It is currently Tue Apr 07, 2020 6:12 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: EoS: Pre-Alfa Playtesting - Controversial Concepts
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:06 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe
KazianG wrote:
I just got a little sad, I wont lie. I've enjoyed reading the development threads quite a bit.

I don't think that they have to or indeed should stop. My initial wording, when I said I would stop contributing was too harsh. I should better have explained that I'll stop contributing as somebody who has to be accomodated, as somebody whose propositions and objections have to be dealt with thoroughly and completely, as somebody with whom some kind of settlement has to be achieved, but rather as somebody who will offer up opinions and maybe advice that does not necessarily have to be resolved. I'll contribute with a "take it or leave it" mindset - and I sure won't be insulted if the main developers who really care deeply about what they are creating "leave it".

So, please, Sean and higgins, and maybe KazianG and others, by all means go ahead, and if I'm proposing something you don't like just say so and follow through with your own design idea about the matter at hand.

_________________
My real name is Michael; use it, if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: Pre-Alfa Playtesting - Controversial Concepts
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
higgins wrote:
But in any case, is it "too late" now?
pbj44 wrote:
From my point of view, yes. Since you seldom respond directly to my concerns I am reduced to participating in this fashion. If one of the qualities of leadership is the ability to build a sense of inclusiveness among the rank and file membership, then EoS has thus far failed the test. Some of the elements of leadership in an endeavor are the ability to be gracious to others, to find reasons to say yes instead of no, and to recognize the thoughts and contributions of others as important, even if not all together utilized in the project.
I'm baffled, as I recall just three concerns that you brought up.

1) Preparation of ranged weapons, which I thoroughly remodelled after I got your point. The round counting was completely scrapped and I'm currently thinking how to reduce the rules bulk further.
2) The structure of rounds from pre-alpha that was completely scrapped. The remodelling results are a direct results of suggestions from you and Ian, although a bit vague terminology-wise at this point.
3) You wanted Drama back and I disagreed, as I think removing removing Drama is the flat-out best suggestion ever made in these forums (with static TN close second).

Oh, and you suggested a new set of attributes, which were good, but polar opposite from the consensus in two important aspects.

What concerns have I not addressed? Where have I included you out?

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: Pre-Alfa Playtesting - Controversial Concepts
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:00 am
Posts: 511
Location: Cary, North Carolina
Grettir wrote:
KazianG wrote:
I just got a little sad, I wont lie. I've enjoyed reading the development threads quite a bit.

I don't think that they have to or indeed should stop. My initial wording, when I said I would stop contributing was too harsh. I should better have explained that I'll stop contributing as somebody who has to be accomodated, as somebody whose propositions and objections have to be dealt with thoroughly and completely, as somebody with whom some kind of settlement has to be achieved, but rather as somebody who will offer up opinions and maybe advice that does not necessarily have to be resolved. I'll contribute with a "take it or leave it" mindset - and I sure won't be insulted if the main developers who really care deeply about what they are creating "leave it".

So, please, Sean and higgins, and maybe KazianG and others, by all means go ahead, and if I'm proposing something you don't like just say so and follow through with your own design idea about the matter at hand.


@KazianG - Just think how much richer our game experience will be with a number of different no-compromise versions (some ground in specific genre's). After all, there is no version that will ultimately be more "valid" or "Official" than others.

_________________
Image


Last edited by pbj44 on Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: Pre-Alfa Playtesting - Controversial Concepts
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:00 am
Posts: 511
Location: Cary, North Carolina
higgins wrote:
higgins wrote:
But in any case, is it "too late" now?
pbj44 wrote:
From my point of view, yes. Since you seldom respond directly to my concerns I am reduced to participating in this fashion. If one of the qualities of leadership is the ability to build a sense of inclusiveness among the rank and file membership, then EoS has thus far failed the test. Some of the elements of leadership in an endeavor are the ability to be gracious to others, to find reasons to say yes instead of no, and to recognize the thoughts and contributions of others as important, even if not all together utilized in the project.
I'm baffled, as I recall just three concerns that you brought up.

1) Preparation of ranged weapons, which I thoroughly remodelled after I got your point. The round counting was completely scrapped and I'm currently thinking how to reduce the rules bulk further.
2) The structure of rounds from pre-alpha that was completely scrapped. The remodelling results are a direct results of suggestions from you and Ian, although a bit vague terminology-wise at this point.
3) You wanted Drama back and I disagreed, as I think removing removing Drama is the flat-out best suggestion ever made in these forums (with static TN close second).

Oh, and you suggested a new set of attributes, which were good, but polar opposite from the consensus in two important aspects.

What concerns have I not addressed? Where have I included you out?


This is really not a conversation that I want to have at this point, but let it suffice to say that several of the points that you mentioned were not sterling examples of gracious, inclusive leadership.

Again, move forward! You don't need Ian, Michael's, nor my participation (or blessing for that matter, though you do have that!). Enjoy yourself and make the game you want. There will end up being a number of different versions of EoS and yours will be one of them. Be proud of that fact.

_________________
Image


Last edited by pbj44 on Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: Pre-Alfa Playtesting - Controversial Concepts
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
pbj44 wrote:
Just think how much richer our game experience will be with a number of different no-compromise versions (some ground in specific genre's). After all, there is no version that will ultimately be more "valid" or "Official" than others.


That is certainly how I see it. A game design that is 'pure' is more likely to satisfy than one that is a gestalt of many sources of inspiration.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: Pre-Alfa Playtesting - Controversial Concepts
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:00 am
Posts: 511
Location: Cary, North Carolina
Ian.Plumb wrote:
pbj44 wrote:
Just think how much richer our game experience will be with a number of different no-compromise versions (some ground in specific genre's). After all, there is no version that will ultimately be more "valid" or "Official" than others.


That is certainly how I see it. A game design that is 'pure' is more likely to satisfy than one that is a gestalt of many sources of inspiration.

Regards,


Absolutely! This can't help but be a good thing! I look forward to all of the various projects coming to fruition!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: Pre-Alfa Playtesting - Controversial Concepts
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:39 am
Posts: 346
Location: Orange County, California
Sorry I'm late jumping into this craziness. My wife and I are traveling through Vietnam this week and the internet hasn't been that reliable. First off, I have to say that I'm pretty confused by most of what everyone is saying here. Phil's remarks in particular have been very disconcerting and not a little infuriating, and I am completely at a loss as to what Ian means by "different philosophy".

Second, I think that if the group is deciding to go with three separate "pure" games, all we'll end up with is three purely similar games, the only differences between which are the number and type of dice you're rolling. For example, Michael was seemingly OK with where the Wrestling thread was going, and Ian's only input was that it should be exhausting somehow. There was more cross-talk on other threads like Fatigue, but nothing that seems to indicate to me a difference in overall philosophy.

So what are we arguing about? - albeit in an ostensibly friendly way?

1. We never agreed on d10.
2. We never agreed on scaled down Attribute values.
3. We never agreed to nWoD "philosophy" - whatever that means.
4. Higgins document assumes #1-3, and Sean did, too.

My apologies for my part in #4. When I came back to TROSFans I looked for something that seemed like a consensus-in-progress culmination. I obviously misjudged where the group was in my haste to get something playtest ready.

Moving forward, what would a purely Michael game look like? d12s and larger dice pools? I know what a purely Ian game would look like - minis and 2d/3d representation of the battlefield (which means revised movement and terrain rules). I also know that Phil wants d20 and perhaps stacking TNs. I don't mean to misrepresent, so please help me out here.

If the group decides to move forward in this way, however, may I humbly suggest that for the sake of sanity we call these EOS d10, EOS d12, and EOS Minis or Tactics (E10, E12, ET :D )? It seems that we have at least enough camaraderie left to believe we'll be helping each other.

_________________
"Remember it well, then... this night, this great victory. So that in the years ahead, you can say, 'I was there that night, with Arthur, the King!' . . . For it is the doom of men that they forget."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: Pre-Alfa Playtesting - Controversial Concepts
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:00 am
Posts: 511
Location: Cary, North Carolina
Sean, I truly am sorry if my comments shocked or angered you. I won't waste a lot of typing time trying to "prove" the merit of my statements, so please, just take me at my word that they were heartfelt. I will follow with interest any work that you and Higgins care to share. Perhaps working on various projects will be a breath of fresh air for all concerned.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Multiple Successor Games -- Surely Not!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:06 pm
Posts: 130
Is there any more news of the chance of buying tros? Seems to me that without some central guidance, this thing is likely to go in circles, as there are too many competing ideas of what is important in a new version.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Multiple Successor Games -- Surely Not!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I was really, really hoping to avoid having this thread. I am of the opinion that it serves no good purpose; at best it will indicate how divergent our views are on gaming, at worst it may create ill-feeling. Yet rather than clog up an EoS mechanics thread, here we have a thread for discussing this issue.

Seanachai wrote:
Second, I think that if the group is deciding to go with three separate "pure" games, all we'll end up with is three purely similar games, the only differences between which are the number and type of dice you're rolling. For example, Michael was seemingly OK with where the Wrestling thread was going, and Ian's only input was that it should be exhausting somehow. There was more cross-talk on other threads like Fatigue, but nothing that seems to indicate to me a difference in overall philosophy.


OK, you want to know the ins and outs of my view on EoS. Very well.

In the Design by Committee thread I said:

Quote:
1) I want to reduce the "stepping".
TRoS Core is a "high stepping" system. There is a huge difference between a Level 1 wound and a Level 5 wound yet only 4 Successes between the results. There is a big difference in the percentages between TN 5 and TN 7. Reducing the stepping allows the system to be more detailed and diverse -- for those details to have a practical difference.

2) I want all character development to be through SA expenditure.
Forget the ticks on the Skills -- that only lead to people wanting a training-based approach to Vagary and Proficiency development. Go the other way -- remove training from the skills, insist that all development is through SA expenditure, and bring groups/players up to speed on how SAs work.

3) I want SAs to be understood to represent the Player's goals for the game.
The character isn't alive. It has no goals, no opinions, no morals. Like an author and his character the player determines what will motivate the character at any point in time in the story. There is no need for in-game or in-character justification for SAs or for SA-changes. This doesn't mean they can't be justified in-game or in-character, at the player's discretion, only that there is no mechanical need to do so nor illustrative example for doing so.

4) I want a tactical combat environment.
I want the main game to be completely abstract in its interpretation of the combat environment -- no minis, no positioning, no missile or thrown-weapon ranges or distances, every aspect of positioning and timing conflict handled through a Terrain/Timing roll. As an appendix to the game I want an entirely optional set of mechanics for using miniatures with this game.

5) I want a workable Arcane Combat System.
Regardless of what magic system we end up with I want magic to be integrated with combat in such a way that mages can enter combat with each other simultaneously with the melee combatants -- and with the power level of the mages not completely obliterating the melee combatants.


For me these points still hold true.

Now, in terms of individual threads (and to some extent I don't think this is necessary, but if it gets across the notion of how far I diverge from what has been presented then, OK, maybe it serves a purpose...):

Topic - Preference
Archery - Passive Defense is rolled for the target rather than penalties on the archer's shot.
EoS: Trait Priority Table - My thoughts on this subject are in the EoS: Priorities thread. In terms of the content of this thread I strongly disagree with the thinking behind the description of Spiritual Attributes as a trait of the character. The use of the term "Storyteller" instead of referee or whatever implies that it is the referee who is telling the story. This is not the view I want readers to have, whether they are the referee or a player. The descriptions of the priority able are too focused on games with six Traits and therefore six picks in each column.
Streamlining EoS Wound Tables - I disagreed with this approach entirely and therefore did not post. Earlier threads on Wounding show the alternative I lean towards.
EoS: Fatigue - I'm not interested in modeling fatigue -- doing so takes the system out of alignment with cinematic combat. I disagree with the initial definition of what Fatigue represents, but that point is moot.
EoS: Wrestling (Wringen) - Actually this thread is useful. It contains a quote which pretty much sums up one of the design aspects at the core of the rule system presented that I disagree with: In this thread I'd like to discuss how TROS grappling worked and how EOS might simplify it. When did simplification become a design goal for EoS? I don't want the successor game to be simpler -- yet that seems to be at the core of so many of the changes presented. Fewer attributes, fewer skills, fewer wound locations, fewer wound outcomes, alignment of all mechanics, static TNs, etc. As for the concepts presented, I'll only point out how few combats in cinema and books end with UFC-style grapple manoeuvres.
EoS: Rounds, Limelights, Refreshes - I see no need to track time at all in combat. Others want time tracked with relative precision so that missile weapon reload times appear logical. This fork in the development is quite a basic one and affects many things such as the content of this thread.
EoS: Ranged Attacks Summary - I see no need to track distance in an abstract combat environment. The abstract combat environment is inherently imprecise -- trying to add distances and ranges to it, and tracking them from Round to Round, doesn't make a lot of sense to me so I wouldn't bother. Instead I would use a Terrain Roll to determine range or distance when it is required for a particular roll, as I've said. Obviously others want more precision than that, and so our views diverge.
Spending PAs and Combat - I like TRoS' mechanic, where SAs can be spent to flip Failures to Successes. I would keep it. Thus I diverge from the opinion expressed in this thread.
EoS: Drama or no Drama - I disagree with using PA points directly for the metagame spends that TRoS used Luck for. To go from a potential of 5 points in this metagame resource to a potential of 25 would be likely to change the nature of the game.

OK, rather than continue with all 60+ threads I think that's enough to demonstrate that I would prefer to play a Successor game that headed in a significantly different direction to the current game in many different ways.

However, none of this indicates that I think any aspect of the current design needs to change. I do not believe that at all. The current game meets the design philosophy behind it admirably. System Matters!

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Multiple Successor Games -- Surely Not!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:06 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Multiple Successor Games -- Surely Not!, by Grettir?!? :shock: Can't remember having started such a thread... :lol:

I hope you’ll excuse me if I don’t go to the same pains as Ian in dissceting my own preferences for many of the topics. Some of his objections are also true for me, other’s aren’t, and then I’ve got one or two additional ones of my own. The way the development has progressed since about the beginning of this year had me realizing that some preferences that are to me cornerstones would need heavy modification to fit together with cornerstones laid by others, and that the resulting foundation might well be solid, but is not likely to be able to support any special type of grand edifice.

Again, I think it actually preferable that we build a few edifices, maybe similar to each other, but each of them of a clear design. And however these edifices will eventually turn out, the builders will in any case be hugely indebted to the preparation of the foundations done communally on this forum.

And let me underscore Ian:

Ian.Plumb wrote:
However, none of this indicates that I think any aspect of the current design needs to change. I do not believe that at all. The current game meets the design philosophy behind it admirably. System Matters!

_________________
My real name is Michael; use it, if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Multiple Successor Games -- Surely Not!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 6:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Grettir wrote:
Multiple Successor Games -- Surely Not!, by Grettir?!? :shock: Can't remember having started such a thread... :lol:


Yes, it's all your fault Grettir.

Actually it is difficult to spot where, exactly, a thread starts to go off-topic -- so I ended up picking your post as the moment where the questioning began. Maybe I should have picked my thread. *shrugs*

I could've analyzed another twenty threads -- but the main point of the post was to get everyone past the idea that the only thing separating everyone's goals for a successor game is the type of dice being rolled or whatever.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
...There isn't any point me critiquing the mechanics because the design philosophy behind them doesn't suit the way I like to play -- so it is only natural that the mechanics don't suit me...


Seanachai wrote:
...and I am completely at a loss as to what Ian means by "different philosophy"...


What I'm talking about here are those aspects of game design being emphasized and those aspects of game design being de-emphasized by a particular game as reflected in the mechanics.

Here's an example. Higgins is personally interested in gaming during the era where hand-held gunpowder weapons are commonplace. Such weapons distinguish themselves through range, accuracy, damage, and reload time. If reload time is glossed over, then an important aspect of what distinguishes these weapons is gone. So flowing out of this personal preference we have a desire to create mechanics where a timeline operates within the combat scene and an individual's place on the timeline is important to know. So while the mechanics are fine, I personally wouldn't choose to play them as I see a timeline within an abstract combat environment as being counterproductive -- as counterproductive as measuring and tracking distance.

Streamlining the game is another example. What one person sees as streamlining another might interpret as dumbing-down or simplistic. I personally don't see simplification as a design goal for the successor game that I want to play -- yet there is nothing inherently wrong in making a successor game that is simpler to play. The resulting mechanics may well be sound, the game enjoyable to play.

Regarding the referee as the owner of the story would be another example. For me, the referee isn't there to weave the player's actions into a dramatic tale. Rather, the referee is there to frame the scenes and add complications to the dramatic tale being told by the players. To me this harks back to the "So -- what is TRoS actually about?" thread. For me, the referee isn't there to create scenarios which the players then react to. That is external gaming. Instead the referee looks at the player's SAs, plays them off one against the other in various scenes, and adds complications that make adhering to those SAs difficult. That is internal gaming, and is driven by the story the player wants to tell through his character.

If there was to be one successor game to TRoS then, knowing as we do just how far various TRoS groups Drifted the game, most old TRoSers would be dissatisfied with the resulting game. Like the release of The Companion the boards would be aflame with disappointment at the positioning of the successor game and the resulting inability to meet the gaming needs of individual gaming groups. So while there will be only one EoS there will be multiple successor games that take the gaming philosophy behind TRoS and take it in a variety of directions. This is no bad thing.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Multiple Successor Games -- Surely Not!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 7:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:06 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Grettir wrote:
Multiple Successor Games -- Surely Not!, by Grettir?!? :shock: Can't remember having started such a thread... :lol:
Ian.Plumb wrote:
Yes, it's all your fault Grettir.

Actually it is difficult to spot where, exactly, a thread starts to go off-topic -- so I ended up picking your post as the moment where the questioning began. Maybe I should have picked my thread. *shrugs*

Just to be clear - I don't mind at all. I just wanted to express my surprise in a tongue-in-cheek way. I click "View new posts". Hold on, there's a thread I don't know - and its already into page three?!? :shock: And wait - I have started it?!? :o

I merely just had a bit of a laugh at my own surprise. :)

_________________
My real name is Michael; use it, if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Multiple Successor Games -- Surely Not!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Grettir wrote:
Just to be clear - I don't mind at all.


:) I know :)

I knew this thread would make things go pear-shaped. Now we're all treading on egg-shells. Hopefully things will be back on track soon.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Multiple Successor Games -- Surely Not!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:06 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Ian.Plumb wrote:
I knew this thread would make things go pear-shaped. Now we're all treading on egg-shells. Hopefully things will be back on track soon.

I have no doubt they will. Trosfans has always been such a constructive and polite place with such singluarly constructive contributors - thanks to all of you - that I'm sure this can do nothing to impair this climate of good fellowship.

_________________
My real name is Michael; use it, if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group              Designed by QuakeZone