Comments on: The Things! http://www.xorph.com/dispatch/2005/12/28/the-things/ Collaborative game design Sat, 26 May 2012 11:56:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3 By: Brendan http://www.xorph.com/dispatch/2005/12/28/the-things/#comment-32 Brendan Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:28:53 +0000 http://www.xorph.com/dispatch/2005/12/28/the-things/#comment-32 I tried to think of a way to use task resolution for this, just out of contrariness, then realized that in a GMless game, task resolution and conflict resolution are meaningless distinctions. I'm starting to wonder if the GM's role in any RPG can be reduced to "set the stakes for a given roll, and if you don't tell the players what the stakes really are, that's fiat." I tried to think of a way to use task resolution for this, just out of contrariness, then realized that in a GMless game, task resolution and conflict resolution are meaningless distinctions. I’m starting to wonder if the GM’s role in any RPG can be reduced to “set the stakes for a given roll, and if you don’t tell the players what the stakes really are, that’s fiat.”

]]> By: Josh http://www.xorph.com/dispatch/2005/12/28/the-things/#comment-33 Josh Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:29:37 +0000 http://www.xorph.com/dispatch/2005/12/28/the-things/#comment-33 I love the idea of using Yahtzee! rules for this. Only two things overlooked so far - 1. What happens if someone ends up with more than 5 cards (i.e. they pick up a reaction card but do not put one down for a reroll) - presumably they either just discard down to five, or carry on with however many cards they have, either way isn't really a problem. 2. How Thing-transmittion is dealt with outside of these set-pieces, e.g. if just two people are in a room, in which case the interaction couldn't really be quite so public or overt. A solution would be that, whenever someone enters a room already occupied by another player, every player in that room must draw a card, look at it, then place either it or any other card in a pile in the centre of the table. Each player, subject to an initiative roll, I guess, then looks at the pile and takes one of the cards (not their own)from it; this would allow, say, two humans to block one Thing but two Things to still be able to infect one human. The problem with this is that it allows for Thing immaculate conceptions, unless we borrow the mechanic from Kevan's card game where immaculate red cards have to be discarded. This way, Things can get and stockpile more than one red card; but perhaps this whole thing is somewhat overcomplicated...? Still, I'm a big fan of the inclusion of Yahtzee rules for conflict resolution. I love the idea of using Yahtzee! rules for this. Only two things overlooked so far -

1. What happens if someone ends up with more than 5 cards (i.e. they pick up a reaction card but do not put one down for a reroll) - presumably they either just discard down to five, or carry on with however many cards they have, either way isn’t really a problem.

2. How Thing-transmittion is dealt with outside of these set-pieces, e.g. if just two people are in a room, in which case the interaction couldn’t really be quite so public or overt. A solution would be that, whenever someone enters a room already occupied by another player, every player in that room must draw a card, look at it, then place either it or any other card in a pile in the centre of the table. Each player, subject to an initiative roll, I guess, then looks at the pile and takes one of the cards (not their own)from it; this would allow, say, two humans to block one Thing but two Things to still be able to infect one human. The problem with this is that it allows for Thing immaculate conceptions, unless we borrow the mechanic from Kevan’s card game where immaculate red cards have to be discarded. This way, Things can get and stockpile more than one red card; but perhaps this whole thing is somewhat overcomplicated…?

Still, I’m a big fan of the inclusion of Yahtzee rules for conflict resolution.

]]> By: Brendan http://www.xorph.com/dispatch/2005/12/28/the-things/#comment-34 Brendan Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:40:56 +0000 http://www.xorph.com/dispatch/2005/12/28/the-things/#comment-34 I'm glad you like the mechanics! I worry that it's a bit involved for what I called "a very small roleplaying game," but most gamers have at least some grasp of Yahtzee!, and I think it accomplishes all the goals I had for the system in a fairly small space. (Obviously, I won't be able to call it the Yahtzee system or anything, but you can't copyright a mechanic, so I'll just call it the roll-and-lock system or something and wink and nod.) I say if you have more than five cards, more power to you. People are going to notice and stop giving you reroll ammo (or grabbing the reroll ammo before you do) soon enough. I am okay with Thing immaculate conceptions, but only if they happen in the lab. Maybe we could apply the draw-drop-draw-again mechanic just to that location? There would have to be some important incentive to get people to go in there at all, then... maybe the ability to look at two (new) cards from someone else's hand each round you stay in there, so after three rounds you would usually know absolutely whether the person was a Thing. Hmm. How are we going to handle movement between rooms, actually? I suppose clockwise around the table would be acceptable. I’m glad you like the mechanics! I worry that it’s a bit involved for what I called “a very small roleplaying game,” but most gamers have at least some grasp of Yahtzee!, and I think it accomplishes all the goals I had for the system in a fairly small space. (Obviously, I won’t be able to call it the Yahtzee system or anything, but you can’t copyright a mechanic, so I’ll just call it the roll-and-lock system or something and wink and nod.)

I say if you have more than five cards, more power to you. People are going to notice and stop giving you reroll ammo (or grabbing the reroll ammo before you do) soon enough.

I am okay with Thing immaculate conceptions, but only if they happen in the lab. Maybe we could apply the draw-drop-draw-again mechanic just to that location? There would have to be some important incentive to get people to go in there at all, then… maybe the ability to look at two (new) cards from someone else’s hand each round you stay in there, so after three rounds you would usually know absolutely whether the person was a Thing.

Hmm. How are we going to handle movement between rooms, actually? I suppose clockwise around the table would be acceptable.

]]> By: Kevan http://www.xorph.com/dispatch/2005/12/28/the-things/#comment-35 Kevan Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:41:20 +0000 http://www.xorph.com/dispatch/2005/12/28/the-things/#comment-35 Hm, can dice combinations only be used once during the course of the game? Or only once in a cycle, I suppose, that when every box has been filled, everyone's boxes are emptied for reuse? Presumably you're putting the dice-combination boxes on the character sheets? Which makes it quite nice for special-abilities, that characters could simply have different combinations available to them on their sheet. Perhaps tying some of them to types of conflict - that Doc has a couple of "any five dice" slots, but can only use them for conflicts that the group agrees to be "science-related". Hm, can dice combinations only be used once during the course of the game? Or only once in a cycle, I suppose, that when every box has been filled, everyone’s boxes are emptied for reuse?

Presumably you’re putting the dice-combination boxes on the character sheets? Which makes it quite nice for special-abilities, that characters could simply have different combinations available to them on their sheet. Perhaps tying some of them to types of conflict - that Doc has a couple of “any five dice” slots, but can only use them for conflicts that the group agrees to be “science-related”.

]]>