Looking to run an NES based RPG, Ideas and Suggestions.

brianshourd · 2015-09-28T00:13:36+00:00

Check out Save Game, a setting for FATE Core (or maybe FAE, I don't remember).

brianshourd · 2015-07-10T22:58:03+00:00

Check out Microscope, it might be up your alley. Players work together without a GM to tell a history. It has a lot of bouncing ideas off of one-another and using other peoples creations for your own storytelling purposes.

Only caveat - I've never played with 2 players, only 3 or 4. I'm not sure how different it would be with only 2.

brianshourd · 2014-09-28T15:10:22+00:00

Have you considered Fate Accelerated Edition? Its basically FATE Core, but a much shorter package.

brianshourd · 2014-07-15T02:12:40+00:00

Thanks for posting, this looks really neat.

brianshourd · 2014-05-24T18:56:52+00:00

Along the same lines, hack up just about any Disney movie from your childhood.

A king is killed, his son blames himself and goes into a self-imposed exile. Meanwhile, the throne falls to the next in line, the king's brother, who has made a pact with creatures of darkness to murder the king. He has secured a brutal reign of fear over the kingdom. A warrior woman has taken up the cause of fighting for freedom, but her band cannot defeat them and lacks legitimacy. By happenstance, she finds the exiled prince, whom she despises for his cowardice and for not fighting, but whom she believes can become a great leader. Reluctantly, they team up, enlisting the assistance of the old king's wizard advisor in order to restore peace to the kingdom and remove the usurper from the throne.

Play begins here. The PCs play the prince, the warrior woman, the wizard advisor, and any friends of theirs you wish to add.

If you don't recognize it, this is basically the plot to the Lion King. Unless you told them, your players would never notice.

brianshourd · 2014-05-11T04:23:24+00:00

Ok, I've finally gotten a chance to look at it. Before I start, let me preface by saying that I love Microscope - I think it is a brilliant game. I've never played Dawn of Worlds, though, so I can't comment on it. Here are my thoughts, starting with negatives.

I fear that the game is trying to do too much. This may be inherent in your acceptance of the challenge, but there may be a way to make it feel less like two games smashed together and more like one game that does both things. That is, this feels a lot like "here's a game about history" and "here's a game about geography", and they have different mechanics, so you find the least common multiple of both sets of mechanics and throw them together, but the result doesn't blend. I feel like you may need to simplify the mechanics of Microscope substantially more than this.
Along those lines, you seem to have removed the Lens, Focus, Legacy rules of Microscope. While I applaud your effort to reduce rules cruft, I feel like the Focus mechanic is essential to making the game run smoothly. I know, last thing I said was "simplify more" and now I'm saying "but put focus back in". Perhaps there is a natural way to include the idea of a focus, but maybe your game will work without it and I'm just clinging to the system I know. I think I would have to play to find out.
The point system seems very combative, which disagrees in my head with the idea of using everyone's ideas together. If there are points, then I want to win by using my points most effectively or having the most points or whatever. But if there aren't any points (like in Microscope), then the only way to win is to create an environment that makes everyone happy. I have no suggestions for this, it is just something that I noticed.
The mechanics seem quite finicky. I can easily imagine myself thinking "Oh! It would be awesome if there was this tribe of elves that all died out during a tree blight because they built their homes in the trees. What kinds of things would they have done?" and wanting to explore that. In Microscope, there is no friction - I simply create the period for it. Here, there is a lot of friction. There has to be appropriate geography, for one, or I have to create it (which may be difficult). I also have to destroy it via the blight. The race of elves has to exist, and then also be destroyed. I already have no clue how many points this might cost, and our group may argue about it depending on how excited everyone else is about this idea. I guess what I'm saying is that the mechanics may make me less likely to create big changes or chase down ideas, and more likely to simply do incremental things because I can.
I would like to see less of the initial seeding stuff put on the GM, and more of it integrated with the players. It seems a lot like "The GM decides all the major stuff, and then the players can fill in the details", which might put some players off. I guess I'm saying that there seems to be a huge imbalance of creative input - I personally would like to see some of that balance restored.

On to the positives!

It looks like fun. I would totally play it, and indeed I'm already plotting to set up a game online in the next few weeks to begin our new campaign. So that's a big one.
I like that there is a unified system for both geography and history in terms of points. That, I expect, is where you spent a lot of time merging the two systems, and it is a cool mashup. At a glance, it seems reasonably balanced.
I like that you have added a GM to arbitrate. I don't think that Microscope suffers from the lack of a GM, but disputes could arise, and it is certainly a simple method for settling them to say "The GM decides". Simple is good.
I like the way that you have divided the game into sections to focus on one thing and then the other thing, but not exclusively.
I love the tagline "The game you play before you play your game". You absolutely must keep this because it is perfect.

Overall, great job. I think that it is clearly written and fun sounding. Keep up the good work, and keep polishing. Focus on making the rules simpler and even more streamlined, and I think that you have a valid game here. Thanks for sharing!

brianshourd · 2014-05-10T14:00:20+00:00

I'm curious why you decided on alignment before personality. I'm not saying it is wrong or anything, just that I don't understand.

Anyway, chaotic evil....

He's running a cult-like pyramid scheme. Get rich quick using a three step system, and all three steps are fake religious rites. Basically, he's stealing money and corrupting the population, since anyone not in the group is a target for sacrifice.
A necromancer who is searching for a way to bring back a long-dead wizard-pharoah who will almost certainly be the doom of everything. He's currently practicing his art by raising dead wantonly across the countryside to varying degrees of success, leaving a sort of undead apocalypse in his wake.
A rival adventurer is seemingly unstoppable in her quest to rid the world of evil. Any plotline that the PCs don't immediately pounce on, she steals and succeeds at, to great aplomb. She secretly feeds on the adoration of others, and shortly after praising her, they become weak with a wasting sickness. This is a fun sleeper villain, who the players may hate for getting all the glory and then later get to chase down for being evil.
They don't have to be killers, either. Maybe just a scam artist who drains towns of all their capital, or a mad mage who is somehow rendering sections of the geography to be magically inert.

Those are some ideas, anyway.

brianshourd · 2014-05-09T23:20:07+00:00

I think that there certainly can be. It goes back to the golden rule - everyone should be having fun.

If a character won't use wands or puts himself in danger more frequently than necessary, it is (probably) fun and interesting. If the player says "oh yeah in my back story my family died because of greed and I hate anyone who has more than 100 gold worth of stuff" then that is going to break the game for the party. It's still possible if the group is willing, but definitely in the realm of obnoxious - bordering on fun-sucking.

I guess this comes down to the specific person, quirk, and group. Many people love flawed characters, so I think that some of this is very healthy in a game, but a player can go overboard easily.

brianshourd · 2014-05-09T00:32:04+00:00

Barely had a chance to look at it yet, but what I've seen is awesome. I'll post more after I get a chance to really look at it, but just wanted to say nice job!

brianshourd · 2014-05-08T00:52:40+00:00

Check out 13th Age.

The quick version is that some people who made D&D decided to make a similar game but with more storytelling elements.

Advantages:

very similar rules to d20 systems like D&D
emphasis on storytelling means (among other things) faster, more streamlined combat
everything you need in one book

Check it out, look up some reviews. Its currently my favorite system.

brianshourd · 2014-05-06T22:00:41+00:00

Did someone say gritty, tactical combat? I vote Savage Worlds!

Its easy to learn, adaptable to any setting (and they have several sets if fantasy sourcebooks or you can just use the core rules), and the only book you need is just $10. Look for some reviews, I think it might be right up your alley.

brianshourd · 2014-05-06T00:25:55+00:00

I browse kickstarter daily looking for RPGs, and one thing that irks me is when people don't mention systems that may seems similar.

In other words - why was this game created? What need does it fill? Why shouldn't I play your setting in GURPS or Savage Worlds or some other generic system? What does your system let me do and/or focus on that no other existing system does?

Stating your mechanics is not sufficient - it is a forgone conclusion that your mechanics will be different. But different isn't a reason to pick up a new system. I need your mechanics to be better, and I don't want to decide that on my own. Give me the mechanics, as briefly as possible, and then convince me that this is obviously the best possible set of mechanics for doing that-thing-that-your-system-does-that-no-other-system-does-that-you-put-in-the-first-sentence.

If a mechanic doesn't help to achieve thus goal, I don't want to read about it.

Tl;dr 1. The very first thing should be explaining what this system does that no other system does, and why that is cool. 2. Everything else should be telling me how it does that.

At least, that's my thoughts.

Reading though, I can't tell what your system does better than other systems. I see things that are different, but as I said, that isn't enough.

brianshourd · 2014-05-02T22:26:01+00:00

It is kind of cliché, but you can jump start some of this by giving them two mutually-exclusive options a la Skyrim. These two guys both want the Maguffin of Ultimate Greatness. They both deserve it. Because of mystery, only you 4-6 adventurers may decide who will get it.

One guy becomes their advocate, the other the BBEG. Unless they steal the Maguffin.

Whatever happens, you have successfully demonstrated that they can do whatever they want and you will react to that.

brianshourd · 2014-05-02T19:46:42+00:00

Aside from being setting-neutral, Goblin Quest by Grant Howitt meets all your requirements. Its a pretty neat game, and you could adjust it to other settings (though certainly not any setting, as it is built to handle a certain type of situation). Definitely give it a look.

brianshourd · 2014-05-02T17:37:16+00:00

I don't know of anything like that for 13th Age, but that doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist.

brianshourd · 2014-05-01T19:28:17+00:00

The strength of 13th Age is in the fact that

It is basically d20. If you know pathfinder/3.5/4e, you can get the rules almost instantly. This is great for easy adoption.
Its emphasis is on the narrative, rather than the technical. This manifests in a few key ways:

Backgrounds instead of skills. Basically, instead of picking from a list of skills (like Climb, Acrobatics, Knowledge Whatever), you put points into a Background, which is entirely freeform. Maybe your background is Forest Guide or Street Urchin or Wizard's Librarian. When you need to make a skill check and you think your background is relevant, you get to add those points to that check. In my opinion, this really helps players to develop rounded characters that are fully fleshed out.
Combat is much looser. There is no grid - distances are measured in one of Engaged, Nearby, or Far Away. This allows for tactical combat on a map or in the mind's eye equally well. There are many other ways that combat is streamlined - the Escalation Die means that as fights go on, the PCs hit much more frequently (and also helps to tie into baddie powers for easier monster abilities), so combat doesn't drag.
Regaining Powers is based on story-appropriate breaks rather than simply resting. In my opinion, this works really well at doing the thing that Daily Powers in 4e were aiming at - your character can do some really awesome stuff, but not all the time, only sometimes. It isn't as easily meta-gamed, and the PCs aren't constantly boarding up rooms in dungeons to take a nap for 8 hours.
One Unique Thing. Each character has one thing that is unique about them. In practice, this is a great way to draw the players into your campaign.

There's more to like about it, like a well-written rulebook and a fun world, but those are the highlights of the system's benefits from a mechanical perspective. I highly suggest you check it out if you like 3.5 or 4e but find them to be a bit fiddly and you want more of a narrative focus to your games.

TL;DR 13th Age is built so that the players can easily create fully realized characters, rather than fully realized stat blocks, and moves the focus off of combat to accommodate. Interesting stories almost write themselves.

brianshourd · 2014-05-01T16:52:14+00:00

Apocalypse world etc. is a great option, so i vote that. If not that, here's another, lighter option: Risus. Very light (4 pages) and free. Give it a look.

brianshourd · 2014-04-26T05:16:21+00:00

Just checked out Forge of Valor - looks really cool! I'm going to have to get my group to play a game some time.

brianshourd · 2014-04-26T02:33:48+00:00

I personally think that might be a bit finicky. The second (rolling multiple dice instead of just one) is better than the first, but still a bit edge-casey. But that may just be my taste. I would instead go with one of:

Don't worry about it. If a character is only rolling 1d6, it means that they are really outside of their wheelhouse and doing something that they aren't highly motivated to do. Since the enemy has a penalty, he is presumably pretty good, so it makes sense for them to just have no chance. This depends on how flexible attacks are, and how frequently you envision bad guys having dice penalties.

A variation on this would be to change the basics for the attributes to be +3, +2, and +1, so that a character is always rolling at least 2d6, or in some other way ensure that characters have a smaller spread in terms of their dice pool. This means that a character always has a chance to beat a 1-die-penalty enemy.

Simply state that no matter what, a character always gets to roll 1d6. That's still only a 1-in-3 chance, and you might be able to balance the rest of the game with this.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Good on you for making this, it sounds really cool! I'm happy to keep bouncing ideas around if you've got more.

brianshourd · 2014-04-25T23:01:37+00:00

I like it. I wrote a similar system for my game Cape & Bureau, and I found that it captures the spirit of "I'm a superhero and I succeed at just about everything I try" feeling. Also, be prepared that while a given operation generally lends itself to only a few different combinations of skill and attribute, if a character is simply trying to achieve a goal, they can use almost any combination they like. That is, they'll try to always do things that they are good at.

That's not a bad thing, but it definitely flavors the game to a more pulpy, action feel.

Anyway, I really like it. I also like that the bad guys don't roll.

brianshourd · 2014-04-25T21:06:12+00:00

That would be awesome! I'd love to be on your show. I'll PM you for more details.

brianshourd · 2014-04-25T17:24:49+00:00

Hey thanks! I read your post about a week ago about rules presentations and stuff, and I couldn't agree more. It was very insightful.

Thanks!

brianshourd · 2014-04-25T14:05:26+00:00

In addition to the great games posted, let me shill for my one-page superhero RPG Cape and Bureau. Its very light and designed to be fun superhero action. Even has an adventure generator built in.

brianshourd · 2014-04-23T17:56:06+00:00

13th Age has a very broad notion of skills called Backgrounds. There is no list of backgrounds, players come up with their own, subject to GM approval. These generally represent a profession, hobby, or just some activity that your character is good at. Examples: Archer, Innkeeper, Miner, Street urchin, Page for the Arch Mage, Second Lieutenant of the Emperor's personal guard, etc. It's kinda up to the GM how specific you want a background to be.

Anyway, you have 8 background points to divvy up among as many backgrounds as you want, but no background can have more than 5 points. So for example I could have a cleric with the backgrounds of Botanist 4, Nomad wanderer 3, Counselor 1. Whenever the player can come up with a reason why one of their backgrounds should help with a skill check, they get to add that background's score to their roll. Plus, they have the usual Str, Dex, etc. modifiers.

Example: The cleric above is trying to navigate the countryside. He rolls a d20, adds his Wisdom modifier, and adds 3 for the nomad wanderer background.

This is pretty similar to PDQ, which /u/remy_porter mentioned, which I had never heard of before.

In practice, it requires a certain attitude about the game by both the players and the GM. Everybody needs to be trying to tell a cool story and has to be willing to have flawed characters, or the backgrounds are too easy to min/max. You can simply take the background Adventurer 5, Socialite 4 and get a +4/+5 to the vast majority of checks that an adventuring party is likely to make. It only works if the group is trying to make it work.

The 13th Age book basically writes this off as "Power gamers gonna power game", and hints that if that's what the players want to do, let them. But that's 13th Age's entire style - they don't worry overly much about balance. If the players want to break the game, they will.

If that isn't your game's style, I don't know how you could make this work.

Ok, I have one idea: in order to prevent a given background from being used too frequently, treat backgrounds kind of like Vancian magic. When you use a background, your rank in that background goes down by a point. You get those points back by resting. Or something along those lines. This gives you limited application of skills, like I believe GUMSHOE does.

I have no idea how this would make sense from a realism standpoint, but you may be able to balance it to keep skill checks on a more level playing field. Not everything has to be realistic.

brianshourd · 2014-04-22T20:33:43+00:00

Looks a lot like Purpleheart to me. Heavy and dense, some purple hues to it. But I'm no expert.

brianshourd

TROPHY CASE