My game is live now: VI·VIII·X KUP RPG!

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

aia

Well-Known Pubber
Joined
Aug 13, 2022
Messages
71
Reaction score
121
Hi fellows, it is a great pleasure to present the RPG I have just completed in its core rules: VI·VIII·X KUP RPG.

This is a project which took me ages to have its first phase done (at least!). I must say thanks to mr Covid19 who gave me a lot of time to dedicate on it... (sad to say, but during the lockdown I decided to focus on a project in order not to lose the overall direction...)

Well, the rules are now in a playtest version and, along with them I have made up some supplements to support the playtest. Every product is listed here: https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/p/viviiix-kup-rpg-products.html

Being a playtest and, moreover, having a target quite far from harvesting revenues and glory, I priced my stuff at a very 'popular' level (the core rules are a 216-page hardback at 15 euro!). In addition, all the digital versions of the supplements are PWYW (i.e. you can grab them at zero!).

My first thought in order to introduce my game goes to the KUP acronym: this is one of the core parts of my overall target. This acronym has a meaning deeper than the words it represent and I tried to explain this in these two posts here:
https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-concept-of-kup-rpg-part-1.html
https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-concept-of-kup-rpg-part-2.html

I really hope you might be interested in my project! In case I am here or at https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/, happy to reply to any question!

As a last thought, I don't want to sound pretentious but I am happy to think that this game is my special Xmas present to all the RPGers who love these games and are always looking for new experiences!

Thanks in advance a lot to all of you
 
Well done. Having a good an idea for a game is one thing, seeing it through as far as having a finished product is an entirely different challenge. I wish you success with your project.
 
Thanks a lot to both of you!

In the next days, I will try to spend some time to better explain my ideas!
 
What is this game about? I'm always eager about trying different games but I can't find any info about it.
You're right! I'd do some sort of marketing... I am not a great publisher!
Anyway, since I ended the core rules, I started writing a blog about this game and my project (which is wider than what I have don so far, needless to say!), here: https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/

The core rules are a fantasy RPG, I have written them trying not to consider what is already present in the market, therefore there are some concepts very close to actual FRPGs and other very distant... in a post i provide an overview of the contents of this book: https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/2022/03/core-rules-what-is-under-hood.html

Should you have any question, I am here, on the blog, on other PRG forums and also on the following Telegram channe: VI.VIII.X KUP RPG

ciaooo

PS: how can i add a signature? I'd like to leave in it all my refs...
 
H
You're right! I'd do some sort of marketing... I am not a great publisher!
Anyway, since I ended the core rules, I started writing a blog about this game and my project (which is wider than what I have don so far, needless to say!), here: https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/

The core rules are a fantasy RPG, I have written them trying not to consider what is already present in the market, therefore there are some concepts very close to actual FRPGs and other very distant... in a post i provide an overview of the contents of this book: https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/2022/03/core-rules-what-is-under-hood.html

Should you have any question, I am here, on the blog, on other PRG forums and also on the following Telegram channe: VI.VIII.X KUP RPG

ciaooo

PS: how can i add a signature? I'd like to leave in it all my refs...
Sembra interessante, hai intenzione di pubblicare anche una versione in italiano?
 
Seems interesting...but I question the idea that "We do not know ourselves":shade:.

I mean, if it was true, it'd equally be true that there's no reason "why on earth a player should know every detail of his PC". But unlike you, I find that people often have a a very good idea about their abilities in the areas that they exercise routinely, for example:thumbsup:.

Now, we often don't know how well we succeeded, or what effect our success would have (though sometimes we totally know that, too). So it depends on which areas of the rules are hidden...

Or maybe it's simply a different philosophy:grin:!


Also, yes, your intro text is amazingly poor. It's one thing to keep your players uneducated...your call. But it's quite another not only to keep your customers uneducated, but to also give them basically no reason why they should purchase this game (instead of any other)!
I mean, new gaming experience...OK, how does it differ from all the other games out there? What kind of gaming experience are you looking to deliver? Should I pay you just to find out:shock:?
 
Last edited:
Please don't take this the wrong way as I am not trying to be rude, but that description you have for it on Drivethru is really bad.
I know that, no problem at all!
What is amazing to my eyes is not the bad quality of my marketing, it is that we are now acquainted with very short messages on the back of the cover of a book rather than trying to understand smtg better... our lives are paced by slogans... that is the reason for the last sentence of the book (on the back cover):
STAT ROMA PRISTINA NOMINE NOMINA NUDA TENEMUS

Anyway, I kindly ask you to jump down a couple of messages (I find polite first to provide with an answer all those who wrote me here) and i will try to add all the useful piece of info you are looking for!
Thanks, ciaoo
 
H

Sembra interessante, hai intenzione di pubblicare anche una versione in italiano?
ciao, I don't plan the tanslation in a short time frame... the project is wide enough to keep me busy for a couple of years... maybe once i have done with the milestones, that could be an idea!

funny enough: the first and second 'prototype' of the game (written in 2003 and later in 2006) were in italian... only when I decided to get back to this project i decided to make it in english ...
 
Seems interesting...but I question the idea that "We do not know ourselves":shade:.

I mean, if it was true, it'd equally be true that there's no reason "why on earth a player should know every detail of his PC". But unlike you, I find that people often have a a very good idea about their abilities in the areas that they exercise routinely, for example:thumbsup:.
That is true and my concept of "we do not know ourselves" doesn't go against that... you have just provided the explanation in your following sentence! ;-)

Now, we often don't know how well we succeeded, or what effect our success would have (though sometimes we totally know that, too). So it depends on which areas of the rules are hidden...
That is the point: the players should never, never, never know their PCs limits... it is not an issue if a players is aware of the fact that his PC is a great swordsman, the trouble is when a PC understands that his PC needs a result of 8 on 1d20 roll to hit a goblin... this means that every following goblin met by that player, he will be more bored than excited... the limit in case is 'broken' by a piece of info which is not even worth to be transferred to the player!
Sorry if i started with an example but it might be easier to get what i am aiming with the KUP model: the less a player is aware of, the better is the ongoing experience...

Or maybe it's simply a different philosophy:grin:!
Sure, I hope i have explained it here below! In any case, it was in my plans to go through my game with a step-by-step introduction... If i simply unload here tons of info, you wouldn't be in any case happy because too much info is even worse than few or rather no info!

Also, yes, your intro text is amazingly poor. It's one thing to keep your players uneducated...your call. But it's quite another not only to keep your customers uneducated, but to also give them basically no reason why they should purchase this game (instead of any other)!
I mean, new gaming experience...OK, how does it differ from all the other games out there? What kind of gaming experience are you looking to deliver? Should I pay you just to find out:shock:?
Let me have a smooth intro in this model... I will start by posting some pages of explanation!

Then, needless to say, if someone is interested in them, he is more than welcome to read more pages and contribute with comments here or there!

ciaoo
 
Hello, while I am sorry if my total absence of marketing is seen as a bad marketing, I do understand that the game, or better, the idea of the game, has to be explained...
I don't want to copy & paste or rewrite something I wrote some time ago, therefore my suggestion is to have a look at some of the posts on the game's blog.
The first one, is for those who want to understand the contents of the main book: https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/2022/03/core-rules-what-is-under-hood.html

Then for those who want to have further details, I wrote some posts where i focus on a specific feature of the set of rules. The posts are the following:
Morality -> https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/2022/03/core-rules-deep-dive-morality.html
Magic system -> https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/2022/03/core-rules-deep-dive-magic-spellcasting.html
Sequence of the game -> https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/2022/04/core-rules-deep-dive-time-sequence.html

If you like to read more, there are some other 'deep dives' available on the blog... I will point them out in a next post, for the time being I will be happy to hear comments on these ones!

Thanks and ciaooo
 
That is true and my concept of "we do not know ourselves" doesn't go against that... you have just provided the explanation in your following sentence! ;-)
Yeah, I just assumed it's not that - because the concept of not knowing the effect/difficulty has been addressed in gaming products dating as far back as MegaTraveller*...so what, the 80ies:grin:? And with the claims of a totally new experience, I assumed it's something else...
Hidden checks aren't especially ground-breaking. Neither is not knowing the TN to hit. Unknown Armies already did the "not knowing your remaining HP".
Now, I assume you have some way to vary said TN, but honestly, that's only going to help for a while at best, and at worst is going to be seen as inconsistent on the GM's part.

*Yes, MT actually has a mechanic that more or less guarantees it, when the GM sees it fit. If you're not familiar, the player knows his stats, but he only rolls one of his dice on the 2d6...the other die is rolled by the GM and hidden:shade:.
Very useful for awareness checks!
That is the point: the players should never, never, never know their PCs limits... it is not an issue if a players is aware of the fact that his PC is a great swordsman, the trouble is when a PC understands that his PC needs a result of 8 on 1d20 roll to hit a goblin... this means that every following goblin met by that player, he will be more bored than excited... the limit in case is 'broken' by a piece of info which is not even worth to be transferred to the player!
I'd disagree with that example. It's not quite hard to have a rough idea of your own capabilities to hit a known type of opponent, I could give RL examples. And this is only a problem when the opponents don't deviate from the types.
In other words, the problem only becomes a problem when all goblins are the same. But if there's more than one type of goblins and there are exceptional goblins as well...
Yeah, not a problem.

Sorry if i started with an example but it might be easier to get what i am aiming with the KUP model: the less a player is aware of, the better is the ongoing experience...
Yes, provided you don't go overboard by not providing information that the PC would logically be aware of.

Sure, I hope i have explained it here below! In any case, it was in my plans to go through my game with a step-by-step introduction... If i simply unload here tons of info, you wouldn't be in any case happy because too much info is even worse than few or rather no info!
Not sure...but step-by-step is fine for a forum. For a blurb at Drivethru, not so much - and IIRC, that's what I was talking about.

Hello, while I am sorry if my total absence of marketing is seen as a bad marketing, I do understand that the game, or better, the idea of the game, has to be explained...
I don't want to copy & paste or rewrite something I wrote some time ago, therefore my suggestion is to have a look at some of the posts on the game's blog.
The first one, is for those who want to understand the contents of the main book: https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/2022/03/core-rules-what-is-under-hood.html

Then for those who want to have further details, I wrote some posts where i focus on a specific feature of the set of rules. The posts are the following:
Morality -> https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/2022/03/core-rules-deep-dive-morality.html
Magic system -> https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/2022/03/core-rules-deep-dive-magic-spellcasting.html
Sequence of the game -> https://6810kuprpg.blogspot.com/2022/04/core-rules-deep-dive-time-sequence.html

If you like to read more, there are some other 'deep dives' available on the blog... I will point them out in a next post, for the time being I will be happy to hear comments on these ones!

Thanks and ciaooo
Seriously, make brief summaries of all of those and add them to the description on Drivethru:thumbsup:!

Also, I'd like to get an answer to this: why did you mandate that the inner voice should be the same, always? In the essay which you derive the idea from, I have found the following passage:

"Most people do not act consistently. Under certain circumstances a given person acts intelligently and under different circumstances the same person will act helplessly. The only important exception to the rule is represented by the stupid people who normally show a strong proclivity toward perfect consistency in all fields of human endeavours."

...but that is the only path you don't make available:shock:?

(And I believe that PCs can well be stupid and some players would enjoy that...it's ineffectual which would remain unused, IMO).


And lastly, if I may ask...why are you assuming that the readers are only familiar with D&D? Because a lot of what you say in your "sequence deep dive" is something that other games are doing already - from Classic Traveller to ORE.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: aia
Yeah, I just assumed it's not that - because the concept of not knowing the effect/difficulty has been addressed in gaming products dating as far back as MegaTraveller*...so what, the 80ies:grin:? And with the claims of a totally new experience, I assumed it's something else...
Hidden checks aren't especially ground-breaking. Neither is not knowing the TN to hit. Unknown Armies already did the "not knowing your remaining HP".
Now, I assume you have some way to vary said TN, but honestly, that's only going to help for a while at best, and at worst is going to be seen as inconsistent on the GM's part.

*Yes, MT actually has a mechanic that more or less guarantees it, when the GM sees it fit. If you're not familiar, the player knows his stats, but he only rolls one of his dice on the 2d6...the other die is rolled by the GM and hidden:shade:.
Very useful for awareness checks!
Thanks for pointing out other examples similar to what i built up! Let me add a thought before any further explanation: while every concept i put in my game is coming from my ideas, i was always thinking about the 'originality' of them... i was almost certain that before me there would have been someone who thought the same way... my concern was (and still is) that it is nearly impossible to know if an idea is completely new or not. What i know is that it is hardly to find a game which has the whole set of of rules i thought...
Back to the 'hidden' information: my approach is similar but not the same. Any PC has stats which are known and unknow (the weight is 50%/50%), the dice are rolled by the player and the roll grants a modifier to his stats. Therefore the result is made up by 3 main drivers: known stats, unknown stats and modifiers provided by the die.

I'd disagree with that example. It's not quite hard to have a rough idea of your own capabilities to hit a known type of opponent, I could give RL examples. And this is only a problem when the opponents don't deviate from the types.
In other words, the problem only becomes a problem when all goblins are the same. But if there's more than one type of goblins and there are exceptional goblins as well...
Yeah, not a problem.
In my case you have both solutions deployed: opponents with unknown stats (there is an average value but the GM can decide not to use that) and the 'hidden' part of the PC capabilities which grant always a 'suspence effect'.

Yes, provided you don't go overboard by not providing information that the PC would logically be aware of.
I don't think i did that... i carefully looked the mechanics in order to avoid that!

Not sure...but step-by-step is fine for a forum. For a blurb at Drivethru, not so much - and IIRC, that's what I was talking about.

Seriously, make brief summaries of all of those and add them to the description on Drivethru:thumbsup:!
Got it, i still have some concerns how to transfer a message which has a certain width in a blurb... again, i was aiming not to make any 'marketing push'... a summary could not grant the full picture and become a bad marketing (even if i understood that i could not do worse than what i did so far...)

Also, I'd like to get an answer to this: why did you mandate that the inner voice should be the same, always? In the essay which you derive the idea from, I have found the following passage:

"Most people do not act consistently. Under certain circumstances a given person acts intelligently and under different circumstances the same person will act helplessly. The only important exception to the rule is represented by the stupid people who normally show a strong proclivity toward perfect consistency in all fields of human endeavours."

...but that is the only path you don't make available:shock:?
Yes, of course: that's the so called 'path of desctruction'... it is available only to NPCs!
Thanks a lot for having dug into this topic! I find absolutely charming Carlo Cipolla's view and at the same time so easy to approach!

And lastly, if I may ask...why are you assuming that the readers are only familiar with D&D? Because a lot of what you say in your "sequence deep dive" is something that other games are doing already - from Classic Traveller to ORE.
Well, i am well aware that someone in the rpg industry has already deployed my ideas (see above about this concern). I am also almost certain that the deployment won't likely be the same therefore i am fine with it (it'd otherwise be a kindof IP problem!). The comparison with D&D is simply beacuse that is the most know and used game and almost everyone has knowledge about those game mechanics! (in addition my game is a fantasy game... it'd have been weird a comparison with Traveller or any non fantasy game!)
 
Thanks for pointing out other examples similar to what i built up! Let me add a thought before any further explanation: while every concept i put in my game is coming from my ideas, i was always thinking about the 'originality' of them... i was almost certain that before me there would have been someone who thought the same way... my concern was (and still is) that it is nearly impossible to know if an idea is completely new or not. What i know is that it is hardly to find a game which has the whole set of of rules i thought...
Agreed. And don't take me wrong, I'm mostly just curious (and also, I've seen game authors that were just surprised that anyone might have had the same idea - I get it that you're not one of those, but please don't fault me for checking:grin:).

Back to the 'hidden' information: my approach is similar but not the same. Any PC has stats which are known and unknow (the weight is 50%/50%), the dice are rolled by the player and the roll grants a modifier to his stats. Therefore the result is made up by 3 main drivers: known stats, unknown stats and modifiers provided by the die.
Yeah, that's more or less the same.
In my case you have both solutions deployed: opponents with unknown stats (there is an average value but the GM can decide not to use that) and the 'hidden' part of the PC capabilities which grant always a 'suspence effect'.
Yeah, I just am not sure whether hiding capabilities stats (as opposed to condition ones) is necessarily a good idea.


I don't think i did that... i carefully looked the mechanics in order to avoid that!
Sure. But then opinions on what is actually known in reality might differ...:thumbsup:
Same as me and a friend going to see a kick-boxing match and both of us looked at the fighters approaching the ring and named the winner. Wasn't obvious to the other spectators. One of them almost betted on the wrong guy with me.

Got it, i still have some concerns how to transfer a message which has a certain width in a blurb... again, i was aiming not to make any 'marketing push'... a summary could not grant the full picture and become a bad marketing (even if i understood that i could not do worse than what i did so far...)
Take your posts in this thread, which is presenting the game. Summarize each one in a single sentence:angel:.
I happen to have "editor" as part of my job description.

Yes, of course: that's the so called 'path of desctruction'... it is available only to NPCs!
Google "griefer"...:tongue:

Thanks a lot for having dug into this topic! I find absolutely charming Carlo Cipolla's view and at the same time so easy to approach!
Totally true IME as well.

Well, i am well aware that someone in the rpg industry has already deployed my ideas (see above about this concern). I am also almost certain that the deployment won't likely be the same therefore i am fine with it (it'd otherwise be a kindof IP problem!). The comparison with D&D is simply beacuse that is the most know and used game and almost everyone has knowledge about those game mechanics! (in addition my game is a fantasy game... it'd have been weird a comparison with Traveller or any non fantasy game!)
Why? Mechanics are mechanics. One guy hitting another with a sword isn't different in John Carter as opposed to LotR. Besides, there are fantasy traveller variantsm, ORE has fantasy variants...
But even if we were to accept that idea, you also happened to basically say in one of your deep dives that a static TN to hit is too predictable and the solution is to have defense as a specified action. And well, that's how most fantasy games I can think of* already work.
So it really seems like you're applying D&D as the standard, here:shade:.

...also, I probably have more games than I have listed here.


*In fact, I only managed to come (in one minute) with three non-D&D-derivative fantasy games that use a static TN...and the third is a wuxia game. Savage Worlds, Sertorius and Qin, if you're curious. I gave up on the 10th or so fantasy game using explicit defense rolls (GURPS, Warhammer1/2/4, Runequest/Mythras, Maelstrom, Blade of the Iron Throne, Reign, Ironclaw, L5R3e, Legends of the Wulin, Art of Wuxia).
 
Just as a note, the idea that "the State of Mind [...] is a feature that traditional RPGs have not taken in consideration" isn't exactly true. (Unless you consider Pendragon and its ilk to be non-traditional RPGs, I guess).

As this is a concept that I do generally like, that's not a criticism, just a - hopefully useful - tidbit of trivia:thumbsup:!

However, I would warn you that you might not get good reception of this rule by FRPG gamers. In fact, horror games are almost the only ones that allow themselves to use such an approach (though Artesia AKW RPG might beg to differ...I don't remember much from it, we played it briefly and quite a few years ago).
 
Just as a note, the idea that "the State of Mind [...] is a feature that traditional RPGs have not taken in consideration" isn't exactly true. (Unless you consider Pendragon and its ilk to be non-traditional RPGs, I guess).

As this is a concept that I do generally like, that's not a criticism, just a - hopefully useful - tidbit of trivia:thumbsup:!

However, I would warn you that you might not get good reception of this rule by FRPG gamers. In fact, horror games are almost the only ones that allow themselves to use such an approach (though Artesia AKW RPG might beg to differ...I don't remember much from it, we played it briefly and quite a few years ago).
I fully agree with you, in particular for the last sentence... however the way i approached when i was building game mechanics was not to have a 'starting point': i revised nearly every 'canon' set by D&D, including morale/reaction: i felt uncomfortable being this feature somehow important in the first editions of the game and time by time getting a smaller and smaller influence in the whole set of rules. Therefore I looked to rethink how a stat for morale could be built and came to State of Mind... I have never played to CoC but some friends of mine explained me that there is a stat in that game which leads a player to madness: in my game it is similar, a player could be either "exalted" or "panicked" by reaching the highest and lowest score of State of Mind.
 
I fully agree with you, in particular for the last sentence... however the way i approached when i was building game mechanics was not to have a 'starting point': i revised nearly every 'canon' set by D&D, including morale/reaction: i felt uncomfortable being this feature somehow important in the first editions of the game and time by time getting a smaller and smaller influence in the whole set of rules.
Oh, I'm there with you. You're preaching to the converted:grin:!
Amusingly, it seems this is sorta a cultural divide between American and European gamers, or so my theory goes. US gamers tend to disdain mind control mechanics, possibly with an exception for horror, and even then PCs might be exempt to a degree. Games made in Europe tend to actually feature such mechanics...
Of course, it's nothing more than a rule of thumb that doesn't necessarily apply to individual cases.
herefore I looked to rethink how a stat for morale could be built and came to State of Mind...
Not a bad .way you've got, AFAICT I'm just warning you not to expect entirely positive reactions...:grin:
I have never played to CoC but some friends of mine explained me that there is a stat in that game which leads a player to madness: in my game it is similar, a player could be either "exalted" or "panicked" by reaching the highest and lowest score of State of Mind.
You should totally try CoC.
Though CoC SANity points are more like "psychic HP with wound penalties being thrown in if you lose too many at once, but at the same time the lower you 'psycic HP total', the more powerful of a wizard you can be". What you're describing is IMO closer to Pendragon's Inspiration.
 
Hello, this update to let you know that, along with the 'super-blurb' written by a very friendly fellow (who is a pro btw!), I changed the pricing for the main books.

Now the printed books are priced nearly at cost (there are round-ups to the single unit) and the digital version of the core rules is PWYW.

Therefore I invite you to take the digital version to see more in detail the game!

Thanks in advance and ciaoo

PRINTED EDITION: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/produc...--Print-Playtest-Edition?affiliate_id=3466099

DIGITAL EDITION: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/produc...Digital-Playtest-Edition?affiliate_id=3466099
 
Oh, I'm there with you. You're preaching to the converted:grin:!
Amusingly, it seems this is sorta a cultural divide between American and European gamers, or so my theory goes. US gamers tend to disdain mind control mechanics, possibly with an exception for horror, and even then PCs might be exempt to a degree. Games made in Europe tend to actually feature such mechanics...
Of course, it's nothing more than a rule of thumb that doesn't necessarily apply to individual cases.

Not a bad .way you've got, AFAICT I'm just warning you not to expect entirely positive reactions...:grin:

You should totally try CoC.
Though CoC SANity points are more like "psychic HP with wound penalties being thrown in if you lose too many at once, but at the same time the lower you 'psycic HP total', the more powerful of a wizard you can be". What you're describing is IMO closer to Pendragon's Inspiration.
Now you can get a digital copy of the game and look better into the 'State of Mind' concept i designed!
Hope you will enjoy and I look forward to reading your comments!
Ciaooo
 
Now you can get a digital copy of the game and look better into the 'State of Mind' concept i designed!
Hope you will enjoy and I look forward to reading your comments!
Ciaooo
Well, let's see...:shade:

First comment: Empathy of 10 makes you superhuman. Empathy of 9 makes you merely OP.
I mean, you always pass defence and surprise checks when you're in an exalted space...wow:shock:!

Maybe I'm simply not reading the rules right. I tried to limit myself to the SoM and Morality rules, on the off chance someone wants to run this:grin:!
 
Last edited:
Well, let's see...:shade:

First comment: Empathy of 10 makes you superhuman. Empathy of 9 makes you merely OP.
Actually this works for any stat: the max value provides a benefit higher than any other... this application is consistent.
I mean, you always pass defence and surprise checks when you're in an exalted space...wow:shock:!
Errr... with the exalted state you never fail in reaction, there is nothing about defence and surprise...
Maybe I'm simply not reading the rules right. I tried to limit myself to the SoM and Morality rules, on the off chance someone wants to run this:grin:!
No, it could even be correct but i don't understand your refs...
 
Actually this works for any stat: the max value provides a benefit higher than any other... this application is consistent.
OK.

Errr... with the exalted state you never fail in reaction, there is nothing about defence and surprise...
Well, I went to check what a Reaction Roll is, and was left with the impression that a defence roll is a type of reaction roll. Same for rollling to avoid being surprised!
And if you always succeed those, you defend successfully and avoid surprise...100% of the time?
 
OK.


Well, I went to check what a Reaction Roll is, and was left with the impression that a defence roll is a type of reaction roll. Same for rollling to avoid being surprised!
And if you always succeed those, you defend successfully and avoid surprise...100% of the time?
the reaction roll is nor a defense neither any other kind of action... it is a preliminary check before any action can be undertaken. A character with 10 in state of mind never fails this check.
Hope it helps, best
 
Hya, some more info about VI·VIII·X KUP RPG!

Firstly after some overall info and the 'deep dives', I am pleased to introduce a post where I try to explain the main reasons leading me to write this game:

Then, I defined how to manage the playtest, here below the post about this topic:

There is not really a 'starting date' for the playtest, for the sake of simplicity, I will assume Jan 1st 2023 as the launch.

As usual, any comment or clarification (here or directly on the blog) is more than welcome!

I will keep you updated!
 
Hi everybody! The fact I do not regularly post updates here is due to the works I am currently carrying out for the game... I am writing a quickstart (not too difficult to my eyes) and a revised 'presentation' according to several suggestions! The later is by far more difficult for my capabilities! In the meanwhile, to keep me motivated and active, I posted an update today here:

In January, I added some (hopefully) useful insights on the most relevant features of the game. These are the related links to the posts:

I did these posts to complete the 'deep dive' series on my blog: with them I have a nearly complete description of my game! That will be the base for the 'revised presentation' of the VI·VIII·X game!

...as usual, any comment or suggestion is more than welcome! Have a great weekend and thanks!
ciaooo
 
...ah! Sorry but I also forgot to post an interesting finding I had last month!
Apparently I was not the first one who conceived the idea to veil a part of the game to players... someone nearly 50 years ago (yes, that is correct: it happened one year after the publication of D&D!) was thinking in the same way and discussed his idea with Gygax himself:


Hope you will find interesting!
Ciaooo
 
You and the fellow that spoke about Eisen's vow are following the same logic as the FKR movement (meaning Frei Kriegspiel) which has been emerging lately. And I've been drifting more and more towards it, myself.
But I got there from an unholy mix of Traveller, CoC, Mythras, Exalted and PbtA-style "dialogue", coupled (and contrasted) with deep in-character immersion as a goal. Because I tend to find commonalities in weird places, that's...well, just me:grin:!
I mean, it all crystalized for me with a CoC7e session, but I used it to apply some concepts that I started to think about due to the Original Traveller posts, and it has been brewing long before that...
So, as you all say, the idea is to make the players interact with the situation, not the rules. I agree that's the idea. And so do the FKR Referees.
The difference is IMO how we all are trying to achieve it.


I do it in one of two ways: either by telling them "the rules are here but you don't need to know them, you can just interact with the situation and if you know me, you'd know I'd twist the system's hand until it gives me a reasonable approximation of the odds anyway, so just leave it to me, OK?" In this case, I work with human laziness, mostly. (The other option is to give them the rules and put it to discussion how to apply them to get the best emulation - but relying on this has been less successful IME).
In this case the rules are, pardon my French, my bitch. I am going to apply them straight if I think they're doing a good enough job, sure. If not? Well, I can think of modifiers...
Or, well, the rules are the group's bitch, in the latter case.
Either way, the main peril in this case are a) players who want to interact with rules for their own benefits and b) players who have better understanding of a situation than me/the rest of the group, but fail to convey why what they're doing would have better or worse odds than I thought.


The FKR tells you "the GM is the rules, but a rulebook doesn't exist". So it removes all rules, making the attempt to rely on them...well, ill-founded.
In this case, the rules/system are "whatever you think you can persuade the GM". The main peril is a persuasive player persuading the GM about too much...


You're instead telling them "the rules are there, you can rely on me applying them, but I won't tell you what they are".
In this case, the rules become a kind of Grail, except one to be deciphered/second-guessed...and IMO, the main danger is that this very approach might make some players focus on the rules more, not less:shade:.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aia
You and the fellow that spoke about Eisen's vow are following the same logic as the FKR movement (meaning Frei Kriegspiel) which has been emerging lately. And I've been drifting more and more towards it, myself.
But I got there from an unholy mix of Traveller, CoC, Mythras, Exalted and PbtA-style "dialogue", coupled (and contrasted) with deep in-character immersion as a goal. Because I tend to find commonalities in weird places, that's...well, just me:grin:!
I mean, it all crystalized for me with a CoC7e session, but I used it to apply some concepts that I started to think about due to the Original Traveller posts, and it has been brewing long before that...
So, as you all say, the idea is to make the players interact with the situation, not the rules. I agree that's the idea. And so do the FKR Referees.
The difference is IMO how we all are trying to achieve it.


I do it in one of two ways: either by telling them "the rules are here but you don't need to know them, you can just interact with the situation and if you know me, you'd know I'd twist the system's hand until it gives me a reasonable approximation of the odds anyway, so just leave it to me, OK?" In this case, I work with human laziness, mostly. (The other option is to give them the rules and put it to discussion how to apply them to get the best emulation - but relying on this has been less successful IME).
In this case the rules are, pardon my French, my bitch. I am going to apply them straight if I think they're doing a good enough job, sure. If not? Well, I can think of modifiers...
Or, well, the rules are the group's bitch, in the latter case.
Either way, the main peril in this case are a) players who want to interact with rules for their own benefits and b) players who have better understanding of a situation than me/the rest of the group, but fail to convey why what they're doing would have better or worse odds than I thought.
I can follow you though even if I have some other ideas: while I get that you got the main message ("make the players interact with the situation, not the rules") and therefore the starting point is common to both understanding, I am not sure about the role of the DM you're describing. My idea is that either way or any other, a player has to blindly rely on the GM. No way.
This is the fundamental of the social contract between players and master. If the trust is in any way not present, then any rpg (and by "any" I mean every kind of system from d&d up to those derived by the forge discussion!) will not work.

The FKR tells you "the GM is the rules, but a rulebook doesn't exist". So it removes all rules, making the attempt to rely on them...well, ill-founded.
In this case, the rules/system are "whatever you think you can persuade the GM". The main peril is a persuasive player persuading the GM about too much...
Well, that is an extreme I didn't want to achieve... I have often thought at this solution but it never convinced me... the KUP model is a "mild" version where a player could find a benefit but trying to enjoy more the game and care less about the rules (as you said!)

You're instead telling them "the rules are there, you can rely on me applying them, but I won't tell you what they are".
In this case, the rules become a kind of Grail, except one to be deciphered/second-guessed...and IMO, the main danger is that this very approach might make some players focus on the rules more, not less:shade:.
Well, not exactly: the rules are there, you can look at them but this is going to be rather useless as you are not going to participate to its application. Only the GM will know all the bits that, for instance, are part of an action resolution check, therefore the player can even play with disregards at the rule... on the possible paradox that a player can be pushed to unveil what is veiled, yes! That is possible, but in that case there is no game model you can adopt for such a profile. This kind of gamers can only play and enjoy the game within a group of similar people (...and let me add that i am not even sure that the game will work...). I do not blame this kind of players but, with no offense intended, these guys are wargamers and not rpgers... that's all!
 
I can follow you though even if I have some other ideas: while I get that you got the main message ("make the players interact with the situation, not the rules") and therefore the starting point is common to both understanding, I am not sure about the role of the DM you're describing. My idea is that either way or any other, a player has to blindly rely on the GM. No way.
Well, my point is that I have rules, the rule info I am using isn't hidden...I'm just using the players' natural laziness to let me apply all of the system info. So, a "soft" version of your approach, but one where the players are presumably less likely to try and second-guess me (because that would require more effort:tongue:).
Of course, works with some players, not so much with others. Like anyting.
This is the fundamental of the social contract between players and master. If the trust is in any way not present, then any rpg (and by "any" I mean every kind of system from d&d up to those derived by the forge discussion!) will not work.
Alas, yes:thumbsup:.

Well, that is an extreme I didn't want to achieve... I have often thought at this solution but it never convinced me... the KUP model is a "mild" version where a player could find a benefit but trying to enjoy more the game and care less about the rules (as you said!)
Sure, but it's also the easiest approach...least amount of rules, and can't be second-guessed.
Well, not exactly: the rules are there, you can look at them but this is going to be rather useless as you are not going to participate to its application. Only the GM will know all the bits that, for instance, are part of an action resolution check, therefore the player can even play with disregards at the rule...

on the possible paradox that a player can be pushed to unveil what is veiled, yes! That is possible, but in that case there is no game model you can adopt for such a profile.
Technically, I could adopt the FKR approach. There's no ruleset I need to abide by, so I can't be second-guessed...
But that would require the most trust between players and Referee, at the same time.
This kind of gamers can only play and enjoy the game within a group of similar people (...and let me add that i am not even sure that the game will work...). I do not blame this kind of players but, with no offense intended, these guys are wargamers and not rpgers... that's all!
Well, that statement wouldn't go over well...and while I agree this kind of players need their likes, isn't it the same for story-oriented players, or people naturally predisposed towards, say, FKR:grin:?
Intercompatibility between players is very, very important and not talked about enough, IMO.
 
Well, my point is that I have rules, the rule info I am using isn't hidden...I'm just using the players' natural laziness to let me apply all of the system info. So, a "soft" version of your approach, but one where the players are presumably less likely to try and second-guess me (because that would require more effort:tongue:).
Of course, works with some players, not so much with others. Like anyting.

Alas, yes:thumbsup:.


Sure, but it's also the easiest approach...least amount of rules, and can't be second-guessed.



Technically, I could adopt the FKR approach. There's no ruleset I need to abide by, so I can't be second-guessed...
But that would require the most trust between players and Referee, at the same time.

Well, that statement wouldn't go over well...and while I agree this kind of players need their likes, isn't it the same for story-oriented players, or people naturally predisposed towards, say, FKR:grin:?
Intercompatibility between players is very, very important and not talked about enough, IMO.
You're right but that's another point... (which imho can't be managed with rules)
 
Apologies if I leave this update only now!

I pushed my search on the origins of morality in d&d further and reported it here:


I really hope this additional picture on one of the most important features in an RPG for me will help to outline its relevance!

Thanks and enjoy!
 
Apologies if I didn't leave any recent update!

Hereby some posts about the VI.VIII.X game:




 
Hi fellows, this communication to let you know that I created a new site for the VI·VIII·X KUP RPG. From today you will find the pages of my game on Substack:

https://viviiix.substack.com/

This platform is highly more effective than the old blog since it still has the features of a blog and, in addition by subscribing, you will also get the contents in form of newsletter directly in your mailbox. Therefore I find it extremely useful to invite you to subscribe to my new page either on the "Subscribe" page or you can do it even by reading any post at its end. By doing this, you will get any future post in your inbox as a newsletter.

This can be very handy as I am currently working on a quickstart of the core rules and you can get updares on the development and the publication without accessing the web page (should you be annoyed by my updates, you can unsubscribe at any time!).

Thanks a lot for your attention and I really look forward to seeing you on my new page, ciaoo
 
I haven't read any of your pdf or blogposts yet as I find this idea somewhat alien in RPGs, but I have a question based on what I've read here.

For example, if a character is carrying a lot of equipment, is quite athletic, is being chased by orcs, and has to jump over lava to avoid certain death at the hands of those orcs. What if the player asks you, the GM, how does my character feel about his chances of not getting killed?

Could you tell, 'Not so great', 'pretty good', 'it's going to be most likely fine', 'abysmal', or perhaps 'fifty-fifty'. Let's say you answer 'Not so great' in this instance. Now, what if the player asks how their PCs chances would be if he throws all the heavy stuff away? Will you answer 'pretty good'? Or would you just answer, 'Dunno, I'll just roll for it lol'?

I know that 99% of the people I play with in multiple groups would wonder why is the GM being so obtuse? What does he think we get out of this? Is all of this secrecy really worth it? Why am I playing Ten Questions, and why did it take me so long to get a fifty-fifty answer? Why oh why I can't roll my precious dice I bought 3 decades ago? :tongue:
 
Last edited:
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top