The Gaming Den

Looks good.

Should there be a separate thread for plot discussion?

I don't see why we need one. I'm open to plot suggestions, my basic thoughts were some opening odd jobs and money-making leading to obtaining a cursed (but really powerful) sword, and that in turn leads to a Tower of the Elephant-style break-in on the tower to kill an exiled demigod.

Here's a question: Are we mucking about with Sagard-style experience and leveling? My gut says no.

Given that as far as I know we're only doing one book, an XP/level-up system seems unnecessary.

Don't think leveling is needed, for the reasons Darth Rabbitt posted.

Other than that, it looks great. I'm not 100% convinced that poison use and poison immunity are different enough to matter, but that is relatively small potatoes.

I don't think Psi Blast or Poison Immunity make sense.

-Username17

Offending skillz removed.

No on the leveling. Though if we had any thought of this going anywhere, it wouldn't hurt to have some items/encounters that affected future books.

JigokuBosatsu wrote:No on the leveling. Though if we had any thought of this going anywhere, it wouldn't hurt to have some items/encounters that affected future books.

I absolutely agree that there should be things that can potentially carry over to other books if they are written. Including but not limited to magic swords and armor and of course the pile of gold pieces and credits you've amassed.

-Username17

I think that the plot for the book needs to be mostly self-contained so players don't get frustrated, but Gatejammer gives us plenty of opportunity to leave things open: a book transition is walking through a portal to another planet, system, or cluster, and we're in Finality. It wouldn't hurt at all to just scatter random portals through the book, even if we don't have or plan to write those books; it might even be good for the feel of the setting. No complicated plots or hooks needed, just "oh, there's a portal to the Nine Hells of Baator down that alley, don't pay any attention to it".

As for leveling, would our current system allow character development by handing the character new skills or spells? "As thanks for relocating her from Central Park to the Elemental Plane of Wood, the Dryad confers on you the ability to call on her for aid. You may use this to cast Summon Elemental Badger once." Stats are probably also a good idea, particularly because they open up the possibility of more complex spell buffs.

Also, now that I think about it, spell recharging. When you get a spell, is that once per ever, or will there be events that allow you to recharge your spells, like sleeping in an inn or spending a few days in an alchemy lab? It sounds like we want our world to have cycles, which would require any character that depends on spells for combat viability also has a way to refuel during cycles.

Vebyast wrote:
As for leveling, would our current system allow character development by handing the character new skills or spells? "As thanks for relocating her from Central Park to the Elemental Plane of Wood, the Dryad confers on you the ability to call on her for aid. You may use this to cast Summon Elemental Badger once."

Totally- add "This new spell may be carried over to the next Barrel 'o Cocks adventure book."

Vebyast wrote: Also, now that I think about it, spell recharging. When you get a spell, is that once per ever, or will there be events that allow you to recharge your spells, like sleeping in an inn or spending a few days in an alchemy lab?

"Upon waking, you find the bed empty. A folded note lies on the credenza- upon reading it, you find that the Thalassic Matron had an enjoyable evening with your penis/vagina/tentacle and wishes to repay you for the kindness. She has left her laboratory open to you, and by spending the morning there, you may regain two spells of your choice."

Still debating whether we want to do a section on how to run combat now or sort out the details later, but I think the next bit is: what stats do we have?

I thought we were going with Frank's "choose to win or lose fights" for combat. Which may indicate we don't need stats at all.

If we don't go statless, I think all we really need is HP. Maybe a Combat Skill. Most things that would be covered by stats is already covered by our gear/spells/skills.

Let's go statless for now then - we can go back and add it in later if we want, and pick how hard fights are going to be. I like leaving in the option to deliberately lose or flee from fights.

Agreed.

If we wanted to have a system for combat where you could take variable amounts of damage and wouldn't be sure whether you would win or lose, we could have a bidding system. You put aside X stamina, and if it's enough you lose that many and win. And if it's not enough, you lose that many and lose.

Magic swords you find could act like a fixed bonus to your bid that doesn't actually cost stamina. Pokemon and explosions and stuff could act as fixed bids that don't cost you stamina. So having an explosion potion or something could say something like "You can use this up at any time to bid 6 on a combat test without actually losing any stamina". And then we wouldn't have to write in special book sections for the use of explosive potions - players could simply mark them off in any combat just by declaring it so.

-Username17

I kind of like the bidding idea. Thoughts:

• Do we want players to be able to die, either in or out of combat? If so, what are the details? I think we might want to take advantage of the Gatejammer setting here, actually: "As your mortal shell fails, you feel your soul departing. If you have good alignment, turn to Page X of Barrel o' Cocks Book 4: Mount Celestia. If you have evil alignment, turn to Page Y of Barrel o' Cocks Book 3: The Nine Hells of Baator."
• Do we want "degrees of success", triggered by bidding over or under by some amount? "If you bid under, they back you up against the cliff and force you to surrender, turn to page X. If you bid more than five under, you fall off the cliff in combat and are dead."
• How does the information for bidding get organized on-page? In most gamebooks I've seen, combats look like "The wolf attacks you. You fight it. [stat block.] If you win, turn to, if you lose, turn to". Since bidding depends on hiding some information from the player, though, we'd have to have two entries per combat: one for "The wolf attacks you", and then another for "if you bid more than X, you win, turn to...". If this were going to be paper, we could do that using page turns, with every combat being arranged on the right-hand edge of a right page and the bids being on the left edge on the next page, but I think this is going to start out as an electronic document. Is there a way to do this without requiring an extra lookup per combat?
• How much do we want to muck around with bidding mechanics? For example, do we want there to be "trap" encounters where you win by bidding under the opponent instead of over?

Also, skill suggestion:
Vampirism: In combat against living opponents, you can bid negative stamina, allowing you to recover stamina at the end of combat.

How does the information for bidding get organized on-page? In most gamebooks I've seen, combats look like "The wolf attacks you. You fight it. [stat block.] If you win, turn to, if you lose, turn to". Since bidding depends on hiding some information from the player, though, we'd have to have two entries per combat: one for "The wolf attacks you", and then another for "if you bid more than X, you win, turn to...". If this were going to be paper, we could do that using page turns, with every combat being arranged on the right-hand edge of a right page and the bids being on the left edge on the next page, but I think this is going to start out as an electronic document. Is there a way to do this without requiring an extra lookup per combat?

This is a 10-ft. wide, 100 ft. long corridor with a door at the end. A wolf is here. You can do one of the following:
§100 Sneak by it if you've the Sneak skill.
§110 Persuade it to let you pass if you've the Handler skill.
§200 Befriend it if you've a Charm potion.
§300 Attack it. Bid from 0 to 6.

Bidding 0 means you've something up your sleeve--a magic sword, a potion of 'ploding or whatever. But you include a maximum bid so automatic winning is always an option if you're willing to fuck yourself for it, or if you've just the resources to spare. It also gives the player a way to prejudge the creature's prowess and make one of the other choices before combat, knowing what a potential badass monster it is--a sort-of built-in monster knowledge skill. Monsters whose appearances are deceptive or mysterious allow a bigger range ("The Wolf-in-Sheep's-Clothing looks harmless. Bid up to 15"), while vicious monsters would require automatic bids, maybe in a seriously fuck-you range ("This is a goddam Death Slaad, asshole. Bid 12-14").

How much do we want to muck around with bidding mechanics? For example, do we want there to be "trap" encounters where you win by bidding under the opponent instead of over?

The maximum bid almost always beats the monster, while the minimum bid should almost always lose to the monster (authorial dickery excepted--"What you thought was a ghost in the closet was only a sheet hanging on a mop; lose Stamina equal to your bid as you punch through the sheet into the wall!"), but the margin of win should determine reward, and maybe that could be standardized--i.e. subtract a monster's Difficulty from your Bid; you find that much Wealth (in monster teeth and organs, random gp, or gullet gems). Losing, of course, needn't mean death. Hell, there could be spells or even skills for that.

A (very) rough possible 001 entry is up in the main post. At this point I'm proceeding under the idea that Nam Orphanmaker is here to make money and kick ass, more or less in that order, and that will segue to get-the-awesome-cursed-sword and break-into-the-tower plot. But I'm open to different plots or more elaborate plotting.

Hey_I_Can_Chan wrote:"This is a goddam Death Slaad, asshole. Bid 12-14"

This has to be an actual entry.

Heh. We'll make it so.

Are we still going with the three different quests idea for our plot?

Sure.

Draft combat rules are up in the first post. Discuss.

The bidding "Win" condition seems wonky. So by attacking the "High HP, no offense" Giant Marshmallow Sandwich you can just up and kill yourself with a series of high bids and bad rolls? Harsh, even for the Den.