Reposting the salient parts of a recent rMail...
V_V:
I think I'd like to clear up the what I didn't say, that I would have in a more expansive scope of conversation. I think I'd also like to know what both of your views on system purpose is to a game. This question, and my own answer to that question, I feel strays from the IC scope the mods require.
In short, I ask, and will answer here two related questions:
- What role does a game system play in a game?
- I think it's largely for three reasons. I find these roles have to be present, for me to enjoy the game, but they are almost always split in measure. I enjoy many mixtures to create new moods and thrills, but I think 1 part to five parts is about the most extreme diversty I'd see, especially if two of these elements are in one part and the third is in more than parts. To me that says "80% of this game is..." and "about 10% is...and 10% is..." It's too much and too little for me to have fun pbp for more than a few months. Here are the three roles system plays in games, for me. You may have more reasons, you may have more nuanced hierarchy that can't be numbered. This is just my view.
- Influence/Power/Mastery: I want to overcome the threats in the game, and ultimately prevail over the goals set for my character. If the game is "meant for the PCS to fail" then that's fine, as long as I and the other player know that. That isn't negating this, or making it moot; it just shifts that to the "real" goals. There are going to be things I want my character to struggle with the first time they try, or to know if they tried, they'd have no chance at succeeding. Over the course of the game I want my character to gain "points" or "experience" or what have you, to begin to complete, and ultimate complete those goals. An example of this, would be: If I need to defeat an army and claim foreign nation's seat of power. I might invest my "points" into my own army, and my ability to sway the populace to my propaganda. I might also invest in spies to infiltrate the nation. Finally, I might invest into travel ordinances to hostilely conquer the nation, and recreate it. A system helps measure milestones, and show progress in a quantitative way that is substantive. In games that have this is high measure the game is tactical both and tactile. I can think over strategy, as well as work with the model that is the world, and begin to manipulate it on many levels, macro to micro. In low measure, milestones are clear, and quite definitive but few and far between. My character might be leading rag tag squad in one post, and ten posts later, have amassed attalion of special operatives.
- Conflict Resolution" I don't want the quality of my posts in pbp and the GM's own mood at the time to be the major factor that decides whether a conflict is won or lost by my character. If my post is poor, or takes a poor action, that should impact my action; but if my character is far better represented than that should counter balance that ineptitude on my (V's) part. The same is true is a very talented writer is able to showboat, and thus gains the GM's favor, even if the GM doesn't realize it. In high measure, someone can describe their action so well it seems guaranteed, only to what they thought and what they did differed greatly. In low measure, a post that is well written can correct for poor stats. In both cases, the GM's fiat plays a part, but never is the sole arbiter of the action's effect. It keeps "fair play", a notion I highly adhere to. Otherwise it's just like as child, playing make believe. It breaks down to a "popularity game" and "mother may I?". I'm not fond of those games as an adult. I'm also not fond of games like snakes and ladders either.
- Purview Separation: A PC should be able to carve niche in the system, as I'm guessing serrasin was alluding to. In D&D, a fighter and a bard aren't going to step on each other's toes early on. While two clerics side by side could also work to have their own specialties and spells. In a game like BESM. If two characters were both werewolves, that might be fine, if one focused on regeneration, killer instinct (IIRC), jumping, and incurable attacks; while the other focused on armor, place of power, speed, flunkies, servant, and drain energy attacks, and vampiric attacks. In high measure, the system outright keeps the PCs as the same speed, and thus one that devotes to a path can never be "caught up" to by another player that changed lanes to the first player's path. The first player would be a master to the second, while the second would have certain secondary affinity the first had no competency in. An example would be a gunner versus a mechanic. The mechanic may later learn to use the artillery, and well, but the gunner will have more mastery, and maybe additional weapon options. While the mechanic may yet be able to "modify" a gun, or juryrig a gun to reload faster, or prevent it from overheating. In low measure, a lady's man would be more attractive and get more attention from women seeking his attention, while geeky mousey girl that started working on here appearance, would be awkward around that attention, even though she more physically attractive, but could always go online to find dating options. They may both, however, have very little but "Charisma" or levels of "Appearance", and have the same social class, income, military rank, and so on.
- What roles does the game system play in the "Mythical Gynoids Powered by Love"?
- I'll cite the previous numbers.
- It's got tankgirls in it. So being able to help develop tactical uses of the artillery and maybe new ammunition would be fun. Learning new modes of movement, flying, or mach speeds, or stealth modes, or sub-aqueous movement would be nice things. Maybe communications too, a radio that eventually becomes a VR set with tactile simulation, or ability to play music that stops when a message comes in. More resistance armor, or the ability to shift armor to one side when taking fire form only that side.
- I'd just hope more than a whim will make or break scenes. That no matter what we do, if we take the GM by surprise, and have some chance or success, we might eliminate conflicts that will be exciting, despite whatever may have been "planned" to go another way. I see no reason to "fight" if we have 0% chance to win, and it's just for show. It's also a waste of time for me to dump my writing talent into every action my character takes that I hope to succeed on. It's too tiring. Some things I simply want to be attempted pragmatically, and taking a shot in the dark isn't ever out of the question.
- even if MY character simply has brown eyes and brown hair. He may like hard rock, and prefers the top end. While another character has steel gray eyes and shaved clean. Which prefers rap and the back end. The Gynoids they pilot should, and probably will have the most definition. One might be heavy artillery, while the other might have small renew munitions for infantry, but have "just a few" high range mortars that that well outreach the first's typically long range, and even able to be shot over intervening barriers (as mortars do) that even anti-tank rounds the first has, can't penetrate.
That's my take. I'd like hear from you to. I don't want to pester you though. So feel free to reply, but don't feel obligated.
serrasin:
I will try to boil down my view as succinctly as possible: I see mechanics creating an underlying framework used to describe or negotiate conflict, growth, and differentiation of characters/setting/stuff. For example, I found the reduced rules within 7th Sea second edition lacking in some aspects because, despite the superb narrative mechanics, there was weak differentiation in fighting styles.
In regards to how this relates to Mythical Gynoids Powered by Love, I understand the girls to be a bit like Battle Angel Alita, or Ifurita or Kalia war dolls from El Hazard. That means they will be more powerful than humans, and each should be able to differentiate from one other. This means you have three sets of 'balance'. Human vs human, doll vs doll, and human vs doll. Clearly part of the balance will be that the dolls would be loyal/dependant/servant to the humans, but the doll players still need a certain amount of agency so that cannot be the sum total of the solution.
I'm not always the best at communicating my opinions; so much gets lost in conversion from internalized belief to English words that can be read by human eyeballs. So, forgive the probable contradictory rambling of what I am about to write.
In an ideal world, a game system adds a certain player/character synergy by forcing players to think in similar terms to their character while also focusing player thinking away from obviously bad ideas. In some game systems it also is meant to form an interesting framework for tactical wargaming style combat, although the workshopping I have done for this game so far has made me wonder if we as gamers sometimes place too much value on that aspect.
One of the things I have struggled with greatly with this game is that cassimi characters are not measured by traditional metrics. All cassimis have the same power: transform emotional tension into supernatural effects. Any cassimi can have virtually any super power. It doesn't make sense to rate their individual energy blasts or super strengths or flight speeds or whatever, because in theory they can all do that stuff equally well if they are properly motivated. Differentiating them by what they can do isn't the right approach, which is why BESM or M&M are such poor fits, and has been a challenge I have only recently begun to crack.
I am thinking that cassimis ought to be distinguished by traits that a cassimi would be concerned about: how doing things
feels. Cassimis could have affinities for certain feelings more so than others. Thus I hit upon the idea of using the Lantern Corps emotional color spectrum as a base. With this as a base, every cassimi can be defined by seven different extremes of emotion and each emotion is more fluent in creating certain effects. A naturally fearful cassimi may be good at hiding, running, and frightening others, but may not be so good at getting angry and utterly wrecking shit. Seven emotions makes for a very nicely shaped skill pyramid; one high, two medium, three low, and one utterly trash rating.
That works great for Fate but feels a little bit basic. Cortex offers the option of multiple traits, and I think the idea of having relationship traits for cassimis really shines there. A cassimi may just not be able to work herself up when she's acting to protect Leaders, but gets super motivated when Civilians are involved. A cassimi of a violent psychopath who joined the military just to kill may be a blood knight who works best when facing the Enemy.
Generating dice pools this way helps a cassimi player stay in their character's headspace by reminding them that Emotions and Relationships matter most to their performance. Human players, on the other hand, have to remain a little more grounded in reality by considering their Skills and such. In this way, a human player and their cassimi partner can have similar motivations but almost necessarily have wildly different ways of approaching the same problem.
As for the challenges players might encounter in scenes... I'm thinking that I might break away from tradition even more here by shying away from the tactical combat we as gamers like so much. Instead I'll have various crisis points going on throughout a city. Different areas being threatened by enemy forces, fires, and other nasty things, and characters have to deal with those. Maybe enemy forces are obstructing fire fighting efforts, but engaging in combat carries the risk of making things even worse, and even success doesn't mean the fire isn't spreading in the meantime. It would be a game of figuring out what areas matter most and whose abilities benefit them the most.
I'm thinking that "combat" might become so depreciated or abstract that I can do away entirely with the concepts of stress and hit points; a bad roll means your squad gets pushed back and the crisis in an area worsens or degrades beyond salvaging, rather than a character themselves coming to harm. Cassimis are virtually indestructible and the worst thing that can be done to hurt them would be to deplete the energy they would prefer to use to fight crises. I think cassimis and humans could both have resource dice instead of hit points; for cassimis it represents their energy reserves, and for humans how many squadmates and ammunition and other mundane means of war they have left. This effectively puts each human PC in command of a small squad, which I think could be a neat idea... but it could also interfere with the notion that they are this unique special soldier who was uniquely qualified to command a cassimi? I'm still working on this idea!
