To my chagrin...

[nijineko]

...and despite my preferences for tactical and strategic elements in rp which tend towards a rules heavy environment, I have somehow invented a rules-lite system of role playing.


*A few moments of silence while I overcome my embarrassment, please*


So I thought I would ask here, as quite a few here prefer lightweight systems, what do you want to see (and definitely don't want to see) in a lightweight rule system?

Also, please consider how it might be possible to pull off the feat of applying tactical and strategic elements in all three dimensions (and assuming that all participants/characters will be represented with some kind of a 2d framework) to a rules-lite system?

Thank you in advance for your comments.

[CaptRory]

The rules should be adaptable and scalable depending on what you want to do. There should be few rules and even fewer exceptions and it should all be nice and neat. Finally the rules should be making roleplaying and storytelling easier; not acting as an impediment.

[nijineko]

Well, so far I have two rules, and it is dice-less, i think that is fairly close to what you mention so far. One rule deals with character traits and how they function, the other deals with how to resolve conflicts.

Anything else?


Also, I'm still looking for a super light-weight method of absolute positioning and ranging in a 4-d (minimum) environment.

[nijineko]

No other contributors?

[wotmaniac]

Sorry, not much of a "new system" kind of guy (especially diceless  )..... have you tried TGD?  I mean, you'll probably need a pair of THESE to wade through some of the bullshit; but they may be of some use.

[bhu]

It might help if you mention the current rules.

[nijineko]

i suppose, though i was hoping for more feedback on a positional system first.... 


as to what i have so far, i now have exactly three rules, which rules even combined are so simple it is actually a diceless system.

the first rule describes how to build a character with traits. the second rule describes how traits work. the third rule describes how to resolve conflicts.

without going into too much detail, characters are comprised of traits, the number of which and value range thereof can be limited in of several different fashions (if desired) to cap the overall power level of the players. traits consist of a value which determines how powerful it is and how many times it can be used in a given encounter. traits may synergize and possibly have limitations. conflict resolution is handled by a primary, secondary, tertiary resolution mechanic, where primary is a noetic challenge between the conflicting players, secondary is trait showdown, and tertiary is a tie-breaker mechanic.

I was also considering a fourth rule for the aforementioned "chapter 0" on how GM-ing should be conducted.

[bhu]

How many traits are there?

[nijineko]

as many as there are one word descriptions of a given ability in the language of game play. i may consider limiting it to a type of grammar, such as verb or adverb or adjective, depending.

[bhu]

Has you considered playtest in our pbp?

[nijineko]

no, not really. i'm not online long enough anymore for gaming. just sporadically. any gaming with me would have to be via conference call or in-person.

[nijineko]

any other feedback?

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... looking for a super light-weight method of absolute positioning and ranging in a 4-d (minimum) environment.

4 D ??
As in Time is an Arrow, or something more like a Tessaract?

I've heard of rangeless systems, for the usual 2D setup, but to make it 4D?

If you've seen multilevel Chess boards, which are easy for 3D, you could add 2 more racks, to represent Time is an Arrow.
http://www.brookstone.com/webassets/product_images/700x700/772799p.jpg

[nijineko]

... looking for a super light-weight method of absolute positioning and ranging in a 4-d (minimum) environment.

4 D ??
As in Time is an Arrow, or something more like a Tessaract?

I've heard of rangeless systems, for the usual 2D setup, but to make it 4D?

If you've seen multilevel Chess boards, which are easy for 3D, you could add 2 more racks, to represent Time is an Arrow.
http://www.brookstone.com/webassets/product_images/700x700/772799p.jpg

I will add something I was asked elsewhere:

Regarding the 4d request, yes I was speaking of space-time, but in a slightly more liberal fashion than implied, perhaps. I will need to be able to deal with situations where there will be multiple entities (animate, inanimate, otherwise) interacting from differently phased placements in space-time that are close enough to overlap and at least partly interact.

Also:

the conflict resolution mechanic?

well, it is a tertiary mechanic in order to provide a method of resolving deadlocks and ties to the primary method, noetic combat. i have been recently contemplating making it a quaternary mechanic so as to provide a greater focus on the purposed intent of the game - supporting storytelling.

noetic means "of the mind or intellect", it also has a connotation of exploring the mind or how the mind affects one's surroundings via non-traditional methods, which ties into the alpha version of the proposed campaign world/setting.

in any case, noetic combat is conflict resolution by storytelling. as previously mentioned, characters consist of traits. traits are one-word descriptions of what a character is. the definition of a given trait provides the guidance for how a trait may be used. in a conflict each participant picks a trait they will use to resolve it with. the player then describes the thoughts and intended actions of the character referencing the trait as often as possible without duplication of words or repetitious description. working in one or more references to other traits the character possesses is also acceptable. working in references to other stories (previous events in the game, movies, literature, real life, etc.,) or using said references to obliquely reference the trait is encouraged. each instance of a reference is worth a 'weight'. some references might be well layered, and be worth multiple weights. whomever's story has the most weight, "wins".

the secondary mechanic, trait showdown, only occurs if noetic combat ties or is unresolved. the tertiary tiebreaker only occurs if the previous two fail to resolve.

my hinted at forth mechanic would occur between the noetic combat and trait showdown, and would be a sub-set of noetic combat where the other characters in the game can add noetic weight to the side of their choice to tip the balance... and possibly gain some of the win benefit.


Tesral's concern, the 'best always wins' (assuming a numerical superiority idea) would not happen unless trait showdown occurred, where one chooses at what value the trait will be applied. (though, if you had some that were better at stringing words together than others, that could potentially cause imbalance in the game...)

[nijineko]

any other thoughts, questions, or feedback?

[bhu]

perchance might some of us get a pdf of the rules  It might be easier to give feedback if we know something about the system.

[nijineko]

perchance might some of us get a pdf of the rules  It might be easier to give feedback if we know something about the system.

i have not yet reached the publishing stage. i will certainly keep you in mind for any alpha/beta testing.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... but in a slightly more liberal fashion than implied, perhaps ...

Yeah let's not go overboard there ...   

[nijineko]

... but in a slightly more liberal fashion than implied, perhaps ...

Yeah let's not go overboard there ...   

what? me? overboard?

[sarcasm]how could one possibly go overboard when dealing with differentially phased temporally overlapped multiple interacting entities? [/sarcasm]

 

[nijineko]

So if anyone wants to sign the NDA, we can chat more details.