6 thoughts on “I started a Google Doc for organizations:”

  1. Good start. Assuming the ratings are there so you can make custom moves for them, the -2 descriptions look like they are basically describing how you can’t make a roll at all and maybe shouldn’t have a number attached?

    (Like if nobody knows about the group except the members, you can’t roll+notoriety to impress people with your membership, right? Because they won’t know what the hell you’re talking about.)

    Also you’ve got “openly declare their membership” in the Influence description, but if Notoriety is unknown, that’s obviously not the case (and OF COURSE you want these rules for the Illuminati). And Presence, as a word, feels like it means Visibility, but of course that’s what Notoriety means.

    Another aspect you could include is Resources, unless you’re putting that under Influence. I could see a distinction between legal power with limited resources and a rich but illegal organization (illegal being a tag that lets you roll with Resources instead of Influence for custom moves, as long as you don’t get caught).

    Oh, I just realized I have some lists and stuff I made for my GoT hack attempt. I’ll email those to you in case you can get some use out of them.

  2. I hadn’t gotten as far as I wanted earlier today, so I didn’t include my plans for the ratings.

    Yes, I did want the ratings so that custom moves could be made, but rather than rolling with each individual “stat” I wanted them to come together to represent an overall effectiveness of the org. That would work either as an average or a sum. Maybe effectiveness could be the org’s stat that you would add to a roll, so I’d want it to be no higher than +3 and no lower than -2; so maybe a 1-5 scale isn’t appropriate. I like the idea that perhaps it’s not even possible to make a roll, so maybe it should go X, -2, -1, 0, 1 ? With X meaning that if the sum of Presence, Influence and Notoriety includes an X, you can’t make a roll with it? But ultimately I wanted it to be an aggregate, rather than rolling specifically +Presence, +Influence, +Notoriety. Then again, there’s nothing saying that other people could modify it to work that way, it’s just where my head was at when I put in the rating column to begin with.

    At the moment I’m just keeping parity with the steading rules, that’s why I stuck with three main tag types. After I bang out the “other” tags, the four org sizes, and the evolution categories, then maybe I’ll consider another main tag. That’s why I folded economic liquidity/resources into the Influence tag for the time being.

    I’ll revisit my text to see if there’s anything else glaring in there like what you pointed out. Thanks for the catch.

    Thanks also for the document. When it comes time to building the four org sizes it’ll likely come in handy.

  3. Okay, so I think going -2, -1, +1, +2, +3 will work. That way if your org is absolute crap you’ll have an average of (-2)+(-2)+(-2) / 3 = -2. However an extensive powerful org at the height of its game will be (+3)+(+3)+(3)/3 = +3. I’ll have to work out all the possible combinations to see whether it should be round up, round down or just integerize.

Comments are closed.