|
Post by oversoul on Oct 14, 2005 7:23:47 GMT -5
Again I needed a thread here I am having the worse time writting Bloodsuckers. It is not that I do not want to. I am actually having a hard time coming up with a decent backstory for it. I want all the intrigue and darkness of WW's creature of the night game, but at the same time I want to add a little of Joss Whedon flair for melodrama and campiness found through out Buffy and Angel. The Bloodsuckers have varying powers depending on their blood type when they were human. There will also be a number of factions that have their own agendas. Of course each vampire has internal struggles over what they are and what they were. This is where all the intigue is. But getting this into words has been diffculty. I seriously need to playtest this so I can work out the kinks in the mood /B
|
|
|
Post by evilnames on Oct 14, 2005 12:56:52 GMT -5
With WW a major aspect of the gameplay in my eyes stands on the back of the story. In fact I feel like I need a PHD in WW to just run a freaken game!! I have the vampie and werewolf books and they're loaded with so much freaken detail that the casual (Dice chucker) would probaly ignore it.
I would argue also that what WW has as a catalist between players and groups is well their 'class.' Wether it be nosfratu or Calidran (thats spelled really poorly :0D). I think the diffuculty in writing bloodsuckers could come from a lack of 'grouping' in dice chuckers itself. I have found this lack of a class or anything a diffucutly in some areas but I did get around it.
Latly I have had alot of diffuculy finding a purpose to making source guides. The reason I have had alot of problems is because I do not see a reason to write them. We have narrowed it down to a format where we A)Do not want a defined list of statistics. B)Do not want to give to much detail. Which leaves us at C - A list of weapons, Vechicles, adventure ideas. So dunno I've had a hard time justifying it.
This goes with Quique also.
|
|
|
Post by oversoul on Oct 14, 2005 16:15:53 GMT -5
You and I have opposite opinions of the same thing. I look at a class system as pigeon holing a player in a certain group of abilities with little option for escape. This is especially true in WW games. While the core system is failry straight forward toy have no room for any sort of lateral movement if you choose gangrel you are always a gangrel.
In D&D you have a little more freedom but you must wait to level up to exercise any of it, which the higher you are up in level the longer this wait is. This is really problematic for say a 10th lvl warrior who just wants to cast spells as 3rd lvl wizard. You have to wait till you are the equivelent to 13th lvl character.
Dice Chucker in my opinion gives the players more control over their characters and their game as a whole than most games. The players that want that contol is my target audience. For the most you are right about being limited in what you can write, and that is my wall I am up against. A Dice Chucker source book is a very different creature than most source books. It is fairly easy to come up with a list fo weapons and vehicles no question there. But there is also the matter of backstory. As far as detail goes, Dice Chucker tries to detract only from teh mechanics, not the story, you can have pages upon pages of world material. And there are some things you can or have to add to make a setting work. For instance I am having to incorporate a sort of class system in BS. But the main purpose of a Dice Chucker source book is to excite and inspire a chucker to play in that world. It is perfectly acceptable to give a list of common Attributes, Perks, and Quirks, that would be found in a typical game. Adventure hooks are a must. Let them have ample opportunity to join in that world, but still give them room to explore it and make it there own.
/B
|
|
|
Post by evilnames on Oct 14, 2005 18:57:09 GMT -5
Well there are ways to work around class. But I also see it as a detachment of the real world. This sounds a little much like, 'Let me put you in your place.' But there are very few people who are as we say, 'Riensance men.' Aka what interests them they study; without classes you kind of get that format. You have to ask yourself if the brute warrior wants to take tap dancing lessons? Would he take a 4 in Tap dancing? Or should the GM make him explain and play that into his character somehow . The truth is as GM even you would go, 'hold on a minute slow down and look at this and make sure thats what you want for your character.' Im not suggesting DC become a class based game. There are ways which I have written before to allow class and flexability. I call them Milestones . But I also think you can gain flexability WHILE allowing players to choose class and stuff. I wrote in one guide how to be an FBI or CIA guy; you had to have X requirements. But it wasn't your 'whole' starting point system. Instead it just used a little bit of resource or something. But I guess you can also look at the situation of... GURPS which also allows this. And I think that in most Gurps Sourcebooks they completely ignore class. HOWEVER they do have sections devoted to 'character types.' and suggestions on the stats to take as that kind of character. So it may be an idea to make groups and orginzations and then describe how to get into them. Catyalists without the forming of power groups seems to be diffucult. You always have some group vs another group; and that other group or the some group should have requirements to joining. If its a conflict between the mage and thief guild; you should have to take like 2 poinjts in lock picking and then pass some kind of test. The diffucutly about all new settings is writing these groups into and using them as political bases of power. IF u want just evolve your system; start from cavemen and walk it on up to your point who has survived?!?!?!! I also like your description of the purpose of source books and it has kind of incrased my want to write another one :-)
|
|
|
Post by oversoul on Oct 16, 2005 6:49:48 GMT -5
Just becuase you as the player has the freedom to create a character as you see fit does not mean that that character does not have rules to obey. He or she does exist in a world. A GM should espect all players to justify what Attributes, Perks, Quirks, or possessions they take for their character. to not would be anarchy. If one of my players is playing a barbarian-ish character and they want to give it Tap Dancing they had best have a good reason. They will also have to do it in game. I think requirements are great for certain things but the requirements can be in game not just mechanical. Lockpicking (2) is a great start but how knows that? The guildmaster? No The Dice Monger does. So is the guildmaster going to request to see your Lockpicking Attribute? He will request a test of your skill. Which could be fakedwith an Inept roll. To me a character with the required skill is interesting but one who faked their way into the guildis much more interesting. This is not going to be true in every instance. I am glad you found inspiration in my description that is what it was suppose to do. It inspired me some as well and I got some more written on Bloodsuckers. /B
|
|