I really Liked the token system. at least in reading, i hope i get a chance to try it out sometime this summer. perhaps i will convert my fantasy campaign setting to it? i been trying to find a good system to apply my setting to. hmm i suppose if it wins i will not get a chance to maybe discuss using it for my setting... Hmmm maybe i should take back my vote.. LOL oh well, even if i dont use it for my system. it sounds a lot of fun cant way to try it out myself.
The 7-Day RPG Contest [Voting is over!]
I don't know. It feels too similar to Greg Stolze's Token Effort system for ... In Spaaace! for it to really stand out to me. It's its own game to be sure, but I definitely felt like I've seen it before when I read through it.
Rune
Once A Fool
Is that system completely non-random? The only RPG I'm aware of that has no randomizing elements (other than the newly created Token System, that is) is Amber Diceless Roleplaying. Fankly, I never really liked that system all that much, because there didn't seem to be any means of creating uncertainty (and, hence, tension).
The meat and potatoes of the Token System is the carefully balanced economy of the game-play mechanic--and the uncertainty (and, thereby, tension) of playing against a thinking opponent. And knowingly weighing the risk/reward of the bid. (The GM is not an adversary, but is a constant source of opposition!)
EDIT--I just did a google search for the Token Effort system. There are some definite mechanical similarities there, including the primary balancing mechanic.
However, the fundamental philosophy of the game is drastically different. That system appears to derive its tension from the uncertainty of secret bidding--a mechanic that would make for an entirely different play experience!
For that reason, I think the Token System more closely resembles poker than it resembles Token Effort. Although I do now wish I'd come up with a better name.
Last edited:
Murph Murphy
First Post
So I'll break out of the Kaufmen-esque mode for a sec for serious game design talk.
So MEN OF POWER does present several meaningful choices to the player and GM. It is a humorous package around an actual game.
In most systems, the GM should be preparing obstacles and challenges that can not be overcome through combat (unless, explicitly, you are creating a "lets just fight using the system" style game, which is a valid playstyle, but not the normal flow). MOP with Fight men makes the need to do this all the more explicitly. The stereotypical "bandits attack the caravan" encounter doesn't work, assuming the party contains a Fight man and the bandits are all Bad men. You have to take it a step further as a GM and challenge your players to not just defend the current caravan, but figure out why there are bandits and how you can stop them in the future. Also the scene gets more complicated if one of the bandits is a Fight man. Now if the players chose to fight, they have to be satisfied with a half victory, figure out victory means to them, and how it's compatible with the bandit's Fight man. Is everyone getting out alive enough, if the bandits get to keep the carts? Are you willing to die for the caravan to get to it's destination? It's a game about compromise when two unstoppable forces meet.
Cool man faces all the same choices as Fight man above, all be it in different situations. You'll actually find this dynamic in a 3.x game with unlimited splat books or Shadowrun. Some players will optimize towards combat, and some will optimize towards social. While it's not as explicit as MOP that each character dominates in one arena in the previously mentioned games, it is how the dynamic can shake out. Interesting things happen when you force the Fight man to the social challenge and Cool man into the combat challenge, as non-standard solution are apt to rise in those situations.
Also, why do Bad men exist? They have three reasons to exist. They are the mooks, the 1/2 hit die kobold, the 1 hp minion, the people batman throws around before confronting the Joker. They are bodies for the GM to add to the story. A "main villain" should never be a Bad man, though he probably is a surrounded by them. Secondly, they are a foil to hold up the PCs, who will mostly be Fight and Cool men. If these men are always bad, then these men should be always good, except sometime they are not. Finally, some players like playing weaker characters, but I wouldn't advise it.
To wrap it up, MOP is a game of humor, minimalism and compromise.
Also anticipate MOP: 4th edition.
Last edited:
Men of Power is, essentially, rock-paper-scissors. As it is at present, I quite like the concept and think it definitely has a place, but it would need to offer more value before folks would pay for it (and more than the standard GMing advice etc. one finds in an RPG). But there's absolutely a kernel of something there.
I do love some of the mechanics in these entries. There's a wide range there, geared towards different playstyles. Daughters of Lear, for example, has a simple mechanic/concept which appeals to me; and I like the idea of some of the less (or not) randomized resolution mechanics.
I haven't voted yet!
I do love some of the mechanics in these entries. There's a wide range there, geared towards different playstyles. Daughters of Lear, for example, has a simple mechanic/concept which appeals to me; and I like the idea of some of the less (or not) randomized resolution mechanics.
I haven't voted yet!
Mike Eagling
Explorer
Isn't that true of any rpg, unless it's just a glorified combat fest?
Having said that, MOP (I love the fact it has it's own abbreviation already) was very funny. It reminded me of "Hit a Dude", which won an ENnie so I can't complain if MOP wins this.
http://hitadude.com/
Not that it should, of course: VOTE FOR ME!!!
Will it have miniatures rules? And can I lead the complaints that 4th edition breaks the game and anyone not playing MOP1e is obviously doing it wrong?
Rune
Once A Fool
Given time to ponder this statement (and sleep), I must confess that I am still confused by it. No one singles out the myriad of systems that use some variation of the "Roll die/dice, add modifiers, & compare to target number" chassis as not being innovative, or not standing out. Why? Because the mechanics aren't the point.
The mechanics of the game exist as they do for only one purpose: to enable a particular play experience. If The Token System is in any way innovative, it is not because of its mechanics, but because of what it expects from its players--and what they can expect out of it.
(As for whether or not I think it's innovative: I've never seen another RPG that plays the way The Token System does--that is, providing tension solely through strategy, resource management, and narrative complications.)
Last edited:
Adrián Gómez
First Post
I love seeing so many voters in the poll, because that means not only we the authors are interested in this.
For my game -The Hope- I just tried to do a different background from what I usually like to play (I'm old school, y'know, swords and muscles). And I enjoyed a lot working on it for a few days. Of course it hasn't been tested, because now I'm playing other games with my role groups, but still hope you like its story and design. ^^
May the best win! This is a great contest!
For my game -The Hope- I just tried to do a different background from what I usually like to play (I'm old school, y'know, swords and muscles). And I enjoyed a lot working on it for a few days. Of course it hasn't been tested, because now I'm playing other games with my role groups, but still hope you like its story and design. ^^
May the best win! This is a great contest!
