Print

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

[Urist Arrhenius]

-snip-

Is this a smaller part of a much larger game? Or is it most of a game?

If it's most of a game you could try doing a systems trial type thing. Run a game with a very basic system and see what players think of it, and what you think. If it's a small part you could as well, though the information may not translate as well to the finished project.

[IronyOwl]

It's... intended to be a dwarf fortress ish game with ridiculous anime combat and a fair amount of roleplaying/political stuff. So... depending on how all that works out, what the players want to do, etc, this will probably be a pretty important but not exclusive part of the game.

[monk12]

It's... intended to be a dwarf fortress ish game with ridiculous anime combat and a fair amount of roleplaying/political stuff. So... depending on how all that works out, what the players want to do, etc, this will probably be a pretty important but not exclusive part of the game.

How important will money be?

In real life, the only reason to choose to produce a crappier product instead of an amazing one is because you can make more profit from it. Even if you have the ability to produce an ornate gemstone-studded golden chalice engraved with the history of the world on it, there are very, very few people in the general public with the money available to even think about buying it, and those people are as likely to commission something to their tastes as to pick out a piece in a shop. Maybe you only sell a crap stone mug for one dwarfbuck, but if everyone in the fortress wants one and they're as disposable as a paper cup you can earn money more efficiently than making the masterwork stuff.

In game mechanic terms, the choice being made between mass production of lower tier items and selective production of high quality items is a choice of versatility versus utility. A player making lots of crap items they don't intend to use themselves can sell them and use the money to buy things they cannot produce themselves. A player making artifacts probably intends to use them, so they'll have the best of that item in the game compared to other players while also being less equipped in things outside their specialty because they do not have as much money to buy them.

In other words, "skill" as it applies to lower quality goods is not a measure of the utility of the finished product but how quickly they can be produced. This can either be a function of the relevant skill (A Legendary stoneworker could choose between spending all day making a masterwork or shitting out a hundred mugs) or it could be an independent skill (which would then need balancing to prevent spamming of masterworks but would open up multiple builds of a crafter type.)

[escaped lurker]

Maybe I should keep the current system for mass production and let players do single crafting attempts with a slightly different table, with more of an "you accidentally engrave it with cockroaches" vibe? But then artifacts lose their punch...

Hmm, how about the "Special Craft" taking a good deal more time, which results in a good bonus towards it becoming better quality? I mean, if I work 5 stonemugs each day, day in day out, at one point I will produce a particular "Good" one. If I sit down for a day, and try to work a single special one, it won't be guaranteed to become one, but there ought to be a higher chance for it. You would just need to set the worktime high enough, that "artifacts" don't really have much more of a chance than in normal production.

It also runs into oddities regarding difficult and expensive not being the same thing; any noob can smith wondrous items out of platinum or gold, but only a master can produce a cheap iron sword?

Don't think I got a good solution for this, but it touches upon another topic. Diversity. If one crafts wodden chairs all day long, sure enough, one will become more skilled. First, in working wood. Second, in making Chairs. Neither are a guarantee that one would create a good work of carpentry that is not a chair, like making a shelf. Which brings me to another point.

A point, which might put the cart in front of the horse - how about crafting having "Techniques"?
Nothing all too fancy, or too deep into the specific crafts, but more along these lines;

Getting an Eye for the Craft: Smiths - Metal Quality, Stoneworker & Gemcrafter - Possible / Fractures, Woodworker - "Eyes" & State (over/dry) of the wood, Tamer - Physical & Mental state of Animal, Herbalist - Freshness of Herbs, Farmer - Soil Quality & "Right" weather to Plant

Getting a Feel for the Craft: Smiths - Basic Metal Heating, Stoneworker & Gemcrafter - Basic Cutting / Working Technique, Woodworker - Basic Splitting & working along the grain, Tamer - Basic Behavioralism, Herbalist - Basic Herbal Properties, Farmer - Basic Fieldcare

Yeeah. While I like the idea, the amount of background work this would need is downright dreadfull. Just take it as food for thought.

[Rolepgeek]

I was just going to point out that a well-made iron sword is not something to be scoffed at, and since it can actually be used to fight with, unlike a golden sword, it would be worth quite a bit more than materials alone might indicate. Plus, where's that noob getting all that gold from? Nobody's going to buy a shitty gold sword for more than it weighs in gold anyway.

[Andres]

A How to Train Your Dragon (movie)-esque multiplayer game where you each have your own set of personal skills plus your own dragon.

[USEC_OFFICER]

I feel the need to create a forum game game that can be pretty much described as Sid Meier's Colonization + Celtic Mythology + King. The economic system and general gameplay will be much, much more simple than Colonization, since the focus will be on navigating the strange world that is being colonized. Trying to manipulate the locals, discover how to defend against and use magic, make tons of money, deal with strange and terrible figures, rebel from your founding country, that sort of thing. The only question is whether to make this a cooperative game, where everyone make decisions together and tries to steer the colony where they want it to go, or make it a multiplayer game with many colonies? I've been flip-flopping on this issue for a bit, so I thought that I'd ask you guys your opinions and see if there's any interest in this sort of thing.

[IronyOwl]

I feel the need to create a forum game game that can be pretty much described as Sid Meier's Colonization + Celtic Mythology + King. The economic system and general gameplay will be much, much more simple than Colonization, since the focus will be on navigating the strange world that is being colonized. Trying to manipulate the locals, discover how to defend against and use magic, make tons of money, deal with strange and terrible figures, rebel from your founding country, that sort of thing. The only question is whether to make this a cooperative game, where everyone make decisions together and tries to steer the colony where they want it to go, or make it a multiplayer game with many colonies? I've been flip-flopping on this issue for a bit, so I thought that I'd ask you guys your opinions and see if there's any interest in this sort of thing.

I think this depends in part on how modular the colonies can be. Players tend to like having relatively sole control over something, and if the focus is less on their personal characters and more on their colonies, obviously that pushes it more towards individual towns, assets, relationships, entire colonies, etc.

Beyond that it's the teamwork problem. You can't always rely on players working together, and you certainly can't rely on them working together efficiently. But a game is generally better the more players interact with each other, so you don't want to cut them off completely. So ideally you want them packed tightly enough that they rely on or influence each other, but not so tightly that they feel cramped or shackled to other peoples' poor decisions (beyond reason). Where exactly that point lies is going to depend a lot on the specifics of the game and your own tastes in the matter.

Overall, I'd lean towards single colony with a lot of room for subdivision, since that glues the players together in general without saying terribly much about their relationships. They can work in perfect unison on everything or just sort of push in opposite cardinal directions and try to ignore each other, there's plenty of room between things that affect one player or all of them, they're probably not allowed to openly stab each other but have endless opportunity to make nuisances of themselves, and there's a lot of leeway for their own actions to affect just themselves or the colony as a whole.

[Andres]

Make it multiplayer is my advice.

[escaped lurker]

First off, you got me interested at "Celtic Mythology" - far too rarely explored nowadays, and had me at "King". I think this idea has quite the potential, if "done right".

Which kinda brings us to the single / multiplayer variation.
I'd say, it pretty much hinges on your own priorities for this one. Do you plan on telling a story with game elements, or a game with story elements?

If the former, multiple players will not add too much value. You can also bet on some of them quickly boiling down their rp to the barest minimum, with their bolded commands taking up more space than the atmosphere to it. It is also only a question of when, not if, one of them becomes - possibly rightly so - pre-occupied with something else, wich results in the need for a stand-in / replacement player, lest you leave the game grinding to a halt. Well, at least that is my opinion / bias for suggestion games.

If you plan on doing more of a game than a story, with only a slight focus on rp, going multiplayer can be a good choice. We have a few gm's that are quite capable of doing these, and I am sure one can gleam some lessons from them. I'd presume that "limiting" the scope of the game to less than one months in total, plays a big part in that. Most people will be able to plan far enough ahead for this time-table, allowing good activity and quick turns. Extended campaigns, mostly bog down at some point - Picking up momentum after that can be quite difficult.

[Parsely]

I feel the need to create a forum game game that can be pretty much described as Sid Meier's Colonization + Celtic Mythology + King. The economic system and general gameplay will be much, much more simple than Colonization, since the focus will be on navigating the strange world that is being colonized. Trying to manipulate the locals, discover how to defend against and use magic, make tons of money, deal with strange and terrible figures, rebel from your founding country, that sort of thing. The only question is whether to make this a cooperative game, where everyone make decisions together and tries to steer the colony where they want it to go, or make it a multiplayer game with many colonies? I've been flip-flopping on this issue for a bit, so I thought that I'd ask you guys your opinions and see if there's any interest in this sort of thing.

Either way I'd play it.

First off, you got me interested at "Celtic Mythology" - far too rarely explored nowadays, and had me at "King". I think this idea has quite the potential, if "done right".

What's "King"?

[USEC_OFFICER]

To clairify, by King I meant King of Dragon Pass (or whatever it's called). Admittedly I've never played the game before but I've read a couple of LPs ans quite like the concept behind it.

For neatness's sake I've put my current ideas into a spoiler. It's a couple of fairly large paragraphs and I didn't want them clogging up the thread.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Thanks a lot for the input everyone. Right now, I'm thinking of making the players be governors of a single colony, working together to keep the colony alive and prospering. At the same time they're trying to enrich their pockets by directing their labours one way or another. As such everyone should work together when the colony is threatened, but will squable over which buildings to make or gifts to take. At least that's the plan.

Since the major draw of the game is going to be navigating the world of celtish mythology, basic gameplay will be incredibly simple. Unless you guys really want me to, I'm not going to track basic economy stuff in the game. It'll be assumed that the players are competent enough in the day-to-day running of things, and any improvements to the colony will also help line their pockets. Basic gameplay will thus be spent managing a limites set of actions per turn. Thus players can cooperate and use their actions on the same task to finish them quickly or go off and do their own thing slowly. The game will only last for 24 turns, or 3 years which is how long everyone's term in the colony lasts, so every action counts and planning ahead matters.

Hopefully balancing your actions between enriching yourself and keeping the colony going will be interesting but each turn will also have a little bit more going for it. In other words, as in KoDP, each turn will have a 'random' event that happens where the players must collectively make a decsion. For example, fearsome cats could be hunting down cattle, and the players will have to deal with them somehow. They could try to kill them, or tame the cats or something else entirely. Obviously the choices made will then influence future events, such as using the tamed cats to deal with a plague of mice. The game will have minimal RP, but by stringing together events like this I should get a kind of narrative going.

The only major problem I have right now is with combat. I want to make a tactical combat system for the game, but that'll slow it's pace down more than I want it too. Unfortunately I haven't thought of an alternative that I like yet so it's right now the major stumbling block of this whole endevour. I could just fudge things, but that doesn't strike me as very fun or fair.

Anyways, thanks for the help again everyone. It's given me quite a lot to think about and plan around.

[Nirur Torir]

Lately, I've had a few ideas for games that I want to host, and they won't leave me alone. I can't host them all, so help me decide which to run, and maybe help hash out mechanics. (Feel free to use or build off these ideas, of course.)

Candidate 1: Kerbal Colonization Program.
  Players: 1 commander, controlled by standard suggestion game format, and 4-6 scientist/engineer/kerbalnauts, each controlled by a permanent player.
  Setting: A fresh new binary system, previously untouched by Kerbalkind. The players arrive in a single ship (or small task force). No reinforcements or resupply expected; these Kerbals 'mature' quickly, allowing steady growth. The system is inhabited by a pre-space species which is incapable threatening a competent post-space species.
  Gameplay: Explore the system and set-up mining operations and logistics. Invent new space components (or advance relatively primitive non-space tech). Enlighten the natives about the merits of explosives.

Candidate 2: Conquests of the Elemental Planes
  Players: 6, each in charge of competing sides. Each is strongly aligned with a classical element (plus light and dark).
  Setting: A web of roughly city-sized micro-planes. Each plane is aligned somewhere on the element circle.
  Gameplay: Each city/plane is largely abstracted, with a focus (Production, research, growth, commerce, terraforming, magic, balanced, etc). Production will be modified by how closely aligned the plane is to the controller - Fire denizens are not good at living in water planes. Initially, players will be able to sorta profit from colonies on adjacent element planes, and take attrition even moving troops through other planes. Research will allow planes to be terraformed.
  Balance concern: I want diplomacy to be important, and I want some sort of major incentive to fight your opposing alignment (the one with lands like hostile deathworlds, yes), with minor incentives to ally adjacent elements (the ones living on lands you can actually use). I'm not sure how to go about this. Trade goods that improve morale, a general trade good bonus, and troops being able to fight alongside each other for the latter? The former might need some sort of unique spells and units for exploring the ruins of the opposing capital, and allowing a build-a-wonder victory.


The other two are rougher ideas. Neither would use tactical combat due to sloth.

Candidate 3: Alternative X-COM against dimension-walker aliens.
  This version of X-COM hasn't fought aliens before, and these aren't particularly strong. It might be fun to explore X-COM-tier R&D against foes that can be fought all-out.

Candidate 3.5: XCOM.
In new XCOM, the aliens are trying to test/recruit humans for something. What happens if Humanity accepts their offer at the end of the game? What sorts of fun might we have with XCOM allied with the Ethereals, against an even more deadly foe? (Or this might just be an excuse to throw XCOM's R&D division at spacecraft. It'd probably all end in spacetime singularities. So many spacetime singularities. Those should not be put in grenades, please stop it guys.)

[GiglameshDespair]

Candidate 1: Kerbal Colonization Program.
  Players: 1 commander, controlled by standard suggestion game format, and 4-6 scientist/engineer/kerbalnauts, each controlled by a permanent player.
  Setting: A fresh new binary system, previously untouched by Kerbalkind. The players arrive in a single ship (or small task force). No reinforcements or resupply expected; these Kerbals 'mature' quickly, allowing steady growth. The system is inhabited by a pre-space species which is incapable threatening a competent post-space species.
  Gameplay: Explore the system and set-up mining operations and logistics. Invent new space components (or advance relatively primitive non-space tech). Enlighten the natives about the merits of explosives.

If they have the technology for interstellar colonisation, what parts do they have to invent? And if they have technology advanced enough to render the natives impotent, what challenges do they actually face?

Candidate 2: Conquests of the Elemental Planes
  Players: 6, each in charge of competing sides. Each is strongly aligned with a classical element (plus light and dark).
  Setting: A web of roughly city-sized micro-planes. Each plane is aligned somewhere on the element circle.
  Gameplay: Each city/plane is largely abstracted, with a focus (Production, research, growth, commerce, terraforming, magic, balanced, etc). Production will be modified by how closely aligned the plane is to the controller - Fire denizens are not good at living in water planes. Initially, players will be able to sorta profit from colonies on adjacent element planes, and take attrition even moving troops through other planes. Research will allow planes to be terraformed.
  Balance concern: I want diplomacy to be important, and I want some sort of major incentive to fight your opposing alignment (the one with lands like hostile deathworlds, yes), with minor incentives to ally adjacent elements (the ones living on lands you can actually use). I'm not sure how to go about this. Trade goods that improve morale, a general trade good bonus, and troops being able to fight alongside each other for the latter? The former might need some sort of unique spells and units for exploring the ruins of the opposing capital, and allowing a build-a-wonder victory.

I like the idea of this, but obviously you'd need the systems behind it worked out before you could run it.

The other two are rougher ideas. Neither would use tactical combat due to sloth.

Candidate 3: Alternative X-COM against dimension-walker aliens.
  This version of X-COM hasn't fought aliens before, and these aren't particularly strong. It might be fun to explore X-COM-tier R&D against foes that can be fought all-out.

X-Com Apocalypse is against interdimensional aliens. Why have weak aliens, anyway? And what do you mean by fought all-out? Presumably any development of weaponry is limited by the fact most of the fighting will be done in this universe and presumably Earth, else there's not much reason to fight.

Candidate 3.5: XCOM.
In new XCOM, the aliens are trying to test/recruit humans for something. What happens if Humanity accepts their offer at the end of the game? What sorts of fun might we have with XCOM allied with the Ethereals, against an even more deadly foe? (Or this might just be an excuse to throw XCOM's R&D division at spacecraft. It'd probably all end in spacetime singularities. So many spacetime singularities. Those should not be put in grenades, please stop it guys.)

I dunno. Most of XCOM is catching up technology wise, so if the Ethers give us their tech as allies it's probably not got too much room for easy improvement. After all, we presumably never saw the Ether's proper war machine - only drip feeding us gimped versions to test out capabilities.

[IronyOwl]

Candidate 1: Kerbal Colonization Program.
  Players: 1 commander, controlled by standard suggestion game format, and 4-6 scientist/engineer/kerbalnauts, each controlled by a permanent player.
  Setting: A fresh new binary system, previously untouched by Kerbalkind. The players arrive in a single ship (or small task force). No reinforcements or resupply expected; these Kerbals 'mature' quickly, allowing steady growth. The system is inhabited by a pre-space species which is incapable threatening a competent post-space species.
  Gameplay: Explore the system and set-up mining operations and logistics. Invent new space components (or advance relatively primitive non-space tech). Enlighten the natives about the merits of explosives.

The system is inhabited by a pre-space species which is incapable threatening a competent post-space species.

In other words, you're fucked.

This one sounds pretty good. Very authentic, what with the living hell each player is likely to be in taking orders from suggestion format and dealing with 5 random jackasses for associates.

Candidate 2: Conquests of the Elemental Planes
  Players: 6, each in charge of competing sides. Each is strongly aligned with a classical element (plus light and dark).
  Setting: A web of roughly city-sized micro-planes. Each plane is aligned somewhere on the element circle.
  Gameplay: Each city/plane is largely abstracted, with a focus (Production, research, growth, commerce, terraforming, magic, balanced, etc). Production will be modified by how closely aligned the plane is to the controller - Fire denizens are not good at living in water planes. Initially, players will be able to sorta profit from colonies on adjacent element planes, and take attrition even moving troops through other planes. Research will allow planes to be terraformed.
  Balance concern: I want diplomacy to be important, and I want some sort of major incentive to fight your opposing alignment (the one with lands like hostile deathworlds, yes), with minor incentives to ally adjacent elements (the ones living on lands you can actually use). I'm not sure how to go about this. Trade goods that improve morale, a general trade good bonus, and troops being able to fight alongside each other for the latter? The former might need some sort of unique spells and units for exploring the ruins of the opposing capital, and allowing a build-a-wonder victory.

This one seems like it might end up a little soulless and abstract, so I'm not sure I can recommend it.

However, the ally-enemy thing could potentially be handled via global terrain stats. So once you're able to, invading hell starts to become attractive for the purposes of terraforming it out of the way of your research options, or at least scouring it of all life to raise your population cap. Allied terrain could have a similarly but less severely beneficial impact, to the point where it's often easier to just let them do their thing than scouring and terraforming their worlds for relatively minimal benefit.

Of course, you'd have to watch out for snowballing effects from this, and from conquest and victory in general. Then again, if it's a competitive game meant to produce a winner at some point, maybe that'd be a relatively minor concern.

If you did want to run it, I'd suggest either very world-centric combat mechanics, or a sort of recycling theme for your troops, ie gaining and losing them is more about shuffling resources around than genuine loss. That'd probably help avoid the worst of the snowballing things, and make it viable to make aggressive gambles and other nonsense with your precious minions.

The other two are rougher ideas. Neither would use tactical combat due to sloth.

Candidate 3: Alternative X-COM against dimension-walker aliens.
  This version of X-COM hasn't fought aliens before, and these aren't particularly strong. It might be fun to explore X-COM-tier R&D against foes that can be fought all-out.

Candidate 3.5: XCOM.
In new XCOM, the aliens are trying to test/recruit humans for something. What happens if Humanity accepts their offer at the end of the game? What sorts of fun might we have with XCOM allied with the Ethereals, against an even more deadly foe? (Or this might just be an excuse to throw XCOM's R&D division at spacecraft. It'd probably all end in spacetime singularities. So many spacetime singularities. Those should not be put in grenades, please stop it guys.)

So what would they use, card game combat? Man I could go for some card game combat.

Anyway, it sounds a little to me like these are less about XCOM and more about blowing things up in various ways. You might want to consider cutting out the middleman and making CollateralCOM or Perfectly Responsible Wizards in the first place.