Comments on: Timing mechanisms: progressive goals http://blog.thomas-robertson.com/76-timing-mechanisms-progressive-goals Inside the Mind of Thomas Robertson Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:50:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Anthony http://blog.thomas-robertson.com/76-timing-mechanisms-progressive-goals/comment-page-1#comment-746 Anthony Tue, 26 Sep 2006 06:30:18 +0000 http://www.thesmerf.com/blog/74-timing-mechanisms-progressive-goals#comment-746 Personally, I hate this type of timing mechanism. It seems so anti-climactic. It's commonly found in collectable card games. We fight a major battle and just as things get good and all our cards are on the table, one guy looks around and says meekly, "I've got 20 power." And we all look at eachother and say, "Okay then. Let's play again?" The best solutions to this I've found are games that fight a series of mini-battles, after which each game refreshes (or partially refreshes) so that the next battle isn't won by the same winner. Often if winning these battles has a comulative effect (such as a new resource), then one player will end up winning a few. When enough are won, we can end the game. Some games have multiple victory conditions: You can win at 20 power, or you can go on to play a MAJOR VICTORY. This is actually quite common unofficially in other games: after a game is won, all players decide to waste everythign they've got on one major battle. I'm seeking ways to apply this philosophy in RPGs. -- Getting more on topic: I don't have very much experience with mystery games, but it seems to me any game where you have to solve a murder or investigate a crime will have this END result build in. Likewise, most games that are meant to be episodic have this end game built in. The episodes can last forever, but the adventures end at a particular point. I think superhero games have this, too. Most of it is usually implied by the genre, rather than specified in the rules. Personally, I hate this type of timing mechanism. It seems so anti-climactic. It’s commonly found in collectable card games. We fight a major battle and just as things get good and all our cards are on the table, one guy looks around and says meekly, “I’ve got 20 power.” And we all look at eachother and say, “Okay then. Let’s play again?”

The best solutions to this I’ve found are games that fight a series of mini-battles, after which each game refreshes (or partially refreshes) so that the next battle isn’t won by the same winner. Often if winning these battles has a comulative effect (such as a new resource), then one player will end up winning a few. When enough are won, we can end the game. Some games have multiple victory conditions: You can win at 20 power, or you can go on to play a MAJOR VICTORY. This is actually quite common unofficially in other games: after a game is won, all players decide to waste everythign they’ve got on one major battle.

I’m seeking ways to apply this philosophy in RPGs.

–

Getting more on topic: I don’t have very much experience with mystery games, but it seems to me any game where you have to solve a murder or investigate a crime will have this END result build in. Likewise, most games that are meant to be episodic have this end game built in. The episodes can last forever, but the adventures end at a particular point. I think superhero games have this, too. Most of it is usually implied by the genre, rather than specified in the rules.

]]> By: Thomas Robertson http://blog.thomas-robertson.com/76-timing-mechanisms-progressive-goals/comment-page-1#comment-745 Thomas Robertson Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:22:53 +0000 http://www.thesmerf.com/blog/74-timing-mechanisms-progressive-goals#comment-745 Paul, That's actually a pretty good ovservation. It's one of the things that I find so intriguing about this stuff: we haven't really done much experimentation with it, so it's hard to say what we might prefer or why. I'm excited to see what kinds of stuff I get excited about in the coming years in the same way that I got excited when I first saw good endgame rules in <i>My Life with Master</i>. Thomas Paul,

That’s actually a pretty good ovservation. It’s one of the things that I find so intriguing about this stuff: we haven’t really done much experimentation with it, so it’s hard to say what we might prefer or why. I’m excited to see what kinds of stuff I get excited about in the coming years in the same way that I got excited when I first saw good endgame rules in My Life with Master.

Thomas

]]> By: Paul Czege http://blog.thomas-robertson.com/76-timing-mechanisms-progressive-goals/comment-page-1#comment-744 Paul Czege Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:00:19 +0000 http://www.thesmerf.com/blog/74-timing-mechanisms-progressive-goals#comment-744 <i>The transcendance rules in TSOY provide a progressive goal that signals the end of a character.</i> Hey, that offers some insight into Clinton's appreciation for Hero's Banner: the "end of the character" timing mechanic. Paul The transcendance rules in TSOY provide a progressive goal that signals the end of a character.

Hey, that offers some insight into Clinton’s appreciation for Hero’s Banner: the “end of the character” timing mechanic.

Paul

]]> By: Thomas Robertson http://blog.thomas-robertson.com/76-timing-mechanisms-progressive-goals/comment-page-1#comment-743 Thomas Robertson Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:45:26 +0000 http://www.thesmerf.com/blog/74-timing-mechanisms-progressive-goals#comment-743 This is something I had intended to mention in this post, but forgot when the time came: Joshua Newman's <i>Under the Bed</i> uses precisely this timing mechanism. All the players seek to accumulate favorite tokens. The game ends as soon as someone reaches a pre-determined number of them. Thomas This is something I had intended to mention in this post, but forgot when the time came: Joshua Newman’s Under the Bed uses precisely this timing mechanism. All the players seek to accumulate favorite tokens. The game ends as soon as someone reaches a pre-determined number of them.

Thomas

]]>