|
Post by Skiv on Jun 21, 2005 21:26:02 GMT -5
I think EXP should be based on the character. IE how rich they are (So how many lessons/weapons they could have had), age, physical ness ness, job, etc... And just their general life. Sheltered nobels wouldn't know how to use a knife as well as say, a thief.
|
|
|
Post by David the Knight of Night on Jun 21, 2005 21:30:18 GMT -5
Yeah, that makes sense. Which is why I think that there needs to be a board of characters where someone can keep track of lessons, weapons, training, money, ect. without the chance of someone beefing up their own character.
|
|
|
Post by Skiv on Jun 21, 2005 21:31:58 GMT -5
Exactly, and I swear if someone has one of those "Best at <insert weapon>" characters... I'll shoot 'em.
|
|
|
Post by Lecky on Jun 21, 2005 22:40:05 GMT -5
Here we go again. Furball gave me more to talk about. // Evil: 1-10, 1 being evilest, and Good: 1-10 one being goodest. //
There is a way of tracking this without being all good or all evil. It’s a system of neutrality and has stats like: Holy, Good, Chaotic Good, Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Evil, Chaotic Evil, Absolution It goes something like that with a lot more steps and explanations. I’m not going to explain exactly what each step means partially because I don’t have a lot of time and partially because I don’t remember. * // Characters should also be suseptable (or however you spell it) to colds, hunger, and thirst. If they get sick, then they sure as heck better be sick. For hunger, a character must at least eat once every three days, and if they don't they better start showing signs of hunger or whatever. //
This is annoyingly hard to keep up with, so usually, when the characters enter a town, they eat, or they buy enough food to get them to where they’re going next. I’ve been in an RPG in which you had to keep up with food. It’s just more fun if you don’t worry about it. As for the sickness, it’s probably better to leave that out as well. There might be a point when something happens in the plot and one of the characters gets sick to help the Game progress, Ex: Has to stay behind, Travels slowly, or something like that, then by all means, but random sickness isn’t really worth it. * // There should be a limit on nobility, so that way we have some diversity. //
This is usually left up to the creator to decide. Although we don’t want everyone to be nobles, we ask the participants to create their characters moderately so that no one’s too powerful. Playing a weak character can be very fun. *I’ve played an 11-year-old before* * // Money // This is also a bit of a problem. I’ve never played a Real World RPG so the currency has always been Gold Coins, Silver , Copper Pennies, Copper Half-Pennies, and Copper Farthings. * // would a shifter be considered 'not human'? // I love shape shifters, but this should be extremely hard or unpleasant to do. * // Languages. // I have no Idea how we’ll do this.. * // Adults will treat children like children. Children will treat adults like adults. // You can’t say that. That totally depends on their character’s personality... * // lets just say people have to do at least two paragraphs // Some could be longer or shorter depending on the situation, but yes, we should try to keep posts at least to a two paragraph 2 page range. * // No plagerizing // Agreed // romances that might occur (hopefully not) during the RP // hahahaha // they should PM the character's owner informing them of this fact. // I agree with this, I forgot to... // Please keep all the...romanceish stuff to a minimum. It makes people like me uncomfortable. // Agree // person who uses fire or whatever would have to have some at hand. A box of matches maybe. Even then, the supply of fire is limited. Someone who is wind-based would be totally useless under water // Not totally, but again, this would be very* difficult, and kept to the more experienced mages. I like this for starters though.
That's all I got for the moment..
|
|
|
Post by Lecky on Jun 21, 2005 22:46:47 GMT -5
// It might be better to think of this less and less as an RP with stats and such, and more and more as just a general joint story that everyone participates in. //
I agree totally with this, If it gets too complicated, we'll destroy the fun. The Redwall RPG that's going on right now is a blast as it is, however, it's slightly casual and has an underplanned ending, so I think a fairly light, serious RPG could be fun.
In other words, let's try not to over think this.
|
|
|
Post by Skiv on Jun 21, 2005 23:36:41 GMT -5
*points* I agree with that too..... *feels agreeable*
|
|
|
Post by Oz on Jun 22, 2005 0:29:23 GMT -5
How about this, guys? I'll start a short little RP, something that last maybe only a quarter or something of what the actual would take. In this 'test RP' if you will, we'll just post only a handful of rules and let people choose what they want to do. Since this is just a test, this'll give us a chance to see what to change, what to keep, etc., etc. Sound good?
|
|
|
Post by Marakai Amenhotep on Jun 22, 2005 10:14:24 GMT -5
Sounds good to me, Oz. I already have a character planned out.
|
|
|
Post by Lecky on Jun 22, 2005 10:48:56 GMT -5
Sure. Will it be the same plot/everything as the one we'll do later? because that might ruin the longer one. We might have to totally make a new one for the "test."
|
|
|
Post by The Evil Overlordess on Jun 22, 2005 10:53:04 GMT -5
I was thinking of suggesting this myself, Oz. I really want to play, hiss. Maybe we can start this test by Sunday, so I can? ^_^ I'd like to see what we need to work out.
Speaking of which, I think Oz's become the mod for our big, sweeping RP. Still, feel free to create your own in the sub-forum, it's by no means dominated by anyone.
I'd say let's keep the romance-ish stuff to a minimum, and nothing explicit. Nothing you wouldn't see in a PG-13 movie, kay?
With swearing, I can set some censors, but they won't catch everything and can get annoying. I believe that swearing often lends to the reality of the characters. Most people swear when they can't express themselves in the way they want, and not every character is eloquent, so it makes sense for them to cuss.
Yar. I know swearing makes some people uncomfortable. If it's novel format, though, can't we just say, "so-and-so swore under their breath" or sunnink? Same thing, same meaning, not as offensive.
I'm personally against chosing hard and fast alignments, but this is just personal bias. Some people might feel more loyal to, say, their regiment than to their duke or whatever-- where would that put their alignment? What if someone is a thief at night and a clerk during the day? What if a really vicious character doesn't see themself as evil at all? I don't act the same way to people who are hostile to me as I do to my grandparents, so I think it's hard to make sweeping generalizations about characters who we're trying to make seem realistic.
Makes characters more interesting, I think. Werr.
Are we to use the setting you've got planned for the test, Oz, or just a random one? It's fun to have the other players help develop it.
Just opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Skiv on Jun 22, 2005 11:10:38 GMT -5
TEO had a point, about the alightments, I never liked the idea of tethering yourself to one sort of mindset.
A test RP would be good, but when does TEO have to leave for camp?
|
|
|
Post by Quites on Jun 22, 2005 13:13:37 GMT -5
Let me just pop in and say this: Yeah, I got really curious and I think this is a great idea if we can get it to work. I'm with you. 'Twill be fun. So... what's the consensus on the form? I basically read the AIM convo, but y'all were somewhat... shall we say... incomprehensible at some parts. So... the big things are these: Are we going to have a GM directing the story and are we going to keep stats and hit points and things like that. Personally I pretty much like free form, as it is far less complicated than using stats and such. As long as somebody uses common sense and plays their character realistically (i.e. If you're playing a sheltered noble, make your sheltered noble not know what to do with a knife because that fits - realistically - with the story. Duh.) As for a GM, it would probably work if somebody wants to do it, but I think that we should just put together some sort of basic story goal that's going on and make the GM more of a narrator to play NPC's and such.
...just my two cents worth. Looking forward to this, though. Another thing: is there going to be a continuation on the Redwall RP? 'Cuz that looked wicked awesome, and it already has a clearly defined universe and we wouldn't have to make as many rules. ...yeah. _Ahrar
|
|
|
Post by Oz on Jun 22, 2005 14:25:53 GMT -5
So far, for the test RP I've been thinking about, it will work out like this. So far, no stats or hit points or anything like that. The closest thing I've ever got to an RP like that dealt with some called A-Votes and R-Votes (attack and restore, respectively) and since this isn't a Survivor based tournament, where we'll slowly kick people out until about three are left, we probably don't want to use this system. So instead, we'll just keep it free form for now. I'm thinking more of a giant combo story where everyone only has one or two characters at most (such as one PC and one NPC that tags along with him). As for the test RP, this would be a different plot than what we'd use for the real one. Same with the settings. For the actual RP everyone will help come up with different settings that we can use, however at this point, I've thought up about three or four that will be all we'll need for the test. Another part of the storyline, as 'GM' if you will, will be that I play the major NPCs. When it comes to the local tavern maid or perhaps store owner, or any other minor NPC, feel free to interact with those however you wish.
|
|
|
Post by Skiv on Jun 22, 2005 14:43:48 GMT -5
I say no stats, mighta already stated that though, anyway...
In the test RP, I say we use the char' we'll be using in the real RP, so we can get a feel for them, and tweak them as we see fit.
|
|
|
Post by The Evil Overlordess on Jun 22, 2005 15:08:04 GMT -5
I leave for camping Sunday, by the way.
Yay for free-form.
|
|