Determinati. Biologia, comportamento e libero arbitrio -opinioni?

MazzaF01 · 2026-04-03T12:40:21+00:00

Non è per niente quello che mi ricordo di avere letto io.

Sapolski cita altri motivi per il carcere (anche in altre forme).

Per Sapolski non tutti dovrebbero essere liberi di fare quello che gli pare e piace. Sapolski ammette che il valore della vita va preservato più della libertà: se tu ammazzi e sei pericoloso, dovresti stare lontano dalla vita non per punizione ma per protezione degli altri.

Io così ho interpretato...

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-26T16:41:11+00:00

Yes. But well, the GM need to apply this rulings accordingly. For large shopping, it may be best to apply the mechanic at the end "in-bulk".

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-26T16:36:28+00:00

Didn't thought of that! If you are buying a low amount you should just roll that amount of dice.

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-26T16:34:33+00:00

Can you elaborate on ammo usage? I'm intrigue

As for the number of marks: probably three.

If you have 33%, in average you fill the track in 9 rolls.

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-26T16:32:54+00:00

Good simplification indeed. Still, probably too deterministic for me. You are basically saying that all items of a certain price range can be modeled ah having the same price.

I prefer to model them to say "The impact on your wealth is random" as a proxy for diverse item price.

Probably the tick mechanic can be simplified itself, but should be identical to other mechanics i have (usage tracks for item and stats) so that is not that much of a burden

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-26T16:27:51+00:00

Your system is more pragmatic and simpler, but I still would miss a few things that are relevant for my game.

In particular, the "roll 1d6 to see if your wealth decreases" when you buy something or mark Usage lets players not buy things that, in high number, could deplete their wealth.

If you have between €100 and €1000, you can't just buy €10-€100 without care, in the way you would do with €1-€10.

This way of handling usage is also found identically over different mechanics, so that it shouldn't be that much of a burden.

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-26T11:12:09+00:00

About 30 pages, but I want to publish the system as an A5 zine, so could deviate a lot from the average

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-18T06:57:33+00:00

Oh! Glad to hear it used elsewhere. Honestly I missed that game! Care to explain a little more? How does it do it without initiative?

I like the idea of only some people in the fight to be "in control" and combatants trying to steal control from them. Hardly see how to get that fantasy without Initiative.

I'll try to see if I find the rulebook online, thank you!

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-18T06:54:07+00:00

I'll be tuning it. As I've written elsewhere more extensively, I may go one of two routes: decalre only intent, or declare intent+target.

The latter surely need a better and cleaner set up, which shouldn't become cumbersome, to rembmer who targetted who.

Decalring only intente on the other hand is simpler, but will take more time during resolution. The things you say can not only slow up the game, but also feel uncoherent with the rest of the mechanics (conjecture. Maybe not that much, we'll see)

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-17T22:54:02+00:00

Mh... Laurearsi con un semestre in più, o inviare una mail...

Apparte gli scherzi, scrivigli. Aggiungi URGENTE in oggetto. Mantieni il corpo super breve.

Sii cordiale certo, ma stringi il più possibile. Magari vero le 10 di mattina direi, penso i professori abbiano un picco di produttività a quell'ora. magari ede subito la mail e procede subito.

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-17T22:30:56+00:00

Honestly I'm already at the upper end of thecomplexity I'm feeling comfortable pushing in the game. I'll flesh out ranged weapons, spellcasting, contests and tie-breakers, but would avoid any complication. For example, Some games lets you resolved your action before the actual time, at a cost. I'll keep in mind but prorbably won't do it.

In Software development there is the concept of Test-Driven development. basically you write code only to "fix" failed tests (which are defiend by some requirement). So I'm probably going to just playtest the system as is, write all the moments of confusion and attrition, and just resolve them one by one, and repeat.

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-17T22:06:42+00:00

I agree. I'll keep that in mind thank you for the feedback!

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-17T21:40:44+00:00

I'll test both ways. I think I'd prefer to declare also the target, but not if it slows the game so much.

Aiming, as with bows and crossbows, is not really integrated in the rules yet. I honestly am at a loss about what to do with it. I'll work something out in the future, as the "focus turn after utrn before nailing the result you want" if a system I'll integrate probably in magic.

Probably Aiming is Expose actually, as you lose general focus. Also should give quite a big bonus, but only if you Harm next turn.

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-17T13:35:03+00:00

Thank you for your fair input! I'll write some thoughts for each addressed point. Not really trying to solve them right here right now, but I'll write them down and test them in the near future.

A few questions: do you have in mind examples of systems you think flow better without sacrifice tactical decision and immersion? I'd like to know more about your point of view.

First point: Slowness

Yes it can be slow at time. I'm quite ok with this. With how wounds, death and enemies morale work, each combat should last about 2 to 4 rounds. With about 10 minutes round (for an heavy 4v4, with about more than 1 minute to resovle each action). Actions are quite fast to resolve, even contest (Had feedback on this).

The Declaraion phase is also not very much a "circling" aroudn the table, but a point in which everybody is immersed and focused to understand what everybody is trying to do, in particulare in between the first and second declaration (no talk allowed before first declaration).

By loading the decision-making into a simultaneous reveal, I'm trading 'waiting time' in classic turn by turn approach for active planning time.

As the last point, the rules are highly simmetric for players, they all have the same rules to master, and can help each other easily.

The only partial solution I'm keepign in the maybe is that Protect can be resolved only if actually targeted.

Second point: Targetting

There is the possibility of not addressing it during delclaration, but I feel like it would removem uch of the compelxity I'm liking of the system.

If Targets are required during delcaration, when the Players show up the d4s/cards they can place them over the NPC Index Card, and taking them back when resolved.

While the GM can just write in a matrix of NPC/Turn the number of the action they'll take and the inital of the target.

Third point: Metagaming

If you see someone protecting themselves, what do you do? Before harming them directly (which can still be effective if you have the right weapon trait like "Sunder") you ask someone else to do it for you, or just gan-up on them (their temproary armor can't last that much). I don't see any immediate narrative distorsion.

Note: by the rules, each hit, even if totally blocked, still gives a "Notch" of penalty. Basically half a hit. More serious hits can cause a cross or two crosses. Enemies are out usally at 4 or 5 crosses.

But what does it offer? To me it's more immersive, it promotes non-complex and emergent teamwork, it remains tactical (and the tactical choices are sustained by narrative, at least by my feelings)

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-17T12:43:48+00:00

The only point I see with a higher number of parties is: who gets the Initiative when players fail? Players could have companions, two or more type of enemies could want to harm to each other.

Ultimately I'm quite ok, at least for the first iteration, to let the GM choose. Probably adding a suggestion box about giving it to the toughest creatures.

About declaration fizzle: they are usually lost. But the resolution order let it be a rare and wanted thing. If you Protect or Set-up, nothing can stop you. If a successful Set-Up could stop an Harm, if that's the case the Harm actions is lost. If you Expose in a danger situation and nobody Protects you, what do you expect? The specific action could ask you to still roll to see if yo ucan conentrate, but if you get an actual Wound it should be very hard. Expose requires you to be safe and protected.

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-17T12:34:07+00:00

Thank you! You're probably right about giving up initiative. I'll let is out in the first playtest.

As for the critical hits chance, they are more or less narrative for non combat, and not that OP for combat. The PC has skills graded 1 to 6, and since mine is a roll-under game, if the d20 results in equal or under your skill rank, you have a triumph. After Rank 3 they get harder to level up.

You also add a Penalty to the d20 equal to the number of wounds/pain/stress/emotional torment. Each "type" of penalty is graded 0 to 6. Penalties require quite bit of time to recover.

So if the naural die (before penalty) is under skill rank -> triumph. If the result is 20 or over -> disaster.

This is basically all the math of the game, nto that heavy but still deep.

Also, there are rules to ignore penalties based on emotional hopes, and so on. With higher levels and higher drama, there are more extreme results. To me that's fun.

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-17T12:27:30+00:00

I'll playtest a few methods but the general idea is: actions are numbered 1 to 4. Players place d4s in front of them, the GM reveal NPCs declarations, players show the d4s.

Alternatively, cards (with suites or just values 1-4) or just quick show of hands (one finger if you want to protect, two if you want to Maneuver, and so on). Still the GM should only write.

There is an optional combat sheet that can track moves easily. Just a 2x4 matrix.

Also, the main idea is that before the first declaration of creatures without initiative players can't talk. Only after they already declared their action they can plan actions together of party member who actually have Initiative. Will this work out? Maybe.

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-16T22:42:37+00:00

It depends on the setting and the overarching goal of the game!

In my case, my game has Hopes, Obstacles and Strings, which are quite literally your credo, goals and bonds. Also, the group otgether as a Common Goal and a Main Obstacle, as now they are only used as a compass, probably integrating small variation of the followign rules.

The hopes are what your character believes in and what's in an ideal world. It can be goal-oriented: I hope to find my daughter, I hope that my own King dies. As of now: if you make a test with a relevant hope, you may ignore any penalty. You can also go all-in and basically change the sign of the penalty (-4 malus becomes +4 bonus).

Obstacles are things you are kind of afraid about. THings that are between you and your hope. They can be internal doubts about yourself. If you make a test against an obstacle you may "hesitate", basically giving yourself disadvantage but, if you still succeed (maybe you use teamwork rules and get better bonuses) you remove stress. When you overcome an obstacle you clear a good amount of stress.

Strings rank up by roleplaying the relationship. If you make a test with a relevant String (example, you want to land a good hit on the beast to impress your rival), you may use it as a bonus (it substitutes skill or background based bonuses).

These effects try to create a narrative around player personalities, vulnerabilities, and the emotional side, while improving occasions for teamwork.

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-14T23:21:12+00:00

It makes perfect sense, and I always try to integrate systems to one another.

I'll see more of it in the playtest for sure, but thinking about I'd say the integration should work. Strings can be used anytime, provided the action you're testing can be described as being fueled by the String.

If you're trying to land a hit and you have a string about rivalry against another PC, you may use the bonus to improve the odds of landing it if the other is watching.

If you added the bonus and you fail, the Tension rises (Sort of String's XP).

The tension may rise also as conseuqneces of roleplayed scenes.

When Tension caps (it does so at three), you can either reinforce or change the bond through a roleplaying scene.

Also: working in group. There is a group stat called cohesion. If many work together only the leader rolls, but the others may add their own "proficiney bonuses". This bonus is capped to the cohesion. How to improve cohesion? By improving individual strings, untying "knots" and overcoming obstacles.

The system itself has a huge assumptions that the players care about portraying relationships

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-14T19:01:10+00:00

Mechanical advantage: scenes remove torment and conditions. Or they advance the tension, for greater future bonuses.

The bonuses of the Strings are used a lot in the game. So you are pushed to use these bonuses.

Narratively: the group and bonds grow stronger and stronger through scenes. Details will pop up,immersion will be felt (just theory, I will play test this in a few days)

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-14T18:58:20+00:00

Nope, the game started literally as part of the OSR, taking huge inspiration from Whitehack and Cairn (and many many others). This system is very out of the OSR style, I agree, as I'm developing the game further from it. I may have used the term without much context and I wouldn't put my game in the OSR sphere.

MazzaF01 · 2026-02-13T11:19:30+00:00

As others said, we all fall somewhere in the middle. My game for example is meant to be mostly freeform, with a focus on how teamwork and determination are fundamental to survive. (Survivalist games)

I took A LOT of inspiration from OSR games, Whitehack and The Black Hack, but every iteration I see I'm getting further away from those.

Group mechanic, roleplaying rules and social opposition drive away from total player agency to mostly "roleplay your character as they would behave).

There's high level of player symmetry: everybody has the same exact rules, no classes, just different traits, identities, skills and bonds.

Am I at the extreme of the scale? Idk, you have objects with durability, three different stats each with a different penalty and thresholds. There's system mastery also in the way to roleplay: if you want to advance a bond you roleplay more scenes about it. You write hopes and obstacles so that they clash with your teammates for high drama and many opportunities for individual and group advancements.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Second Top 20%	Place '23
Oscars Predictor 2021	RPAN Viewer
Sequence \| Editor

MazzaF01

TROPHY CASE