Print

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

[GlyphGryph]

You do have another option. Don't give them characters.

I don't mean, like, have no characters, but make them essentially components of the "spirit of the fort", or the player when playing FTL, and give them control over a small group with varying size and responsibilities, so that there's something for them to do even when one is laid up in bed or busy doing something boring.

[Truean]

You do have another option. Don't give them characters.

I don't mean, like, have no characters, but make them essentially components of the "spirit of the fort", or the player when playing FTL, and give them control over a small group with varying size and responsibilities, so that there's something for them to do even when one is laid up in bed or busy doing something boring.

This concept is interesting to me, but foreign. FTL? (FTL = Faster Than Light? I know this is a game but have never played).

Do you find this is something players like, or do they feel cheated somehow by not having a character? Just asking out of what is honestly ignorance.

[GlyphGryph]

I've played games where players get "teams" before and had them go well. Also poorly. About on par with standard games, though. My last (and by far most popular) forum game had absolutely no characters at all. Literally none. People didn't seem to mind that much. My pen+paper called Brutal had roughly half the players controlling more than one character - warg and imp players controlled packs, rodents controlled swarms, and quite a few controlled pairs - they usually enjoyed this, and each of them (except for the rodents) would give their multiple characters their own identities.

Some published RPGs, like Paranoia, are based on multiple characters that cycle out as needed. Although that's more akin to extra lives, I guess. D&D has a couple classes in 3rd edition built around playing multiple characters instead of one, and I knew quite a few people who loved those classes, from the Ranger (which gave you one normal race and one animal race to play as) to Leadership-based characters (who can have over a hundred, though usually under a half dozen meaningful ones). Players in MMOs and MUDs are more than familiar with Alts, who they'll play when there's no one around to do interesting things with their main.

Especially for a game based on Dwarf Fortress, I doubt people would have a problem with it, so long as they don't have to do the work of explicitly controlling every one every turn. (but then, the fact that they shouldn't need to is part of why I suggested it)

[Xantalos]

And then there's the minimalist RTD, if you're feeling lazy. This is a good example.

[Skyrunner]

First, I want to strongly do the opposite of recommending minimalist RTDs (can't remember a nice word for that...). This might just be my elitist/superiority/etc talking, but I think, as a first impression, they'll stamp you as lazy. It also tends to rapidly collapse upon itself in its own madness. :/ The most successful minimalist lasted five hours. That's telling something.

I usually make things up as I go. It offers me the chance to improvise, and the flexibility that having a big script doesn't provide me. But I still want a general idea of what hardships are going to assail the players, where the game should end (is there someone behind the scenes doing all this? Is there a reason?), and where the game is set.

Hmm... I think all I've done is reiterate what others have said, so I'll stop writing right here
Anyways, I'll be lurking on this thread for the while ...

[GlyphGryph]

Yeah, I'm going to go opposed to minimalist too. I do recommend trying RTDs, but... not that kind, heh.

[Xantalos]

More as a side project than anything else.

First, I want to strongly do the opposite of recommending minimalist RTDs (can't remember a nice word for that...). This might just be my elitist/superiority/etc talking, but I think, as a first impression, they'll stamp you as lazy. It also tends to rapidly collapse upon itself in its own madness. :/ The most successful minimalist lasted five hours. That's telling something.

I usually make things up as I go. It offers me the chance to improvise, and the flexibility that having a big script doesn't provide me. But I still want a general idea of what hardships are going to assail the players, where the game should end (is there someone behind the scenes doing all this? Is there a reason?), and where the game is set.

Hmm... I think all I've done is reiterate what others have said, so I'll stop writing right here
Anyways, I'll be lurking on this thread for the while ...

See example. It's lasted about a month (I think).

[Truean]

I can appreciate the idea of Roll to Dodge, etc, but I think I'd like to do something a little more involved.
The issue is, of course, how. I mean, I don't want something that'll bury me in work (can't have it really), but I'd also like something neat for a friend or two to do in a sandboxy like RP game. I'm not entirely sure how to make that happen but I think I'm coming to a few ideas and still looking for some more I suppose. I also think it'll be kinda fun for a couple of people on this forum that might want some escapism. There are still some kinks to work out but who knows, maybe it'll be fun just talking about em.

Other possible ideas:

Open Form RP (Not "Open Forum"):
Ad Hoc. So there are several roleplaying systems out there. I am or at least was at one point, familiar with D&D, though it's gone through a few editions since I've touched it. I suppose the idea of an Open RP is one without so much of a system to it where you have a set of dice rolls that will always be the same. In some ways, it operates more like real life, because I don't think that follows a system necessarily.

The problem with this is obvious: some players may think it isn't fair, especially if results vary too much. I mean this isn't entirely without some reasonable basis. Especially with the idea that people sometimes aren't great (you could have a jerk DM; they exist). Also in a completely open form, you don't really have things like set skill modifiers, which can be a problem in keeping track of things (if you're going to keep track of where walls are, you could keep track of where people have developed skills...).

The pros are in the fact that a lot of other system rules simply don't have rules for many things players would wanna do in a fortress building RP (how long does it take to build that wall/how much of it do you get done exact in X amount of time)? I think you end up ad hocing (making crap up on the fly) for that kinda thing anyhow in several of those things (are there even rules on digging?).

Semi Open RP
It has Ad Hoc without necessarily a rigid system, but you do have the equivalent of character sheets that do keep track of things like skills that might have modifiers to whatever resolution systems you have. Still suffers from some of the problems of open methods but less so than before really, due to some things sticking (skill mods etc).

Rigid system:
This would be something set like D&D or Gurps. They more or less explain themselves (at length). They have all the opposite strengths and weaknesses of an open system.

Next post, I'm thinking about recording methods of information (geography, especially underground if we're dealing with dwarfs), as well as items, storage, etc. After that we might look at possible abilities and assignments. It hasn't been lost on me, the idea of having a group under your control, though I tend to still like the idea of an individual character. Perhaps over time the character can have people under their direction or control (just a thought)?

Not sure if I'd actually be able to do it, but the thought in and of itself is nice and planning is the first step if it is going to happen.

[King DZA]

"Construct a basic skeleton, and flesh out certain parts of it as the need arises. Don't be afraid to rearrange the bones of that skeleton if you feel it would be an overall improvement to your creation."

Sums up my approach to making forum games fairly accurately. Starting off with only some basic ideas, relying less on set-in-stone-mechanics and more on intuition and reasoning, then just letting a system build up organically as things progress. Experimenting with different concepts, scenarios, ect. as I go.
Admittedly, this is far from the best way to do things for many types of forum games, but it seems to have worked out pretty well for me so far.

[freeformschooler]

"Construct a basic skeleton, and flesh out certain parts of it as the need arises. Don't be afraid to rearrange the bones of that skeleton if you feel it would be an overall improvement to your creation."

Sums up my approach to making forum games fairly accurately. Starting off with only some basic ideas, relying less on set-in-stone-mechanics and more on intuition and reasoning, then just letting a system build up organically as things progress. Experimenting with different concepts, scenarios, ect. as I go.
Admittedly, this is far from the best way to do things for many types of forum games, but it seems to have worked out pretty well for me so far.

Hey, that's exactly what I do too. I've heard echoes of you don't want to change a system once it's already been created (easier to upsize than downsize), but there's no shame in that at all. Better to keep a forum game running than stick to mechanics that make rolls take hours.

[GlyphGryph]

As far as loose rules or tight rules - the answer is always, and forever, "whichever setup best supports your narrarrative and the sort of gameplay you want to occur".

Your system is your vocabulary, and while any system is versatile enough to say anything, for the most part, the vocabulary guides the speaker to express themselves in certain ways.

And the vocabulary of tight systems does not, in my opinion, lead to high quality forum games.

So your very first goal needs to be to decide what sort of experience you want this to be.

If you want a single battle to last several months real time, feel free to go with a low level, fine grain, turn based like D&D or GURPs. If you want player driven narrarrative, it might be worth trying out a scene-based system. If you don't want to focus on combat, and instead on management and preparation, use a system that resolves actual combat as almost as a background event.

What's the time scale you're looking for, the feel? How fine is the control you want the players to have? Should players describe their character's actions in general, or do you want them to really handle the specifics by giving them specific combat abilities and tactics? (The second requires far more frequent updates)

As long as it's clear what sort of game you're building, your players will be happy so long as your system supports it and it's clear. I've never once had a problem with a "The host decides the outcome of all actions" sort of system so long as I /didn't/ act like a jackass (and I trust you won't) and it was clear up front. I've run and played in several diceless freeforms (or sometimes dice-guided freeforms), and this has never been in an issue when hosted. Unhosted diceless systems can get a bit of this, but that's totally different - a hosts job is to clamp down on the sort of stuff before it gets out of hand.

Even in those games, people still almost always have a character sheet, though. It's simply a descriptive character sheet rather than a system character sheet. DF is already an adjective based system, so that could even work here.

Finally - don't be afraid to do abstraction. Games are built on the stuff. Ask yourself "Do I actually, honestly, really need a map for my players? Is it enough for them to simply know what rooms exist and a rough idea of how far they are from each other? Will they need to manually calculate distances or know exactly how far rooms are from each other? Do I want them to need that? Am I willing to sacrifice my own flexibility later on to give them a fixed, static view of their situation? Is this something I want them to argue with me over if I don't constantly check to make sure I'm following it correctly?" and various other questions of the sort. Does what you're doing add to the game, or can you abstract it? Can you simply draw a map with "burrows" relative to each other, and let players build additional rooms in the burrow of their choice? It means you can still use between-burrow distance and access as a factor, but don't have to deal with the low level details inside.

It hasn't been lost on me, the idea of having a group under your control, though I tend to still like the idea of an individual character. Perhaps over time the character can have people under their direction or control (just a thought)?

Yeah, this is a decent way to do it. Make each player the head of a guild or something, working together to make the fortress successful, with underlings and family and etc. and whatnot.

[Truean]

[nods] I think the rules can be somewhat squishy here rather than hard, long as there is some feeling of consistency or reason behind it.

So, on to recording information (as noted in last post):

I think I figured out why Starcraft isn't really fun for me anymore: there is no sense of permanence. I used to be pretty good at Starcraft, not pro or anything, but respectable APM over 300 and tactics (switched between P and T, mostly P with reaver and storm drops along with defense to start). Every game began the same: set number of workers, map I knew and had played before. Basically you started from nothing each and every single game. Starcraft is really a process game: there's a process (build order) and you learn it/adapt it, but you don't seem to gain anything.

Makes you wonder what happens to all those armies/fleets you build.... It doesn't leave you with something cool to have.... You just sorta start over each time.... They tried to address this a little in SC2 by having you start with more workers (the beginning of every game was largely the same so to speed it up...).

This is where an RP can help if things are recorded. You can build something you want, or at least something close to it. There's adaptation to surroundings and circumstances.

As for geography, I think there needs to be a map and nation/country descriptions. I can do that and it's a big enough thing to matter. We're talking about a setting and significant power structures can have an effect upon the world that the players can notice, try to ignore, go against, or flow with. Same thing with NPCs. Any nations will be superimposed (or attempt to) over the geography. This may seem obvious but I've seen some games where it almost looks like the geography is secondary to the politics. "This is a map of X country...." Notice how the geographic features tend to stop rather than flow past borders.... Sure, sometimes geography acts as a border (mountains, rivers, etc) but not always. Basically, I see that in a lot of games the geography is an afterthought to the nation. I don't get this.

Then you go down to a regional level, same idea with geography divided basically into areas. They don't have to be perfect squares or anything and with geographic features, squares seem rare. There will likely be several areas (though perhaps at least somewhat similar) surrounding each area. This is important in my mind because most RPs I see just sorta toss things around. Settlements are built initially around water and resources needed to live (mostly). In a fairly lower tech world, you're not going to have the equivalents of suburbs or what we have today as fairly densely packed land in most developed countries. Today the concept of true wilderness is fairly foreign to many people. Especially in a fort building RP, you're not at that level and I imagine there's a ton of wilderness. Serves to make the world richer in a sense. Each area can be detailed somewhat and presumably used as a setting. Granted, some of them are going to be somewhat uninteresting and pass-through territory for a while if not always. Some less so. Hopefully it might be fun doing something like this.... the mapping. I dunno.

Then there are individual location sites. These are the cities, the ruins, the anything that's very localized. Possibility for detail is great, and hopefully not a lot of it graphic (pictures). Especially in DF, I can imagine the textual based stuff going over well. The picture (simple one) says 1000 words though in terms of spacial positioning, orientation, etc.

There could be a picture of a room, horridly drawn perhaps, and each little thing in it could have a description of that thing and what it holds, if anything.

Just thoughts. What do you think?

[GlyphGryph]

I still think your focusing on the wrong stuff.

Look at a game of DF - how many players care what a nations borders are, or bother to locations of... anything, aside from where there for is? Not many. They don't care. The little box that says "Goblins Elves Human" is all they want and care about.

I mean, you can create this for your own personal use, but do NOT waste time and effort preparing these resources for players when they have zero use for it. If you're making a fortress based RPG, they are in a fixed place - none of those things matter in the slightest to anything the player can do! It detracts from the game. It's like an action novel that stops halfway through to spend 50 pages describing the exact mechanics of some fancy rifle, when all the reader really wants to know is whether it shoots the guy.

Especially for your first game, ESPECIALLY if you don't have shittons of time to devote to this - think simpler. Think about what is ACTUALLY important to a game. Step back, and like I said before, look at your goals.

As for geography, I think there needs to be a map and nation/country descriptions. I can do that and it's a big enough thing to matter.

Why, in any but the vaguest ways?

We're talking about a setting and significant power structures can have an effect upon the world that the players can notice, try to ignore, go against, or flow with.

How? How does this impact the player?

Basically, I see that in a lot of games the geography is an afterthought to the nation. I don't get this.

It's easier. It saves time and gives the host freedom to focus on things that are actually important.

Then there are individual location sites. These are the cities, the ruins, the anything that's very localized. Possibility for detail is great, and hopefully not a lot of it graphic (pictures). Especially in DF, I can imagine the textual based stuff going over well. The picture (simple one) says 1000 words though in terms of spacial positioning, orientation, etc.

Now THIS, this could be important to the players. It's stuff that they will care about and that will impact their play (unlike national borders). Assuming, of course, they are going to those places - and I thought you were doing a fortress building game?

There could be a picture of a room, horridly drawn perhaps, and each little thing in it could have a description of that thing and what it holds, if anything.

Your players will get bored by the irrelevant walls of text and you will get incredibly frustrated by the amount of work this will require. The most you need is some notes (for yourself) on what the room will contain, and then limit yourself to providing a more detailed description of those elements relevant to the player.

Running a game, hosting an RP, is much like being a writer. What you leave out is just as important as what you put in. Chekhovs gun - every element you introduce should serve a purpose by the end. Before you waste time on geopolitical maps, figure out "how is this bit of information going to go off?"

Not everything needs to lead to something - red herrings and details can both be enjoyable in small amounts. But most things do.

Remember: You are managing a game (in which case, details not relevant to the players mechanics and decisions are irrelevant) or you're telling a story (in which case, details not relevant to the plot, character progression and theme are irrelevant) or some combination of the two. Don't overwork yourself for details that don't matter. The stuff you're describing is awesome, important stuff in some games, but seems absolutely utterly irrelevant to the fortress game as you've described to us.

So, please, next post, stop focusing on the background and the details and tell us what about the /game/ you plan on running.

What's the theme? What's the mood range? What's the mechanical focus?
Everything else you're writing about here should be derived from those answers.

[MaximumZero]

As far as a fortress game, this is exactly what I'd want and how to play it:

-The ability to abstractly control one dwarf. By abstractly, I give him/her a vague job to do, and then it gets done. I don't want to tell you exactly what I've carved into the walls, unless it's important or funny. That said, some things are very important to dwarves. For instance, if I were to tell you that I want to make a sword, I should have to tell you what material and kind I'm making it out of. If I don't, you should reserve the right to make it out of the crappiest stuff available. Yay, bismuth short sword that crumbles the first time you pick it up!

-The ability to know where and what stuff is, vaguely. We have a fortress. That means it's the main focus of the game. If there's a hill in the north, I need to know that. I don't need to know what kind of grass grows there, again, unless it's important or funny. I do need to know if there's a pack of goblins on the hill (unless they haven't been spotted yet.) That's both important and can possibly be funny (see: The Elves of Amanereli). I don't particularly need to know whether the stone that I'm digging is orthoclase or microcline (unless magma proof stone is rare), but I do need to know if it's tetrahedrite or native gold. I don't need to know whether a tree is a spruce or an ash, unless for some reason it's important.

-The ability to affect the world around me, and vice versa. I want it to feel important when I dig a mineshaft, or make armor for someone, or kill a goblin. I want it to feel important if my dorf fucks up his roll and spends the next turn drinking and on break instead of what I want him to do. I want meetings with diplomats to feel important. Decisions need to be weighty for them to have any palpable impact on me, and I suspect that it's the same with many other players.

-Last, but most certainly not least, I don't want the game to die because it's too much to handle. I've been on both ends of that, and it's a shitty feeling.

[GlyphGryph]

I think the map in Elves of Amanereli is a good example of a highly effective map, too.