Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Curufea's page

18 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


The email newsletter link is broken. The &source=mailing for tracking hits from the newsletter causes the link not to work.

Otherwise - good luck! If it was for a non D20 system, I'd definitely enter.

Ross Byers wrote:
Go to your account page and you can select an avatar from the list provided. There are no Custom avatars at Paizo, and it helps keep the boards clean, and help you remember who people are, because the avatar changes less often.

Mind you, I use the same avatar on every board as it's symbolic and associated with my username (I mark paper models with it, and music videos and other things I produce). So there is a certain amount of "should we take into account users that have an online presence and identity"?

DocReason wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
It's like a Stonehenge box cut in half.
Well, I hope I will have room for the new pieces :-)

The Stonehenge box itself has a lot of space that isn't being used - I could quite easily fit the expansion pieces in the same box.

After it comes out, I might see about designing a template to fit the box to keep the parts separate.

If you have a game from Andrew Looney - will there be any discussions or agreements about icehouse/treehouse pieces (also Looney Labs) to allow crossover between the games?

Hmm, based on this list- l

Possibly the cards would be-

White= Light Horse
Blue= Hordes
Green= Light Chariot
Yellow= Warband
Red= Spears
Black= Psiloi

Maybe :)
I'm currently spending all my spare time on one of my own games, but am easily distracted...

Some ideas-

Miniatures based games are usually free movement for the figures - so much of the board would likely be superfluous. That leads to two type of mini games - ones on the board and ones on an open flat surface just using the pieces of Stonehenge.

Personally I'm more interested in using Stonehenge board and pieces only than not using the board and using actual miniatures.

Ergo I propose a DBA type game.

Cards are used for units and placed face up horizontally on the board. A disk is placed in the centre of the long side of a card to show it's front and who it belongs to (and also to keep the card down. The colour of the card shows the type of unit it is.
White= Cavalry (including light chariots) cost= 9
Blue= Hordes cost= 3
Green= Bows cost= 5
Yellow= Warband (general pre-roman infantry) cost= 6
Red= Spears cost= 7
Black= Psiloi (skirmishers) cost= 4

The numbers on the card are only used for identifying the unit.

Measurements are done with the bars. One bar = 200 paces.

Set aside 6 cards for each player (one of each colour) to act as dice.

Breakup the trilithons to act as hills or as a river.
The card packet can be a village
Forest can be shown with bars of colours not used delineating the forest's edges.

The markings on the board are ignored.

DocReason wrote:
Curufea wrote:
DocReason wrote:
Is this a Sports game? Just curious if that is the right category for it.

Hmm - adventure may be closer. There isn't much else that seems appropriate in the list, unfortunately.

I thought "sport" because it involves the mechanic of manoeuvring past druids in a similar fashion to football.

It is a single player game, right? Would puzzle fit that?

Nah, it's too random to be a puzzle game. Puzzle to me means some kind of logic and puzzle solving skills are a high priority. Would you regard Klondike or the card based solitaire games as puzzle games?

I do think that luck is a bigger factor than skill for this one.

Link to the board setup-

Board image

Place the bars in the same positions as the purple bars shown in this diagram

Place the druids on the red circled inner stones

DocReason wrote:
Is this a Sports game? Just curious if that is the right category for it.

Hmm - adventure may be closer. There isn't much else that seems appropriate in the list, unfortunately.

I thought "sport" because it involves the mechanic of manoeuvring past druids in a similar fashion to football.

Probably the usual suspects for PBeMs could be used-
Cyberboard, Vmap, Vassal etc.

Mostly free and available at the PBeM Emporium-

Professor Rabbit wrote:

As a “Demo Rabbit,” that’s the hook of this proposed game. The minigame for each type of skill will draw people to play this game.

This is what I did with my Versailles game based on tarot cards - there's a minigame for repartee combat, and a minigame for duelling (two in fact, one for fencing, one for pistols.

DocReason wrote:

Character development in what way? Do you mean statbuilding, with the games played with the Stonehenge boardgame as a way to beef up stats, a bit like you do with Puzzle Quest serving as a way to combat? Maybe this could be done a cross between Barbu and Gipf.

The idea would be to have an open-source, free RPG system, that uses Stonehenge in some interesting way that is unique.

Actually, what might be needed now is microgames like Stackhenge as means of doing battles. Quick games you can do in less than 5 minutes, you use to resolve battles.

I think this could be an interesting way to go.

Yeah, character development meaning stat building really - putting roleplaying elements in such as motivations, personality, histories and plots and what not would possibly be best handled later. Possibly a storytelling game using Stonehenge?

The main problem I see with Stonehenge for RPGs is the use of the board and pieces. Neither of which are common to RPGs which tend to use small amounts of game pieces that are more easily portable.

I like the idea of combat resolution though - a common feature in many games is the use of miniatures and maps to help visualise the combat, some RPGs even have rules that are specific to miniature use. I doubt every adventure would hinge on fighting within Stonehenge though, so it would need to be abstracted. Possibly the board could be used for non-physical combats? Such as magical combats?

Actually, that being said, combat is just another task resolution problem like the use of any skill, and they could all be symbolically represented on the board. We just need a reason why it would be good to use the board.

RPGs are not a big market, compared to board games. But it would be a new market at least :)

Ideally, you want collectible and children as your market. MacDonalds has always had the right idea there. You want to target those with money - either Teens with part time jobs and no debts, or Parents (through their children).

I can't see a lot of potential crossover from boardgame to RPG, unfortunately. Not in terms of "attracting more customers".

However, that being said, it can be done in stages - introducing character development and scenarios. Talisman and Battlestations come to mind here.

What about reworking the published rules for a roleplaying version? With character development there is more potential replayability and there is a potential metagame across them.

Professor Rabbit wrote:
For example, if they use mental attack and they play a blue or white card, it gives them a bonus. (I'm still working out the system, it's just a start)

Heh, "still working out the system" is the story of my life :)

But on the plus side, discussing it gets lots of nice message posts on the board and looks good in its stats :)

That, and I can look like a pseudo-intellectual by using as many multiple syllable words as I can think of when talking game mechanics. Gives me an ego boost :)

Anyhow, actual useful things-
Game Chef for RPG design contests
1000 Monkeys, 1000 Typewriters for free roleplaying games

RPG game design advice-
The Importance of method
RPG System design
Design Patterns of Successful Role-Playing Games by John Kirk (zip of a PDF dissertation)

Professor Rabbit wrote:

Stat Blocks:

I've been working on 4+2 system for stats for another game I designed:

The starting player would be given 60 points to be split up between six stats:

Physical (Green), Mental (Blue), Health (Red), Psych (Yellow), Attack (Black) & Defense (White). No one starting player's stat block can be less than five points.

Attacks would resolve based on if it was a physical, mental, health or psych attack. The player's attack plus type stats would be added together and the attacking player/npc would draw a card. The defending player/npc would draw a card and their defense plus type would be added together. The highest score wins the attack. If there's a tie, defender wins.

Would the colour of the card be significant when adding to the same coloured stat? Some kind of additional advantage?

I prefer a hand of cards for each player though - gives players more of a choice in where to use their better cards and when not to (adds more narrative story control). Drawing a random card, especially with a range between 1 and 30 is a fair bit of random.

DocReason wrote:

You could treat them as archetypes or packages if you like. I believe classes would depend on the type of world you are in. In the time of Celtic Monks and Druids, classes might be more rigid.

I mean classes as in "class-based roleplaying systems" rather than social classes :)

I'm all for social class. I'm against "every player must belong to one of the classes only, and they have the following rule enforced limits and advantages and must never change"

Task Resolution idea-

If you have stats 1-30, the players could be dealt cards each session - a card based mechanic similar to my Versailles game (which I'd like to rip large chunks out of to save time here).
(sorry just had to pimp my game there)

Difficulty of a task = 1-30 (or more) based on GM decision.
Player can play one or more cards which get added together and must meet or exceed the difficulty of the task.

The total amount that player can play is equal to the relevant stat+relevant skill (e.g. Stat of 12 and Skill of 17 means the player can play cards up to the total of 29)

Trilithon cards could be trump cards and add +10 to the task resolution and may allow the player to exceed their limit of stat+skill.

DocReason wrote:

Even the cloaked figures in the game lend towards character classes: Monks, Druids, Thieves, Ghosts (undead) and Aliens.

Just curious what people's thoughts are on this, and if it might be something Piazo would be interested in having associated with Stonehenge.

Being a longtime roleplayer and using many systems and even having written some (i.e. Game Chef) - I'm a big fan of NOT using classes (also a big fan of NOT using levels and NOT using "hit points"). It's never a good thing in roleplaying. It always leads to too much structure and not enough imagination (i.e. you may as well play a videogame).

However - what I propose instead is either archetypes or packages.

Have bunches of skills and skill sets - and then declare that a "Monk" type would have these skills at these levels, and a "Druid" would have these skills at these levels. I wouldn't force players to choose one of the archetypes, they could make up a mixture.

Being a bit of a fan of the Hero system as well - I'd like to see point-based generation. Special powers could be figured in as well.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.