by Ippy Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:18 pm***BEWARE: MASSIVE RAMBLING***
I’m currently working on (actually I’m basically done with) a campaign where we play ourselves in a fantasy setting. It would have lots of numbers and stat stuff, and would focus not on role-play but on strategy and ability growth. It would play much like Advanced Wars (it draws heavily from Fire Emblem, if you know the series), and we would make use of excel as a combat grid.
In terms of how turns would work, each hour your character will generate X action points which are spent to do stuff. However, doing the same action twice will double the AP cost of that action (so you can’t do nothing for X days and then come in and spam 8 attacks, but your stored AP won’t go to waste either). At certain times of the day actions will revert to their base AP cost, starting the process over again. We will call these times the start of ‘rounds.’ Additionally, you will be able to sit fights out that you don’t think you’ll be too active in (yet still gain xp).
One of my main concerns is the split between RPG aspects and straight gameplay. For instance, after a battle was complete I (as GM) could post a short narrative of conversation and jump directly into the next area (or present the option of where to go to the players). During the narrative I would control what player characters did and said (bad) in order to maintain flow. As not to be completely disruptive, I would probably allow some time for players to respond to the narrative. Even so, it would still be disruptive and I’m not sure that this is the best way to conduct matters. I’m shaky on this method, so I would love to hear your opinion.
One thing I want to try with this game is party-scope leveling. In other words, each player is responsible for leveling up all characters, whether or not it’s their character. This would work like so: Player A’s avatar/character kills a rat and gains 10xp. He however, gains 10xp for each member in the party and must spend it on the other members. So he puts 10xp into his damage, 10xp into Player B’s damage, and 10xp into Player C’s HP cause C is an idiot and puts everything into critical hits. Player B could then spend 10xp into Player A’s damage, and if the damage upgrade cost 20xp, Player A would receive higher damage. This system is pretty much non-negotiable, so I’m just letting you know it’s in place. Let me know if you have any concerns though.
Because we are playing ourselves, our characters would reflect us. In-game there are six attributes (prowess, toughness, agility, luck, magic, charisma), however they have no set bonus. Instead, each character would receive different benefits from another character from the same attribute. For instance, if Ethan put a point into toughness and I put a point into toughness, you can bet Ethan will be getting more HP than me. However, I might gain some other benefit he doesn’t. Naturally, each character will favor some attributes over others, though each will remain important.
Additionally, you would only be able to advance to (5?) of 14 base classes that I (as GM) believed fit you. The available base classes (there higher versions of class, like prestige classes) would both be based on your attribute strengths, what I thought you might like, and what you seem to fit. I would have no problem negotiating the available classes individually, though it may be difficult from a statistical sense. And of course, certain character-class combinations would be OP, considering how classes modify attribute costs and all characters have different attribute effects.
I promise that I will never give you a bad choice to choose from, however some classes you will inevitably fill out better than others (and I won’t tell which if I notice). On this note, I would like to mention that this game will be horribly imbalanced, I expect to tweak it as we go. However, it is my hope that the game is variable enough (like MTG) so that even what seems worse is actually the best possible thing in certain situations, so that what might appear to be a poorly developed character still would shine.
The game would take place in the Shardlands: flickering, fleeting fragments of existence orbiting the Riftworld, a celestial construct composed nearly entirely of dark matter and things of things which are not understood. The estranged Riftworld would cast its impressions upon the Shardlands, which in turn would experience a whimsical form of physics. Unlike Earth the laws of nature would not remain static, but instead be ever-changing. Tacticians of the Shardlands always keep at the back of their mind that the rules of conflict might change, sound and gravity inverting their directional axis. It’s a basic concept for archers to walk up a cliff, march upside-down on the roof of a shard (island-thing), and then fire up at the enemy below them. Of course, the presence of magic-users capable of manipulating the Shardlands’ loose reality makes this a dangerous stratagem.
On the note of difficulty, I am Blaize, so I will make it challenging. I will follow the traditional learning curve, but eventually you’ll feel that your enemy and nature itself seemed to have been designed with your strengths and weaknesses in mind. As (and if) new players enter, I may or may not tone it down to give the party some breathing room to adjust the new player. Your character will be stronger than the average peep (in fact you begin with the ‘Unknown’ feat), but it follows that you will fight what others cannot due to your superiority. If your character dies, I will apply permanent, drastic penalties as to encourage smart play, however over the course of play you will likely gain underlings with 100% expendability. Death, unfortunately, is permanent for them. And, as a final point, it will be really easy for things to die, meaning who can hit what will be incredibly important (and archers should scare you).
But now for my major question. When and should I start this? Do we have the ability to run 3 games? Do I have the ability to GM two? Should we wait for one to finish, or do I start immediately? We could quit western (and Blaize stores that somewhere hopefully without being sad), and we could also semi-start this one (meaning we prepare as it will take time for me to make each player’s character statistically) and see where the interest goes. Priority could be given to one game, and if it proves too difficult we can pause/quit one. Considering the AP system, this game could be given a slow pace to manage and modified as needed.
I’m currently working on (actually I’m basically done with) a campaign where we play ourselves in a fantasy setting. It would have lots of numbers and stat stuff, and would focus not on role-play but on strategy and ability growth. It would play much like Advanced Wars (it draws heavily from Fire Emblem, if you know the series), and we would make use of excel as a combat grid.
In terms of how turns would work, each hour your character will generate X action points which are spent to do stuff. However, doing the same action twice will double the AP cost of that action (so you can’t do nothing for X days and then come in and spam 8 attacks, but your stored AP won’t go to waste either). At certain times of the day actions will revert to their base AP cost, starting the process over again. We will call these times the start of ‘rounds.’ Additionally, you will be able to sit fights out that you don’t think you’ll be too active in (yet still gain xp).
One of my main concerns is the split between RPG aspects and straight gameplay. For instance, after a battle was complete I (as GM) could post a short narrative of conversation and jump directly into the next area (or present the option of where to go to the players). During the narrative I would control what player characters did and said (bad) in order to maintain flow. As not to be completely disruptive, I would probably allow some time for players to respond to the narrative. Even so, it would still be disruptive and I’m not sure that this is the best way to conduct matters. I’m shaky on this method, so I would love to hear your opinion.
One thing I want to try with this game is party-scope leveling. In other words, each player is responsible for leveling up all characters, whether or not it’s their character. This would work like so: Player A’s avatar/character kills a rat and gains 10xp. He however, gains 10xp for each member in the party and must spend it on the other members. So he puts 10xp into his damage, 10xp into Player B’s damage, and 10xp into Player C’s HP cause C is an idiot and puts everything into critical hits. Player B could then spend 10xp into Player A’s damage, and if the damage upgrade cost 20xp, Player A would receive higher damage. This system is pretty much non-negotiable, so I’m just letting you know it’s in place. Let me know if you have any concerns though.
Because we are playing ourselves, our characters would reflect us. In-game there are six attributes (prowess, toughness, agility, luck, magic, charisma), however they have no set bonus. Instead, each character would receive different benefits from another character from the same attribute. For instance, if Ethan put a point into toughness and I put a point into toughness, you can bet Ethan will be getting more HP than me. However, I might gain some other benefit he doesn’t. Naturally, each character will favor some attributes over others, though each will remain important.
Additionally, you would only be able to advance to (5?) of 14 base classes that I (as GM) believed fit you. The available base classes (there higher versions of class, like prestige classes) would both be based on your attribute strengths, what I thought you might like, and what you seem to fit. I would have no problem negotiating the available classes individually, though it may be difficult from a statistical sense. And of course, certain character-class combinations would be OP, considering how classes modify attribute costs and all characters have different attribute effects.
I promise that I will never give you a bad choice to choose from, however some classes you will inevitably fill out better than others (and I won’t tell which if I notice). On this note, I would like to mention that this game will be horribly imbalanced, I expect to tweak it as we go. However, it is my hope that the game is variable enough (like MTG) so that even what seems worse is actually the best possible thing in certain situations, so that what might appear to be a poorly developed character still would shine.
The game would take place in the Shardlands: flickering, fleeting fragments of existence orbiting the Riftworld, a celestial construct composed nearly entirely of dark matter and things of things which are not understood. The estranged Riftworld would cast its impressions upon the Shardlands, which in turn would experience a whimsical form of physics. Unlike Earth the laws of nature would not remain static, but instead be ever-changing. Tacticians of the Shardlands always keep at the back of their mind that the rules of conflict might change, sound and gravity inverting their directional axis. It’s a basic concept for archers to walk up a cliff, march upside-down on the roof of a shard (island-thing), and then fire up at the enemy below them. Of course, the presence of magic-users capable of manipulating the Shardlands’ loose reality makes this a dangerous stratagem.
On the note of difficulty, I am Blaize, so I will make it challenging. I will follow the traditional learning curve, but eventually you’ll feel that your enemy and nature itself seemed to have been designed with your strengths and weaknesses in mind. As (and if) new players enter, I may or may not tone it down to give the party some breathing room to adjust the new player. Your character will be stronger than the average peep (in fact you begin with the ‘Unknown’ feat), but it follows that you will fight what others cannot due to your superiority. If your character dies, I will apply permanent, drastic penalties as to encourage smart play, however over the course of play you will likely gain underlings with 100% expendability. Death, unfortunately, is permanent for them. And, as a final point, it will be really easy for things to die, meaning who can hit what will be incredibly important (and archers should scare you).
But now for my major question. When and should I start this? Do we have the ability to run 3 games? Do I have the ability to GM two? Should we wait for one to finish, or do I start immediately? We could quit western (and Blaize stores that somewhere hopefully without being sad), and we could also semi-start this one (meaning we prepare as it will take time for me to make each player’s character statistically) and see where the interest goes. Priority could be given to one game, and if it proves too difficult we can pause/quit one. Considering the AP system, this game could be given a slow pace to manage and modified as needed.
Last edited by Ippy on Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:24 pm; edited 2 times in total
