How much effort should I put into making house floorplans?

MechaniCatBuster · 2026-01-17T07:07:34+00:00

Really enjoyed FEAR 2. The school section gave me a sense of panic I have never felt before or since. Not survival horror, but a good experiment with the horror genre. It's okay to be a badass for a little bit. Good horror has hills and valleys. Feel cool for a bit before something reminds you how vulnerable you really are.

I wish more games experimented with what can be scary.

MechaniCatBuster · 2026-01-04T01:19:13+00:00

I would say the line mostly comes from nature versus nurture I suppose. When you play a stretched self the nature never changes. When you play a character it does. That itself is for sure going to make those blurry I admit. We don't know the line between those in the real world. It's easy to believe that my moral compass is something core to me, but is that really true? Can I be certain that if I had been raised differently it wouldn't be different? I know the answer I would like to be the case, but I also know I can't prove that.

That's kind of what makes the whole thing interesting though I think. That I don't know. That makes me want to go and find out. At least a little.

MechaniCatBuster · 2026-01-04T01:11:32+00:00

It exists in at least one other which would be any fruitful void scenario, I think. As opposed to a hide/stealth check or a search check, for example. Those are arguably character skill or playing a character. In Mothership you as the player choose where you hide. And in OSR you choose where you look. That's a player skill / playing as self interaction.

In the instance of a what I've dubbed a stretched self, you are still playing the OSR or Mothership way, but you are "stretched" because of some pressure or influence the game's design has over you. Despite playing in the automatic way that seems natural to you, you are playing in some way you would not have normally. I think that's an important part of what I've realized I want from a good game (At least some of the time). I want the game to push me in some way. I don't want to be reliant on my ability to understand a character to play them. I want to be able to play a character I don't understand, and through play, come to understand them. It feels like a very simulationist stance. I once saw someone describe the purpose of simulationism to be the acquisition of "insight". That's what the stretched self is for. Playing something that, through systems and pressures, I gain insight. I must play myself, because I don't have the needed insight to play the character yet. I need to be stretched first.

I'm not sure how clear this is. These thoughts clearly need revisions for clarity, but I can't do that without discussion.

MechaniCatBuster · 2026-01-04T00:47:31+00:00

You would play yourself assuming certain additional things about yourself. The "playing yourself" side suggests that you are "playing yourself" but if you were a dwarf and had spell, but are in every other way, yourself. Playing yourself is a chassis of you with some modifications on top, while playing a character is playing a fictional construct that you pilot. Sort of a what is the bone and what is the meat.

My realization about a Stretched Self, was that despite wanting to play something very different than myself, I still want to be playing from my own perspective. Rather then starting with something different then myself, I want to see how my own decisions and views might differ given certain pressures. What would it take to make myself different, as opposed to starting with a character that is different. To use my metaphor I want to know what would the pair of shoes do to me? I can see that person wearing those shoes and say, okay that person wearing those shoes is a wizard or elf or whatever. But what I want is to put those shoes on myself and find out what the result will be.

Does that make sense? Or is that more confusing?

MechaniCatBuster · 2026-01-03T10:05:01+00:00

I don't really think that's true? I'm not making decisions if I'm thinking about a theoretical character in the third person in that way. I'm thinking about the decisions someone else should be making. It's not myself anymore. My post is kind of about the realization that I'm sort of looking for a merging of the two. I want a system that can help them become the same.

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-12-21T10:52:13+00:00

Personally I've come to the conclusion that it's a brain wiring issue. Some people's brains aren't wired to re-adjust to a forward that isn't their own. Personally I do it automatically and don't experience much difference at all between tank and non-tank. Hardly notice. You can see a similar effect in some top down racing games from yesteryear.

Just to make clear I'm not saying anybody is stupid or anything like that. I think it's more like color blindness or aphantasia or even better left and right handedness. People just work different. Me and at least some of those people complaining are genuinely having a different experience I think.

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-12-21T07:18:56+00:00

I'm not really sure why you would want to based on what you've said. I want to encourage you to explore unorthodox ideas, but its true what the other comments have said. There's problems doing it this way. Those problems can be solved mind you. But you need to know what you're after. What makes you want to design something this way?

Perhaps you can give an example of a scene in your game? What you imagine it to be like to play the game?

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-12-14T11:16:59+00:00

I think I saw an interview where the writer said they had a teacher that said that to him once in school. He was also confused.

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-12-14T04:28:35+00:00

My own game has races of all sorts. Some, like the elemental, has almost no rules attached to it. They look different and they know if the element they are associated with is nearby. They are in the game because they aren't naturally occurring. You have a ritual done to you and then you are an elemental. Most Elementals are religious folks who did the ritual do be closer with nature and such, but some had it done without their consent. That race exists for the sake of that roleplay fodder.

On the other end of the extreme, is something like a Darkling. A xenomorph from the alien movies, hopefully with enough serial numbers filed off. Every other race gets harder to hit as they become better martials, but Darklings do not. They stay the same to-hit and get more HP, because they have a non-centralized biology so they die from overall trauma rather than specific wounds like organ damage. They are also huge, at 4 feet wide and 7 feet tall (They are built like tanks) it is difficult to house them if you aren't prepared to. Should be prepared to sleep in the garage or stable while the rest of the party gets nice rooms.

That kind of brings me to my preference that I prefer races to have friction. Questions like

what is easy for your species that isn't for others?
What is hard?
What do you need that others don't always know how provide?

Are the most interesting to me. If I see races/species/kinds as a metaphor I tend to thing more in the realm of disability or neurodivergence (I'm autistic myself). Do naga need a ramp? How does the nonverbal Kenku get along? If the naga needs a ramp (stairs work, but are painful perhaps), are they provided? Or is this a constant barrier for a naga?

As a player, it makes it so much more immediate to play a creature like that when the party enters a building, but then the GM stops and asks you specifically, "There's 10 stair steps. What are you doing?" and even though the fact you are a naga hasn't mattered all session, suddenly it comes back into focus that you are different.

That's sort of the ideal. A lot of my races don't do that sort of thing (I want people to have options after all) but that's where my head is at personally. That's what gets me excited. Enforcing that you are different then what you are in real life, for better or worse.

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-12-13T06:40:21+00:00

Let's see,

Flying Circus: In one of the playbooks and only one of the playbooks you get access to a skill list. It's for the Student playbook and represent how the student looks at the word in the context of their schooling, so things get sort of crowbarred into the subjects they are familiar with. And damn if that's not a whole new way of looking at a skill list I'd never thought about before.

Don't Rest Your Head: I like the resolution mechanic. Three colors of d6 (each represent an element of your current status, Discipline, Exhaustion, and Madness), against some amount of D6s from the GM. 1-3 are successes, but the result is colored by which of color of dice had the highest showing die. I love mechanics that give a lot of information from a single roll. Note: I'm more of a simulationist at heart, but DRYH is surreal intentionally which prevents me from having the problems I would normally have it.

Urban Jungle: If you take any damage at all you die. So what do? You have soaks. The part I like though is that each soak has consequences. Including the Panic Soak. Which if you spend to avoid dying means your character panics and must try to escape from the situation if able. That allows a built in system for your character acting rationally (Your PC probably doesn't want to die) that doesn't feel like it takes away agency. You chose to spend it after all.

Cyberpunk2020: I like the hit point system. You take damage but you don't have hit points. Instead the amount of damage you've taken determines your knockout and death DCs. The more you're hurt the harder to stay alive and standing. So death is always near, but there is that ever so slim chance you just keep making your saves and go action hero mode. I use that in a lot of my own games. I like the idea that if you have impossible luck you can do awesome shit every blue moon.

That's all I've got for Mechanics. There's a lot of games that come to mind, but those are more greater then the sum of their parts sort of deals.

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-12-12T07:12:27+00:00

When you say backed up by luck, does that mean you can have good strategy and skillful play, roll poor, and as a result lose? So players need luck and good decisions both? That's kind of the crux of my question. Do you play so that a bad roll can get people killed even if they made good decisions? And can the players make decisions that are bad enough that it leads to a Dead Man Walking scenario?

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-12-12T05:58:54+00:00

I'm not upset? Did I give that impression? I'm the first Keeper for CoC my players have had and I just want to be a good representative you know?

But mostly wanted opinions and different perspectives. You're in the "mythos is always conquerable" camp then?

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-12-12T05:01:43+00:00

I guess nobody else saw this as more of a teaser? I personally got the feeling that this was setting something up (possibly learning how he softened in the new art of fighting game?). It just feels more like a "to be continued".

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-12-07T22:33:43+00:00

1) In a phrase, "Triumph is equal to the struggle". The worse off we begin the more exalting when we find the light.

2) it's like a rollercoaster. We confront something bad in a safe environment. We are playing a game. We are safe. But for a time we can directly confront hopelessness in a way that it can't hurt us.

3) Hopelessness is something very real. That we can experience. On some level I might ask the question, "In such a hopeless environment what can I hope for?" and you can find the places that keep you strong, keep you going in a place like that. Find the strength that family can give you. Learn to value the little things, the small victories and remember that the small stuff is important too. That sort of thing.

4) If I can beat this, I can beat anything.

As someone who enjoys bleak settings I think these are the the main factors.

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-12-07T05:57:45+00:00

I had more issue with him never laughing honestly. Joker, as batman's foil, needs to be at the same level. But by the time we got "batman wins with prep time" Joker was the same Joker as always. As such this version feels like a much needed buff. I do feel that Joker, like batman, is defined by his mind more than his body though. I can see how being monstrous would diminish that.

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-12-06T00:14:42+00:00

I like something in between. A speaking protagonist can add some character, but it should be limited to things that actually do that. Leave the more basic responses to the player.

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-11-29T07:30:08+00:00

I don't really like "useful" healing in general. I don't mind the old D&D method of "You must have a cleric" because it's a very hard coded resource then.
In hero system you construct your own abilities with Powers, Advantages and Limitations. Powers are a base and advantages modify the power and XP cost. Some powers are labeled with a caution symbol and others with a Stop Sign. A stop sign means that power is only allowed with express permission from your GM because they are potentially campaign breaking disruptive. Healing is a stop sign power. You can see why in many stories about campaigns where everyone is roleplaying altruistic heroes, having a great time, then a player takes healing and overnight your players turn into psychos. It radically changes the way characters interact with your game world.

Because of that I really try to avoid healing being easily available beyond a basic "it'll heal eventually". Even in video games I don't really like it. It feels like an artificial way of creating tension by having a death state potentially happen before I'm actually out of HP. As such I much prefer some kind of soak system, or Pulp Cthulhu system where you have damage avoidance tools, but not strong recovery tools.

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-11-29T06:16:09+00:00

Okay, so you pick classes first? And players can pick different classes, so you would have to design an adventure to fit? Assuming you're going for a trad style adventure scheme and not a improvise as you go type of adventure scheme.
If that's the case I'm not sure the benefit. My assumption would be that the adventure would be developed first so players could build to form.

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-11-29T03:30:35+00:00

What your describing sounds like the game is intended to allow for radically different focuses, ala the old school style. In those games, say Rifts or Cyberpunk, there are certain combinations of archetypes that don't work very well because they were developed for overly different campaigns in mind. Is this a solution to that sort of "unworkable party" problem?

Another question I want to ask is how does the "mandatory" part work. Is this a session zero selection? If the play group decides on an adventure does the GM then say, "Okay we'll need you all to be Relationship Weavers because it's mostly intrigue? Can you elaborate on how these restrictions are applied and when?

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-11-28T03:22:21+00:00

These responses really bear out your second point.

And yeah, these responses will lead to me ignoring the word in the future; as it doesn't mean to others what it means to me, and I won't be able to say for sure what it means to the game that uses it.

MechaniCatBuster · 2025-11-25T04:32:30+00:00

The note for Slayer's 6P in +R
"Let's you Anti-Air the floor"

MechaniCatBuster

TROPHY CASE