-9
\$\begingroup\$

I've written the basic mechanics for a new role-playing game, and I wanted to crowd-source the details, like writing specific spells, creatures, items, etc. Do you think SE would be a good place for something like this: i.e., an official SE RPG?

The system uses opposed rolls, where you roll your boxing skill to hit me and I roll my dodging ability to avoid the hit, and I was calling the difference between the totals the "overroll", so I thought Stack Overroll might be a good fit. However, I'm not sure if the SE question/answer format is robust enough. It would also need some way to say "Yes, this has enough up-votes and is now canon". It would also need moderators with some ability to tamp down on power creep. I would love it to have a self-imposed movie-like rating system so kids could filter for G or PG ratings. And, of course, if younger people are interested there would need to be a nigh-draconian anti-troll/sexist/jerk policy. There might also need to be a way to occasionally print the currently-cannon rules and sell them at a bookstore.

I believe there's a great business case for SE: people would be on the site for several hours during a game, looking up spells or monsters. I also believe the good folks on SE would love a creative-but-rule-driven outlet.

Thoughts?



Edit: The goal is not to turn SE into a game engine, but to use it to write a tabletop, pen & paper game system. And not necessarily within SE:RPG, but a new area, tweaked for this creation format, as opposed to just Q&A. The linked question below is...horrifying. There would be a page with the basic rules, and the community can add additional content, with community input. SE:Overroll would be an online resource to look up "canon" spells, creatures, etc., while you're playing the game at home around a table with your friends. A crowd-sourced, free, pen & paper & laptop role-playing game.

I started with AD&D in my college days, and when I look at it now I'm very concerned that it has become too complicated for young players to pick up. I want a system with easy basic rules, but that is highly extensible. I came up with a system of mini-classes, like Pyromancy and Swordsmanship, and you start with two, adding more occasionally as you gain levels. Each mini-class ("skillset") is easy to run, and you only add more after you've become comfortable with the existing ones. You gain 1XP whenever you use that skillset, and 2XP if you fail the roll. Clean & simple, with minimal in-game record-keeping.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Are you proposing collaborative homebrew? Or an RPG that you can play on RPG.SE? Either way they are off-topic for the site. We already have the backroom for live roleplaying in chat. Or you can create your own Role-playing Games Chat room to discuss homebrew ideas. Drop a pitch and a link in the main chat to find participants. \$\endgroup\$ – linksassin May 15 at 0:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ Teams may be the sort of thing you're looking for? Basically, you can set up an instance of an SE and invite people to it (if my causal awareness of Teams has that right). For a price, though. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 May 15 at 1:34
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Related: a proposal to make an in-stack RPG. (Claiming the distinction of being the lowest-voted meta post ever, that one.) \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 May 15 at 1:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60 Wow... Russell if the question linked is at all similar to what you are suggesting the votes there should indicate how that will go down. To avoid this question going the same way I suggest you edit the post to clear up what you are asking. \$\endgroup\$ – linksassin May 15 at 5:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @linksassin to be fair, the proposal in that link was literally impossible to implement and inherently broke core site functionality. This, at least, would theoretically technically be able to be implemented. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose May 15 at 13:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Rubiksmoose oh absolutely, I was just suggesting to edit to further remove this question from that one. I think this is a much better though still not advisable idea. \$\endgroup\$ – linksassin May 15 at 13:59
11
\$\begingroup\$

No

While that might be fun, RPG.SE is not the place for it. We are here for high signal to noise help with RPGs; this is both out of scope and does not fit our format.

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

There's no place on the site that would work for this

The goal is not to turn SE into a game engine, but to use it to write a tabletop, pen & paper game system. And not necessarily within SE:RPG, but a new area, tweaked for this creation format, as opposed to just Q&A.

The problem is nobody here on this site has any power whatsoever to create such an area on this site. Even if there was a huge amount of interest in this idea, a proposal to those who do have the power to access and modify the site's code would certainly not fall on receptive ears. Making code changes costs money and spending money on things outside the site's actual scope is just not going to fly.

It sounds like a fun idea, it really does, but I don't see any way it will work here.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Fair enough. Maybe I'll dust of my front-end coding skills and tweak a wiki into it. \$\endgroup\$ – Russell Fox May 15 at 19:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ Would it not potentially work as a new stack? \$\endgroup\$ – illustro May 16 at 15:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @illustro I have no idea what the process is for creating a new stack, but Stacks are explicitly for focused Q&As about a certain topic. If there is any kind of control I don't think that it will be allowed to set up a Stack for non-Q&A non-focused content. But again, I'm not sure how that works. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose May 16 at 15:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ This covers it: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76974/…. Area 51 is essentially a crowd sourced vetting of interest for a new Q&A. \$\endgroup\$ – illustro May 16 at 15:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .