I’ve restarted my blog A Yelp in the Dark. It will have an ICRPG bent to it now instead of a Savage Worlds one. Hankerin has given me a lot to think about.
Anyway, if you are interested… http://ayelpinthedark.blogspot.com/?m=1
I’ve restarted my blog
BambooHare
#2
I like your commentary regarding TIMERS. I never thought of Hit Points that way. Valid point. The “MovieVerse” very true.
Paxx
#3
Edit: added the word doesn’t and adding the conclusion to near the beginning.
As the blog post alluded to there are many ways of thinking about ( hit points) HP. Timers is as good as any, better than most.
That most games should focus on the more cinematic vs. Realistic/simulation is also very true. Rule of cool Vs rule of book is also important. As long as the GM remembers that every ( player character) PC is the protagonist and point of view character. We often forget that.
Conclusion: Sorry, long explanation of simple concept…Let players show who their character are! Specially when it doesn’t affect the rules, and sometimes when it does.
Below is how I got there and expounded on the main point.
As @JabuticaJenkins pointed out to me (rightly so) what’s the difference if my martial art based character walks over there or runs, kicks off a tree, slides under a branch, and attacks as the martial artist is getting up from a slide?
There is no reason for 3 agility checks unless they are getting a massive bonus in some way. If it is just flair added to my characters movement.
Or that the sniper bounces the shot off a stone…if cover is already in the difficulty of the shot. It is just flair.
It adds Narrative power to the players, gives the other players a better view of how that player sees their character.
All that said, it doesn’t give their PCs bonuses…just cinematic flair.
However, over time as a GM it will affect how you adjust for things and from time to time you will give that character a possibility of a shot/movement when there wouldn’t be one for other characters.
I think this adds to the game as long as it doesn’t take too long, with players…the arguing for or against something typically takes longer than the description and the roll. So as the GM I try to make it as mechanical as possible while appreciating the added flair.
Character is in range to run around the table and hit the opponent, that they jump over the table makes no difference to final outcome.
mechanics are not affected?
fits their character?
Adds to cool factor?
If it hits all 3 other than a smile, the GM doesn’t even need to discuss it.
If it only hits 2 out of 3…a raised eyebrow perhaps make it a hard roll, or require an extra roll with a possible negative outcome.
1 out of 3…it better be the mechanics are not affected…and then I narrate as to what actually happened.
Vinzent
#5
Today’s post: https://ayelpinthedark.blogspot.com/2021/09/worldbuilding-101-three-zones.html
It’s a system agnostic post
Paxx
#6
I really like your musings on the topic, much more concise and welcoming than my ramblings.
For me if inventing a dark ages city…I think of food supply, crossroad/transport advantages, unique export/import needs and capabilities. Then industry, the type of people needed for all that, what type of non player characters (NPCs) would be needed for that environment. What type of NPCs would prey on those types.
Then I think of the power dynamics…what would make the city shake???
Then throw the Player Characters into that.
Truth to tell, I’ve designed more cities than I’ve run characters through, so dynamics and such can be cut and pasted from memory now.
But fresh PCs often seek the most apparently dangerous. So my efforts are for not, unless I introduce them to the city in a well planned rail type adventure and some type of patronage. However, I always lean to sandbox play.
Your method is much more welcoming, and any needed retcon can be done off screen and only if the players want to explore it more.
BambooHare
#7
Nice post. I’ve used fractals and the ‘describe three things’ method. I wrote up my approach on my site Bamboo Hare in article A006, though I’m not sure how clear I was on the topic. Please keep me in the loop when you post again!
Josh
BambooHare
#8
Thanks for starting up your blog. I just read your recent post “Effort and Why I Dig It”. It’s allowing me to understand the system and some of the philosophy behind it. Thanks!
BambooHare
#10
I doubt any of them has real-life experience in these areas, but the characters probably do.
I’m not always so sure. 
I like this idea. This approach gives both myself AND the players flexibility while keeping them in control. I’ll have to keep this in mind. Thanks!
Vinzent
#11
I also add a couple of new worlds for sci fi. They still have the Savage Worlds statistics. I will be converting all of them into setting neutral worlds.
BambooHare
#12
I just pre-ordered and downloaded the ICRPG. I didn’t have the source books before.
The ‘Savage Worlds’, wasn’t that a D6 system? Open source or some variation of it? Me a noob.
Vinzent
#13
Savage Worlds is a system that used die types as attributes and skills. For instance you might have a shooting skill of d8. In which case you roll a d8 to do any shooting and you try to beat a 4.
I gave up on Savage Worlds because it started getting too complicated and hard to teach to new players. The Wild die and the Shaken rules were the big sticklers. Also, I didn’t care for the exploding dice. They took away any sense of dread.
My wife really wants to play RPGs but Pathfinder and 5E confused the hell out of her. I’ve been looking for a simple, intuitive rpg that still had depth. That’s how I wound up here.
BambooHare
#14
I’m in the same boat.
I wanted to start playing tabletop again, maybe get some new players, but the encyclopedia rules and the broken rule sets (just to sell more books?) has been unconvincing. Nothing wrong with OSR, I have ‘Old School Essentials’, very cool, but what if I wanted to just tell a story, throw some dice around. I needed something else.
Yup, same here. Cool crowd as a bonus. 