GA wide RPG? Ideas welcome!

[Daithi]

I love Rpg granted I was never in on the ground floor of them, but I love playing them.  Took a lot of flack from family and friends, but my daughter got me hooked and even after she quit playing I continued. But I got to tell you the games were fun but it was the interaction of the friends and players that made it awesome. Put my name in the bucket I will help any way I can.

[Former Member]

Thanks Daithi!  Will do!

[Persinette]

If people are up for it, do we want to decide on a setting and have me and Myiege do a test run as Primary Mod and Secondary Mod?

 

And if the answer is yes, then I reckon it's time to work on gathering together what ideas people have, pick one Myiege and I agree we think we can run, and then start looking into a subforum.

 

 

Edited: Oh, and start proposing rules and guidelines for things like character creation - maybe something to do with having points you buy character stuff with? Like, every character starts with thirty points and, say, 5 points in combat/looks/intelligence/etc, then they spend points to raise any of those. So nobody can declare that their character is a supermodel ninja genius.

 

(That's only a rough idea of course, and it would be a very simple system because this isn't fricking GURPS.)

Edited August 20, 2013 by Persinette

[Former Member]

Good ideas, but I think 2 primaries would be better than a primary and secondary, so no one holds more power over the other person, ya know?  I'd be up for a run and I may be able to whip up a character development worksheet by tomorrow evening or something (I still have to finish my antho! ><*).  As for the points for combat and things, how would that legit work?  We're doing this over forum, so if we were to roll for hits in combat, how would that work?  There wouldn't be anything to prevent people from faking a roll.  Unless the GM rolled.  And what the GM says goes, ya know?  That could work.

 

I do like this point system though.  It will prevent people from turning into mary sues (though as mostly authors and avid readers, I think we can all handle the creation of a good character!).

 

And how would a run go?  This is a first for me, but I am so excited about this!  Whee!

[clumber]

Good ideas, but I think 2 primaries would be better than a primary and secondary, so no one holds more power over the other person, ya know?  I'd be up for a run and I may be able to whip up a character development worksheet by tomorrow evening or something (I still have to finish my antho! ><*).  As for the points for combat and things, how would that legit work?  We're doing this over forum, so if we were to roll for hits in combat, how would that work?  There wouldn't be anything to prevent people from faking a roll.  Unless the GM rolled.  And what the GM says goes, ya know?  That could work.

 

I do like this point system though.  It will prevent people from turning into mary sues (though as mostly authors and avid readers, I think we can all handle the creation of a good character!).

 

And how would a run go?  This is a first for me, but I am so excited about this!  Whee!

 

 

I think, if there are 2 Primary GMs, then neither should be allowed to play. The point of the Primary GM / Secondary GM split is to give final deciding power to the P-GM in order to allow the S-GM(s) to play characters within the game as well.

 

It means that if, for example, an S-GM and a regular player have their characters get into a fight with each other and can't (peaceably) decide which character wins, the P-GM looks it over, listens to both of them and makes the decision. But in that scenario, the P-GM can't be allowed to have a character of their own because, well...

 

Their character is friends with one of the two characters involved/enemies with one of the characters involved/has interacted with one character and not the other, or a whole host of other things that bias the situation. The reason to have a P-GM who is - in a way that would only effect certain circumstances - a step above the S-GMs is so that the S-GMs can't end up riding roughshod over the players without intending to. Basically, it's to help keep S-GM characters from getting special treatment.

 

In terms of deciding what plots to run, making moderating decisions, etc. the P-GMs and the S-GMs would be on the same power level. It'd only come up either A: when a decision needs to made pertaining to a S-GMs' character, or B: making sure that S-GMs don't (subconsiously) push for running plots which would be most fun for them to play in, rather than focusing on the wider playerbase.

 

 

Basically, they would be equal in almost all areas of running the game, but the P-GM takes over in circumstances involving the S-GMs character in order to allow the S-GM to play. One of them would have to not play, because otherwise there is the risk that a situation could involve both characters, thus breaking the defence against bias.

 

Outside of those circumstances, they just work on a shared level.

 

 

(Basically, the P-GM gives up their right to play so that the S-GMs can.)

 

 

Martin

[Former Member]

Agreed.  If I were to be PGM, then I wouldn't have a character.  I got that, no worries

 

But in all honesty, though I love the S-GM idea, I think it would be better if there weren't very many of them.  Right now I feel like we're dangerously close to creating a caste system and that may turn people away.  So, I personally, vote for two PGMs who are completely equal and can deal with everything and anything, and try not to lean to close to having tiers of players.

 

Just my two cents.

[Sasha Distan]

the difficult thing is that every player character has to be "worth" the same as every other player character. i doubt that any author is really willing to be considered a "sidekick"

 

i do not envy you your task ahead my dears. but i look forwards to playing in it.

[Persinette]

Agreed.  If I were to be PGM, then I wouldn't have a character.  I got that, no worries

 

But in all honesty, though I love the S-GM idea, I think it would be better if there weren't very many of them.  Right now I feel like we're dangerously close to creating a caste system and that may turn people away.  So, I personally, vote for two PGMs who are completely equal and can deal with everything and anything, and try not to lean to close to having tiers of players.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Oh, if you're happy to not play a character right now, then that works great!

 

I was thinking that if no-one objects to us trying things out as moderators, then we pick a setting - preferably with player input! - and make up character forms, draw up some prospective rules to test out, then ask about a subforum to run it in. Does that sound good to you?

 

(I do think it's worth keeping an S-GM system in mind for the future, though, if the RPG gets off the ground and becomes popular. So there can be enough GMs to keep it running, but not all of them have to give up the fun of playing a character. )

 

the difficult thing is that every player character has to be "worth" the same as every other player character. i doubt that any author is really willing to be considered a "sidekick"

 

i do not envy you your task ahead my dears. but i look forwards to playing in it.

 

Yeah, I admit I'm forseeing a problem where people keep trying to play their character like s/he's the lead and everyone else is a sidekick. Which, of course, doesn't work because everyone's the lead in an RPG. Players gotta be willing to not demand all eyes on them at all times.

[Former Member]

Sounds good to me!  So.  Player input about setting?  GO!  In the meantime I will draft and or steal and conglomerate a whole bunch of ideas for a character work sheet!

[AnimalMorph]

It seems to me that the mechanic of this uh... What did you call this, game? Roleplaying?... Haven't been decided yet. I can only hope that the mechanic and rules wouldn't be so complicated and confusing. Like, an assignment of points? I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think that concept is applicable in a writer's world.

 

>>>

Instead, I suggest the concept of powers and setback (weaknesses). Each character may have up to one power or expertise over weapons. Each power should have a weaknesses, or a special condition to activate it. In other words, the greater the power he wields the worse it's setback. GM may deny the character's powers to exist if he feels the setback still not in balance with the power.

 

An easy example is like this, my MC is a master archer. His arrow flies swift and true with incredible accuracy. He can kill any lone person in a single shot with relative ease, assuming that he is in a complete stealth when he shot the arrows, that is. Just in case something goes horribly wrong, he had an extra hidden dagger in the backside of his boots. His weakness, is when threatened in close combat against a greatsword or a warhammer, his dagger and his bow is of little to no use. The biggest disadvantage though, is when he ran out of arrows. An archer without an arrow is but an ordinary man.

 

>>>

Next thing I'd like to ask is the role of the Villain. Who's gonna play this role? Surely not everyone thinking to be heroes? -laugh-

 

>>>

The whole world basic setting needs to come from the GM itself. I see that Miege is the GM now (or soon to be), then let me ask you, what kind of world did you want to create? Create the basic world first, and then ask for input and suggestion after. Did you want a medieval era, with swords and bows? Or the present era, with guns and pistols? Or the future era, with cybernetics tech and nano implants? How can we give a suggestion when even the basic has not been created?

 

I still have a few question and input in mind, but I'll hold it for now and wait for this reply to be answered first.

Oh, and if any of you disagree with the point I mentioned above, feel free to throw an argument.

It's what makes the thread alive, after all.

Edited August 21, 2013 by AnimalMorph

[clumber]

 

>>>

Instead, I suggest the concept of powers and setback...     ...the power.

 

 

..... But what you just described is a points-based system. You didn't apply specific numbers, but the actual concept and mechanics of it are exactly the same.

 

 

The whole world basic setting needs to come from the GM itself. I see that Miege is the GM now (or soon to be), then let me ask you, what kind of world did you want to create? Create the basic world first, and then ask for input and suggestion after. Did you want a medieval era, with swords and bows? Or the present era, with guns and pistols? Or the future era, with cybernetics tech and nano implants? How can we give a suggestion when even the basic has not been created?

 

 

I might be wrong but.... I thought people had agreed on Space Pirates as the basic theme?

 

Martin

[Persinette]

It seems to me that the mechanic of this uh... What did you call this, game? Roleplaying?... Haven't been decided yet. I can only hope that the mechanic and rules wouldn't be so complicated and confusing. Like, an assignment of points? I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think that concept is applicable in a writer's world.

 

The mechanics will probably be very basic - almost entirely writing based. My character sidles up to yours, leans on the bar and asks him/her to buy him a drink. Then your character tells mine to piss off because he's an opportunistic little floozy. No numbers involved.

 

The possibility of a points system was to make sure that, when it came to the most basic elements of character creation, players couldn't create giant Mary-Sues. If every character starts as average-looking, average-intelligence, and with average-strength/dexterity/endurance, and there is a limited amount to 'spend' on making them prettier/smarter/stronger, you can't create a stunningly-beautiful genius who lifts cars one-handed.

 

Instead, I suggest the concept of powers and setback (weaknesses). Each character may have up to one power or expertise over weapons. Each power should have a weaknesses, or a special condition to activate it. In other words, the greater the power he wields the worse it's setback. GM may deny the character's powers to exist if he feels the setback still not in balance with the power.

 

An easy example is like this, my MC is a master archer. His arrow flies swift and true with incredible accuracy. He can kill any lone person in a single shot with relative ease, assuming that he is in a complete stealth when he shot the arrows, that is. Just in case something goes horribly wrong, he had an extra hidden dagger in the backside of his boots. His weakness, is when threatened in close combat against a greatsword or a warhammer, his dagger and his bow is of little to no use. The biggest disadvantage though, is when he ran out of arrows. An archer without an arrow is but an ordinary man.

 

Myiege and I have talked a little about characters having Skills which cost them, but we haven't extensively discussed it yet. Currently our thoughts were a little along the lines of players being able to 'earn' points which they could use to 'buy' things like Skills, but that's for when people have been playing a while, not character creation. We need to discuss the best way of giving players abilities without letting them get overpowered.

 

The issue with focusing on powers or weapons is that there's a good chance this game won't primarily focus on combat. People wanting things like their character being a good pickpocket doesn't fit into a powers/weapons-based ability system.

 

Next thing I'd like to ask is the role of the Villain. Who's gonna play this role? Surely not everyone thinking to be heroes? -laugh-

 

As we don't yet have a plot decided on, we don't know what there will be in the way of villains. For example: If there were enough players, we might end up setting up factions so that people can squabble between them. Or if there weren't enough players for that, we might create a law enforement group trying to take down the spacestation and play them ourselves - not as characters, but as an NPC (Non-Player Character) threat.

 

We haven't got to the point of working out what the game will need, yet, though. It's still in the very early stages of planning.

 

The whole world basic setting needs to come from the GM itself. I see that Miege is the GM now (or soon to be), then let me ask you, what kind of world did you want to create? Create the basic world first, and then ask for input and suggestion after. Did you want a medieval era, with swords and bows? Or the present era, with guns and pistols? Or the future era, with cybernetics tech and nano implants? How can we give a suggestion when even the basic has not been created?

 

GMs.

 

Because the only idea a few people have said sounds cool is Space Pirates, that's the road we're currently going down. Once we've ironed out a few more kinks, it'll get posted for everyone to give their opinion on.

 

But we were previously asking what people were interested in as a setting because it felt rude to say 'this is the dream thing I want to run, if you want anything else, tough luck'. I know I, at least, was hoping for people to discuss options between themselves.

 

If you have any more questions, I'll be happy to answer them - at least until I go to bed!

[Former Member]

The other thing I wanted to add about this point based system is that there has to be room for growth as well.  Your example of a master archer...that's at the beginning of the game!  Where else is he going to go if he starts out being able to do all of those things?  Sure he could have an epic backstory about how he trained from a young age and everything, but during the whole campaign, if there isn't anything to work toward, he will becomes quite static in that particular area.  Persinette and I talked about using 'XP' as currency to upgrade certain stats, but please remember we're still in the planning phase.

 

To be honest, I'm actually glad we got this out in the open.  Potential players!  What do you think?   feedback appreciated.  We want this to be a good experience for everyone involved, so player feedback is really important!

[AnimalMorph]

I see the point of having points and status kind of thing is to prevent overpowered characters and the marry-sue-issues (what the heck is this anyway?).

-nodding to myself-

 

When I think about it some more, it's actually kind of brilliant, though it sounds a bit complicated.

 

Whaaaat? Since when did we agree the theme sets into space pirate?

Well, not that I'm complaining. It's just that my list of vocabulary regarding future world theme is kind of low.

Guess I have to take a look at my collection of "outer space" stories more often then. :3

That and re-playing Mass Effect just to get the feeling and inspiration.

 

>>> How about that sub-forum thing? Have you asked admin about it?

 

>>> Shouldn't we compile a list of player who's interested in participating?

 

>>> Can't we take a vote or something regarding the setting? Just to make it official and non-disputable in the future.

 

>>> What if when this "game" is running (the setting complete, plot laid out, writer's turn decided, characters created, etc) and suddenly someone interested and want to join the game? Could he?

 

And that all there is to it from me! ...For now anyway.

As always feedback and comments are greatly appreciated.

 

Side Note: Do any of you have a link where this kind of "roleplay using point of exp" have been done before? If we have an example, it might make the GMs work that much easier.

 

 

 

[Former Member]

1) I have asked an admin about the subforum thing.  However.  I am not willing to ask an admin to create a subforum until we are 110% sure we are going to do this.  There's no point in making unnecessary work for our already hard working admins.  They are really busy as it is and I'd really hate to burden them with something that may not even pan out.

 

2) I am trying to compile a potential player list right now, but no one has actually stepped up (besides Clumber) and said that they are willing to play, so it's kind of difficult.  I'd be happy to add you to the list though.

 

3) It's rather hard to vote on something when no alternatives have been given, lol.  On the Story by Authors thread, someone brought up space pirates and a few other people seconded it, so that's where we are right now.

 

4) of course there will be room to add more players even after we start.  That's part of the fun.  New elements coming in at all times.  This is not going to be a closed game.

 

In short, we (the GMs) are still working out how we want things to be, before we take it to the players for approval/consideration/modification.  Have no fear, we are not sitting by idle.

[Sasha Distan]

*steps up*

[thebrinkoftime]

I've been reading this thread over the past few days, while I'm not sure I want to participate, two things came to mind as suggestions:

 

1) The talk about skills and points and such would, if I were interested in playing, kind of dampen my enthusiasm for joining. Reason being that there are dozens upon dozens of options, both table top, net-based and digital if I want that and I wouldn't think a forum-based anything here would compete. On the other hand, the obvious advantage of an RPG on a reader/writer's forum is that it can be very flexible in a way that games that use math can't be.

 

So my suggestion would be to ditch the conventional idea of points and growth and try for an adjective based system. So, for example, you give each new player three adjectives to describe their character. They can choose to be an extremely smart and lithe bounty hunter, where extremely, smart and lithe are the three adjectives and they chose to sacrifice one adjective to modify the strength of another. Or a boisterous, hot, lecherous assassin, or an emotionally enlightened and sophisticated dilettante.

 

Somebody in the game, maybe the DMs? PMs? Whatever you call them, maybe them, maybe some other member who shares the responsibility, keeps track of these attributes for each character. Furthermore, somebody can award an extra adjective to a player who has contributed something particularly well-written, creative, cooperative or otherwise provided an excellent addition to the community. This would be presented not based on any reliable metric, but vaguely awarded when applicable to help motivate people to give their best effort for the game. So the boisterous, hot, lecherous assassin can become a boisterous, uberhot, lecherous assassin or a boisterous, hot, lecherous, flexible assassin, or a boisterious, hot, lecherous assassin skilled at knifework.

 

Something like that might easily go well with forum tags or signatures to remind other players really easily about what the other players are like and allow new players to enter and understand what's going on more quickly.

 

Last, there would also be somebody, maybe the same people who manage everything else, maybe not, who can work in the opposite direction. That is, this person can take away an adjective from a character and perhaps does so at regular intervals to keep the narrative spicy. Stolen adjectives can be won back (i.e. the person in charge says, "Sasha Distan - proficiency at wolf transformation taken away by curse from the Wolf Gods," and that proficiency can be won back by Sasha Distan creating a narrative -- that maybe other characters can help should they choose to -- that sees the removal of the curse). Not sure if you would want this to be approved by some official or not. Or maybe stolen adjectives can also be replaced with new ones (maybe the lecherous assassin can become a monogamous assassin), by doing the same type of thing. And perhaps characters who have more adjectives or more extreme adjectives (incredibly > extremely > really > very and so on) get picked for stolen adjectives more often than characters who do not.

 

Anyway, I'm not saying it should work like that, but something a little more easily trackable, fluid and less typically like every other RPG I've heard of, would make me prick up my ears.

 

2) I think you should either keep very heavy limits or completely ban the idea of using terminology akin to "like _____" where the blank is a copyrighted or otherwise well-known piece of entertainment meant for comparison. Not just in the RPG proper but the discussion of it. I think this only because it seems like a lot of potential players would be put off instantly if they saw discussion revolving "like so-and-so" no matter what the context. Also because if you're arguing about the rules, you ought to be using a level of expression that does not rely on easy comparisons and can forge through the abstract waters without them; I think active thought like this which cannot fall into easy definitions, and benefits the game being discussed.

[Former Member]

1a) Your suggestion about an adjective based system is very interesting and unique.  However, the one problem I automatically saw when I read this was the idea that we are writers and epic readers and editors on this site.  Being restrained to only three adjectives seems like being backed into a corner when it comes to writing.  To me it sounds static and hard to conform to.  Characters in any form of creative expression need room to grow, not only in experience (in terms of gaming), but personalities as well.  Would there be an option of altering these adjectives as different story objectives and events arise?  How does your lecherous assassin deal with suddenly falling in love or losing his best friend?  It just doesn't seem plausible and I think it would be very hard to achieve spontaneity when a character is limited to BEING a certain stereotype, for lack of a better term.  Not to mention that certain adjectives are relative.  What I think is smart is not what my best friend thinks is smart.  You know what I mean?  With the point system, there leaves room for personality quirks whereas a steady, concrete adjective seems kind of cut and dry, as well as providing a numerical BASELINE that leaves no room for relativity.  A ten is a ten and a three is a three.  I did ABSOLUTELY love your suggestion of a profession though!

 

Your idea of adding adjectives as a form of growth does have merit, but where do they stop?  Are we going to have 10-adjective players running around, looking for an 11th?  And at the same time, your idea about writing a compelling narrative to achieve an additional adjective is also incredibly interesting.  However, will the GMs determine what is and what is a good narrative?  I, personally, think it would be very difficult to be objective on the subject.  GM1 doesn't like Player A's writing style.  And yes, GM1 is supposed to be objective, but how easy is it to be objective when you can't STAND the way someone else writes?  You are never going to be able to objectively determine whether someone has a 'good' narrative without having a mass vote between GMs.  At this time, we aren't really anticipating a high  initial player turn out.  Having a council type thing of GMs for a handful of players isn't going to be plausible unless we get WELL over our current number of...maybe 3.

 

1b) Additionally, I think that your idea about the removal of an adjective is interesting as well.  However, when/how will it be deemed TO remove an adjective?  As a fluid environment, is there really such a thing as a wrong move?  And then there's the circumstance of your first example: extremely smart and lithe bounty hunter.  They would obviously have to sacrifice the lithe, or the extremely smart.  Or would they just remove the extremely and become a 'smart and lithe' bounty hunter.  Once again, the terms are all relative.  The idea of having a campaign to remove the curse from our resident alpha wolf is certainly a great idea, but I, for one, would rather that be a random affliction that is more story based than a punishment.  Know what I mean?  That would make a good story, but not quite a punishment.

 

2) As this has never been attempted before on GA (that I know of), it's really very hard trying to explain yourself in all new terms.  People are familiar with the like _____ terms.  They know how it works and it makes things easier to visualize.  I know where you're coming from though.  I don't want to build up expectations or anything.  I get that.  But at the same time, using familiarity is probably the best way to get people on board right now.  If we just go off and are like "well it's going to be like this and do that" we run the risk of confusing people really badly.  But using a widely recognized system, I think it will put potential players in a more comfortable position.  They will know exactly how things work and exactly how things are going to run.

 

Thanks for speaking up!  You've brought a lot of good points to the table!  Unfortunately, as a first time attempt, it's difficult to make a brand new system.  Sorry things didn't really grab your attention.

[Persinette]

1) The talk about skills and points and such would, if I were interested in playing, kind of dampen my enthusiasm for joining. Reason being that there are dozens upon dozens of options, both table top, net-based and digital if I want that and I wouldn't think a forum-based anything here would compete. On the other hand, the obvious advantage of an RPG on a reader/writer's forum is that it can be very flexible in a way that games that use math can't be.

 

Just in case it's not clear:

 

The game would not use numbers on a day-to-day basis, so to speak. They would be constrained almost entirely to character creation, and breaking the occasional stalemate where two (or three, or whatever) players are refusing to come to an agreement between themselves. Basically, for when Player A and Player B are both equally determined that this character wins this fistfight.

 

 

So my suggestion would be to ditch the conventional idea of points and growth and try for an adjective based system. So, for example, you give each new player three adjectives to describe their character. They can choose to be an extremely smart and lithe bounty hunter, where extremely, smart and lithe are the three adjectives and they chose to sacrifice one adjective to modify the strength of another. Or a boisterous, hot, lecherous assassin, or an emotionally enlightened and sophisticated dilettante.

 

Somebody in the game, maybe the DMs? PMs? Whatever you call them, maybe them, maybe some other member who shares the responsibility, keeps track of these attributes for each character. Furthermore, somebody can award an extra adjective to a player who has contributed something particularly well-written, creative, cooperative or otherwise provided an excellent addition to the community. This would be presented not based on any reliable metric, but vaguely awarded when applicable to help motivate people to give their best effort for the game. So the boisterous, hot, lecherous assassin can become a boisterous, uberhot, lecherous assassin or a boisterous, hot, lecherous, flexible assassin, or a boisterious, hot, lecherous assassin skilled at knifework.

 

I'll freely admit that points and skills are not exciting. They're not new. But they work. They work to help keep characters balanced during creation, and to ensure they all have strengths and weaknesses. Under a three-adjective system characters have no checks on being ungodly Mary-Sues - Beautiful, Genius, Unstoppable Bounty Hunter - but it does put checks on them being complex. You can describe your character as a Enthusiastic, Clumsy, Short Ensign, because you want to play a fresh-faced, starry-eyed kid, but you're now stuck with that. In order to get your character in there, you've sacrified your character having any skills at anything until you can earn the attention of a GM, who gifts you with a new adjective. At which point you have to decide which is more important to you: finally getting a skill, or adding, say, 'Brave' because your character's been developing in that time.

 

It would very easily result in a situation which rewarded the powerplayer and punished the good player. With the points-based system, however, the player can put Clumsy down as one of their Disadvantages, and have several Skills. Their height goes under describing how they look. And because there is, with what we're currently considering, going to be a character description written by the player, Enthusiastic goes in there.

 

 

Last, there would also be somebody, maybe the same people who manage everything else, maybe not, who can work in the opposite direction. That is, this person can take away an adjective from a character and perhaps does so at regular intervals to keep the narrative spicy. Stolen adjectives can be won back (i.e. the person in charge says, "Sasha Distan - proficiency at wolf transformation taken away by curse from the Wolf Gods," and that proficiency can be won back by Sasha Distan creating a narrative -- that maybe other characters can help should they choose to -- that sees the removal of the curse). Not sure if you would want this to be approved by some official or not. Or maybe stolen adjectives can also be replaced with new ones (maybe the lecherous assassin can become a monogamous assassin), by doing the same type of thing. And perhaps characters who have more adjectives or more extreme adjectives (incredibly > extremely > really > very and so on) get picked for stolen adjectives more often than characters who do not.

 

 

This, I admit, I outright disagree with. Allowing a GM to take an intrinsic character trait away from a character is asking for trouble, and an absolute disaster for characterisation. Why does the Lecherous Assassin become a Monogamous Assassin? Does she meet that special someone? Is she being mind-controlled? Has the station had a recent outbreak of the clap?

 

Taking stuff away from players like that is a very good way to make players feel bitter and/or targeted. Why is their character now a completely different person? Why is their character less boisterous? Why has he suddenly lost the ability to fire a gun? In my experience as a tabletop player, doing that sort of thing to players is almost a sure-fire way to kick off truly staggering amounts of resentment - and not just with the player you just took a trait from. If the Lecherous Assassin is having flings with three other PCs, those players aren't gonna be happy that they've lost whatever plots they were building towards there And so on and so forth.

[AnimalMorph]

I am willing to play. There. I said it. Put me on the list or else...!

 

>>>

Anyway, I think the idea of GM's taking an intrinsic character trait should be allowed WITH the author's permission of course. If that particular author doesn't like the idea then it shouldn't be done. That's it. IF the author says NO then it's a no, no matter what. If the author says YES though, for whatever reason he/she may have, I'll be sure to help him/her regain his/her lost trait back, as a fellow player.

 

That GM needs to have a very good reason to do that because, as you said, it has the very potential of destroying characterization and make the author feel cheated. GM also needs to know that this action, while it IS possible, is often frowned upon and should not be done often. Perhaps it would be better if it isn't done at all, to avoid unwanted situation.

 

>>>

Yep, we definitely SHOULD make a vote. It's just the basics worlds after all. The addition can be freely added sometime later when a suggestion from potential player pop up. The choice is as follows, Fantasy RP (Role-Playing), Sci-Fi RP, or Real-World RP. How is that for suggestion?

 

I personally prefer the Fantasy RP in medieval era with bows and swords (and magic) but that's just me. Why, you ask? Because... Well, I have my own reasons. I'm not telling you! Nah just kidding, I have no grand reason I simply love that kind of world.

 

I'm not saying we should do it right away. Perhaps this is best done after the list of player had been made.

 

>>>

I might be wrong but I assume that the point/exp system is still in progress, right? This needs to be discussed and finalized ASAP. It's the core of the character creation after all, which plays heavy part in the beginning of the game. I'm gonna search around the web to look for an info that might help with this issue.

 

>>>

Edit: Already done some researching. Here is the result. Hope this helps.

 

Two of the best RP sites, named Valucre and Coloholics, both implement neither point based nor exp based system. So how to prevent over-powered character and giant-marry-sue issues?

 

Well, in Coloholic's site, the player who wanted to participate in RP needs to submit his/her character template for approval by the mods of the thread. If the mods find that player character's template have godly power, or "too perfect" of a character then the approval will not be given and the player will be told the reason and be encouraged to try again.

 

In Valucre, the character's templates are not required (except for a spesific RP) and thus they are not subject to approval for play but they do have a Profile Database to help other player keep track of all the characters in active RP.

 

They do not have specific rule to prevent godly character and marry-sue issues but they have common terms for it. It is called Godmodding (Also known as "powergaming". When a character is capable of performing feats without limit or boundary, has an answer for every obstacle or has no weaknesses. Otherwise used to define any action or method that transcends the prescribed ruleset or goes beyond the limits or environment of the site) and Metagaming (Metagaming is when you take information you know as the reader and apply it to an in-character action, despite there being a lack of grounds for your character to know what you as the reader do).

 

The mods in Valucre forum encourage player not to do any of the two terms above. If they somehow find, or perhaps receive a report that someone does it, I don't know what they will do. Perhaps they warn that particular player and deny his post until it is re-written but I honestly don't know.

 

>>>

Say, I already envisioned my characters to be close-inseparable brothers with 1 year age difference but I got the feeling that one author only allowed for 1 character. I hate to dump either one of them. Anyone have a solution to my dilemma?

Edited August 22, 2013 by AnimalMorph

[Dolores Esteban]

I would like to roleplay, but I'm not familiar with Space Pirates and I won't be around in September for ten days. So, well, I'm not sure I can participate.

 

The adjective system doesn't appeal to me much, the point system neither, but I could live with the latter. I'd also prefer a historical setting.

 

I could imagine I want to play a villain, not a bomb-throwing manic, but a character nice on the outside yet with bad intentions. His hidden malicious intent was caused by some traumatic experience in the past. Here lies his weakness.

 

To make the play more interesting, the mods could give the players individual subgoals or subtasks that the others do not know of.

[Persinette]

I don't want to make any statements about most of these questions until I've had a chance to talk to Myiege, but I can say a few of my opinions straight-off.

 

AnimalMorph:

 

We'll make sure to save you a place!

 

if people are okay with having to submit characters for approval, I would be perfectly happy to run with that instead of a points system. I don't know Myiege's opinion, though, and she might have some thoughts about it which haven't occured to me. But I can say for myself that I don't mind either way.

 

Delores:

 

I can't see why you being gone for part of September would stop you from playing! You'd be welcome to sign up after you came back, but you could also sign up before, let us know when you need to be gone, and we'll come up with a reason for why your character isn't for a while. So long as he or she isn't intrinsic to any plots at the time - so no other players are stuck because they need your character - it should be just fine.

[Former Member]

Mod approval of characters sounds like a great idea, to be honest. I think the reason we were leaning toward a point system was to Axe the idea of relativity between what I think is hot and what others are hot. Numbers don't lie, lol. But character approval could work.

 

I'm really glad animalmorph brought up metagaming as well. That would make Dolores's villain idea much more plausible. And I really think having a not quite hero is a REALLY good idea. Sabotasge and all that.

[scotty94]

since this came from my idea at first I should get special treatment, only joking . if this project dose develop wings and take off I am so in please let me be a bad guy. I have a wicked character in my head and a few shockers as well, this seems like a great idea and I am willing to participate. and I am glad my idea created and even bigger idea update please and hopefully I can bring my villain to life with words. 

[Former Member]

LOL Scotty.  Well, for starters, why don't you give your opinion on what setting we should play in?  It started with space pirates, but both Dolores and Animalmorph would prefer some medieval-ness.  I personally have no preference.  I think both would be cool.