Hamsterprophecy: Prevision

It\’s All About Pen, Paper and People.

Archive for the ‘Design Ideas’ Category

Note To Self

Posted by Nathan P. on January 29, 2009

wrt the not-so-secret project.

Weapons have three stats: Size, Reliability and Destruction. A starting weapon has one of these at 0, and you probably have some kind of points to spend between the other 2. Outside of fights, Size can apply to your skills that are of the Mind, Reliability can apply to your skills that are of the Heart, and Destruction can apply to your skills that are of the Flesh, if it’s an appropriate situation.

In a Duel, Reliability matters more than Size. In a Melee, Destruction matters more than Size. However, if you’re trying to disarm an opponent in either case, Size matters most.

You can use your Dust to bump any of the categories, with the usual caveat that once you start, it’s hard to stop. If you have a backlash from over-dusting, however, it only affects your weapon.

Weapons can have Weirds independent of you (making it a Weird Weapon), but you need to feed it Dust or Blood if the Weird is powered by either of those. Also, some Weirds require a weapon to be used, though it doesn’t matter which weapon in particular.

Posted in Artistry, Design Ideas | Leave a Comment »

Three Set Forth

Posted by Nathan P. on February 11, 2007

This is my frankenstein game. Right now I’m loading DitV, Agon and Don’t Rest Your Head in a blender, adding some liberal doses of TSOY and Jon Walton’s brain, and seasoning with some “holy crap all of these books are going to have to pass through my hands”, with just a light touch of Burning Empires to top it all off. I have yet to hit frappe, but the smells wafting out of the blender are pretty sweet so far.

It’s a game for three players. It’s about three characters going on a quest. It’s GMless and fully competitional (if thats a word) but within a cooperative framework. It’s happening because I want to play Samurai Champloo in an RPG and don’t know how yet. I think it’ll support two-player play really well, too, which would be awesome.

It’s going to have badass fight scenes.  It’s going to have highly structured storytelling narrative arcs. The books is going to be interactive. It’ll be possible to pick up the game, read one chapter and start playing right on the spot (I think…)

It’s a game I actually know what I want it to look like (as opposed to about 85% of Imp). I’m really excited about it. I hope to have it ready to play in a couple of weeks.


Posted in Design Ideas | 4 Comments »


Posted by Nathan P. on January 18, 2007

A game for two people.

In this game, you each take on the role of a side in some kind of opposed scenario. One of you could be the cop, one the robber he’s trying to chase down. One could be the freshfaced idealistic politician, the other the corrupt lobbyist. You could each be a representative of rival mob families in a big doublecross. Or a superhero and a supervillain. Whatever.

You work together to create the two characters, and then you choose who’s playing each one. Each character has the following:

Stuff I’m Good At: Up to three entries. Every entry less than three gives you an extra Trick Up Your Sleeve.

Stuff I’m OK At: Up to four entries. Every entry less than four gives you an extra Drama Point.

Stuff I’m Bad At: Up to five entries.

Tricks Up My Sleeve: Two entries, plus any gained from having fewer Things I’m Good At.

My Objective: What you are trying to acheive.

Your Objective: What you think the other character is trying to acheive.

Drama Points: Three, plus any gained from having fewer Things I’m OK At.

When creating the two characters, you go back and forth choosing the things they’re Good, OK and Bad at – one character gets one entry, then the other gets one, and so on. Then you decide who’s playing which character. Then, each player sets the other player’s characters “My Objective”. Then you set your own character’s “Your Objective,” which is what your character thinks the other character wants. Your “Your Objective” entry cannot be the same as their “My Objective” field, and the more different they are the better.

Whoever has less Drama Points sets the first scene (flip a coin for ties). At the top of the scene, you each secretely invest a Drama Point in either your My Objective or Your Objective entry. If you win the scene, you will gain a Success Check in the entry that you invest in. Each scene will have one winner.

When playing out the scene, either player can declare a challenge at any point, narrating what the challenge is. The declaring player has to say which of their traits they are using to win that challenge. Each trait that you’re Good at can be used once in the game; each OK trait can be used twice; Bad traits can be used an unlimited number of times, and you can spend Bad traits to add to another trait.

A Good trait beats OK and Bad traits; an OK trait beats Bad traits. If you each use the same level trait, either person can spend a Drama point to win the challenge, and the loser gains a Drama point. If you both want to spend Drama Points, you do a simple blis bid, each hiding a number of Drama points and then revealing at the same time. If you bid all of your Drama points, you must give your opponent an extra one if you win. Keep doing this until there is a winner, if need be.

You can use each Trick Up Your Sleeve once in the game, and doing so wins you the challenge. You declare your Trick usage after both people have declared their trait, and you can only respond to a Trick by spending a Drama point and using a Trick of your own (in which case you win the challenge, and the Drama point goes away).

If you use a Bad Trait in addition to another Trait, it doesn’t change who wins the challenge, but it does mean that if you lose the winner has to give you a Drama point. If you win, you get nothing extra. Using a Bad Trait in this manner crosses it off your sheet.

The winner of each challenge narrates how the challenge plays out, with the other player adding details relating to their Trait usage, if need be. Whoever wins the best out of three challenges in a scene wins the scene. The Drama point that they invested turns into a checkmark next to the Trait that they invested in, and they get their Drama point back. The loser of the scene loses their invested Drama point.

The game ends once one of your Objective Traits gains three checks – you win the game! If it’s your My Objective trait, then you gain your Objective, and your opponent loses their My Objective. The winner narrates the conclusion of the conflict between the two. If it’s your Your Objective trait, than you get to narrate how your opponent gets what you think they want, regardless of whether thats what they actually want or not.

Posted in Design Ideas | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Nathan P. on January 17, 2007

So I might have a mockup of a first version of this thing I’ve been working on at Dreamation. Perhaps, having this post out in the wild will help me focus on making it actually happen.

It’s kinda a hybrid card/board/RPG thing. I’m not really sure yet how big each quantity is, I have to make the pages happen first. I’m almost done with the intro rules, but I have no idea how long the page rules are going to take to write. It was originally going to be in full-size (8.5×11), but I think that would make it impossible to play on a regular table, so I need to experiment with page sizes. However, now that that decision has been made, I may be going with square format, which would help with the edge-matching portion of the game.

The cool thing about this game is when you get the book you have one world, and when you’re done with the game you have a different and unique world that is left out of the ashes of the old.

It’s probably going to be expensive as hell to make and impossible to market, but hey, whatever.

It’s a sister project to Kevin Allen Jr’s Sweet Agatha, in a way. He’s going farther than me, tho. I’m looking forward to getting a peek at that thang at Dreamation.

Posted in Design Ideas | Leave a Comment »