a different charity game design

edited October 2010 in Story Games
In honor of Drowning and Falling, I give you... Fighting and Magic!
Back in the old days, we asked the question, "Why does every rule set inexplicably have rules for drowning and for falling, even if these things really don't come up that often?" Nowadays we ask highfalutin' questions like "why are there separate rules for fighting? Or for magic?"

My answer to this is a game in which every scene must have a fight OR spell-casting in it (or both). Essentially, every single conflict must be resolved by fighting, or by casting magic spells.

That's all I got. Does that strike anyone else the way it strikes me?

Comments

  • edited October 2010
    Knee-jerk response: We already have D&D.

    Though, in D&D, casting magic spells is really just a different way to fight.
  • edited October 2010
    Maybe the game is just called BUT NOT FIGHTING, and it has rules for everything but fighting. You can't solve a problem by fighting because there are no rules for fighting. Dragon attacks? Rules for sneaking, parleying, deceiving, but not hitting it with a hammer.
  • Alternately, Jason, what if there were just no mechanical, quantified effects of fighting, whatsoever? Nothing that wasn't already determined by the rules for Heated Argument?
    I mean, 'cause otherwise ... could the dragon attack in the first place?
    Unless it's an Old School game, in which case one is actively encouraged to go outside the scope of the rules if it means "getting away with" some kind of advantage. I'm imagining a game with cons on probation, or just a situation in which all characters on-stage are effectively immortal. Or, heck, State Department officials in Iraq, sticking to their non-combatant status for the sake of their jobs.
  • Pacifism: the Empty-Handed Warrior :D

    But back on the original subject, I wrote a mini-game with a similar premise a while back and one day I really ought to get around to finishing it. The idea was that the players were Knights in service to the King, who would give them the most horribly mundane tasks he could possibly think of to try and keep them out of trouble. It was then the Knights' job to solve that task... but could only use violence to do so. The 'puzzle solving' in the game was mainly in how to use violence to solve tasks like unblocking the toilet, going down to the pub for a packet of dry-roasted peanuts, or making a birthday cake for the princess.

    -Ash
  • Oh, Ash, I remember that game! Finish iiiiiit it's coooooool ^___^
  • I'll try remember when I have a spot of time on my hands. Annoyingly I hit one of my depressive streaks right after the first set of playtests and couldn't get anything done for a month or so :( But I still have the playtest documents and reports (I think).

    Anyway! I shan't derail the thread any more!

    -Ash
  • Zac, i like the way your original idea could head, if the setting (which would be, of course, totally baked into all the other rules and make total sense and be hella engaging) just not support fighting or magic use. In fact, the title would maybe allude to fighting and spell-casting, but the game itself wouldn't even mention either of those topics until, y'know, chaper 8 and chapter 9 (rules for fighting and rules for magic). At that point the game would inform the reader that every scene must include either or both.

    Possible settings:

    Bookish Canadian middle-school children on a school exchange in Switzerland.
    Caregivers working in an understaffed special-needs adult home.
    A strategic work-together-against-the-system game about any simple-to-describe job, ie city garbage collection.

    Maybe?
Sign In or Register to comment.