Worldweaver

[Morgan_R]

Worldweaver is a wiki- and forum-based game of worldbuilding and roleplaying combined. Players collaborate to make a world, and then create characters to play in it.

Inspirations include Dawn of Worlds, Primetime Adventures, and Archipelago III.

Intrigued? You can read the complete rules (as they currently stand) here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vyTaAT7qkt3BYsPnUQ_p3pzDg6C83wPWeizQs-LPvXc/edit?usp=sharing).

[inuyasha]

I want to play! I want to play! It sounds like fun, set up a wiki soon please :D

[Morgan_R]

Awesome, thanks, I will! And I want to play too... this is definitely a case of making something just because I want to play it. Still, it seems reasonable to get at least a little critical feedback before I go ahead and start playtesting... but yeah, I'm hoping to potentially kick off the first playtest as early as next weekend. It's not exactly a rules-heavy game.

[Grinner]

Very creative. I'd like to see more about how hooks work, since it seems like players would spend all of their points on creating hooks, trying to build up more points. Perhaps players should also receive points for creating entries for other player's hooks?

Consider my interest also piqued.

[inuyasha]

Awesome, thanks, I will! And I want to play too... this is definitely a case of making something just because I want to play it. Still, it seems reasonable to get at least a little critical feedback before I go ahead and start playtesting... but yeah, I'm hoping to potentially kick off the first playtest as early as next weekend. It's not exactly a rules-heavy game.

cool, just post a link to the thread here when its made :)

[Morgan_R]

Very creative. I'd like to see more about how hooks work, since it seems like players would spend all of their points on creating hooks, trying to build up more points. Perhaps players should also receive points for creating entries for other player's hooks?

Consider my interest also piqued.

Yeah, and as a friend of mine pointed out, the economics weren't working out. Take a look at the new version, I think it makes more sense now.

[Morgan_R]

Bump with some new rules for the world-building portion of the game, as well as new information on character-building.

[Morgan_R]

Bump with a bit of an update. Still hoping to get some constructive criticism on this... :smallsmile:

[Morgan_R]

And another bump because it's done... at least the first version. I'm narrowly resisting the urge to put together a playtest right now... :smalltongue:

[bryn0528]

And another bump because it's done... at least the first version. I'm narrowly resisting the urge to put together a playtest right now... :smalltongue:

This is a thing that should happen. Because this looks to be very, very intriguing to say the least.

[inuyasha]

can I have a good defenition of what a hook is?

[Morgan_R]

This is a thing that should happen. Because this looks to be very, very intriguing to say the least.

Thanks!


can I have a good defenition of what a hook is?

A hook is a link with no page yet, in the game's wiki. If you haven't ever edited a wiki, this might not make sense... but basically you can put brackets around a bit of text to say 'this is a link,' and if there isn't a page by that name, the wiki will automatically direct you to 'page doesn't exist yet, do you want to create it?' when you click it.

[inuyasha]

ah so making a hook gives you a point, and then making a page from said hook is free, am i right? this is totally frickin' awesome!

[Morgan_R]

ah so making a hook gives you a point, and then making a page from said hook is free, am i right? this is totally frickin' awesome!

Not quite. Making a hook is free. Making an entry based off of your own hook costs 1 point. Making an entry based off of someone else's hook gets you a point... but they're considered to 'own' what you created, and can edit it freely.

Shoot, I think I forgot to put in anything about editing... let me fix that. :smallredface:

[inuyasha]

so you almost want to make blank hooks for yourself and make filled up hooks for other people, i like it :D

[Milo v3]

I really like this idea. It has some great ideas, and is a very different take on community world building to basically everything else I've seen.

I'd really like to play once you start the playtests.

[Morgan_R]

I really like this idea. It has some great ideas, and is a very different take on community world building to basically everything else I've seen.

I'd really like to play once you start the playtests.

Thanks! I've got a recruitment thread up here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=288444)

Definitely still open to critique on the rules, though!

[Milo v3]

This is in regard to the recruitment thread but, why is the name field required... Our usernames are automatically attached to our posts...

Also, what type of writing sample are you looking for? What sort of content is it meant to be?

[Morgan_R]

Point taken, I'll change that.

And I've changed the writing sample request to be more specific. Really, I just want to see if people can write a paragraph without too many glaring errors. :smalltongue:

[inuyasha]

I just submitted my paragraph :)

[Kazyan]

I'll apply for the playtest when I get the free time to write the paragraph.

[Moriwen]

I applied too! Excited to see how this works out!

[Morgan_R]

All right, I've broken down and linked to my Google doc rather than reformatting it every time. There's a couple minor rules changes, but nothing huge.

[Morgan_R]

Okay, this change is huge:

Conflict Resolution

During roleplaying, conflicts between the protagonist and other characters will likely arise. The protagonist’s player may narrate how events could unfold if their character succeeds. This narration should be done in third-person past tense, as usual. If their narration reflects an advantage, they should invoke that advantage by adding it to the end of their post, i.e., “Advantage: Master swordsman (+3)”

Any players of characters affected by their post -- including the GM -- may then decide to declare a conflict, which the GM must resolve.

The GM rolls a d6, adding the relevant bonus if the player invoked an advantage. They may also add whatever bonuses (positive or negative) they feel are appropriate to the situation, as described in the situational bonuses section below.

The GM then interprets the result using either of the following guidelines, at their discretion:

Simple resolution:

4-6+ - yes
1-3 - no

In the case of a ‘yes,’ the player’s narration stands. In the case of a ‘no,’ the GM edits their post, and either narrates subsequent events, or hands off narration to the contesting player.

Complex resolution:

6+ - yes and
5 - yes
4 - yes but
3 - no but
2 - no
1 - no and

'Yes and' means that the player wins the conflict, and then some: Alex wins the barfight, just as he described, and the pretty barmaid he was flirting with earlier is very impressed. 'Yes' is just a win. 'Yes, but' implies some detrimental effect: Alex wins the barfight, but the barmaid is shocked by his violence, and wants nothing to do with him.

'No but' means the player loses the conflict, but gains something: Alex loses the barfight, but the barmaid solicitously tends to his wounds. 'No' is just a lose. 'No and' is the worst outcome, bad with a side of bad -- Alex loses the barfight, and the barmaid is clearly impressed by the winner.

In any case (with the exception of a simple 'yes,') the GM should edit the player's post as necessary, as well as possibly making a follow-up post of their own.


Feedback welcome! Let me know if I'm crazy, here. ;)

[Moriwen]

So (let me see if I'm understanding this right) the change is basically that you don't have to have a conflict if the other players like what you're doing?

Seems reasonable to me. In general, I'm not sure how smoothly the roleplaying and worldbuilding parts of the game integrate, but the playtest will help see that.

[zabbarot]

That conflict resolution is pretty good. Actually I feel like this would work really well for those freeform forum RPs you see now and then too. Instead of all that "nuh uh, you didn't hit me" you usually get :|

I think I'll go post in your playtest recruitment >.>

[Morgan_R]

So (let me see if I'm understanding this right) the change is basically that you don't have to have a conflict if the other players like what you're doing?

Sorry, I probably should have highlighted the change. :smallredface:

The change (and it's a pretty big one, relative to the semi-freeform thing I'm used to doing in the forum-based games I play), is that you get to write out your potentially conflict-driving action as if it succeeds. If the GM decides it might not, then they get to roll and (potentially) edit your post.

It's a little weird, but I think it could work!

I do want to add a little bit more connection between the worldbuilding and roleplaying (awarding players points if other players use their elements in their RP, basically), and fiddle with the conflict resolution a tiny bit more (defining what you can and can't do to supporting characters vs. antagonists/PCs), but I think it's getting close.

[Morgan_R]

That conflict resolution is pretty good. Actually I feel like this would work really well for those freeform forum RPs you see now and then too. Instead of all that "nuh uh, you didn't hit me" you usually get :|

I think I'll go post in your playtest recruitment >.>

Everything I know about mechanics for conflict resolution, I learned doing freeform forum RP. ;)

Okay, that's a lie, the yes/no + and/but thing I swiped from Archipelago III, although they do it with cards. But my desire to have a system? That comes from playing without one.

Hope to see you there!

[zabbarot]

Everything I know about mechanics for conflict resolution, I learned doing freeform forum RP. ;)

Okay, that's a lie, the yes/no + and/but thing I swiped from Archipelago III, although they do it with cards. But my desire to have a system? That comes from playing without one.

Hope to see you there!

Well that explains it then. The lack of conflict resolution and the large number of people I'd like to get into conflicts with is usually what keeps me out of freeform games, but I've enjoyed a few. Freeform actually just made me appreciate systems like GURPS with literal rules for everything, so I can definitely understand the desire to codify it a bit.

[Morgan_R]

Okay, I've reworked the worldbuilding ownership/points system yet again, as follows:

Worldbuilding

The core mechanic for the worldbuilding portion of the game is spending and acquiring points. Players start with 30 points, and every day that they create at least one entry, they gain 3 points.

Creating a wiki entry costs 3 points. The player is then said to own the entry. The owner can edit an entry freely. Other players can make edits, but the owner is free to reject them.

So what can you create in your entries? Pretty much anything you can think of. Build cities and towns, name and describe geographical features, define various aspects of the culture, and create guilds, temples, schools, shops, inns, etc, etc.

You may also create characters, however, there are some additional rules associated with them, as described in the Characters section below.

Hooks

Entries can contain any number of hooks, or links to pages that haven't been created yet. A hook is an invitation for other players to add content, fleshing out the idea. When creating a hook, you can optionally create a page for the hook that tells other players what you’re looking for.

If you build off of another player’s hook, you don’t pay for creating the entry -- in fact, if they approve your entry, you get 2 points. You can also edit another player’s entry to add content, in which case you get 1 point if they approve it.

The basic idea is that you get points to build your ideas, by helping others flesh out their ideas.


Possibilities

To increase the odds of a player approving your edit or entry, you can provide up to three different possibilities, clearly labelled with a header of Possibility One, Possibility Two, etc., each with a subheading that says Author: [YourName].

Even if you are only offering one possibility, your entry should still include a Possibility header and Author subheader at the top, since other players can jump in and add their own possibilities.

If you create multiple possibilities, and the owning player accepts one of them, you get the points for all of them, reflecting the additional effort you put in.