Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 10 of 10
Joe Murphy:Would the individuals in a group all have the same level of commitment to a group goal? Or do you want a tension there where people bicker over a goal? (Maybe you only have so many points to spend on a goal, and there's more than one group goal).
Do the individuals contribute to succeeding at stages of a goal, or is there a group summation of their ability?
Can you buy down a goal if you think it's fanaticism, dangerous or distracting?
And why would you be opposed to a goal? Like, an adversary's goal?
Neil Gow:Having dealt with a Goal-orientated system in D&H, one of the things that came up quite strongly in playtesting was that the players did not like the railroaded feel of having the objectives stated up front for them. It became quite artificial and forced.
One idea that I have had reading through your stuff is to do two things.1. Have the objectives decided at the end of the previous objective.So, At the beginning of the game the players are given the goal 'Find the Byzantine plans for the Justinian Condenser'. At the end of that objective, they now look at the fiction and set their next objective. It may be the elimination of the Soviet spies but it might be something else totally, as the spies may have been written out in the previous play
2. Have a floating overall win-loss score and consequences, to keep the overall mission alive.So, the Mission would have say four phases of three scenes. Thats 12 victory points up for grabs. The Mission has a scale of 0 Victory Points to 12 Victory Points assigned to it, as the fallout for the mission. I like the idea of having people with a varying commitment to a given mission. Thats very interesting indeed.