Other Worlds

13»

Comments

  • Anyhow, with regards to Lenny's comments, you may note that one of my biggest influences for how I adapted HQ (and thence how we've made Other Worlds) is my play of FATE.
    I just wanted to pop a quick comment in here and say that some of my biggest influences on the shape of Fate from v2 to SotC / v3 have their foundations in mailing list discussions that arose from Mike's distortions of the old system, from before I was a regular member of Evil Hat. Whatever parallel development exists is no coincidence, and it's great to see those circles go around.
  • "Naturally, your sparkly personality adds a compelling selling point. "

    OK, now I know you've got some secret agenda... What are you up to Blake Hutchins!?!


    What Leonard said. Yep, feedback cycles are a good thing. Fueled by differing opinions on priorities, actually, that keep us modifying each other's ideas.

    Mike
  • Agenda? Me? Just unabashed obsequiousness, augmented with "member of convivial Story Games community."
  • Another question, Mike. How are abilities rated? Is there any equivalent to the Masteries from HQ?
  • Alfredo, we've streamlined the system by taking out complexities like masteries. I know, I liked em too, and how some of the dice mechanics were funky in a good way. But we're looking to try to reduce handling time, and the first order of business there was to get rid of the quirky base-20 notation system that made every single math step just that much more difficult.

    There's still a scale with a definite sense of levels that includes the sorts of definitions that existed with the masteries system. It's just handled now with straightforward ratings. The scale itself hasn't changed a lot, but we tend to think more in terms of what each ten points changes, rather than what each 20 points changes. More focus on the human end of the scales.

    Mike
  • Thanks, Mike. It will be very interesting to try it out.
  • I just put up my interview with Mike from Forge Midwest and we spend some time discussing Other Worlds amongst other things.

    http://www.theoryfromthecloset.com/shows/tftc_show037.mp3
  • Thanks, Clyde. I enjoyed that interview. Now I'm petrified to see how I sound on microphone.

    :-)

    Mike
  • Dude, you sound fine. Great interview. I'll definitely be listening to that one again.

    Now publish yer dang game!
  • Thanks Mark.

    As for the next step in publishing the dang game, I'm not saying anything about where we're at with it. Which silence, I hope, says something...

    By the way, I formerly was pretty bad at public speaking, but two things worked to ameliorate that in this case.

    First, Clyde really is a good interviewer. He made me feel comfortable, at least.

    Second, I've been reading books aloud to my children. Believe it or not, that's made it a lot easier for me to get concepts out more coherently than I have been able to do so in the past. Not sure why exactly, but I'm pretty sure it's helped a lot. So I highly recommend it.

    If I don't sound like an idiot in the interview, it's likely because of those two things working together.

    To get back on topic, what's interesting about a good interview is that you get some ideas out that you never managed to form coherently in your head previously (as I mentioned to Clyde, this is Charlie Rose's genius). Meaning that a lot of what I said in that interview is helping me going forward with Other Worlds, and other design considerations.

    Anybody else care to do me the favor of interviewing me? :-)

    Mike
  • edited May 2008
    Posted By: Mike Holmesas for the repercussions of something like this, it simply follows the standard system... which I now realize I completely forgot to employ in play at the Con. But, essentially, every contest may result in one side or the other getting a new temporary trait - often a flaw for the loser. Basically if you take consequences, you are simply allowing the opponent to tag you with a new trait. The level of the ability of the trait is based on the abilities you used to inflict it, and the level of victory rolled.
    Mike -- I know you guys are still putting the playtest doc together but when re-reading this thread, I was curious about the excerpt above. Can you elaborate?

    Looking forward to this game more than ever!
  • Basically this system replaces the "Heroquest Challenge" rules, the "Heroforming" rules, the "Essence Tapping" rules, and even "Variable Augments" all with one simple system (which is similar to things I've been proposing for HQ for a long time, folks may note). Basically the GM may decide to give the loser in a contest a flaw based on their opponent's rating. The duration of the flaw (it's permanency) and such are determined by the level of defeat.

    Conversely, at the same time, the winner may elect to buy an ability based on the nature of the contest as well, based on his opponent's total rating (we like that taking on a higher risk means higher reward potential). These are temporary unless further points are spent to make them permanent.

    So winning a tactics contest on approach to an enemy might gain you a temporary ability like "Upper Hand" which can be used to augment in the actual engagement. Again, this covers "Variable Augments." Or a character might shapeshift to a wolf form with "Claws" ability he can use in a fight, only to have this fade in a while. Unless he pays to permanently adopt the wolf form as something he can use at any time. Or a player could have a contest over obtaining a Death Ray, paying to get the ray from his win. This will fade, the gun going to the authorities or whatever, unless the player pays for it to be permanent.

    Think Hero System purchasing of abilities, except there's an intermediate stage that also has to be paid for.

    Another fun effect of this system is that it means that incremental character advancement is replaced by getting whole abilities at a relatively "full" level of competence. This is something that people clamored for with HQ, and we've solved that problem. Using one system that covers both angles of abilities as "situational modifiers" and "character advancement."

    Mike
  • Posted By: Mike Holmes
    Another fun effect of this system is that it means that incremental character advancement is replaced by getting whole abilities at a relatively "full" level of competence. This is something that people clamored for with HQ, and we've solved that problem. Using one system that covers both angles of abilities as "situational modifiers" and "character advancement."

    Mike
    Rather lovely, that. Nice job!

    I have the start of a Trinity game waiting for the playtest!
  • That's awesome stuff Mike. I've been trying to implement that in HeroQuest in my Exalted game, and sometimes the numbers seem to be a bit funny. But that style seems to fit a lot better than the very low increases from spending Hero Points in HQ.

    I'm really looking forward to taking this for a spin, too.
  • Posted By: Alvin FrewerThat's awesome stuff Mike. I've been trying to implement that in HeroQuest in my Exalted game, and sometimes the numbers seem to be a bit funny. But that style seems to fit a lot better than the very low increases from spending Hero Points in HQ.

    I'm really looking forward to taking this for a spin, too.
    Alvin -- how have you been doing it? That is, what rating are you giving these temp abilities (via win/loss)?
  • edited May 2008
    Posted By: DenysAlvin -- how have you been doing it? That is, what rating are you giving these temp abilities (via win/loss)?
    That's a bit lengthy and less about Otherworlds (although inspired by it) so I'll answer that over here.
  • Hi, so the internal playtest is teminater? There is a date for an external playtest (not hoping for a date for the release) or the summer will halt every thing for 3 month?
  • Hi Angelo

    I've been running a playtest game for my group, which is just now coming to an end. There are a few more things to sort out and then we should be ready for external testing - so, soon-ish is the answer. Summer won't make any difference either way.

    Cheers,

    Mark
  • By the way, have I mentioned lately how much I'm waiting for this to come out? I can't wait, it's easily first on my Must Buy list. I plan on giving it some hard use soon thereafter.

    -Andy
  • Great, cheers.

    Given how long we've been working on it, I think we're also pretty keen to get it finally finished and out the door! There's always just one more thing left to do...
  • Hey

    Could everyone who's on the playtest list (and you know who you are!) whisper me your email address please?

    No reason ;-)
  • Wait.
    WHAT!??!!!

    Are you kidding me? There's a Holmesian (forgive me, I couldn't resist using that term) fork of HeroQuest into a new system focused on bringing these elements to the core?

    Looking on the dates here, I suppose it is far too late to somehow get on the playtest list so I can use THIS for the game I was just about to start with HeroQuest as the rules base?
  • Posted By: lightcastleWait.
    WHAT!??!!!

    Are you kidding me? There's a Holmesian (forgive me, I couldn't resist using that term) fork of HeroQuest into a new system focused on bringing these elements to the core?

    Holmesian and Humphreysian, actually, but yeah. :-)

    Posted By: lightcastleLooking on the dates here, I suppose it is far too late to somehow get on the playtest list so I can use THIS for the game I was just about to start with HeroQuest as the rules base?

    Wire me five billion Zimbabwean dollars and your email address and I'll put you on the list.

    Mark
  • Just wondering how close the game as currently written is to the version I got to try at Forge Midwest. I know you (Mike) said that you forgot a few rules that you'd otherwise use, but I really liked it.

    *NOTE: We played with pools of d20s, I know there was talk of a few different possibilities.
  • Holmesian and Humphreysian, actually, but yeah. :-)
    *bow* Of course. :-)
    Wire me five billion Zimbabwean dollars and your email address and I'll put you on the list.
    Will whisper-wire do?
  • Posted By: reactionJust wondering how close the game as currently written is to the version I got to try at Forge Midwest. I know you (Mike) said that you forgot a few rules that you'd otherwise use, but I really liked it.

    *NOTE: We played with pools of d20s, I know there was talk of a few different possibilities.


    I don't know. Mike did a few different playtests, none of which (AFAIK) used the full rules as they are actually written. I suspect that the broad strokes were the same but some of the details were different. For example, the rules set we are playtesting uses a d100 opposed roll rather than a d20 dice pool.

    Mark
  • edited July 2008
    As a data point.

    The d20 dice pool is the bomb.
    (I'm allergic to %iles)

    Matt, were you in the same game as me...with the underwater shark people?
  • I've been using the d100 opposed roll system in my playtest campaign, and it's been working really well. I think at this point it's almost certainly what we're going to use in the final game.

    If it makes you feel any better, it's used as an actual d100 rather than a percentile as such.

    Mark
  • Ralph: yeah, I was the squid/jellyfish hybrid (Squill) Spymaster, that warned the shark people of the impending attack.
  • Hee-hee! I have my playtest copy. :)

    It's really wonderful to see the manuscript has grown so since the last draft I had in my possession.
  • Any news on the OW status?
  • Basically, a lot of the initial playtesting has happened now. My own campaign has finished, and I've got a lot of really useful feedback from other folks too. The next step is to examine that feedback in more detail and figure out what I want to do about it.

    Also, my computer died, so I have to retype a bunch of stuff and add it to the last surviving word doc.Nothing's lost, it's just going to be a pain in the ass to patch it all together again. Ah well. Always back up your data, kids!
  • Hi, any news on OW status?
Sign In or Register to comment.