View Single Post

Thread: Erfworld game, a co-op perhaps?

  1. - Top - End - #11

    Default Re: Erfworld game, a co-op perhaps?

    First off, being accurate to the source material is pointless. Being "true to the original" is overrated. Just make the game. Screw canon.

    Secondly, keep the rules simple. The more complex they are, the harder it is to resolve battles. You probably already have to track the movements of dozens, if not hundreds of stacks. Consider that you may have to do action resolutions for most of them in a single turn. Luckily, a war probably shouldn't last too many turns. Depth should be an emergent property of play and shouldn't be mistaken for complexity in rules.

    Thirdly, get one of those dry-erase hexgrid maps and water soluble markers. Maybe some kind of software program to store relevant GM data. It would be also nice if players have their own maps that they must be responsible for. The GM has the "real map" while players must update their own information.

    Another problem is that a lot of Erfworld sides seem to have unique units. It doesn't appear that all sides have access to the same kinds of units. Transylvito, for example, has some rather exotic unit types when compared to a side like Jetstone.

    So you'd have to come up with rather generic units that places like Unatard, Sofa King or Jetstone would use (which are fairly universal) then come up with sides which are less generic (e.g. Faq and Transylvito). It's probably best to keep most unit information that a side cannot pop a secret unless magic allows access to that info.

    Anyway, I'd try to keep the unit lists fairly simple and make sure that "special" abilities are the exception, not the rule. A unit's particular uniqueness should depend rather simply on a line of stats. Otherwise there'll be more information to handle. Magic alone will complicated enough because you'll have to handle individual "juice" totals for casting types and follow their specialized task resolution rules.

    Things like Loyalty stats are probably best handled as "invisible." Leave these things up to individual players to roleplay warlords, casters, heirs and kings. That way you can cram a lot of players on one side. Also, it'd be interesting if a team of players came up with their own theme and joke-references for their side (e.g. Faq is vaguely East-Asian themed). Some themes, of course, may simply be a result of whatever side they happened to be (e.g. the players decide that although they are vampires, they are mafia-themed vampires).

    This also simplifies task management for unit types that have complex abilities. A player that is roleplaying a caster is responsible for keeping track of their own juice totals and what their abilities can do.

    Special units that don't have a player "behind the wheel" must be treated like NPC's by the GM.
    Last edited by LurkerInPlayground; 2010-01-10 at 10:58 PM.