Quote from: beeber;569191the xp-as-resource thing sounds neat.

Quote from: Monte CookCharacters earn XP when they make new, interesting discoveries (not from killing things, although combat is often necessary to make discoveries and accomplish missions). They also earn XP when the GM "intrudes" on the action of the game to introduce new complications. Lastly, players have the ability to award XP to other players for great ideas, useful actions, or other reasons.

XP can be spent to increase character abilities, or to affect events in the game (such as rerolling dice), gain short-term benefits or advance in levels.

Sounds metagamey and dissassociated.

Quote from: noisms;569218I've honestly never seen a thread about that before.

I have seen plenty of posts in threads on game design.

Quote from: Ladybird;569220Sounds metagamey and dissassociated.

It's a story game!!

Quote from: noisms;569222It's a story game!!

No, it sounds like a game with mechanics that would force me out of character immersion as a player, and would hobble a GM by forcing him to compensate the players for giving them things to do.

"Hey guys, sorry I gave you a challenging session that forced you to think about the situation and how to best apply your character's abilities, traits and history in order to survive. Here's some XP to compensate you for having fun. I'm so sorry, please don't hate me."

Having both short and long term uses of the same resource pool also doesn't tend to work well. You will always be better off saving for the long-term usage, unless you are about to die RIGHT NOW, in which case it's okay. If the resulting power discrepancy (Between characters who use the short-term option instead of the long-term options) gets too high, then you can easily end up with a situation where the group simply can't operate together any more (See Exalted for an example of a game that handles varying intra-party power levels very, very poorly).

It's also a mechanic that completely changes if you're playing session games against a campaign - the shorter the length of time you'll play the character, the more valuable the short-term expenditure options become.

Quote from: Ladybird;569226No, it sounds like a game with mechanics that would force me out of character immersion as a player, and would hobble a GM by forcing him to compensate the players for giving them things to do.

"Hey guys, sorry I gave you a challenging session that forced you to think about the situation and how to best apply your character's abilities, traits and history in order to survive. Here's some XP to compensate you for having fun. I'm so sorry, please don't hate me."

Having both short and long term uses of the same resource pool also doesn't tend to work well. You will always be better off saving for the long-term usage, unless you are about to die RIGHT NOW, in which case it's okay. If the resulting power discrepancy (Between characters who use the short-term option instead of the long-term options) gets too high, then you can easily end up with a situation where the group simply can't operate together any more (See Exalted for an example of a game that handles varying intra-party power levels very, very poorly).

It's also a mechanic that completely changes if you're playing session games against a campaign - the shorter the length of time you'll play the character, the more valuable the short-term expenditure options become.

I know, I was being facetious.

I mostly agree with you, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt to see how it works in practice.

Quote from: noisms;569227I know, I was being facetious.

I mostly agree with you, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt to see how it works in practice.

Cool. At the moment, I don't think it offers anything I want (And that it offers some things I definitely don't want), but I'm willing to wait and see.

I like how he's nerfed wizards just by calling them 'Nanos' - how dorky a class name is that.

I notice that he's got the same basic class structure as SWN, or is that a trend that's popped up recently?  I didn't really pay much attention to new games coming out before I dropped in here.

I don't think Cook is one of those designers who is terribly caught up many of the internet ideolgies floating around these days (whether its immersion, "modern design", the school of balance, forge theory, etc)...in fact I think a lot of the flak leveled at him when he posted about Next was due to him really not having much interest in these distinctions (and therefore much concern for the buzzwords involved). So if you go to cook, you are not going to get a game that toes a party line I think. To me this isn't a problem. In fact, it is a bit refreshing to see him hint at this in some of his recent articles. He writes games that interest him, and doesn't seem too worried about pleasing the RPGsite, SA, GD or RPGnet delegations.

The reason people freak out about any sign of dissociated or similar kinds of things in Next, is because 4E was saturated with them. I can handle stuff like that in small doses, or where it might actually make a decent trade off for ease of play. For me it isn't, well that is dissociated or might impact immersion, so it is bad. I need to see the complete product to make a judgment and I prefer to make my judgment on a case by case basis.

Quote from: NumenaraThey also earn XP when the GM “intrudes” on the action of the game to introduce new complications.

Sounds FATEish, or "DoomPool-ey", definitely narrative, or as LadyBird said, metagamey.  Guess once you move to Seattle, you become absorbed into the Laws Narrative Collective.

Someone should tell Monte disabling right click doesn't stop someone from Copy and Pasting, or even getting to art -


See? Told you.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;569216But I have seen too many of these "what is so great about cook" threads at this stage, either you like him or you don't. Lately it seems lots of folks take this route to score easy internet points (not suggesting you are doing that here but he is a common target these days).

I think that Cook is one of the few designers to whom one can apply the word "author" - the way, for example, David Lynch is. I couldn't stand David Lynch, then I saw "Mulholland Drive" and "Eraserhead" in a double feature, and it become overnight one of my favourite directors. Why? I don't think one can really seek a rational answer, OTOH, people like Brett Ratner leave me completely indifferent.

Having said that, the "New Year in Times Square" way the Forgites saluted his departure from 5E is a sure hint that Cook did more good things than bad things in his career as a game designer.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569253Someone should tell Monte disabling right click doesn't stop someone from Copy and Pasting, or even getting to art -

He didn't disable it. The pic on the website is a link to where the main pic is. Just left-click the smaller pic on his website to go to the main pic, and then you can right-click and save.

*yawn*

I don't get the Monte-adulation.

And yet another sci-fantasy game? Yeah, there's an underserved market-segment screaming for attention.

The XP mechanic reminds me very much of WEG's D6, which worked just fine for years of play. Check out the 'favorite Star Wars' poll, for example.

Ill be checking it out. I don't think having a long history in RPGs (which Monte has) necessarily is a requirement to designing a good game, but Monte has had his hands all over some good games. I dont think he has anything he needs to prove, other than his new game convinces me to open my wallet.

One thing that seems a bit odd to me is the limited number of character classes.  When there are so few like this, it makes me think a game is being groomed for being used in a video game.