tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038639802473593786.post5545950056395843356..comments2023-04-18T05:14:17.524-07:00Comments on Runeward Games: Zones, a reintroductionAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10367813349077594896noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038639802473593786.post-91512042388206717272011-07-05T06:44:48.182-07:002011-07-05T06:44:48.182-07:00I hate Old School Hack and by 'hate' I mea...I hate Old School Hack and by 'hate' I mean I hate that I didn't come up with it first. It has a clear vision and is probably the most elegant design to fulfill that vision possible. I think most gamers like a bit more complexity and a bit more customizability than OSH offers, but then that wasn't OSH's intent.<br /><br />In re-checking it out (it had been a while) I was surprised at how similar zones and arenas are. I take it as a good sign. I also recalled that I like two more things about it that I'm trying to emulate as well--<br />(1) OSH categorizes things into a few well thought out categories and then uses a few well designed symbols to clearly communicate how things operate. It is simple, evocative, and actually pretty powerful.<br /><br />An example of my efforts at this is in provoking. In D&D, they just identified the actions they wanted to provoke and made a list. You then memorize the list or reference it during play. Something as simple as adding a Provoke descriptor makes it so that when the action is referenced on the character sheet, you are immediately reminded and no list is needed. It is little and easy, but it completely changes the nature of the player's relationship to the rules.<br /><br />(2) OSH transfers a lot of the game to accessories like action cards that also have the minutiae of rules printed on them. The result is that you don't have to memorize rules because, when you need them, they are in front of you without having to crack a book. The cards also help with promoting the style of the game (Think about the Move action card that ends with "No adjacent arena? Try suggesting one!" it acknowledges a weakness of the arena system and turns it into a strength of RP).<br /><br />The efficient parceling of rules like this also dramatically lowers the barrier to entry for new players because they don't have to digest an entire book, but just rules as they arise with a mechanism to ensure they arise in the proper order. It is pretty great design and I think it will speed up combat a lot.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10367813349077594896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038639802473593786.post-85083991505963762872011-07-05T05:50:11.913-07:002011-07-05T05:50:11.913-07:00Hey there,
I love your blog! Very interested to s...Hey there,<br /><br />I love your blog! Very interested to see more of your game and your design ideas.<br /><br />Do you know this game http://www.oldschoolhack.net/ ?<br />It uses zones (called arenas) with simple descriptors that modify attacks with different weapons. The combat rules may give you some more ideas for actions/powers in your system.<br /><br />Thank you for sharing your ideasRolandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038639802473593786.post-80915459565862724102011-07-04T21:06:11.761-07:002011-07-04T21:06:11.761-07:00- Duality
This is a little hard to do until certai...- Duality<br />This is a little hard to do until certain things have been nailed down. Until the breadth of zones has been worked out and what is or is not effective, it is hard to directly translate a traditional 4e power to being a "zone" power and in fact I think that is the wrong way how to go about it.<br /><br />I think the best way to do it is to focus on the concept and the narrative. What is the combatant trying to achieve? From there, you try to mechanically mesh an effect using zone mechanics that approximates this and likewise a battlemap mechanic approximating the effect. With experience of the zone mechanics, you can work out whether the power sits nicely within the two possible battlefield theatres, or whether there is too much dissonance between the two.<br /><br />I think this highlights an important thing though. Designing the system and rules is one thing. Fleshing it out with specifics is entirely another and like a spiral, one process will inform the other back and forth several times until the two meet somewhere in the middle.<br /><br />At this point, I think some zone specifics need to be nutted out. In this respect I think you need to start with a very simple model - a single zone. What variety of features can that zone have? I don't mean things like "clutterings of corpses" or "busted stairs" as all of these borrow the fate system's "aspect" mechanic. I mean what other things can vary in a zone such as size. For example I think it best to assume that zones are of a standard size (such that a move action will let you move from one zone to an adjacent zone). But then you might have a zone that is oversized or small compared to that standard and this might be something that different zone powers can respond to - a defender can literally rule a small zone while their defender powers in an oversized zone are not as effective.<br /><br />So what properties can a zone have?<br /><br />[Once that is nailed down the next thing to do is to connect two zones together and look at all the different ways the zones can be connected and how different zone properties may effect that connection.]<br /><br />Anyway thanks for all the wonderful ideas, you've really got me thinking.<br /><br />Best Regards<br />Herremann the WiseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038639802473593786.post-80202965410855295832011-07-04T21:05:43.798-07:002011-07-04T21:05:43.798-07:00- Explicitness
In terms levels of explicitness, no...- Explicitness<br />In terms levels of explicitness, not much different I think - I just wanted to clarify a few details and where on the spectrum of explicitness I think zones would want to aim at. So yeah, I think we are on the same page there.<br /><br />- Complexity<br />In terms of minions... I hate them :D<br /><br />But I don't mind the idea of mobs in a zone context. In fact the idea of mobs that accomplish some darn interesting things until they are "dispersed" might be a fun thing to play with. Playing the 1hp minion game though so that characters can feel useful is just not my cup of tea. It is false, lacking in achievement and yeah... just not my cup of tea.<br /><br />[As an aside: I have separated hit points from physical damage where most creatures have some measure of hit points as well as damage limit before they are incapacitated or deceased. A minion for me is a creature that does not have hit points but that can take only so much damage before they are dead. A commander of those minions would have the same damage limit but have a buffer of hit points. And so it is not the concept of the minion I hate; it is just the 1hp application of it that drives me batty.]<br /><br />In terms of an enemy battlefield preference; I like a group of combatants that stick to their roles and act how I believe they would act. I like to roleplay the enemies not only through their communication with the PCs but specifically through their actions. In particular, I do not have enemy combatants optimize their actions except for the most cunning of combatants. It then becomes a game for the PCs to work out who the combatant is that's holding the enemies together and who the weak links are. I generally don't play combatants bravely unless they are mindless or just plain dumb. Solo combatants to me are far more difficult to convey a story with.<br /><br />Best Regards<br />Herremann the WiseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038639802473593786.post-83901261791629614432011-07-04T19:46:43.808-07:002011-07-04T19:46:43.808-07:00Herremann-
With regards to your discussion in Zon...Herremann-<br /><br />With regards to your discussion in Zones: Levels of Explicitness, what is there in the zone proposal so far that you feel goes against what you wrote? I agree with everything you said except I think zones do that so far. Maybe that means we are pretty close in opinion and just leaning in different directions, but maybe it means we misunderstand each other. <br /><br />I absolutely can see where you'd be nervous about the complexity becoming over burdensome if someone dialed it up to 11, but it seems like a GM that tended towards the simpler battlefields would absolutely meet your expectations (at least under my reading). I think a useful analogy can be drawn to designing combats with monsters. A GM could potentially use only minions and throw dozens of monsters at his party which would be tactical chaos or a GM could focus on solos which would make positioning less important. It seems you tend towards preferring the equivalent of solo-combats but I can absolutely imagine a group that would relish the minion mobs.<br /><br />On your second point, how did you envision the duality existing in a single power? Can you toss out an example? How would you balance the twin uses to ensure that a power wouldn't be (being hyperbolic here) useless in gridless combat but very potent once the battle mat came out?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10367813349077594896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038639802473593786.post-19413838776168540872011-07-04T19:35:26.368-07:002011-07-04T19:35:26.368-07:00Hello Again,
I think you raise some good question...Hello Again,<br /><br />I think you raise some good questions here.<br /><br />- Zones: Levels of Explicitness<br />I agree that the "Mother-May-I" mentality is not preferable with everything having to pass through a dozen obscure DM/GM filters. However, at the other end of the spectrum is the collective player group mentality of explicitly structuring their tactics to optimize their powers and actions such that they are using mechanical terminology (zones, targets, etc.) as if it were a boardgame instead of the descriptions given (underground cavern, cluttered bookcases, etc.).<br /><br />I think the trick is finding a good middle-ground so that players are empowered to know that what they are trying to do will be "legal", clear to all at the table and will be granted a particular advantage if necessary (such as turning over a bench for cover and being granted a known bonus) without needing to be parsed by the DM/GM. However, the aim is for the players to also be empowered to stay in character during this process rather than needing to resort to mechanical language to explain what their character is doing. ["I run up the stairs and guard the closed balcony door" rather than "I move into that zone and ready to attack if anyone closes with my guy"]<br /><br />For this to happen, I think a battlefield (a group of zones) needs to be kept tight with a minimum of zones and clutter. There needs to be enough "hooks" so that the players have direction as to how best to achieve their goal(s) but not so much incidental stuff that the clarity becomes muddied and the differentiation between one option and another is lost.<br /><br />- Mini-less versus Battlemap Play<br />I think my thinking here was out of kilter with yours. I was under the idea that there would be a duality to the system. A simple mode where minis were not required (and even not preferable) and zones used and a complex mode where minis and a battlemap were preferred and would play similarly to 3e/4e mini-centric D&D. A character "power" would have that same duality self-contained; the simple power presented and applicable to all forms and a complex extra that was only applicable to grid-play and allowed the tactical nuance of 4e but all within the single power. This is how I envisioned dialing it up and down using zones for what they are most suited to and using the battlemap for what it is most suited to; rather than having a zone mechanic used for all and where "dialing it up" potentially meant overburdening the system. I think I'd have to dig into the details a little bit further; but I think taking away what 3e/4e players have come to expect and replacing it (albeit with a seemingly strong and robust zone mechanic) might not be ideal. I'll keep an open mind either way though.<br /><br />[An interesting side effect of this aside from allowing a group to trend towards their preferred playstyle, would be that in designing a zoned "battlefield encounter"; they are making a better more directed battlemap encounter. I think designing a good zoned encounter really requires some good design chops - something I'll try and get into the nitty gritty of in a further post.]<br /><br />Best Regards<br />Herremann the WiseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com