thread: 2005-05-06 : A complete game has...
On 2005-05-10, Eric Finley wrote:
Neel - I think you actually had (or could write down) most of Vincent's checklist for that game. Check it -
1) The system chooses to recognize only a specific type of conflict. All other conflicts are hors systeme. Resolution is by scientific proposal. Intent and initiation are the player's. Execution is BOTE calculations by the GM, with consultation. Effect is as derived thereby. Reward for one-shot games is, traditionally, more about the satisfaction than the character advancement. (You could also argue that this is the sort of game where practice is its own reward.) Positioning is implicit in the fact that the system is incredibly selective as to which conflicts it addresses, and also in allowing all players input during the calculation/assumptions phase.
2) Level playing field for resolution; reward is binary, got it/didn't get it. You start out not getting it.
3) Is obvious.
4) You pinned down situation and colour in the text. Thorny problem; aliens or alien worlds, hard SF.
5) Characters and setting are necessitated by the specific situation, and (in the tradition of hard SF) the protagonists are largely interchangeable anyway. So it's pawn stance; so what.
6) I would add 'science' under art, here. Good science.
Just setting everything down to that checklist sure makes a heck of a decent outline document...
- Eric
