- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,484
- Reaction score
- 4,360
As I've alluded to elsewhere, I wrote (or am I writing - its a bit Schrodinger) a game. It was a diceless game but I know some people balk at the thought of no randomisers.
The only system I've read in the last 20 years that made think 'Ooh, this is new and exciting!' was the narrative system used in Houses of the Blooded.
Which also makes people balk - only this time at the thought of directing the story/game. But at least there's a randomiser, which is good.
My current thinking is to strip out the diceless side and replace it with a variation on the risk/wager mechanic of HotB.
My question to hypothetical players is this.
What puts you off more - the thought of diceless play or the thought of player-led control of the gameworld?
The only system I've read in the last 20 years that made think 'Ooh, this is new and exciting!' was the narrative system used in Houses of the Blooded.
Which also makes people balk - only this time at the thought of directing the story/game. But at least there's a randomiser, which is good.
My current thinking is to strip out the diceless side and replace it with a variation on the risk/wager mechanic of HotB.
My question to hypothetical players is this.
What puts you off more - the thought of diceless play or the thought of player-led control of the gameworld?