPCs they receive a reward? And, conversely, are punished for working against those relationships?


Good luck getting players to flesh out NPCs for you. I'm also not sure you should take rewards away when they facilitate dramatic conflict. The best games are ones where the players dig their own graves, in my experience.


Honestly, though, this seems like a reasonable guideline in any game - actions have consequences.

 

[Eske]

Hm. That looks really familiar..

You can't leave it hanging like that. It implies that you think it's a rip-off. but you have nothing to back it up.

Good luck getting players to flesh out NPCs for you..

Fleshing out NPCs? Where did you get that one?


Let me explain the point of this idea. I am making a zero-prep game, like Apocalypse World. But instead of asking questions constantly and randomly to create jump-off points, I am trying to create structures that do the same thing.


It's not about the rewards or the quests or whatever - the real function of the Module is to jumpstart the game with elements that can be build on.


This was just an early build - other Modules will do the same thing, using different mechanics.

 

[Grey]

It looks familiar. I'm not implying it's a rip-off - it just looks familiar and I'm trying to remember if I've seen something similar somewhere.


I assume if you want the players to dictate their love interests, etc., with whom they will then interact, the idea is less effort by the GM.


Actually, will Modus function without a GM? I've seen some games on similar principles which do.


Anyway, if it's just to provide such jumping off points why even include the reward mechanic? It seems like a character creation guideline more than anything.

 

[Eske]

I assume if you want the players to dictate their love interests, etc., with whom they will then interact, the idea is less effort by the GM.


Actually, will Modus function without a GM? I've seen some games on similar principles which do.


Anyway, if it's just to provide such jumping off points why even include the reward mechanic? It seems like a character creation guideline more than anything.

The "rewards" are intangible at this time, but if you don't reward your players for doing stuff, they are less likely to do it.


It's a game like any other RPG with one important difference; You, mostly the GM probably, decide which parts of the rules are to be included.


The idea is to shorten prep time, not to make the GM work less just for the sake of it. Basically, I want to cut out a lot of the things traditional games take for granted. Like in AW, I want the whole GM>players dichotomy to be less obvious. I want it to be fun for people to GM, even if they don't like writing fiction.


Prep is allowed, but with Modus, you can focus on the story alone, and save time by not going into too much setting detail. You prep maybe a starting location, a city, something - then you use these tools to expand.


I have another example of what Modus can do. Will post it asap.

 

[Grey]

I'm just trying to find the relevance in it. Name a character and their relationship with yours, do one thing and get rewarded, do another and get punished?


Surely it could be more interesting if you also rewarded choosing the negative option, but in a different way?

 

[Eske]

I'm just trying to find the relevance in it. Name a character and their relationship with yours, do one thing and get rewarded, do another and get punished?
Surely it could be more interesting if you also rewarded choosing the negative option, but in a different way?

Sure, you could change the variables; they're not the important part of this. Getting to ask players questions about their characters and their world is.

 

[Grey]

So rather than a mechanic, it's a combination character creation and GMing guideline? Part of the how-to-play this game element?

 

[Eske]

So rather than a mechanic, it's a combination character creation and GMing guideline? Part of the how-to-play this game element?

Yeah, I think you're getting it now!


(Although you can still call it a mechanic.)

 

[Grey]

I see. To me, it just looks like you've outlined a fundamental and ubiquitous element of role playing, prevalent both in every game I run and every game I have played. To me, it doesn't look like a mechanic - it looks like an extract from a guide on How To Run A Game For Absolute Beginners.


Does that make sense?

 

[Cthulhu_Wakes]

Sooooo, you're just describing the Golden Rule, eske. Gaming companies have been using that for nearly three decades, man.

 

[Eske]

I was actually writing a message for you asking if we could cut out the negative, non-constructive remarks; it really makes us look childish and pathetic.


More importantly, it is such a waste of time. And it is obvious that we both have different areas of expertise, so why not use that instead of being patronising?


How about that? You willing to try?

 

[Grey]

I was actually writing a message for you asking if we could cut out the negative, non-constructive remarks; it really makes us look childish and pathetic.
More importantly, it is such a waste of time. And it is obvious that we both have different areas of expertise, so why not use that instead of being patronising?


How about that? You willing to try?

I'm sorry, but what? I'm not sure what you're construing as negative. I'm trying to make sure I understand what you are doing. I was simply explaining what it looks like from my position to ascertain if I was way off-base, or if that was intended. I can try and revise my tone if it continues to appear patronizing to you.


To be clear: what you have outlined does not appear to be a rule, but instead a common principle in roleplaying. It is therefore a valuable tool for first timer, but redundant to anyone else. It tells me nothing about Modus as a system.

 

[Cthulhu_Wakes]

Grey does use it. It's why his games are the most prolific and clamored after on this site, man. That's evidence right there he knows what he's doing. Lambasting him for not agreeing or seeing eye to eye doesn't help the 'childish and pathetic' comment either. Show us the proof, run a game, test, iterate, run games that excite people, if you want to prove your methods.

 

[Eske]

I'm sorry, but what? I'm not sure what you're construing as negative. I'm trying to make sure I understand what you are doing. I was simply explaining what it looks like from my position to ascertain if I was way off-base, or if that was intended. I can try and revise my tone if it continues to appear patronizing to you.
To be clear: what you have outlined does not appear to be a rule, but instead a common principle in roleplaying. It is therefore a valuable tool for first timer, but redundant to anyone else. It tells me nothing about Modus as a system.

Are you saying that comparing anything to "RPG for Absolute Beginners" isn't patronising and non-constructive? Seriously?


If you really can't see that, then my request is moot, because apparently, you lack the ability to be objective.


For your sake, as a person, I hope that you just need some time to change your mindset to see what's right and wrong. If so, get back to me. That's a genuine, well-meant thought.

 

[Grey]

I'm sorry you're so terribly offended. I personally don't see how a game which is accessible to absolute beginners is a negative thing or patronizing comparison. I thought that you wanted the game to be accessible. And I'm perplexed that you phrased it as though it was the latest in a stream of offenses.


I am standing by my point, however - it looks like a guideline, a prompt, a hint. Part of a useful section of the book. It tells me nothing about Modus, except perhaps indicating your intent (and it would appear it doesn't quite line up with your intent). I'd suggest mybe wording it more succinctly (ex - Significant NPCs in their character's lives - friends or foes - are named by the players along with a brief description of their role. When a PC acts positively toward one of these NPCs, they gain -benefit-, and when they behave negatively, they suffer -consequence-).


For your part, I hope you can accept not all feedback will be entirely positive and that early builds may give undesired impressions. You'll struggle to find effective criticism, otherwise.


I'm perfectly willing to continue this conversation, as you've been polite and reasonable, and I'm curious to see more of the game in case I can offer useful feedback.

 

[Eske]

Don't worry about offending me. No, my fear is another entirely: that I am wasting my time because you have nothing to contribute.


But let bygones be bygones and all that.


Yes, Modus is intended for everybody, and that does mean that some people will find some of the points redundant. But it is part of a greater scheme.


The fact is that what I posted was a completely unfinished idea that was meant to have a specific purpose: To expand on the setting. Not just some guideline for new players.


Think Apocalypse World here; "Ask questions like crazy". Why is that important in AW? Because it expands on the setting. I want to do the same, but by using structures to make sense of the information.


So instead of asking a million questions in AW, the GM has the option of introducing this Module and use it to get the players to think about their characters. The info produced by this Module can then be used to further expand the setting.


So the Module has the exact same purpose as the AW Principle "Ask questions like crazy"; to expand on the PCs and the fictional world in-game.


The reason for this is that Modus is a game where it is possible to play without a lot of prep. But without prep, you need some sturdy mechanics that allow you, the GM, to create an exciting setting anyway.


In fact, much of what I include in Modus is based on AW - not that I want to remake AW, but that I think the principles can be useful in other connections.


The idea behind Modus is giving the group options in the form of Modules. If you really like making a setting, keep those Setting Modules out of the game;; this is possible, because all Modules are independent of each other.


Did that make sense to you, this time around?