For my Glorianna game, which is finally seeing the light of day this year, I was originally intending to use the standard StarCluster Percentile Task-Resolution sub-system, as in StarCluster 2 or StarCluster Light (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=28894&it=1) (free DL) as the game is set in the Cluster on one planet. However, when I rewrote Sweet Chariot 2, I used the StarPool Dice Pool T-R sub-system instead, and that is also set in the Cluster - in fact, it's set on the next planet over from Glorianna.
So, knowing that the highly advanced, peculiarly stable world of Glorianna would probably not have a lot of combat - although what there was should be brutal - and have lots of duelling, political maneuvering, and such, I thought it might be better to use my StarKarma (http://jalan.flyingmice.com/StarKarma.pdf) diceless rules.
My current plan is to use StarKarma, but put the percentile rules in the Optional Rules Appendix. What do you guys think?
-clash
Have you got a more detailled outlined of the game somewhere. I like to think that system fits the setting and would like to read up a bit more about the setting.
From the sounds of your one-liner description, diceless would do the trick nicely. If there is lots of combat or other statistical actions, then percentile system is lovely. Talky-talky scenarios and settings lend themselves better to diceless or low-dice mechanics.
I seem to have lost my command of the English language today, sorry about that.
Quote from: Rob LangHave you got a more detailled outlined of the game somewhere. I like to think that system fits the setting and would like to read up a bit more about the setting.
From the sounds of your one-liner description, diceless would do the trick nicely. If there is lots of combat or other statistical actions, then percentile system is lovely. Talky-talky scenarios and settings lend themselves better to diceless or low-dice mechanics.
I seem to have lost my command of the English language today, sorry about that.
Ooops! Sorry, Rob! It's been on the back burner for so long I forget people may not have heard of it! :D
Here's the blurb from the Flying Mice site:
"Extreme technology, morphing weapons, a Code Duello, elegant human courtiers, downshifted android peasants, uplifted animal shopkeepers, and a wildly inventive culture ruled over by the cloned Virgin Queen. Welcome to Glorianna!"
The Gloriannans are extremely high tech neo-Elizabethans. The focus of their culture is their Queen, Elizabeth, who is cloned from their first queen of the same name, descended from the current Queen Elizabeth of the UK. The colony ship they came on practiced a single Cultural Emulation - a practice designed to keep ships from falling apart during the 1200-1800 year voyage from earth - that of Elizabethan England. They met up with another ship with three different cultural emulations practiced on the three different "watches" - Germany under Frederik the Great, Spain under Phillip II, and France under Louis XIV - and decided to colonize a single planet together to give the colony the best possible technological and population base.
That was almost 500 years ago. Like many Cultural Emulative societies, nobody wanted to play the peasants, so they had to
make them. At first robots played the part, but they were far too expensive to waste tending cows, so they began working on uplifts. Uplifts worked for a while, but they gradually drifted into the cities and towns and became the middle class. Then they created deliberately "downshifted" android peasants, bioroid animals who could be trained to productive work, but were not sapient.
The Queen is always a clone of the first queen, and fresh clones are always being brought up among the noble Great Houses of Glorianna. When the current queen dies, or is assassinated, there is an intense competition between the clones which gradually reveals the best suited to rule. Those who fail go into exile.
The entire culture is based on trust, which extends throughout everything that's done. It's very strange, but works - I've been playtesting it online. Once you get the hang of it it makes sense... :D
-clash
Splendid! What a fab idea, clash. Elizabethan England as I was forced to study at school extrapolated insanely and brought to life. Love it.
I think a low-dice/diceless system would fit very nicely. It sounds too fantastic to get bogged down in statistics, science and definitions of things.
Quote from: Rob LangSplendid! What a fab idea, clash. Elizabethan England as I was forced to study at school extrapolated insanely and brought to life. Love it.
I think a low-dice/diceless system would fit very nicely. It sounds too fantastic to get bogged down in statistics, science and definitions of things.
That's exactly what I was thinking. :D
-clash
Well, you can probably guess my answer Clash but here goes.
You seem to have a clear image of the elements you wish to reinforce. Let's see if I can sum them up.
1. Strong political interplay - Supported by...
2. Strong emphasis away from combat - Supported by ...my guess would be a deadly combat as you mention. This is good bu make sure to spell that out.
3. Dueling - Supported by...again, plays into combat.
So, in summary, let's ask a few questions.
1. Does the system have deadly combat?
2. Does it emphasize or have an appropriate sub-system for dueling?
3. Does it have an appropriate model for the type of political maneuvering?
So, the first two are best answered by you and I would most likely not add much even if I wanted. However, #3 is one that I have always found fascinating.Some questions:
3a. What sort of political maneuvering do you wish to model? Honor? Political influence? Wealth? Public popularity? All of the above?
If yes, should it be a series of meters maybe? Some influencing others? Just brainstorming but you could have a method of Scandals vs Popularity and have both modified by Celebrity. Influence could be modified by Scandals and Popularity.
Not sure if that helps or is even the direction you are going but thought I might add my muddled views tot he mix.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltWell, you can probably guess my answer Clash but here goes.
You seem to have a clear image of the elements you wish to reinforce. Let's see if I can sum them up.
1. Strong political interplay - Supported by...
2. Strong emphasis away from combat - Supported by ...my guess would be a deadly combat as you mention. This is good bu make sure to spell that out.
3. Dueling - Supported by...again, plays into combat.
Right! This is the intent.
QuoteSo, in summary, let's ask a few questions.
1. Does the system have deadly combat?
Yes. Much deadlier than the typical StarCluster combat. I will be tweaking the StarKarma sub-system to reflect this.
Quote2. Does it emphasize or have an appropriate sub-system for dueling?
Yes. I'm adapting the sub-system from the StarCluster Guide to Duelling.
Quote3. Does it have an appropriate model for the type of political maneuvering?
So, the first two are best answered by you and I would most likely not add much even if I wanted. However, #3 is one that I have always found fascinating.Some questions:
3a. What sort of political maneuvering do you wish to model? Honor? Political influence? Wealth? Public popularity? All of the above?
If yes, should it be a series of meters maybe? Some influencing others? Just brainstorming but you could have a method of Scandals vs Popularity and have both modified by Celebrity. Influence could be modified by Scandals and Popularity.
An odd one which reflects the culture - Trust. Trust cascades from the Queen, through her immediate courtiers, to secondary and tertiary levels. Everyone on the planet has a Trust Index, which is increased by successful completion of assignments, and decreased by failure, improper behavior, and scandal. A courtier might have the Queen's Trust, which means he can draw upon her resources so long as his Trust Index warrants it. A character in a lower level campaign might have the Duke's Trust, or the Earl's Trust, or the Trust of some other less renowned but still respected figure.
QuoteNot sure if that helps or is even the direction you are going but thought I might add my muddled views to the mix.
Bill
Not in the least muddled, and very much what I was aiming at. :D
-clash
I think I'd probably go with a dice (but simple) based resolution. That's because I like and prefer dice. Unless Starkarma has a really good support for the playstyle--and allowing players to choose/influence events easily as dice do.
Quote from: SilverlionI think I'd probably go with a dice (but simple) based resolution. That's because I like and prefer dice. Unless Starkarma has a really good support for the playstyle--and allowing players to choose/influence events easily as dice do.
Like I said, Tim, the dice T-R sub-system will be an option. Changing T-R sub-systems is pretty much painless. I abstracted the heck out of everything when I wrote StarCluster for this very purpose.
-clash
Removed
Clash,
With respect to Glorianna, what is the intent of your design? Is it to design a game that is primarily about politicking and diplomacy? Or is to present players with a cool new setting? If the setting takes precedent, then I would use something other than StarKarma.
Quote from: JohnnyWannabeClash,
With respect to Glorianna, what is the intent of your design? Is it to design a game that is primarily about politicking and diplomacy? Or is to present players with a cool new setting? If the setting takes precedent, then I would use something other than StarKarma.
Why? This is very interesting. I'm listening. No one I've talked to has voiced a coherent reason why I shouldn't other than "I don't like diceless, man!"
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceSo, knowing that the highly advanced, peculiarly stable world of Glorianna would probably not have a lot of combat - although what there was should be brutal - and have lots of duelling, political maneuvering, and such, I thought it might be better to use my StarKarma (http://jalan.flyingmice.com/StarKarma.pdf) diceless rules.
I have nothing against a diceless system. You know me. I lean towards the "system doesn't matter much" camp. I need you to explain how StarKarma can do the duelling and politicking better than your other systems. If your answer is, "Well, it can't really," then there's the answer to your quandry. Why use a system, just because?
If, however, the StarKarma system
can do these things better, then you have to ask yourself, "Am I creating a game that pushes players to engage in politics rather than combat?" If the answer is, yes, and you are okay with that then use StarKarma. If that isn't your intent, then revisit what you want to do with the game.
I hope that makes sense. I am answering a thousand questions at work while I'm typing this.;)
Quote from: JohnnyWannabeI have nothing against a diceless system. You know me. I lean towards the "system doesn't matter much" camp. I need you to explain how StarKarma can do the duelling and politicking better than your other systems. If your answer is, "Well, it can't really," then there's the answer to your quandry. Why use a system, just because?
If, however, the StarKarma system can do these things better, then you have to ask yourself, "Am I creating a game that pushes players to engage in politics rather than combat?" If the answer is, yes, and you are okay with that then use StarKarma. If that isn't your intent, then revisit what you want to do with the game.
I hope that makes sense. I am answering a thousand questions at work while I'm typing this.;)
This was what I was trying to get at with my questions Clash. Only you can really answer them. Since I am a setting guy, I think your answers say that your system works for your goals but again, if you want to force a certain play style (non-combat politicking) you might need more explicit mechanics. Again, though, only you can answer that (or play testers).
Bill
I don't want to force any play style. StarKarma is out. I'll go with the standard system.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceI don't want to force any play style. StarKarma is out. I'll go with the standard system.
-clash
Sorry if you thought I was implying you were forcing a play style with starkarma, it was not my intent.
That said, there is forcing and then their is supporting. My questions were oriented towards the support side of it. You want to enable political play. Starkarma seems to do this.
When I say "support" I ALWAYS phrase it in positive terms. So, supporting a play style is never "discouraging combat" but is "enabling political mechanisms". So, does you standard system "enable political mechanisms". It sounds like you are addressing this with what I call external extension mean a subsystem outside the standard mechanisms of the core system. If this is the case, the system does not matter. If you are using internal extension, then you are using mechanism from the core system to model the politicking. So, in the case of Star Karma, it would be tied to the diceless mechanism.
And I can't say this enough, other than general questions and advice, unless we were play testers, only you can really answer.
Now, from a marketing point of view, diceless is a hard sell. Also, you are fragmenting your base by branching into other systems. However, you must remember this is coming from a guy who has four systems for his settings and made his lite version look very different from his standard one. ;)
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltSorry if you thought I was implying you were forcing a play style with starkarma, it was not my intent.
When two designers I like and respect say the same thing, I look at my intended course of action twice, then I look again. Attempting to look at the thing from the outside, I think the StarKarma sub-system shines in gaining advantage in political/non-combat situations, but is not nearly as engaging in combat. By selecting it as the primary T-R sub-system, it certainly looked like I was attempting to force people away from combat and into political/social machinations. The standard percentile system is more balanced, in that it can do everything with about the same effectiveness. It also has the benefit of not frightening the horses - as you point out, diceless games make a lot of people suddenly disinterested. The external political support sub-systems can be grafted to the diced games exactly as well as to the diceless game, so that's a wash.
If people want to play the game with heavy combat and disregard for social structures, who am I to stand in their way? The standard system will give them overall better tools, and won't stop people playing a more social/political game. Thus my decision. Thank you both for making me think twice. I had succumbed to the lure of a neat system, and put it in because the setting showcased the system, rather than the reverse.
-clash
Quote from: HinterWeltWhen I say "support" I ALWAYS phrase it in positive terms. So, supporting a play style is never "discouraging combat" but is "enabling political mechanisms". So, does you standard system "enable political mechanisms". It sounds like you are addressing this with what I call external extension mean a subsystem outside the standard mechanisms of the core system. If this is the case, the system does not matter. If you are using internal extension, then you are using mechanism from the core system to model the politicking. So, in the case of Star Karma, it would be tied to the diceless mechanism.
What Bill said.
If you want to develop a mechanic that encourages politicking because politicking plays a large part in the setting then I suggest you use your standard system with a new
optional politicking tool. You can explain that the tool is added to assist players in exploring the politics of the setting and it is there to use (or not) at their discretion.
Unlike you two, systems interest me for their own sake. I like interesting systems. That said, and interesting system without an interesting setting leaves me cold. In any case, you guys are immune to the system-fascination thing, and I'm not. It makes you better judges of such things. :D
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceUnlike you two, systems interest me for their own sake. I like interesting systems. That said, and interesting system without an interesting setting leaves me cold. In any case, you guys are immune to the system-fascination thing, and I'm not. It makes you better judges of such things. :D
-clash
What I think it really does is make our combined view of a design very potent.
I also want to point out that perhaps my position is overstated. I do value interesting system but I just don;t think it is the whole ball of wax. I will buy a game if the setting interests me. I might buy it if the sytem interests me. However, the telling point, I think, is I will buy a setting despite system but if the setting does not interest me, the system will never get me to buy it.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltWhat I think it really does is make our combined view of a design very potent.
I also want to point out that perhaps my position is overstated. I do value interesting system but I just don;t think it is the whole ball of wax. I will buy a game if the setting interests me. I might buy it if the sytem interests me. However, the telling point, I think, is I will buy a setting despite system but if the setting does not interest me, the system will never get me to buy it.
Bill
Oh, I'll buy an interesting system without a cool setting, alright! I'll just hate myself in the morning. I can't help it - my father was an engineer. :D
-clash