Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tsuchigumo550]

Action One: Set beacon on the first turn.

Action Two: Play for a bit before going back and stabbing everyone else who ever used a beacon ever

Action 3: Earliest Final Boss Ever

[mastahcheese]

That idea sounds almost exactly like the Prometheus mod for Unreal Tournament, where you are stuck in a level with a series of puzzle, and you move your guy around to flip levers and whatnot, and at the end of the time scale, time rewinds, you respawn about 5 feet to the left of where you first started, and you watch as your past self mimics everything and every action you did before. You then get to do this about 4 or 5 times, using your time-warp clones to solve challenges.

Only killing your past self doesn't cause a paradox in that mod, in fact, you have too at one point to keep your past self from tripping an alarm that you have to cross to get a computer code.

[freeformschooler]

Action One: Set beacon on the first turn.

Action Two: Play for a bit before going back and stabbing everyone else who ever used a beacon ever

Action 3: Earliest Final Boss Ever

I would hope that players aren't this evil and brilliant.

Oh, who am I kidding.

[Mr.Zero]

What makes an RTD to be considered 'successful' and how do the players feel after a RTD which they played went dark for a while and suddenly returned?

[Tarran]

Honestly, I don't think there's any official definition on "successful". As for an RTD returning, it's likely to be mixed.

[Unholy_Pariah]

What makes an RTD to be considered 'successful' and how do the players feel after a RTD which they played went dark for a while and suddenly returned?

Anything run by piecewise.
Ecstatic if its perplexicon.

Seriously though for an rtd to be successful it doesnt have to be in depth or have complicated mechanics, its just needs to be fun and well written.
As for rtds coming back, it all depends on the quality of the game and the gm, if the game sucks noones gonna care if it comes back. However if another gm takes the game over and meets the games potential through superior wordplay ability or fun new mechanics then people will swarm over it.

[Digital Hellhound]

It's successful if someone still remembers it after it's gone.

[Tarran]

So you're saying that it's impossible to remember horrible 1-turn RTDs one day after it's gone? Or are you saying that basically every RTD created is successful?

[freeformschooler]

So you're saying that it's impossible to remember horrible 1-turn RTDs one day after it's gone? Or are you saying that basically every RTD created is successful?

No one said either of those silly extremes.

[Nicholas1024]

Honestly, just replace "remembers" with "remembers fondly" and you've got it about right. If the readers/players enjoyed it, by all means continue.

Which reminds me, is anyone ever going to run another RP-heavy RTD like Dwarmin's fortress of blood?

[Tarran]

So you're saying that it's impossible to remember horrible 1-turn RTDs one day after it's gone? Or are you saying that basically every RTD created is successful?

No one said either of those silly extremes.

It's not what he said, it's what it can be interpreted as. Because I (genuinely) don't know about everyone else, but I can remember even really boring things for a uselessly long time. So those two extremes are legitimate possible interpretations of what he said, which is what I was getting at.

Which reminds me, is anyone ever going to run another RP-heavy RTD like Dwarmin's fortress of blood?

What about you if you like it so much?

[monk12]

I don't usually remember the bad/bland forum games more than a few weeks after the last post, at most. If I remember an RTD for any length of time, then it was either good, or it tried to do something interesting and it's riding around in my head, waiting for me to be inspired to work on it.

[mastahcheese]

Ok, so I've got an idea for a game.

Wizard's Chest

The way the game works is that it's like playing a board game, only instead of playing a board game, you play as wizards playing a board game, or rather, a series of board games.

The main idea behind it is that everybody has a deck of cards, say, 30 or so, that they use in these games. (The cards would work sort of like Magic: The Gathering, in that you have cards that summon monsters, cards that cast spells, and so on, but the actual game mechanics would be different.)
You don't start with a deck, rather, in the first game, a magical box called the Wizard's Chest is placed in the center of the table, and everybody draws from it, giving a random card each time. So one person might get a large amount of monsters, one might get a large amount of spells, or one might get some other type of card, like cards that let you build catapults and other static objects.

The object of the game changes with each round. In one game, you might have a linear path to a finish line, and the first person to summon a monster at the start and move it to the finish wins the round. In another, you might place all of your monsters down at the start and have a battle along a large game board, or other ideas entirely.

Each monster would give different bonuses, goblins might have higher speeds, dwarves higher defense, elves can move through forest without penalty, and so on.
There would be different terrain types that would help, hinder, or harm whoever lands on it.

After this first round, the cards you drew would form your deck that you use in the rest of the games. Naturally you could get more cards and trade with other players to customize it to your liking.

The actual Wizard you play as would also get their own powers that would work beyond the scope of the cards, since you're supposed to be actually sitting at a table with your wizard hat on, and likely cards up your sleeve.

I'm still thinking of ideas for this, because right now it sounds better in my head than written down.

[Dansmithers]

(possibly) New D6 system:

Basically, rolls are done on a D60, then divided by 10 and the one tenths digit is removed. The real beauty of the system is that bonuses are given to the D60 roll, not the D6 apparent roll, making +1 style bonuses flexible and balanced. Also, I believe this is easier than fudge dice or Bytantium's system.

Look for it in my next game: I haven't named the game yet.

[flabort]

I was thinking of designing a new die system, too, just for fun. If anyone feels like using this, go right ahead.
XdYdZ: Where Z is the character's skill level, Y is it's equipment bonuses, and X is the energy spent on it.
If 3 energy is gained per turn (And only a maximum of 5 can be stored), and without equipment Y is 1, and can go to 5 with really, really good equipment (generally 3), and finally the skill level ranges from 2 to 8:
The average of the first roll (XdY) should be derived from it's average variables: X should average 2.5, and Y should average 3. We know that the average of 1d3 is 2, 2d3 is 4, etc, so 2.5d3 should be 5. On average, XdY should be 5, though it can range all the way up to 5d5, with an average of 15 and maximum of 25. So, we have (1-5-25)dZ. Since Z ranges from 2 to 8, that average is 5 again. So the average roll should be 15, with some really high rolls on occasion and low ones slightly more commonly.

The equipment roll where no equipment is nessesary or needed (looking to the horizon for ships, general luck, or winning a chess match) should be the average, instead of the minimum: 3. For when Equipment is useful (blocking an attack, making an attack, or pole vaulting), it should start at 1, go to 2 for damaged equipment, 3 for average, 4 for very exceptional, and 5 for legendary equipment.

The difficulty values for actions may vary, but should be around 10. This should make most actions easy. For doubling the difficulty, a critical success should be achieved, and for tripling it an overshot should be produced. Failing is getting above half the difficulty but not reaching it, and fumbling is less than half. Of course opposed rolls exist, where the "difficulty" is your opponent's roll. This makes it so when one succeeds, the other fails - and when one crits, the other fumbles. And vice versa.
Of course, medium difficulty actions (stuff that may actually require skill, like taking apart a computer) that aren't an opposed roll are difficulty 20, a difficult one should be 40, and an impossible one 100; since the highest possible roll is 200, if you save up enough energy for it and maxed out your stat and have the best equipment, it's still possible to critically succeed on an impossible task - if you're extremely lucky.

As I said, feel free to use this if you're feeling gutsy. I actually have no intention of using this system.