Winds of Fate needs to be tested in a non-D&D system.

[Orion]

And yet despite 7+ pages of people saying "we can't discuss this until someone posts rules," no one commented on my rules.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that you SHOULD. Deck-based systems let you reserve cards and hold onto them allows you to avoid/punish overextension (or give you the choice between doing that and being able to lay a rushdown), let you increase the odds of getting a hand that you want if certain cards work better in combination. Both of which conflict with or are obviated by design goals of D&D. For example if you want people to have a large, undepleting list of options from round-to-round you need to generate a full hand every turn so there's no point in holding hards since you'll always have six. Allowing people to hold cards increases movespam slightly (and is more pronounced the fewer hands you roll for) but also helps with internal combos.

Frank presumably doesn't want people to hold onto cards because of the whole movespam things and also because it slows the game down. I don't think it's a particularly big deal and can/should be used for certain classes/roles/power sources to make them feel more different. I think I posted an example WoF source/class template where the Psionic-sourced classes could do such a thing through a phenomenon known as Psionic Mapping. I'm not going to have my feelings hurt if you think it's a bad idea because I know WHY you'd think it's a bad idea.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And yet despite 7+ pages of people saying "we can't discuss this until someone posts rules," no one commented on my rules.

I refuse to indulge people in this because it's a rather pithy and transparent delaying tactic. I don't think it's moving the goalposts but rather I hate the idea that you can't evaluate something unless you have the exact physical copy. I don't need to write or read an entire book to determine if a passage is any good. I don't need to eat an entire five-course meal to determine if a steak is good or if a change in recipe will make it shit or taste better. Especially if I have similar steaks and books to compare it to.

Asking someone to write up a WoF system with powers is basically asking someone to do these things:

One: Write up a combat engine so you can evaluate things like buffs, positioning, and status effects.
Two: Write up a class and level-based system complete with advancement from scratch. Then you need to fill it up with about 50+ powers for one class.
Four: THEN write up said system to connect one and two.

Seriously, by the time you do all of that crap you pretty much have your own game. From scratch. I can write a template of how the system works (and I posted it earlier in the thread) and I might even be able to write up a class. But saying 'I refuse to talk about WoF unless I see a system' is basically telling someone to write an entire gamebook the size of the 3rd Edition Player's Handbook. But that shit is unnecessary because we know how deck-based systems operate and we know that chart-based systems are just a subset of deck-based systems. So people saying that you need to have an entire system before you can evaluate it are just being mendacious. You shouldn't have to write up an entire game to theoretically talk about a subsystem, that's just a waste of effort.

[Koumei]

This is true, although you will eventually need to actually produce such a system if you want people to play it. Otherwise it's just a very elaborate "What if ___?" And we're the Den, we Get Shit Done.

So you'll be wanting to make said system anyway - at some point, when you have your ideas and everything hammered down. It's just a matter of deciding when it's time to do so.

And a fair number of people don't like the sound of the marinademechanic you're using, and thus only when you show them in a very real way that the steak is deliciousgame works awesomely will they stop calling you and your idea stupid, and maybe jump on board.

Now, I think the steak was made out of fishmechanic caters only to the style of game I don't like, so I'm not going to eat play it anyway. But I figure you do need to be aware of the fact that you are going to have to cookwrite it at some point anyway.

And I've pushed your steak metaphor as far as it's going.

[Username17]

It actually seems ideal for a multi-round dueling system with abstracted positioning - you know, like Midgaard Wrestling Championship.

-Username17

[Koumei]

I know - and I believe I mentioned in the first MWC thread something along the lines of "This is weird because it's exactly the kind of game I don't normally like, where the whole focus is combat, and fighting is supposed to last for ages".

So really, rather than having a separate list for "When he's prone" and "When he's in the turnbuckle" like the Raw vs Smackdown games, it would indeed be best to use WoF for it. Because it's the kind of game where there mustn't be an "obvious choice winning move" to spam endlessly for the OHKO.

And for this reason I'm glad you like the game concept enough to work on it, because I have the feeling I'd balls it up.

[RobbyPants]

I refuse to indulge people in this because it's a rather pithy and transparent delaying tactic. I don't think it's moving the goalposts but rather I hate the idea that you can't evaluate something unless you have the exact physical copy.

It's been a while since I've read any of the WoF threads, but I seem to remember it being one side making claims that this would speed things up and keep stuff diverse and the other side saying that at wills and heuristics let you make quick decisions and keep agency. Then each side would say that the other side's approach wouldn't work as well as they said it would.

It was arguing theoretics against theoretics. IMO, it just got boring to read. I'd rather just play a game and see if I actually like it.

[Kaelik]

And yet despite 7+ pages of people saying "we can't discuss this until someone posts rules," no one commented on my rules.

I refuse to indulge people in this because it's a rather pithy and transparent delaying tactic. I don't think it's moving the goalposts but rather I hate the idea that you can't evaluate something unless you have the exact physical copy.

Well there was the whole thing where every time someone pointed out a flaw, you claimed it wasn't a flaw based on some aspect of the rules that is mutually contradictory with the last time someone pointed out a flaw.

But as for Orion, I have no idea where his rules are, but I expect people to be able to take all the complaints I did make, sort them into those that are inapplicable because of how the rules were built, and those that are, because fuck you guys and your WoF cocksucking.

It's not a bad or unacceptable system, and I specifically said it was probably the most suitable system for that one game Frank was working on, and by extension Midgard Wrestling, because the important parts are abstract positioning, focus on combat, basically no combat vs non combat interactions.

[Dominicius]

Hm...

Would a Pokemon game be a good candidate to use WoF?

[MGuy]

I don't see how wanting a concrete version of the game in theory is a delaying tactic especially when throughout this thread everyone who has defended WoF can point to games that actually do exist to expose flaws in other resource management systems. And what Kaelik said.

[Dean]

Because it's an insane request given the history of this forum. Go back 3 pages and tell me how many ideas for various sub systems there are? We can talk about CAN and we can talk about social combat systems and anything else someone brings up as a possibility and it would be an insane world if every time someone posted one of those we required you to make a game around it that operates well and proves the initial points you wanted in order for discussion about it to continue.

[PhoneLobster]

it would be an insane world if every time someone posted one of those we required you to make a game

Only that is not how it actually went down.

People started saying "well fuck, make a game and show us then" only AFTER the following occurred.

1) Lago had spammed the forums with WoF wankery forever, which is annoying for those of us who want to talk about OTHER theogy.

2) Lago and Frank had said so many deeply contradictory things about WoF that the discussion NEEDED them to commit to SOMETHING so ANYONE would have ANY IDEA what the fuck either of these two (let alone both of them) are even proposing.

"OK then, show us" is at this point a perfectly reasonable response. Because it is one that A) Suggests Lago stops pestering us about it and puts the apparently vast interest he has in the subject to some productive use and B) Potentially clarifies the ludicrous and endless array of contradictions and disagreements presented by actual WoF proponents all on their own.

It's not like someone out of the blue said "Hey WoF?" and we all said "Go make it or we won't talk about it". We talked about it plenty. The conclusion that discussion reached, after PLENTY of theory wanking from everyone, was that the WoF guys should go and make it or something.

Then Lago can marry it since he lurves it so much.