Brett's Blog Story Engine 3E Jun 03, 2010 | 1:47 pm I've been going through a lot of ideas for Story Engine 3E, but I haven't settled on anything concrete yet. I've had people tell me that they don't like lots of dice, while others say that they want lots of dice. Some people want more structure, some want the same, and others want less. The core mechanics will likely be the same as genreDiversion 3E, but the execution is another matter. My current concept is to remove the abilities and just focus on descriptors and pursuits. But, there would be different types of descriptors - just to help illustrate their use. At the basic level, descriptors would be like genreDiversion 3E's ability gimmicks. They modify a base ability - since there are no abilities, they simply describe a bonus or penalty in one area. There would be 6 types of descriptors: Tangibles (fitness), Cognitives (awareness), Expressives (creativity, triggers), Analyticals (reasoning, beliefs), Associations (influence, threads), and Gimmicks (props, authoritative powers). In other words, the abilities they modify would be set at a default of average (or 0). Pursuits would work just like in genreDiversion 3E, except that they represent careers and roles. Entire scenes would be resolved in one roll, grouping multiple characters on the same team into that roll. Descriptors can be burned to roll an extra die (just like experience) and exploits can be used for special effects. So how is this different from genreDiversion 3E? It's more abstract with descriptive elements. Exploits can also change parts of the scene's environment. More narrative control by players can directly influence the scene or upcoming scenes. Can't this simply be done with genreDiversion 3E? Yes, with the proper add-on rules. Is there still a need for Story Engine 3E? Or should optional rules just be provided for genreDiversion 3E? By the same token, why not do the same for Active Exploits - just make an add-on for GD3E that replaces Active Exploits. You tell me. I can't make a decision without the proper feedback. 11 Comments | Add Comment | Permanent Link | Return to Overview DacarthanAdollan Commented: Jun 04, 2010 | 7:50 am i still play maelstrom storytelling. i havent used story engine for anything else. if its really the same at the basic level maybe add on packs are the way to go. ill look more into this later. dont have time at this moment. mtwofive Commented: Jun 04, 2010 | 11:30 am I'd say add-ons as well. It would be nice to be able to mix and match rules (such as adding descriptors to a GD3 character, or exploits that can change a scene) to customize the game, though I don't know how that would work. CrazyBlend Commented: Jun 04, 2010 | 2:03 pm Here's another vote for add-ins rather than distinct systems. I've always thought it would be better if PI's similar-but-different systems were unified, and now GD3 is a perfect choice for the foundation. Brett Commented: Jun 04, 2010 | 6:12 pm It does sound like the best route. Anyone against this idea? Telengard Commented: Jun 05, 2010 | 5:19 am I like the add-ons route as well. Wothbora Commented: Jun 05, 2010 | 2:09 pm I'd say go with the "add-ons." Over the years I've noticed a general blending with these three of your game lines. Basically you've refined each to its maximum potential and a joining of the three would be logical and beneficial. You could add "switches" that let us turn on elements we want in certain settings and turn others off. Something that hasn't been touched is using a deck of playing cards that characters hold and then spend to accomplish various tasks. Sort of a resource management system similar to diceless play only with an element of randomness. Wothbora Brett Commented: Jun 05, 2010 | 9:48 pm Playing cards are certainly an option, but it means having to print and cut them - a lot of work (relatively) compared to just sitting down and playing. I haven't abandoned the idea though. EDIT: Or did you mean just regular playing cards? Wothbora Commented: Jun 05, 2010 | 10:19 pm I was thinking regular playing cards. 1 through 10 with jokers and jacks for character "story points" which could be played to change outcomes and share in the narrative. trekfanatic Commented: Jun 05, 2010 | 11:14 pm I really like the idea of supplements. You could even present a setting with each like you did with Unbidden in GD3. I really, really liked Active Exploits and would love to add some of its cool touches to a GD3 game. And as for cards, I like using them for Inititiative. Everyine having a card in front of them cuts down on book keeping. I even use the cards to determine # actions in a round, just to make things more exciting. I alos really like the way 2FT used them as "Hero Points" that could modify rolls. Jean-François Cabirol Commented: Jun 15, 2010 | 12:13 pm As far as I am concerned I prefer to have one book with everything rather than a rulebook and an add-on invalidating some of the rules in the main book. Brett Commented: Jun 15, 2010 | 12:17 pm You'll get both. The Classic Stand-Alone game, which adds some familiar options, and the 3E add-on for genreDiversion. You can take your pick. Add Comment