Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IamanElfCollaborator]

Anyway I have always wondered if that FEF was as complicated as it looked just scrolling through a thread, but the main reason I've never tried to join one of those games is because of all the complex backgrounds I see in the sheets of other people and I suck at making backgrounds.

The backgrounds from characters can only be as complex as the introduction to a game is and elf loves his worldbuilding, probably a bit too much, plus elf likes to experiment with mechanics leading to some of his games developing complexity creep. Compare this to my current game where setting infos are rather sparse and that sparse-ness is reflected on some characters. Tric's Artair and Chev's Rhian got accepted and are definitely on the shorter side regarding their backgrounds.

tbf it helps to be on the FEF server because it's easy to ask questions and bounce ideas around there. But generally I'm okay with short backgrounds as long as there's something that I could potentially use as a hook. There never was a Marchioness Brand before, but Tric introduced her and I can and possibly will use her in the campaign at some point.

While I slightly don't appreciate having my games low-key trashed like that () I will say I don't mind a shorter background if the writing is tight enough. In fact in general I'll accept shorter sheets if I can figure out what it is I can do with your character than not, and I feel this is generally the truth for most FEF GMs.

EDIT: And yeah a lot of GMs will experiment with their own homebrew mechanics from time to time, me included. This is the consequence of having a system that's existed as long as FEF has.

[Man of Paper]

The evolution of arms races is another good example of that, and I make a point of trying out at least one new mechanic in an new game I start up. Intercontinental Arms Race, the one most people would argue truly kicked off the genre as a whole, is very different in at least three ways with Iron Behemoths (it used a card system instead of dice, there were slightly restrictive treaties to push players toward making mechs, and there was a whole mechanic for taking the other side to court if you think they broke one of those rules) which is the first arms race I came across. Comparing Iron Behemoths to my first, Industrialized Warfare, and you'll see an introduction of unique resources (in a different manner than Mad Arms Race Before it) and a use of a different dice and difficulty system.

I could walk through all the tweaks I've made based on other arms races that have also grown from my own modifications to the formula, but honestly it'd be better if you just joined Founders eheheh

[IamanElfCollaborator]

Same, I like to test out mechanics in my FEFs to give my FEFs a unique flavour, to better tie in gameplay and lore, and also to test out mechanics that I can both implement for myself and distribute to the larger community for their own use. For some instances of what I've been messing around with:

- Tying special abilities to Affinities, which are generally only used for Support level calculations
- Transplanting mechanics from the newer Fire Emblems into FEF's format
- Experimenting with new map mechanics
- Creation of new boss mechanics

While it's not always successful, I feel that experimentation on the mechanical side is the best way for the community to advance. And of course it lets me play around with basically putting JRPG tropes in everything

[RoseHeart]

The evolution of arms races is another good example of that, and I make a point of trying out at least one new mechanic in an new game I start up.

That's pretty smart. My next iteration of a game I'm planning will do the opposite, which is risky. Several key things will be expanded. Solo to teams, from 3 to 6 players, and a new terrain mechanic.

[King Zultan]

Do all the FEF games require you to be on Discord?

[IamanElfCollaborator]

Do all the FEF games require you to be on Discord?

Well, not in theory, but in practice the community has decamped to Discord nowadays, and we keep all of our discussions over there for reasons earlier events in this thread might explain

[Magmacube_tr]

My games keep stalling out and dying. And that is normal, really. Probably something like 99% of forum games die before their actual ends.

But I want to to be in that brilliant 1%, that manages to reach to its conclusion, and have a winner.

I did learn some stuff from the plenty of previous games I've ran in the past, and the one I am currently running. A goal is important. It needs to entice both the players and me to continue. A way of losing is a must. It can't be too convoluted or it'll collapse into itself. All that jazz.

So, I am thinking of an evolution game that combines the strengths and weaknesses of both versions I tried to run.

The "Roll-to-Evolve Evo" is too small and barren, there is just not much you can do with 5 species at any given time. And the scarcity of the species makes them precious. No one wants to play risky, and lose their creature or plant they built up for a dozen turns. They are precious, too precious. It just all stalls out after a while. No conflict happens, and it mellows into a sandbox game that fizzles out like how sandbox games do. The setting loses novelty. Players run out of ideas. I get disinterested.

The "Roll-to-Speciate Evo", on the other hand, is too large and diverse to control. Even with a simple game rule framework, it collapses in on itself before turn 5. And making things more and more convoluted to streamline it makes it less and less comprehensible to the players. After a point, it becomes too distant and stratified. The game becomes an esoteric, arcane nightmare with "tokens" and "cross-dependacies". The setting never forms. The players can't wrap their noggins around it. I manage to sell, but fail to convey the idea.

How about these both meet in the middle? What makes a forum game good in my opinion is a good balance between elasticty and simplicity with a healthy dose of chaoes and wackiness sprinkled in. One is too elastic. The other is too simple. Neither are wacky nor chaotic enough.

Let's get to how this format would work.

Players will control multiple species in battle royale and there will be niches and habitats. But these niches and habitats will be simple and to the point, and the number of them will be strictly limited. No tokens. No web of intricate dependancies. You say, you roll, and get it, with a seldom bonus/penalty attached.

I have already thought of the setting, and how it works. I just want to hear your thoughts.

[Nakéen]

Let's get to how this format would work.

Players will control multiple species in battle royale and there will be niches and habitats. But these niches and habitats will be simple and to the point, and the number of them will be strictly limited. No tokens. No web of intricate dependancies. You say, you roll, and get it, with a seldom bonus/penalty attached.

I have already thought of the setting, and how it works. I just want to hear your thoughts.

You highlighted well in your post that an end goal is crucial for a game to reach completion. What would be the goal in the game you have in mind?

Is there a time limit? A specific objective to attain? A win/lose condition? A plot driven by player actions?

[Magmacube_tr]

Let's get to how this format would work.

Players will control multiple species in battle royale and there will be niches and habitats. But these niches and habitats will be simple and to the point, and the number of them will be strictly limited. No tokens. No web of intricate dependancies. You say, you roll, and get it, with a seldom bonus/penalty attached.

I have already thought of the setting, and how it works. I just want to hear your thoughts.

You highlighted well in your post that an end goal is crucial for a game to reach completion. What would be the goal in the game you have in mind?

Is there a time limit? A specific objective to attain? A win/lose condition? A plot driven by player actions?

Oh yeah. Forgot to mention.

The game ends in turn 30. There are two goals. Be the most diverse clade, and be the least man standing.

[Nakéen]

That sounds reasonable for the concept. The rest will depend a lot on the mechanics used, but I assume your prior experiences have helped you mend that side.

I don't have much experience with Evolution games though, but there should be a decent amount of examples in the forum. Successful ones though, I have no idea.

[Magmacube_tr]

Okay, what I devised is this little default sheet.

Species Name
Habitat:
Diet:
Features:

The habitat is self-explanatory, Diet is either a carnivore, a herbivore or an omnivore, and features are either just flavor text, or context which allows them to do and be certain things e.g You need to be aquatic to be in the sea, or you need flying or climbing or gliding to reach a tree.

One can have as many features as they like and roll for one as they please, as long as they don't conflict, and they will suffer the realistic consequences of their features in the matters of survival e.g amphibians will fare worse than air-breathers if the planet becomes drier.

So for example...

Gerumis
Habitat: Forest
Diet: Omnivore
Features: Bipedal, Poor Flying, Pack Hunter, Efficent Air-breathing, Terrestrial

This creature is essentially a pack hunting tree bird.

Easy, efficent, and simple.

[Magmacube_tr]

The thing is that I want to have like, 50 or so of these.

Though... Yeah, wait. Yeah. Alright...

Screw the stratified biomes. I shall solely take account of the landmasses instead, having them carry the species accordibg to the biomes on them, instead of trying to neatly split them into biomes and then try to make it make sense.

If a landmass has forests and plains, it has a forest and a plain tab. Dats it.

[ConscriptFive]

From a mechanical standpoint, why wouldn't you make an omnivore?  Unless there's a defined benefit to a narrow diet, how is it even a choice?

[notquitethere]

From a mechanical standpoint, why wouldn't you make an omnivore?  Unless there's a defined benefit to a narrow diet, how is it even a choice?

The way the Evolution boardgame gets around this is to have herbivore be the default and then the ability to digest other stuff be gained from additional traits (which compete for space with other traits you might want). If Magma wants Omnivore to be a choice from the start, it could be balanced out in a different way. For example, maybe carnivores need to feed less and herbivores have access to more plentiful but food (after all, omnivores can't usually digest grass and leaves to the same extent dedicated herbivores can).

[RoseHeart]

I've been having self esteem issues.

I've just got a lot of negative self talk in my head. Everytime I try to work on a game, I hear how it's already been too long (which becomes more and more true), or I feel it wont be good enough or worth the wait (which becomes more and more true), I'm really not putting the Mona Lisa together here it's just gonna be another turn in an experimental game.

When I start a new game, all that stuff resets. I wanna host games to a satisfactory stopping point though. I want to be able to finish what I set out to do with it. Been struggling with this self pressure thing my whole life, still haven't figured it out.

What has worked for you?