On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:15:12 PM UTC-6, matt conlon wrote:
That said, you open with the design philosophy of changing as little as possible, then describe what feels almost like a ground up rewrite of things. I realize your goal is to create a uniform application of the core rules across all elements of chargen, however for my purposes you've unnecessarily complicated "simple" character concepts like Kung Fu Kid.
Fair enough. That card probably ought to say "Change as little as is necessary," the implication being that there are worthwhile goals to achieve that might justify backward-compatibility breakage. THAT said, this is exactly the kind of feedback I want. My experience has been that there are certain core concepts in WT that new players tend to have a hard time wrapping their heads around. Philosophically, if we could smooth those out without damaging the inherent charms of the game, that would be a big win. Note how important I think that is: I italicized it :-)
The reason i came up with for why hyper skills are so high in the design hierarchy is because they serve as a simple shortcut to "guy who is awesome at one thing." Same for hyper stats.Another telling element (to me specifically) was the comment you made regarding one player having an advantage over another because system mastery would result in a more efficient character. That's one of my triggers/hot buttons.
I sidestep that problem by building characters based on the descriptions players give me (from "speedster" to "All Fiction User"). Then All characters are built with the same tight design philosophy, the players only need to know how many dice to roll and how to explain their sets, because their powers all do exactly what they wanted. They tell me how they want to expand, I tell them how much XP it costs and when they save enough they let me know and ta-da, good to go.I know my solution isn't everyone's but "pvp" concerns are meaningless (to me) and it's on the GM to explain why the FUCK Batman is running with Supes and the Flash.
I hear you, and I recognize that the deliberate design decision of not embracing the notion of "balance" too firmly is something that a lot of WT players like. My group, OTOH, gets very frustrated by these kinds of issues. My thinking here is that eliminating some of the special cases doesn't necessarily hurt your audience, while possibly making the game more accessible to mine.
I do however like the "Hard Dice Action" Concept which does cover a sometimes gaping hole in the rules and will test it in my next game.
I figured that one would be one of the more easily harvestable concepts. Been thinking I might change the name of that, though. "Hard Dice Action" is a real mouthful.
Keep up the good work.
Well, good feedback certainly inspires me to want to keep hacking at it. Thanks!
TK
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cult of ORE" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cult-of-ore+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cult-of-ore@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cult-of-ore?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment