Print

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

[Rolepgeek]

So it's the GM's fault? I mean, you're freely admitting that it can create an awesome story, but you're assuming that it will be ruined automatically. And then it sounds like you're blaming the GM for it.

[Fniff]

I said everyone gave up. There isn't a GM in most freeformers on this site.

[Bdthemag]

I said everyone gave up. There isn't a GM in most freeformers on this site.

Even if there are, the only kind of people who want to GM a freeformer usually aren't the kind of GM who stick with something for a long period of time. Freeform games end because the players make poor choices, freeform games with GM's end because the GM makes poor choices before the players get the chance to.

[10ebbor10]

The idea of a freeform RP is that there are little rules . Ie, there is no real higher authority.

Hence, if you show enough people a button, there will be someone that pushes it.

All in all, Freeform RP is a high risk/ reward thing, which will probably end in a rather explosive way. No way to distance yourself from them though. After all, by believing that something has a forgone conclusion, it will mostly end up like that.

[freeformschooler]

The idea of a freeform RP is that there are little rules . Ie, there is no real higher authority.

Hence, if you show enough people a button, there will be someone that pushes it.

All in all, Freeform RP is a high risk/ reward thing, which will probably end in a rather explosive way. No way to distance yourself from them though. After all, by believing that something has a forgone conclusion, it will mostly end up like that.

A solid perspective. Thank you, ebbor.

[Kadzar]

An idea I had for adapting this system to tabletop was that you could simply have the ranges associated with certain numbers (like Close (1), Medium (2), Far (3), ect.) and thereby use a d6 or maybe d4 face up to show the current range, thereby having simple and easy way of noting the current fighting range round-by-round or within the round, and you could put them between different figurines to denote their relative combat spacing.

That's a good idea! A tabletop adaptation would be interesting, and an actual map could simulate the impact of terrain (being forced into a corner, dancing around muddy, uncertain ground, etc) in a way that the forum game version simply doesn't. Of course, that opens up a whole can of worms about how the scale weapon reach operates doesn't match any scale you'd use to draw a battlefield. Not an unsolvable problem, I think, but definitely a tricky one.

My idea was that you could represent the battlefield without having to use a grid or anything to keep exact track of the combatants' positions. Though the way I originally conceived it would require the relative positioning of each combatant with every other single combatant, which would be quite cumbersome with even just a handful in play.

I think it might be possible to do if you just used a normal battlegrid and placed dice next to any combatants that are adjacent to each other and have any significant number of enemies around a single one change the whole lot to "surrounded" or "flanking" range, with the possibility of activating certain moves at this special range. And I guess anything outside of "far" range (which could probably use a better name, but damned if I can think of one) would be one space away. I'm thinking this is such a great implementation either. This is tricky.

If you want to lower the amount of dicerolls, you might possibly want to just have a few steps in the move be compared straight against the enemy's defense, though I would personally first consider if it's really necessary to roll the opponent's defense in the first place, rather than just comparing it to a straight defense value (possibly half the dice's max value plus the usual modifiers). Since balance allows these values to fluctuate on a round-by-round basis, it might even be worthwhile to compare straight values without rolls for certain steps.

Yeah, dice vs dice is laziness on my part, as that should average out over the long run (assuming the dice are the same size.) Static defense makes more sense, I just didn't want to think about it. The first rough rough draft mentioned that Balance might be used as Defense, or a modifier for it. My concern with that is that low Balance means you are more likely to be hit, which means you'll have even lower Balance. It's a feedback loop. Then again, since the Balance cost for a Sword Form resolves before the execution it gives the combatants more reason to think about the cost of their Sword Form. It supports that rock paper scissors dynamic of "Do I attack strongly (and expensively,) do I defend and recover Balance, or do I mix the two and try to tread water?" It could work, and would definitely lend toward shorter battles, but I'd want to playtest it a bit to make sure it doesn't feel like "Well I lost the first exchange, so now I'm dead."

So I know proposed using Balance as hitpoints, and that could certainly lend to an interesting style, but I think in a fight actually hits should maybe be somewhat rare, as you have to overcome your opponents defenses, one of which should be a passive parry ability that uses the defender's current balance score. The idea should be that, unlike other games where HP represents depleted luck from near-misses and/or loss of stamina to keep up with constantly avoided blows until you get down to the last few that represent actual flesh and blood damage, here every single wound should represent actual physical damage.

I think if I understand you right, that's basically what I meant. Losing Balance doesn't mean you've really been hit, it just means that your flow and movements have been interrupted. An attack that "hits" doesn't draw blood, but it does force you to break your stride by parrying, or the force of the blow might make you stumble back. Being out of Balance means you're so far out of your flow that you leave an opening, which your opponent takes to deal "real" damage.

Yeah, since you phrased it that way, I realized that we were both just trying to do the same basic thing by two different approaches. For the record, thinking about it, I think like yours better, since it doesn't have the chance of one of two equally matched opponents getting in a lucky hit on the first round, which would be especially bad if dueling to first blood. Though I suppose it could be somewhat ameliorated by boosting the basic defense modifier so that it's higher than what you could naturally roll for attack, and I think certain move steps could probably be compared against some defense that doesn't have Balance added to it. I also liked how my idea would make it easier to hit your opponent as the fight went on and they got tired, though it does mean there would be certain times (especially in the beginning) while fighting an equal opponent where neither of you can actually hit each other and are just trying to wear each other down with Balance-sapping moves. Which could actually be fun in its own way so, after writing this paragraph, I think it may turn out to be bit of a toss-up for my favorite implementation.

I think some moves should allow you to activate some sorts of stances, or whatever you'd want to call them, that would do various things such as boost your defenses or allow you to perform counter-attacks in certain situations. Thinking about it, maybe there should be certain moves that act as combo moves, being able to be used freely upon successfully executing certain other moves, allowing you to not only change stances but alternatively perform a the equivalent of a single step of a regular move as part your turn (it's possible more steps could be included in a combo, but my gut says a single step is probably a good idea since it's an extra thing). Also, some combos, at least maybe stance combos, might be free to execute (since you have to succeed in another move to use them and you can only have one stance active at once (probably)).

This is something I've thought of (and intended to include in the maybe-someday videogame version,) but I didn't include it in the forum game version for the sake of simplicity. There was one concept I was thinking of, the idea of a precondition/postcondition of some description. Basically instead of choosing from any Sword Form you know, you'd have to pick Sword Forms that "connect" to each other to make a smooth dance. By connecting, I mean one of the requirements to start a Sword Form would be a certain stance, and at the end of a Sword Form you'd be in a different stance. Thus, you might pick an unexpected Sword Form which does not help you greatly on the turn you use it, but leaves you in a stance that would let you use a more powerful/useful Form the next turn. Like I said, I think it might be too complicated for a forum game, but in a perfect world I think that's how I'd do it.

Yeah, the idea of combos was that you wouldn't have to break out a specific move just to get into a stance. Also, they would either not generate much useful effect or would use up balance with no chance to get it back. I'm not too attached to the idea, though I think if they were too overpowered as-is they could be made to be only usable with two-step moves or as a substitute to the last step of a move.

Oh, and I also thought of another way to keep track of fighting range: do as before, with numbers denoting the range, but instead of using dice, you can add or subtract a number of glass beads or poker chips or some other easily countable thing.

I think I like the dice idea better, but counters would work where dice are unavailable.

The idea of using beads was that it might be quicker than changing faces on a die (I haven't done any testing or anything to know for sure either way). Another idea I had that I forgot to mention was that you could just have a piece of paper with the ranges written on it and move a marker or the two figurines back and forth on it. The downside of this approach is that it would only work for one-on-one duels.

[monk12]

My idea was that you could represent the battlefield without having to use a grid or anything to keep exact track of the combatants' positions. Though the way I originally conceived it would require the relative positioning of each combatant with every other single combatant, which would be quite cumbersome with even just a handful in play.

I think it might be possible to do if you just used a normal battlegrid and placed dice next to any combatants that are adjacent to each other and have any significant number of enemies around a single one change the whole lot to "surrounded" or "flanking" range, with the possibility of activating certain moves at this special range. And I guess anything outside of "far" range (which could probably use a better name, but damned if I can think of one) would be one space away. I'm thinking this is such a great implementation either. This is tricky.

I think the big problem is figuring out when the range dancing inside the squares should translate into multi-square movement. If there's a fight going on, and one guy goes to close, then the other guy goes to far, then the first guy goes to close again... well, they should move back a square at some point, since essentially the one guy is forcing the other one back. The question is, without absolute positioning on a sub-square level, how do you figure that out? How do you decide whether one guy is moving away from the other, or if he's physically knocking the other swordsman back? You can do the second one with your back to a wall, but not the first.

I don't think placing dice next to combatants would be too terribly tricky, provided you can remember which die belongs where. It helps to have an embarrassment of multicolored dice. Then again, my battlegrid isn't in the house, so I haven't exactly tried it myself.

And for a name other than "far range"; "extended" maybe?

I think some moves should allow you to activate some sorts of stances, or whatever you'd want to call them, that would do various things such as boost your defenses or allow you to perform counter-attacks in certain situations. Thinking about it, maybe there should be certain moves that act as combo moves, being able to be used freely upon successfully executing certain other moves, allowing you to not only change stances but alternatively perform a the equivalent of a single step of a regular move as part your turn (it's possible more steps could be included in a combo, but my gut says a single step is probably a good idea since it's an extra thing). Also, some combos, at least maybe stance combos, might be free to execute (since you have to succeed in another move to use them and you can only have one stance active at once (probably)).

This is something I've thought of (and intended to include in the maybe-someday videogame version,) but I didn't include it in the forum game version for the sake of simplicity. There was one concept I was thinking of, the idea of a precondition/postcondition of some description. Basically instead of choosing from any Sword Form you know, you'd have to pick Sword Forms that "connect" to each other to make a smooth dance. By connecting, I mean one of the requirements to start a Sword Form would be a certain stance, and at the end of a Sword Form you'd be in a different stance. Thus, you might pick an unexpected Sword Form which does not help you greatly on the turn you use it, but leaves you in a stance that would let you use a more powerful/useful Form the next turn. Like I said, I think it might be too complicated for a forum game, but in a perfect world I think that's how I'd do it.

Yeah, the idea of combos was that you wouldn't have to break out a specific move just to get into a stance. Also, they would either not generate much useful effect or would use up balance with no chance to get it back. I'm not too attached to the idea, though I think if they were too overpowered as-is they could be made to be only usable with two-step moves or as a substitute to the last step of a move.

I may as well share my original concept of stances while I'm here, instead of the combo version.

Basically, stances give some passive benefit, and they also function as schools; Sword Forms are grouped by the stance you need to be in to use them. Any given turn you have the option of half a dozen Sword Forms to choose from, or you can spend the turn shifting into a new stance for a new benefit and set of Forms. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, different groups of Sword Forms have benefits against other groups; thus, spending the turn to shift into a new stance can give you immediate benefits against the stance your opponent is using. The idea is that there'd be almost a Pokemon style mechanic where stances are almost like type advantage, where you have to evaluate whether the matchup you're in is bad enough to warrant a stance shift, or whether you have enough tricks up your sleeve to keep from being overwhelmed. Of course, being wounded would let you shift stance for free, much like having a Pokemon faint lets you send in one of a different type.

Oh, and I also thought of another way to keep track of fighting range: do as before, with numbers denoting the range, but instead of using dice, you can add or subtract a number of glass beads or poker chips or some other easily countable thing.

I think I like the dice idea better, but counters would work where dice are unavailable.

The idea of using beads was that it might be quicker than changing faces on a die (I haven't done any testing or anything to know for sure either way). Another idea I had that I forgot to mention was that you could just have a piece of paper with the ranges written on it and move a marker or the two figurines back and forth on it. The downside of this approach is that it would only work for one-on-one duels.

I think with the counters, the problem would be if you have like 5 figurines all right next to each other, all with a pile of range counters next to them. Especially if it's a 3-way fight or something. The piece of paper idea isn't too bad; it would work best if you had enough minis to have one on the battlegrid and a separate one for the range paper. Not sure what to do for multiple opponents though; I suppose if you had a bunch of different colored beads/counters/chips so that each combatant could have multiple of their own color, that could work.

[Digital Hellhound]

Honestly, most freeformer problems could be checked just with a bit of quality control, ie, not letting just anyone join. You're not gonna get random godmodding with a bunch of good writers. Defining a good RPer/writer is gonna be a problem, though.

For example, see the Grand Battles of MSPA fame. Very much freeform up to controlling others' characters, hugely successful. I think someone tried to host one here (The Heroic Clash), but it was too freeform for the player culture of these forums.

[Bdthemag]

Honestly, most freeformer problems could be checked just with a bit of quality control, ie, not letting just anyone join. You're not gonna get random godmodding with a bunch of good writers. Defining a good RPer/writer is gonna be a problem, though.

For example, see the Grand Battles of MSPA fame. Very much freeform up to controlling others' characters, hugely successful. I think someone tried to host one here (The Heroic Clash), but it was too freeform for the player culture of these forums.

Why did you remind me Digital, why did you remind me. I DO NOT WANT TO BE REMINDED OF MY SHITTY FORUM GAME DAYS.

[Digital Hellhound]

Whaa? It was awesome. Bay12 just didn't quite know what to do with it. Lieutenant Samuel Pierce never did find his freedom, sadly.

@monk: Haven't read all of the swordfightin' discussion, but maybe you could partly implement Stances as Starting Stances? You could select one at the start of battle that would make some types of Forms cheaper.

Example;

Coiled Serpent Stance
*-5 Balance Cost to The Serpent Uncoiled, -3 to Springing Serpent
*A ceremonial fighting stance where the blade is held deftly above the wielder's head, one foot extended.

It wouldn't limit the Forms you could use. But ehh, it might work better as a specialized Form, no need to complicate things.

[Fniff]

It was awesome in places, and that's the last of what I'm saying on the matter.

Anyway, speaking of sword fighting, perhaps there could be a way of making stylized gunfights as well? Cos a common complaint from my own roleplay group is that my RPs are generally focused around gunfights as combat and guns tend to be rather boring. Since my RPs tend to be quite stylized, I was thinking of implementing an action movie style combat system with guns, but I'm not sure how to do so. Any tips?

[Aklyon]

You Are Scientist (Hey, you know all those You Are X games? Scientist was the first. And best.)

But You are Wizard lasted much longer than Man of Science! (And I'd say it was at least as good).

For Fniff, Perhaps you could have some sort of bonus for shooting dramatically or just barely evading fire?

[Parsely]

@fniff Find a good reason to not keep track of bullets. Counting ammo is so boring. Probably the best way to do guns is make them magic, then you can light your bullets on fire via sheer power of will, which is awesome.

EDIT: I never have difficulty imagining settings, so I can probably think of a million couple off the top of my head that would work, if thats a problem for you.

[Nerjin]

@fniff Find a good reason to not keep track of bullets. Counting ammo is so boring. Probably the best way to do guns is make them magic, then you can light your bullets on fire via sheer power of will, which is awesome.

I disagree. Having to keep track of bullets [not per clip but as a whole] helps add a layer of tension. Also magic guns are boring to me. "Oh I'll just keep pulling the trigger forever and if you get out of cover you're fucked."

Also fire bullets.... meh. Not at all entertaining to me. But that's just my opinion.

[Fniff]

I agree with Nerjin. I need some actual mechanics here, not just magic guns. This is to specifically prevent "Fire at each other until one of us scores a 20 and then I win", which tends to happen a lot during firefights in RPs, which fire bullets wouldn't help.