Well, I’m right now working in my PbtA rpg #nahualrpg. And I’m finding myself more and more in the need of adding complexity to my take on AW (which has some significant differences). But I keep asking myself: how much is too much? What do you people think?
Well, I’m right now working in my PbtA rpg #nahualrpg.
Well, I’m right now working in my PbtA rpg #nahualrpg.
Without a frame of reference or clear cut example of what you’re talking about, your question is just too vague to answer properly.
2d6+stat, some tags. Harm. Countdown clocks.
Question everything, absolutely everything more complicated than that.
Absolutely no division.
Well you’re right +Patrick Henry Downs… but it will be too long also to explain it. Maybe I was just joping to know how much “crunch” do people can stand in a PbtA game…
Thanks for the advice Michael Llaneza that’s why I’m starting to feel I’m stepping into fragile ground… One question, what do you mean by “Absolutely no division”?
Well, don’t put in derived stats (that is, stats that are determined by referencing other stats) and you’ll probably be fine.
Try writing it all out in a blog post and link to the blog.
As +Patrick Henry Downs said, it’s hard to answer that without specifics or examples. But generally, I go for something similar to Occam’s Razor; elements should only be as complex as absolutely necessary.
The level of crunch that’s acceptable differs greatly from player to player. I think if you get crunchy, the crunchiness should support or simulate similarly-complex fictional activities. Perhaps limited to certain activities, like magic rituals or the creation of elaborate devices, etc. Then playtest for feel. This is design, not dogma. There’s nothing wrong with breaking away from the pack, as long as you have a reason, and it hits the feeling you want.
Division is the hardest form of arithmetic. Leave it out of your game if you possibly can. Beyond that, no tables. No chains of advances turning into the stuff you need to be mechanically successful (no system mastery in other words), or at least no “trap” advances.
+As If seems to have the right of it as well.
Oh, ok Michael Llaneza I’m of course leaving the division out of it. It’s all [+] or [-]. Right now I’m struggling with the conceptualization of some elements, so that I’m finding myself thinking in adding extra Stats or Moves for just 1 particular kind of Character. And as you say As If points are good to follow. If you care to read a bit about my setting, here’s a link: http://en.nahualrpg.com/setting/
I’ll give you a bit of advice from my own experience writing various PbtA hacks: write a whole bunch of moves, using whatever stats sound right for the moves. Then go back over those and consolidate. This is a good way to tell if you have the wrong set of stats. If you still end up with one or two playbooks that need their own stat, find a way to make those stats Hold stats and work out a good way for the player to both accumulate those and spend them. See the Battlemind and its Stance moves for reference.e
In order to fully honour the source material for my most recent hack (Ars Magica) I felt like there was a certain amount of complexity required, and the result is considerably crunchier than your average PbtA hack. It has been playtesting very well, but I expect it won’t be a perfect fit for everyone.
I like Patrick Henry Downs’s comment about derivative stats – if you find yourself going down that road you’re probably going in the wrong direction.
Link in case you’re interested:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lpxhvnt7pw16cll/Wizard%20World.pdf