>What have you done so far?
Here's our main document, which contains all of our ideas recorded en masse:
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/15kJXvBVinsbst0tMWmzwaUj5ddk0hotd3nifw3Hs720/edit

We also have a couple supplementary documents:

The Psychlopedia
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yjonEzY_gVzJm5FyYksoDnx1otVEBpjAA8K1Ozw3eZU/edit
This is a rundown of all the Psychs in the source game. As we develop the system these will be fleshed out with actual mechanics.

The Thread Count:
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Uc3YJ-yRMoDhNc90EK5Ao0WOrubO0Gnl8ixIYQOEZs/edit
This is going to catalog the various Threads (clothing) and Brands from the source game, as a resource for GMs to use in their own games.

The Couture Matrix:
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1850Ubwvdlqe0_9hk176tZ91-ykkJFlHX2XeS2VAA5Gw/edit
Rules for randomly rolling new Threads.

>What's on the Agenda?
We're still puzzling out how Trust is going to work. We don't know what it's going to do quite yet, but we hope it'll be good.

We've also made some headway on progression of characters, but we haven't cemented it down yet.

There's still a lot to do beyond that, though.

Previous Thread:
>>47803870

Nice, new thread

"Pick it up, Phones!"

"I'm there!"

File: nekuneedsahug.jpg (33 KB, 474x350) Image search: [Google]

33 KB, 474x350

Hey Jazzman, what horrible timezone do you live in anyway?

Alright I added the Soul-Sync system to the google doc as of last night, so that's in there for our consideration. Here's the premise in brief, as summarized at the end of the document.

>Earn PROPS by good roleplaying and impressing your fellow players
>Convert Props into SYNC by making Tag Rolls at the end of each Day
>Spend Sync for temporary advantages and permanent Skill boosts
>Spending Sync increases your SOUL
>Reduce your Soul by modifying your Tags and improving your Stats at the end of each Day

In response to Jazzman's post last thread:
>>47875079
>I don't know how you guys' groups work, but what about pooled Sync, with our trusty Trust stat functioning as what we roll below, and have Trust as trust within the party (which will increase per day or something). People who don't earn many sync won't fall behind, but they also won't be contributing to the Soul gain.

Hmmmm that's a possibility. What do you mean though when you say that Trust would be the stat we roll under?

>It's a gentle persuasion for the team to work together to gain as much sync as possible, as opposed to everyone growing individually.
That would work though it's more self-serving in the Props phase because player are offering up Props to each other with the understanding that they'll be going into one big pool that they can all use anyway; if that's the case then there's not much of a point in even handing out Props in the first place.

>The problem with it being gained from battle is that grinding can become an issue, depending on how much each prop translates into sync, and that into soul. I'd prefer it if we could gain enough out of combat to make up for not grinding.
Battles are scenes as well as anything else in the game, meaning that players have their supply of Props they can hand out according to the rules. That's why the GM being mindful of time is important, to prevent the players from just trying to hunt noise all day.

>This. I like this. It also means you can power up each day as oppose to missing a day with the old version (because you would have to change props into sync at the end of the first day instead of advancing).
Well to be fair the start of the First Day is the start of the game so it wouldn't make sense for players who've just created their characters to then level them up as their first order of business. I thought there was some consensus that it was a good idea for Stats and other core values to increase at the end of each Day, which this system supports.

>>47889608
Also at the start of the game everyone makes Tag Rolls to accumulate a starting pool of Sync. It won't be that big but that's okay because you don't want a huge pile of brownie points when players are still learning the game, and it's natural that Sync would be low when the game begins.

Also don't forget again that Sync can also come from food, which is kind of an idea I'd like to keep in some capacity, as weird as it is.

>>47889405
The wonderful timezone of Aus. I think it's +13 or something.

I was talking to you guys around 3 am last night. Fun-derful.

>>47889608
You roll (Props) at the end of each day to gain Sync, with your stat to roll under being your Trust stat, meaning the higher your party's Trust, the more Soul they each gain.

>there's not much of a point in even handing out Props in the first place.
Not entirely true. Props are still necessary, and if one person isn't adding to the progression then they're effectively weakening the rest of the team. Make it so the players can't give out props and just give them out yourself for when the players do something fitting or something really well.

>I thought there was some consensus that it was a good idea for Stats and other core values to increase at the end of each Day, which this system supports.
There is, but I don't think players could gain much props on the first day, meaning they wouldn't have Sync day 2, which means they wouldn't have Soul until the end of day 3, literally half the week in. Having them able to advance on Day 2 fits the timing, as well as makes tracking 3 stats that can change easily into 2 stats that change easily.

>Tag Rolls to accumulate a starting pool of Sync.
Something to start with. Nice. However, what's the Tag roll made with?

>>47889896
Western Oz is in +8. I don't think there is a +13.

>>47889950
East Oz, but yes. You're probably right.

>>47889896
Actually, you're right. As we currently have it you get Stats by investing your Soul, which you only get by spending Sync,and on Day 1 your Sync pool is pretty small.

This isn't a problem in TBZ because you don't get Stat points from Karma, you get it by spending Kiai, just like skill points, but it is a problem if we're linking Stats to Soul in this system.

Then again it's not really that bad, because a point in a Stat just gives you another die to roll, and you can buy dice with Sync at a 1:1 rate, so deficiencies like that can be caught-up with pretty quickly.

We could also just decouple Stats from Soul entirely and just award each player like 2 Stat points at the end of each day. That would certainly make it easier for the GM to have certain expectations for player ability each day. Which I'm personally all for because it seems easier and more controlled.

>>47890138
>just award each player like 2 Stat points at the end of each day.
That'd make life easier, that's for sure. If we remove Skills from that system too, we could make it a system that grants bonus dice and more AP, meaning we wouldn't need it to be balanced by everyone gaining it together.

On the flip side of that, if we don't remove them and instead have it based on cooperation to gain sync which can be used to get temporary buffs, which then becomes soul to permanently power up characters, it might be a much more team based experience, as stated in my previous post here:
>>47889896
>if one person isn't adding to the progression then they're effectively weakening the rest of the team.

>>47890244
>That'd make life easier, that's for sure. If we remove Skills from that system too, we could make it a system that grants bonus dice and more AP, meaning we wouldn't need it to be balanced by everyone gaining it together.
Also true. I'm leaning towards that as the simpler, more controlled solution, with Sync acting as device for acquiring aptitude on the fly.

Still not sold on group Sync, though. I definitely understand the reasoning behind it but I like it more as a representation of personal investment in the group rather than group cohesion. Individual Sync pools would also work better when the Fusion system you and I have been talking about, where you pay a certain amount of Sync to trigger it once the battle reaches a certain point. If we have group Sync then it's just an all-around reduction instead of each Player pitching in his share. It also kind of messes with the Sync-Soul economy; the idea is that each Player is responsible for his own Soul, but Sync is pooled then accumulating Soul is more of a group activity, since Sync spent by one person necessarily denies it from another. I suppose that's part of the idea of teamwork and cooperation-- if you hog all the Sync then others won't like you because it means they have less to use-- but it just doesn't sit as well for me.

It'd be nice to get some additonal feedback on these ideas since it's unclear if this is just something you and I are interested in or if more people are into the idea of the Sync-Soul system; once we know that we're moving ahead with it we can work out the specifics and even put up a poll.

>>47890437
I said what I said wrong, here's what I meant. Group sync points from Props. All props go to one pool which is rolled to get that much Sync in a collective sync pool. Each player then has that much sync the next day (say you had 12 Props, and 8 succeed in being turned into Sync, each player gets 8 Sync to play with) and it's separate for each player from there what they want to do with their own sync.

Either that or have the sync be split evenly among each player to have scaling not be an issue (Get 7 sync with 3 party members means gaining 2 each with 1 remainder carried over to the next day).

Either way could work.

I agree that we need more feedback than just us two though. Especially because I've never played TBZ before, and we're using that as a starting point.

>>47890581
Ohhh, so instead of each Player rolling their own Sync, everyone rolls collectively for the Sync that they each get. I actually like that.

Note though the way that Props turn into Sync. Each Prop buys one Tag:Stat roll, so a single Prop can yield between 0 Sync 10, assuming you're rolling 10 stat dice and all of them roll under your Tag. That's a best case, end game scenario though. So we could conceivably be dealing with very large numbers of Sync by the end of the game; which would be the time when Players can be pumping out higher tier Fusions that eat up their Sync. A, uh, Sync-sink, if you will.

I think I'm on board now. To make this even more about team-work, we can say that Props can be awarded for three things:

>When a Player acts in pursuit of one of his Tags
>When a Player does something particularly game-elevating
>When a Player actively helps or supports another Player, the supported Player should give a Prop to his helper.

That last one is key because it means that a major source of Props is player cooperation; the more cooperation there is, the more Props are passed around, the more collective Sync the group gets.

>>47890682
>Each Prop buys one Tag:Stat roll, so a single Prop can yield between 0 Sync 10, assuming you're rolling 10 stat dice and all of them roll under your Tag.

Can you... provide an explanation using examples please? I'm not the best at understanding things.

>When a Player actively helps or supports another Player, the supported Player should give a Prop to his helper.
Yes. I like this.

>>47890750
>Can you... provide an explanation using examples please? I'm not the best at understanding things.

Sure thing.

At the end of the First Day, R.B. has earned 6 Props. He has two Tags:

>Musician's Heart, Rank 3
>Entry Fee: Musician's Hands, Rank 2

(Basically he's a musician and loves music, and his Entry Fee was his ability to play music on his own)

His highest Stat is Flow, at 5, so for each Prop he makes a Musician's Heart:Flow roll with 5 dice, aiming at rolling under a 3.

>1st Roll: 0
>2nd Roll: 2
>3rd Roll: 1
>4th Roll: 3
>5th Roll: 1
>6th Roll: 2

So he contributes 9 Sync in total to the Group Pool for Day 2.

Make sense?

>>47890865
Okay so, a Rank 3 Tag (which I assume he's starting with) is what says to roll a 3 or less, and his rolls have given him 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 (0 is 10, yes?)

This means that what he has rolled gets added up to 9 (1+1+2+2+3).

That correct?

>>47890939
Yup. Each success he rolls turns into 1 Sync, you roll once for each Prop you're cashing in.

It means the total Sync that the Players can swing pretty wildly, but that's part of the fun of it. You never quite know how things are going to go for you, but you've got your bros to get your back.

And again you can also make-up for missing Sync by eating food.

>>47890963
>Each success he rolls turns into 1 Sync
Hang on, is it 1 sync for each success or the total value of what you have rolled as successes?

>make-up for missing Sync by eating food.
I assume that that would be something akin to "false" sync, where you do gain sync, but the sync you gain from food would not translate into soul.

>>47891039
1 per Success, where a Success is defined as a die that rolls equal to or under the target number.

So if R.B. rolls 5d10 (his Stat) and his TN is 4 (his Skill), and his rolls are 1,3,4,5,8, then he gets 3 Successes. If this roll is R.B. trading in Props for Sync, it would translate to 3 Sync.

Sorry if that was unclear before.

>I assume that that would be something akin to "false" sync, where you do gain sync, but the sync you gain from food would not translate into soul.
No I think it's straight-up regular Sync. Sync only increases your Soul when its used, so if you add like 10 Sync from a meal that you really love but don't do anything with it then it doesn't affect your Soul.

That's the idea though. We haven't work-shopped it yet so it's entirely up in the air. Food isn't a terribly high priority yet.

Hello and good morning /twewy/!

I'm liking the ideas that are being talked about so far, and about sync for each day being regarded as a group pool. So in general you would always pick your highest stat and your highest ranked Tag?

What do the different ranks of Tags mean in this case?

Perhaps we should decouple stat increases from soul, or alternatively have the GM gate stat increases from soul. I proposed in another thread a kind of "cap the day" mechanic in which the party gathers together at a cafe or restaurant at the end of each Day. During this closing period, the characters roll for the next day's sync, spend soul on modifying Tags, and are able to buy specialty food (or stickers or what have you) that permanently increases stats or skills, typically stats. If my original idea about trust was followed, this would also be an opportunity for players to make a daily roll (or choose, whichever we go with) to increase or decrease their trust in other players, and a chance for players to talk with one another in-character without the time mechanic pressing down on them. More or less a built-in wind-down.

I was envisioning it as somewhat similar to Catherine, if any of you have played that, in the sense that the Days/Missions are somewhat time-pressed and frantic with action afoot, and afterwards players perform a few rolls of lenient bookkeeping and, if the group wishes, have a quiet moment to talk to one another or NPCs, or shop for new threads or pins. Naturally, the mission timing should allow for talking to NPCs and shopping and the like.

>>47891131
Okay, now I understand.

>I think it's straight-up regular Sync.
Fair enough. I think if we go combined sync like I suggested though, we should have it as false sync. A sort of "good food, good mood" deal.

>>47885132
lemme reformat my suggestion for Trust and it's effect in battle. This definitely isn't set in stone since this assumes a set Puckpass order.

Trust is a stat that you have for each bond with another character. Trust is lowest at 0 and highest at 5, with possibly differing levels on each partner of the bond.

Many rolls will involve trying to roll under the combined Trust of a bond. Teamwork and gaining Sync rely on each person trusting the other.

But, having high Trust with someone enables them to Betray you for some other goal, temporarily gaining an advantage against you and resetting Trust to 0 at the end of the Day.
This is compounded if you told that someone your Entry Fee in order to gain a quick boost in Trust. They can very quickly damage and/or kill you if you aren't careful.

At the end of a Day, you can attempt to raise Trust normally by rolling over the Trust you currently have for them.

>Combat
Trust is also used in a variety of ways in Combat.

The combined PARTY Trust is put up against the initiative of the Enemy(possibly rolled) to determine turn order.

The combined Trust you have in all party members determines your turn order. The higher you are, the later you act in relation to your allies.

When receiving the Puck from someone, you add your Trust in them to the multiplier of the Puck.

The combined Trust in a bond determines the strength of their Fusion attacks, which is a supermove that uses up both character's turns/AP for the round.

>>47891228
To steal from RnF here >>47891131 then having a higher ranked Tag would mean you are more likely to gain sync for the next day. Going from Tag 3 to Tag 4 means rolling 4 or less for Sync in comparison to rolling 3 or less.

>have the GM gate stat increases from soul.
Just limit it to one rank per stat each day or something. Gradual growth is what you want from TWEWY anyway. If you want a faster week or more progression, make it two ranks per stat per day.

Cap the day sounds like an interesting mechanic, but you can also do all that at the end of each day anyway out of play. The cafe would explain how they're spending their soul, if it's a reaper cafe, as per my suggestion last thread.

>>47891399
>When receiving the Puck from someone, you add your Trust in them to the multiplier of the Puck.
While this sounds good on paper, mechanically I'm worried that that's going to break the game. If we generate 6 AP, and everyone in the party has 3 trust in one another, then in just two passes of the puck people are getting double AP. This means that encounters will be difficult to manage because a party with the puck will be overpowered and a party without, underpowered. I was going to suggest something like an increase of 1 AP per successful pass. We've yet to playyes though.

>>47891451
No, what I'm saying is, RP-wise, what would a higher ranked Tag mean? Also, are we going with the idea of being able to invoke Tags to gain bonus dice or be able to perform special actions on things pertaining to one's Tags?

And, yes, "limit it to one rank per stat each day" is exactly what I meant by gating stat increases. I wanted to give that power to the GM rather than to us.

As for capping the day, that sort of thing can absolutely be done out of play and typically is in most systems. I thought that having it an actual "thing" would be nice, though, especially if the characters can in-character discuss what to get at the cafe and whatnot. I was indeed thinking of your suggestion with regards to the cafe -- we can regard it as specialty reaper food that solidifies your personal growth (soul or some such) into a mechanical ability to better affect the UG, as if one's frequency were growing more stable.

Since sync is shared, I thought it would be good to introduce a reason for everyone to stay at the table and perform bookkeeping rolls and advancement rather than break apart and end up handling that offhandedly. That might come from my own experience, such as That One Player who always forgets to spend xp.

>>47891538
>people are getting double AP
wait, Puck gives you AP? I thought AP is only the spare amount you didn't use on your turn, and the multiplier is to damage, like in the game?

>>47891547
>>47891399
On the other hand, I just realized that having Trust blatantly stated like that would eliminate any way to "hide" the low Trust you have in someone.

Are we hiding DCs?

>>47891399
>Many rolls will involve trying to roll under the combined Trust of a bond. Teamwork and gaining Sync rely on each person trusting the other.
>But, having high Trust with someone enables them to Betray you for some other goal, temporarily gaining an advantage against you and resetting Trust to 0 at the end of the Day.
>This is compounded if you told that someone your Entry Fee in order to gain a quick boost in Trust. They can very quickly damage and/or kill you if you aren't careful.
These are nebulous sentences, please expand these further and/or provide examples.

Also, how is trust gained?

>The combined PARTY Trust is put up against the initiative of the Enemy(possibly rolled) to determine turn order.
>The combined Trust you have in all party members determines your turn order. The higher you are, the later you act in relation to your allies.
Why? How does this work, from a narrative perspective? Are you just being polite? I'd imagine in a fight you'd abandon your manners pretty quick after a fight starts.

>When receiving the Puck from someone, you add your Trust in them to the multiplier of the Puck.
I agree, or perhaps add it to the puck, like a point system that builds slowly until you can use fusion.

>The combined Trust in a bond determines the strength of their Fusion attacks, which is a supermove that uses up both character's turns/AP for the round.
My only concern is how fusion works with multiple partners like this system is going to inevitably be. Rule 1, don't split the party.

>>47891584
>These are nebulous sentences, please expand these further and/or provide examples.
These were all taken from above posts/other anons in the previous threads, so I'll need to go over them again to find the exact terms.

>Why? How does this work, from a narrative perspective? Are you just being polite? I'd imagine in a fight you'd abandon your manners pretty quick after a fight starts.
You are pitting the fluidity of your teamwork against the raw feral speed of Noise. Rather than relying purely on reaction speed, you work by acting in sync with your party members. Lower Trust units act first because they are less able to "follow-through" with the actions of their allies.

>My only concern is how fusion works with multiple partners like this system is going to inevitably be. Rule 1, don't split the party.
yeah, we haven't really defined the Fusion system too well yet.

>>47891557
>Are we hiding DCs?
Not normally. For most Player actions, the DC is the number that they are rolling under, and most of that the time that's either a Skill or a Psych, so you know exactly what your Success threshhold is.

>>47891547
What he means is that if you're adding your Trust as AP when you pass the puck, then with 3 Trust you'll be at double AP after two passes. Clearly out of control.

>>47891662
>Not normally
ah, so we can't have situations where a character secretly has low Trust in someone else. It's pretty easy to determine Trust by comparing the DC with your Trust in them.

>What he means is that if you're adding your Trust as AP when you pass the puck
like I said: since when was Trust added to AP? I thought the puck was mainly for Damage Multiplier, which is what I'm adding the Trust to. The AP cache is only whatever unused AP you have when you passed the puck.

>>47891538
>No, what I'm saying is, RP-wise, what would a higher ranked Tag mean? Also, are we going with the idea of being able to invoke Tags to gain bonus dice or be able to perform special actions on things pertaining to one's Tags?

From the TBZ manual, translated into our terminology:
>The higher the Tag’s rating, the more the character feels strongly about that particular Tag. Tag assist in the conversion of Props to Sync points, as well as showing the psychological state of the character: Essentially what they care about, and how much they care about it.

So really it's MOSTLY a roleplaying thing. We could say that you can add your Ranks of a Tag as dice for a certain roll, but gaining bonus dice with Sync is fairly easy already so that may not even be necessary.

>>47891703
>ah, so we can't have situations where a character secretly has low Trust in someone else.
Which is why using Trust in that way is a somewhat difficult prospect. The only real way is for the GM to keep track of Trust in secret, but that leads to situations where one Player wants to do something involving another Player and the GM shoots it down as "You don't Trust that Player enough to do that" which in my opinion isn't a great way to play.

>like I said: since when was Trust added to AP? I thought the puck was mainly for Damage Multiplier, which is what I'm adding the Trust to. The AP cache is only whatever unused AP you have when you passed the puck.
I don't recall that being brought up earlier, I think it's more of a new idea that is fairly controversial. I'm more of a fan of the Puck giving a static +1 or 2 AP to whoever holds it, full damage against Taboo Noise, and using its passes to track the escalation of Fusion potential. But that's just my opinion, and it's a point we've been stuck at for a while.

Right now there are a bunch of ideas for what the Puck can do, and I think we can maybe put it to a poll to see how everyone feels about it. Not to rule out options but just to get a more qualitative analysis of options.

Let me know if I'm missing anything:

When someone gets the puck passed to them, they...
>...gain +2 AP as long as they are holding it
>...gain AP equal to the Trust of the person who passed it to them
>...gain AP equal to the cumulative Trust that's been passed around
>...gain a damage boost
>...increase the Fusion counter by 1

Am I missing anything? I left out "ignore Taboo Noise damage reduction" because that's canon to the game and would be easily to implement.

>>47891642
What does fluid teamwork have to do with the speed of your actions? If you move slowly, but someone else on your team moves fast and you're his best friend, why does the fast guy move after the slow guy? And why would you planning a follow-up attack with your fast buddy be faster than two fast guys who hate each other beating up the same (or even different) enemies?

Why can't we just have reaction times based on Flow rolls? Literally just Move:Flow and then have that also impact initiative. It's that simple. Perhaps Sense:Flow instead, because it could relate to your perception of the environment around you and your reaction speed to it with a simple rewording.

>>47891747
yeah, seems like it's only possible to hide Trust once players are intimately familiar with DC ratings to estimate on their own. It'll be kinda hard to get to an RP situation where you roll a semi-good roll that turns out to be a failure when one player "quickly jerks their hand back in fear" or "suddenly hesitates"

>controversial
huh. I just figured it was a matter of course that keeping the puck around to raise the damage multiplier was crucial for taking down bosses.

>>47891852
There's lot of ways to increase damage though. Even giving extra AP can increase Damage by allowing you to execute more attacks.

>>47891849
>gain AP equal to the total unused AP of the person who passed it
>add Trust value to the damage multiplier
...is there something you have against the multiplier or something? If you don't think it's a part of the game that needs to be added, you could say so.

>>47891849
I'm going to say both first and last options are the only necessary ones, but depending on the difficulty of combat, a damage bonus might be wise.

>>47891851
> If you move slowly, but someone else on your team moves fast and you're his best friend, why does the fast guy move after the slow guy?
that's easy. Haven't you ever played with someone new at a game in a coop? Instead of doing everything yourself, you wait for them to slowly do one thing right and quickly follow-up right afterwards because you know what they're trying to do?

Coordination is key to quick action. You can run as fast as you want, but if you were expecting the enemy to stand still when your partner knocks him across the room, it's going to take time to get to the position to actually hit him. Whereas if the "slow" guy(and there's no such thing as slow: heavy things tend to also move fast) already knows where to be and when to time his windup so his attack is right after the previous one.

>>47891886
Multipliers don't work well in tabletop games unless the numbers are very small and it doesn't use decimals. Decimals require calculators for most players which slows down combat, and numbers bigger than, say, 2 cause numbers to spiral out of control quickly and make it extremely difficult for GMs to set up challenges of known difficulty.

Now if you meant "add Trust as extra Damage" then that's a different story, because that would be one that I forgot. Was anyone proposing that?

>>47891852
The damage multiplier was my idea originally, before I was a namefag. It was to emulate the game. I don't think it's a necessary feature as even in the game, I never really needed it to be on me to win.

>>47891883
Both CAN result in damage, but to the observant one, direct damage =/= potential indirect damage or other actions. Even though more actions is better than more damage on average simply because of more possible things.

Also, and I'm sorry for dragging the conversation back to this, but in the compilation document we have the sync being added together and each person has a total amount of sync the next day equal to the amount that everyone rolled added together. Do we want players to have that much or the average gained between all players?

Another thing, were we removing the stat power-ups from the soul modifications? Because they're no longer there.

>>47892115
you just didn't mention it, so I've been left out of the water for a while now.

The main point is damage boost proportional to Trust. Which SHOULD be added to the poll for sure.

>>47891976
>Instead of doing everything yourself, you wait for them to slowly do one thing right and quickly follow-up right afterwards because you know what they're trying to do?
Yes, but what if everyone's new here? I'd assume they all are at least, because that way there's nobody playing again.

In addition to this point, what if the two friends want to attack different targets? The faster guy should go faster, surely.If the faster guy was to finish his fight first, he could go help the slower guy.

>and there's no such thing as slow
People who think slowly and react slowly (like me, for instance) totally exist. Not everybody has the same reaction speed, same as not everybody has the same mental capacity and not everybody has the same physical prowess. Some are better than others.

>>47892125
>Also, and I'm sorry for dragging the conversation back to this, but in the compilation document we have the sync being added together and each person has a total amount of sync the next day equal to the amount that everyone rolled added together. Do we want players to have that much or the average gained between all players?
That's up for workshopping, if everyone is sold on the Soul-Sync system.

Let's find out if we are!
>http://www.strawpoll.me/10545485

>Another thing, were we removing the stat power-ups from the soul modifications? Because they're no longer there.
Yeah I took it off because we were thinking that it was better for Stat points to be distributed directly by the GM instead of bought using Soul investment.

>Both CAN result in damage, but to the observant one, direct damage =/= potential indirect damage or other actions. Even though more actions is better than more damage on average simply because of more possible things.
Fair point. Then there are basically two options: either the Puck grants a fixed damage boost or it grants a damage boost equal to Trust. Those will be added to the list of possibilities.
>>47892138
Agreed, see above.

Aight, fellas. It's 1/4 to 3 here so Imma go sleep. I'll see what's what in the morning.

>>47892396
Appreciate your input Jazzbro. Things are starting to shape up towards genuinely productive directions, if I may say so.

>>47892291
>The faster guy should go faster, surely.If the faster guy was to finish his fight first
>People who think slowly and react slowly
this is really giving me a headache. Are you talking about fast as physically fast, or can react quickly?

If it is physically fast, then I just explained that there is no such thing, no difference in combat. A "slow", heavy attack moves very quickly. You are always limited by mass and momentum. If you are far away, it takes time to go help another fight. If you are close enough to help, then you should be coordinating otherwise you are a burden who can potentially hurt or be hurt by the person you're helping.

If you are talking about reaction speed, that is exactly why I am framing Trust as teamwork. You are specifically relying more on muscle memory and moving according to cues given by allies to make up for gaps in reaction speed.

which is it, and please stick to a single definition.

I'm not 100% sold on tags, but I'm down with earning Sync for temporary boosts and spending Sync to get Soul for permanent boosts.

I'm a little unclear on this shared pool thing, though.

>>47892463
That's fair, it's still being worked on.

Basically the idea of the shared pool is that once every finishes converting their Props into Sync at the end of the Day, they add all their Sync together to get a big number. So for example let's assume that four characters have finished their Sync conversions:

Jazz gained 5 Sync
Rock gained 4 Sync
Pop gained 7 Sync
R.B. gained 3 Sync

With the shared pool idea, the total Sync that the group earned is 19, so on the next Day each character starts with 19 Sync.

The result is that everyone gets lots of Sync and everyone benefits from everyone else doing well, and awarding Props for actions ultimately benefits everyone instead of just the person who did the thing.

An alternate idea would be for everyone to split that pool up, so everyone starts with 5 Sync except for one Player who starts with 4.

It could work though I'm still not sold and kind of prefer the rules are written for TBZ where the Sync you get from converting Props is yours alone. Like I said it needs workshopping.

>>47892545
totalling it up sounds better so you don't need to worry about rounding errors.

If only Props gives you Sync(or if we do away with Props entirely and just "earn" Sync and tally it at the end of the Day), it would vastly simplify things, so I kinda prefer that.

Yeah, I think I'm okay with that. Sync is shared, food is probably shared, but when you buy some clothing, that stuff is YOURS(unless you're okay with someone else's BO, nobody ever gets a chance to shower).

>>47892613
gonna have to tap out soon too, too sleepy. You'll know what happened if I don't reply.

>>47892688
No problem.

>>47892613
Yeah, the sole purpose of Props is to get Sync at the end of each day. We could award Sync directly, but I personally like the extra gamey-ness of the intermediary step.

The way I see it, once each Day begins, Players can add to their own personal Sync supply with food, but we can talk about that once we get into food in detail, which again is not a major priority for us.

>>47891720
One of the original purposes of Tags was to give a way to rank up and use skills beyond the ones that were specified

>>47892125
We don't have to make Sync add bonus dice on a 1:1 ratio -- we could make things more costly. That said, I'm personally in favour of dealing with smaller numbers.

>>47892115
I believe that we were considering AP because it allows the recipient of the puck to do what they need to do, instead of being forced to do damage. That said, under the combo system, damage will be incentivised anyway, so we could add to damage instead.

>>47891703
>ah, so we can't have situations where a character secretly has low Trust in someone else
I'm still hoping that we can scale back the use of Trust in combat in order to have Trust be a hidden stat, because otherwise the "point" to it is missing and there's no need for it as a mechanic. Allow me to provide an example:

Imagine a three-player party of Pop, Rock, and Metal. Pop has 4 Trust in Rock and 5 in Metal; Rock has 1 in Pop and 7 in Metal; and Metal has 3 in Pop and 6 in Rock.

Metal is attempting to Protect Rock from something arbitrary, say falling rocks. The GM declares that Metal needs 3 successes, but Metal only rolls 2 successes. Metal can then ask Rock to trust him, and rerolls one of his dice. Rock's Trust in Metal is now 6. The die is unsuccessful, and so Metal asks for Rock to trust him again, and rerolls. Rock's Trust in Metal is now 5, but Metal is successful at saving Rock's life. Because of the success, Rock might be able to immediately roll to regain some of that trust that he pawned, or might have to wait until the Day's end, depending on how we choose to deal with trust increases.

On the other hand, if the same scenario occurred with Pop and Metal, then after spending one trust, Pop would refuse to trust Metal to save him since Pop would now have 0 trust in Metal. This shouldn't happen that often.

>>47892463
May I ask as to what you think of Tags, what your concerns are with the concept and/or implementation, and if you have any alternatives? I'm asking so that we can change, replace, or remove the mechanic if needed.

>>47892770
While I like the gameyness of props, I'm worried that it's just another thing for players to worry about. That said, since sync is only totalled at the end of the day (so that you lose sync all day and gain props all day), I'm okay with it, I suppose.

>>47892805
>Imagine a three-player party of Pop, Rock, and Metal.
I hope that means Jazz and R.B. were able to reincarnate...

>>47892805
Which still works just fine. Tags function the same as Skills (they tell you the TN you roll your Stat dice pool under). As in my example earlier in the thread, R.B. has a Tag "Musician's Heart", so he can roll Musician's Heart:Insight to invoke his knowledge of music, M.H:Flow or M.H:Rhythm to play something appropriate to those stats (if he's able to reclaim his Entry Fee at least), or M.H.:Bravery to rush in and prevent a fellow musician from being harmed.

>I believe that we were considering AP because it allows the recipient of the puck to do what they need to do, instead of being forced to do damage. That said, under the combo system, damage will be incentivised anyway, so we could add to damage instead.
I think the system is streamlined enough that the Puck can have several functions at once, so it can grant a little bit of AP AND a damage boost, in addition to its functions of increasing the Fusion Counter and bypassing Taboo armor.

The REAL question is, how much AP/Damage? Should they be fixed amounts? Should they be dependent upon Trust? Or the number on the Fusion Die?

>>47892831
>While I like the gameyness of props, I'm worried that it's just another thing for players to worry about. That said, since sync is only totalled at the end of the day (so that you lose sync all day and gain props all day), I'm okay with it, I suppose.

Precisely. All Players need to know during gameplay is that More Props=More Better. They don't do anything with them until the Day's end.

Also, gaining Props instead of Sync from other players means, like you said, that you always Gain Props and Lose Sync, which in turn means that you can't offset the Sync cost of doing something by receiving Sync from another player. You cannot spend 1 Sync to gain a die and have another Player say "that was awesome!" and toss you 1 Sync, effectively giving you a free die. Props prevent that from happening.

>>47892831
I picked random player names.

>>47892905
I will say one thing: I think that the fusion die should increase regardless of whether or not the puck was passed successfully, or if the fusion is somehow set aside otherwise. I would rather not punish players threefold for not passing the puck. Since we're passing the puck based on performing a combo (I believe, is what people decided), then losing the puck means that (1) you didn't do enough damage last turn and (2) you just lost the damage.

I'm of the opinion that the fusion counter should increase each time the puck is passed regardless of whether or not it was successful. Then again, I'm also an advocate of fusions being per-duo, but that might be too complicated for the tabletop.

I personally think that more AP trumps a damage boost. While a single AP probably won't do touch beyond letting someone position themself better, three or four or more AP could give someone the opportunity to use two pins in one turn. Some people may purposefully have a weak, less-AP-using pin that they can use to take advantage of a small puck.

>>47893342
This may have been settled earlier, but what is your idea for how Fusion attacks should work? A lot has been said about it and I want to make sure I understand your current proposal.

>>47893498
What do you think about the use of trust as I proposed in the Rock/Pop/Metal example?

As for Fusion, certainly. Here is my proposal, in brief terms:
1. Fusions are split into tier one, tier two, and tier three. The highest tier Fusion two players may perform is based upon their combined Trust. For example, if Trust goes from 0-5, then you might need a cumulative 2 to accomplish Rank One, cumulative 5 for Rank Two, and 8 for Rank Three.
2. Once a duo has unlocked a new tier of Fusion (perhaps a sticker then becomes available for purchase next time they check the shop, or it's immediate), they can essentially custom build the Fusion that they will perform using some sort of point-buy template, wherein they can trade the ability to do damage for the ability to apply status effects, temporary boosts, etc. Basically, a way to customise their attack strategy. Alternatively it could just be straight damage.
3. During combat, every time the puck is passed between those two players, their Fusion counter increases. Once the counter reaches the threshold, they can choose to perform their Fusion (if they have higher tiers unlocked, they can also continue to build their counter). The Fusion must be performed on one of their turns, and immediately takes [x] amount of AP from both of them. If one of them doesn't have enough AP and has a Held Pin, then that pin is interrupted and the Fusion instead takes the AP. i.e. if Rock has 2 AP and the Fusion costs 6 AP, then Rock has -4 AP. During the partial refresh, he'll only get 4 AP and therefore have 0 AP during the Noise Round.
4. Higher tier Fusions require higher counter thresholds.

This might be too complicated however, as it would require keeping track of Fusion counters for each potential relationship. With 3 players it'd fine, but scaling up sounds awful. So it might be better to just go with a group fusion as you suggested.

>>47894174
Oh I also meant to ask what your concept of Combos are, since I'm not clear on that either.

Your concept is very accurate to the games but I think perhaps too accurate; as you said it requires tracking independent puck passes for each duo, which is prohibitive beyond a three-person party. The AP costs you're describing are also pretty complex, which will inevitably slow down combat more than we want it to, even for a two-person party.

Basically I think it's just a little overly ambitious for the tabletop platform.

>>47894361
I'm not the one who came up with combos so I'm not actually certain, let me give it some thought.

Yes, I'm in agreement that what I originally proposed was too complicated, and I'm more than willing to go with an alternative. That said, I think that Fusion should be in way shape or form changed or gated by Trust.

The AP costs I described were the same as the Held Pin concept that Stats Brigade Member championed, so if those are too complex, then we should examine whether players should be able to hold pins.

Alright so we have one way of handling Fusion up here: >>47894174

Here's another idea; this is mostly coming off the top of my head, but here we go anyway:

1. Once per turn, a Player spend 2 AP to Lend a Hand to another Player by rolling Trust:Stat (usually their highest Stat). What this means depends on the Stat used. They could roll Trust:Insight to point out a weakness or Trust:Bravery to raise their spirits, for instance. Doesn't really matter. Trust can also be used to harness the power of a Psych to give your ally an edge in some way, but you can't inflict damage or cause status effects in doing so.
2. Successes gained from Lending a Hand can go to two places. At least one Success must go to the receiving Player as a bonus die for his next action. Additional Successes can be turned over in the same way, OR they can increase the counter on the Fusion Die.
3. Once the Fusion Die reaches a certain Threshold, a Fusion Attack is possible. Cooperation is voluntary: each player involved must dedicate their full turn towards executing the Fusion, as well as a number of Sync points equal to number on the Fusion Die.
4. As I laid out in the prior thread, Fusion Attacks are totally improvised; Player can use their Psychs in any way they want and in any amount they want to describe what unfolds.

How's that sound? The idea of Lending a Hand definitely works with the mechanics of the game as well as the themes we're working on, AND it uses the Trust stat. This idea is fairly off the cuff so I'm sure there are holes in it.

>>47895012
Yeah I'll freely admit that I don't really "get" the Held Pin concept as I wasn't quite as involved as I am now when SBM posted the suggest AP economy.

I do agree that Fusion should be related to Trust, which it is in my above suggestion. I wish SBM was around to explain his combo system, since without that we can't get very far in Combat if it's meant to be super integral to the experience.

>>47895188
That works well, though Lend a Hand should be viable in of itself -- I suppose it depends on what we intend the counter to be, but spending 4 AP a turn essentially kills the possibility of passing on the puck as well since we're looking towards combos with that.

While I agree that Fusion Attacks should be improvised fluff-wise, I think it's relevant to know how much damage is done, especially if we want to have different tiers of fusion.

>>47895012
If I recall correctly, the idea behind combos was that each pin would have a certain amount of hits before the combo would be successful and the puck gets passed. Which is what we agreed on, if we didn't change it.

>>47895188
I don't think I'm quite understanding, how does each players sync ratio factor into this method of fusion attacks?

>>47898267
I believe that R+F is suggesting that, in order to perform the Fusion, you need to spend sync to do so.

My question is, depending on how we balance Fusion, it might actually be more worthwhile for players to simply spend that sync and AP on damage and bonus dice respectively in terms of actual damage output, especially since the Fusion attack effectively costs another 6 * (numbers of players) AP.

And, yes, that is what I also recall about combos, so presumably that is what we'll go with.

>>47898116
Hmm that is a good point. It also means that it's easier to increment the Fusion Die when you have more players in the game, since one will always be able to Lend a Hand without significantly reducing the party's combat effectiveness.

Guess we need a third option, probably something that implements the best of these two options.

>>47898267
Right, remembering this now. It's not a bad starting point.

Here's another idea: instead of linking Combos to Pins, we link them to the Players. Each Player has a combo (or set of Combos, based on his Threads), which is a certain number of Successes he needs to score during his turn. Meet that level and you can execute a free Finishing Move which does some extra damage and maybe causes an Effect.

Here's where Threads come in, because some Threads will extend or shorten the length of a combo.

A Finisher's power is relative to the length of the Combo. Longer combos are harder to achieve but have stronger Finishers, whereas shorter Combos are easy to do but have weak Finishers, but with the possibility of pulling off more than one in a single turn.

Threads can also alter the nature of a Finisher, which is a repurposing of the Threads which change the shape of a partner's combo tree.

A Player who executes a Combo while holding the light puck will pass it along to a new Player, starting in the next Player Round.

So that's another way of doing it. Not sure if it's more complex or roughly equal. SBM's idea is more rooted in the AP economy and Pin usage where this one is based more on your Stats and Sync (since a bigger pool means the chance at executing a bigger combo) as well as Thread selection.

That's probably it for me tonight, and I'll be out for most of tomorrow morning (EST). If this thread's archived at that time and there's not a new one up I'll make it.

>>47899157
Have a good night. I'll try to keep the thread up, and besides I'll come up with some thoughts regarding combos and possibly trust.

>>47899157
I'm of the opinion that combos should be tied to pins, since that was how it worked in the game, but we can certainly have Threads affect what kind of combination you have and how it works.

As for Lend a Hand, I think that every use of Lend a Hand should automatically contribute to the Fusion counter.

Real quick:

>>47900511
>Lend a Hand
That's a good point. It's also less work for the Players since they don't have to manually divide up their successes.

For Combos, I guess I'd need to see how the two systems work in practice to know which is better, since they're both so theoretical right now. I'd say keep them both as possibilities and test them each out.

>>47892805
First of all, scaling back Trust in combat specifically won't help keep Trust hidden, because we just cleared up that even without combat, the DCs given in regular play would quickly reveal Trust values. That is the entire point I asked.

Now for your example, I'm not sure if it's wise to give consumable Rerolls the same name as Trust, because of how Trust is treated as much more static. A change in Trust is supposed to be a major event. Perhaps proportional to the number of rerolls you start the day with, but not directly named the same.

Also, when you ask for a reroll, do you subtract one from both players?

>>47892831
>Tags
Mostly it's because I'm not familiar with Tenra Banso, so it's a bit confusing. From what I can tell, it's using personality traits as the DC for xp gain? Encourage characters with personality, I get it.

I guess the most important thing is that all Entry Fees should count as the first and primary Tag, with a standardised high rank. This ensures that EVERYONE grows just a little bit each Day, no matter what.

From there, you can have 1-2 more Tags in character creation, and possibly gain 1 more over the course of the Week?

>>47893342
I can agree with fusion points just rising up over time to simplify things. Maybe specific Threads grant a bonus fusion point on a successful combo, but no more than that.

>>47894174
Having one Fusion per pair is fine, I just think that adding different Ranks is where things might get too cluttered.

I just ran through and scrapped a couple ideas on how to fix that, though.

>>47901392
No, you only subtract one from the other player. The intention is that Trust will not often be consumed. In that example, one of the players was attempting to save another player's life. I mean that Trust can pawned in such dire situations. Because it takes so much effort to raise Trust, Trust should only be expended in a serious pinch. Since Trust wouldn't be used often, Trust could still be kept mostly hidden. For example, if we choose to use Trust for Fusion rank gating, and say that the Fusions are purchased via stickers that appear in the shops after the threshold Trust is reached, players might have a general idea of what the others' Trust levels are, but they wouldn't know the specifics. If we decide to have Trust be rolled at the end of the day rather than simply giving players the choice to increase or decrease by one, then we don't have to reveal those rolls at all. The only time that they would be revealed is when one of the player's Trust hits 0 and another player tries to pawn a Trust.

I suppose an astute player could figure it out, but.

>>47901457
Yes, the point of Tags is to encourage and incentivise roleplaying, and changing one's abilities as well. Following your character's personality, or having it be used against you, grants you experience that you can then use to , which in turn lets you modify your Tags to showcase your character's development.

Yes, the Entry Fee should be a Tag (or something related to it). I was going to suggest having a handful of other Tags for the purposes of describing a character's motivations/fears/other abilities. Perhaps something like, your Entry Fee begins at Rank 3, and you can have an additional Tag at Rank 2 and two at Rank 1, or some such, depending on how high Tags go.

>>47901935
The game had different ranks. The ranks shouldn't be too difficult, though. You unlock them as your Trust in one another increase. Say that a rank one Fusion requires 3 Fusion counter points, a rank two requires 6, and a rank three 10. Say a group has unlocked both the rank one and rank two Fusions. Once you get up to 3 Fusion counter points, the group can choose to activate the Rank one Fusion, or they can choose to wait until they have 6 points for the Rank Two.

I was actually working on this back on the Velocity threads, adapting their game for TWEWY, but life got in the way. love the ideas here, keep it up.

>>47902762
Neat, do you mind sharing anything that you might've thought up or some troubles you could've run into?

I hope that once we get over these hurdles we can start the process of stating pins and psychs. I'm waiting until the weekend to go full tilt on the Noise Report and stat as much as I can, since I'm rather busy during the weekdays.

bump with thread theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0569Wt-cZ0

>>47902614
my problem is that 3 different fusions per pair is quite a lot of different choices once you get a third or fourth person in the party.

3 people: 9 fusions

4 people: 18 fusions

>>47902591
>Trust rerolls rare
I suppose that makes it more likely to work....

>If we decide to have Trust be rolled at the end of the day rather than simply giving players the choice to increase or decrease by one, then we don't have to reveal those rolls at all. The only time that they would be revealed is when one of the player's Trust hits 0 and another player tries to pawn a Trust.
that might be too little information. Do you at least tell the Player if their Trust increased after hiding the roll? Otherwise, it might be hard to even estimate whether you have high Trust in someone else.

>Tags
I guess I'm alright with that, then.

Morning gents!

So, Fusion.

To review we have two suggestions right now:

Archivist's Two-Way Fusion
>>47894174

Rhythm+Flow's Active Support Fusion
>>47895188

Here's a thought combining the two.

Archivist's system has the Fusion Counter increase whenever the Puck is successfully passed between two Players, and in that system each duo has their own Fusion Counter, which is the real stumbling block because it means the system becomes exponentially more complex the more Players you have in a party.

So how about this instead:

ANYTIME the puck is passed, the PARTY'S Fusion counter increases by 1. Failing to pass the puck successfully doesn't do anything to the Fusion Counter. Once the Fusion Counter reaches a certain thresh-hold, a Fusion Attack is possible, and is open to everyone in the Party willing and able to pitch in the Sync cost.

One other possibility:

At the end of each Noise Round, before the next Player Round begins, all Players make a Trust:Stat roll using their Highest Stat and their LOWEST Trust. The lowest Trust represents the limit of their faith in the party. Each Player who scores at least 1 Success increases the Fusion Counter by 1. The Fusion Counter can never increase by more than 2 per Round.

Once the Fusion Counter reaches the appropriate level, then Fusion is possible via the means that I outlined above.

This system incentivizes Players to improve their total Trust in the party, not just prioritize one person as their BFF.

I have to head out for a morning appointment, so I'll be back in a couple hours. Hopefully some feedback on the above should move us towards nailing down these mechanics today.

Good morning /twewy/! Writing fron mobile this morning so forgive any errors.

>>47905460
The players will always know THEIR trust in other players. It will simply be difficult to determine the trust other players have in them. For altering Trust at the end of the day, we have a few options.
(1) GM and players pass notes to announce if they want to gain or lose trust and with whom, i.e. "Rock, gain, w/ Jazz". Then the GM rolls dice and passes them each note with a success or failure comment.
(2) Same as above, but players roll their dice in public after passing the notes. GMs and players don't announce their failures or successes, but simply adjust their internal values.
(3) Players do not roll, but merely choose to raise or lower each relationship by 1.
My intention with the rolls was to make it increasingly difficult to gain more trust from a daily roll. I also intended for players to be able to roll for gain and loss of trust after RPing emotional scenes of said relationship, per GM judgment.

Regarding Fusion, I don't think that the different tiers will be difficult to keep track of. I think that a group Fusion is preferable to many duo fusions, though, so that you only need a single Fusion counter.

>>47906558
Hm, a lot of good ideas here. Rolling your lowest Trust is interesting. I actually like the idea of Lend a Hand to build Fusion, but providing an incentive for group trust isn't a bad idea.

We can then gate ranks of Fusion via the total group trust added together. If we have 3 players and Trust runs from 1-10, then group trust can run from 6-60. We can put a Rank One at 12, a Rank Two at 30, and a Rank Three at 48, or what have you.

>>47906558
>ANYTIME the puck is passed, the PARTY'S Fusion counter increases by 1. Failing to pass the puck successfully doesn't do anything to the Fusion Counter. Once the Fusion Counter reaches a certain thresh-hold, a Fusion Attack is possible, and is open to everyone in the Party willing and able to pitch in the Sync cost.

Since no one commented unfavorably on my proposal to have combat outside of bosses last only a handful of rounds, such a system would make it easy to get to a first tier fusion, while more difficult fusions would be set aside for longer battles. For example, if we're looking at 3 players, and assuming 3/6/10 requirements for Fusion, they could have a rank 1 at the end of a single Round and a rank 3 at the beginning of a fourth Round. This is fine because most combat won't proceed for that long, and the amount o Fusions one can do is dependent on sync as well.

One consideration is that groups with more players will be able to achieve Fusion much more quickly. If we say that a rank 3 Fusion costs 10 fusion counter points, a group of 2 would take five rounds and have to pitch in an average of 5 sync each, while a group of 5 would take two rounds and pitch in an average of 2 sync each. Perhaps the total sync to pitch in should be tied to the number of players in the party regardless of how many participate in a Fusion. i.e. if it's only two players, it costs 10 sync total, but if it's 5 players it might cost 25 sync total instead.

>>47907749
This is dependent upon how often the puck can be passed.

I'm in favor of the puck passing at the END of the Player Round, meaning that one Player holds the puck for each Round, instead of it being passed from one person to another within the Round.

So if we imagine a party of Jazz, Rock and Pop, we could say that Jazz has the puck at the start of combat and passes it to Pop at the end of the first Round. Pop now holds the puck for the duration of the second Round and passes it to Rock, who receives it at the start of the third Round. That way Fusions will rarely occur in quick, easy battles, but are more likely in drawn out, difficult battles, and may even be crucial to success.

Passing the puck within a Round seems like a recipe for confusion. It would be much easier if one Player hold the puck for an entire Round, and it moves on for the next one.

Another possibility for the Lend a Hand system is to infuse it into damage itself. Whenever you launch an attack, you can pass on at least one Success from that attack to another player as bonus dice for their next action.

So say Jazz attacks with a Piercing Pillar Psyche and scores big, getting like 5 successes. He can pass one of those successes along to Rock, who gets a bonus die for it. They can then narrate how Jazz's attack set-up Rock's action, maybe by using a pillar of ice to launch Rock at the Noise at high speeds to improve his Shockwave attack.

That way a Player doesn't have to sacrifice two whole AP to help out his allies-- he can just do it on the fly by re-purposing his successes.

>>47907749
Oh and incase I didn't explicitly say it I'm in agreement with the premise that non-boss combat shouldn't take very long at all and be over within maybe three-four rounds.

The method I've outlined prevents every fight from ending with a fusion attack because a.) there's a limit to how rapidly you can build the Fusion Counter and b.) actually performing a Fusion attack requires Sync, which is used for other stuff as well so Players probably wouldn't want to waste it on junk Noise. That is definitely the goal we should be aiming for.

>>47907934
What I was envisioning with the puck was literally passing it around to signal whose turn it was. For people at the tabletop, you could use some of actual prop that's passed around. In my experience it helps to build a sense of momentum, like passing the baton in a triathlon.

Would you mind explaining where the confusion might set in? I'm all for altering the puck passing, I'm simply confused as to what you see that would be confusing.

That said, I love that idea of Lend a hand as giving successes over. I think that sync will gate Fusion more effectively than the Fusion counter, and we could simply increase the Fusion counter requirements.

>>47908368
My intention was for easier-to-average battles to be over within two rounds or so, especially if we include chaining to get bonuses, which I think we should. Players shouldn't be compelled to grind Noise, but rather, if they need to fight Noise or if they're trying to look for a particular upgrade item, chaining together battles wherein you keep the Fusion and light puck bonuses, etc., sounds like a great way to do it. That way, your combat might be six to eight Rounds long, but you're fighting 3-5 waves of disparate Noise. Ideally these kinds of encounters should be kept to a handful per day.

By giving everyone relatively higher damage and relatively lower HP, I was hoping to have high-stakes, shorter battles. For Noise, this can mean erasure in a single round or two. Players will be more robust, of course, but losing a battle doesn't mean game over, merely lost time.

>>47908525
>What I was envisioning with the puck was literally passing it around to signal whose turn it was.
Alright, that wasn't clear before, but I see that as only exacerbating the problem.

Using the puck to signify whose turn it is is fine on its own, but the puck does more than just that. The puck carries certain bonuses with it like extra damage, more AP and bonus damage against Taboo Noise.

If the puck is purely a turn indicator, then it means that each player ALWAYS has the benefits of extra AP, damage and Taboo Noise killing, meaning that there's no difference between having the puck and not having it.

If only one person has the Puck each round, it means that each player takes a Round where they are the awesome one. In Round 1 Jazz is powered up, in Round 2 Rock is powered up, in Round 3 Pop is powered up, etc... Think of them as performers in a musical act. At one point in the song the lead guitarist melts faces with a solo, at another point the drummer gets to go nuts, and at another the singer wails away.

It also makes battling Taboo Noise a totally different thing. Against regular Noise, the puck merely makes one Player extra effective, but each player is still effective at dealing with them. Against Taboo Noise, however, players without the puck can't do very much, so it benefits them more to lend their successes as Support to the player with the puck; and since the puck moves each Round, each Round of combat that goes by lets another Player be the star Noise killer.

>>47908704
I see where you're coming from, and I think that works fine. A few comments, however:

1. That is why I initially proposed having a small AP augmentation with each successful pass. In your example, we would want to have a larger augmentation.
2. Regarding Taboo Noise, my initial suggestion that was only the extra AP granted by the puck is more effective against Taboo Noise, with all other damage cut by some amount.

In that case, how will we (1) determine puck order and (2) turn order within each round?

>>47908795
>1. That is why I initially proposed having a small AP augmentation with each successful pass. In your example, we would want to have a larger augmentation
I figure +2AP may be all that's needed. The player with the puck shouldn't necessarily be the show-stealer, just have a little bit more leeway. But that depends on how the AP economy with respects to Pins works.

>2. Regarding Taboo Noise, my initial suggestion that was only the extra AP granted by the puck is more effective against Taboo Noise, with all other damage cut by some amount.
That's a totally decent way of handling it under your initially proposed system, though in my mind it could get tricky to differentiate stock AP from puck AP. But that's a minor quibble.

>In that case, how will we (1) determine puck order
At the start of each combat, all Players make a Tag:Stat roll. Whoever gets the most successes starts with the puck. He's the one most motivated, most fired up and ready for action. A tie goes to who-ever has the higher Tag rank, and if that too is a tie then a simple roll-off is used.

Passing the puck could work one of two ways, which we're still kind of working on.

If we go with Combopass, a Player can pass the puck if he successfully executes a combo during his turn. He then chooses which player the puck goes to in the next round.

If we go with Trustpass, then the player with the puck chooses the next recipient at the start of the next Player Round, and the two of them make a Trust roll (add their Trust scores, roll under on a d10). If they succeed then the new player gets the puck.

In both cases the player with the puck chooses who to pass it to. That's why it's a pass and not a steal or some other random action.

(continued)

>>47908992
>>47908795

(continued from above)

>(2) turn order within each round?
The player with the Puck gets first pick on when he gets to go in the Round. Against Taboo Noise it's suggested that this player goes last, which better allows players without the Puck to support him.

Other players can act in any order they agree on, with any disputes settled, again, by a Tag:Stat roll to see who wants it more. But since Player and Noise actions are broken into their own Rounds, initiative isn't quite as important as it is in games line DnD where players and enemies act on the same turn ladder.

>>47908992
This sounds good so far, but I do have one issue. If we make combats last a short amount of rounds, and one person happens to have a higher tag rank than anyone else or another person (more likely) has several low ranking tags, it might end up with the same player or players getting the puck in the first turn all the time. That might not be a concern however.

I suppose it wouldn't matter if we intend for players to chain, but it's something to consider. Perhaps if you got the puck first turn during the last combat, you're excluded from doing so in the next one.

Other than that, I think that your system is great.

>>47909091
That would work. The puck's starting position could also be a pure d10 roll-off as well, for the sake of simplicity.

Oh, and when passing the Puck a player should always prioritize passing to another Player who hasn't received the Puck yet in that combat.

>>47909190
Neat, I'm in agreement with you here. It also means that players can request not to be passed the puck if they don't intend to combo.

What's next on the agenda?

File: DSfight1.jpg (44 KB, 256x384) Image search: [Google]

44 KB, 256x384

Here's the full, I think, proposal for the puck system we've come up with.
>Light Puck Sustem A-1

>Initial Position
At the start of every combat, all Players make a Tag:Stat roll (that is, roll their Stat dice and count each die equal to or less than one of yout Tags as a Success). Players are free to use their highest Tag and their highest Stat for this. The Player with the most Successes takes possession of the light puck for the first Round of combat.

If there is a tie, the puck goes to whoever has the higher Tag rank. If that too is a tie, then the two players just do a d10 roll-off.

If there are no objections by the other Players, one Player can also volunteer to take the puck for the first Round.

>Turn Order
The Player holding the light puck can choose when during the Player Round he wants to act. Against Taboo Noise, for instance, it's suggested that he go last so as to benefit from Assists from other players.

Other Players are free to decide on their own what the turn order should be. If adjudication is required, players can make Tag:Stat rolls as above to determine who is most motivated to act.

>Light Puck Effects
The Player with the light puck gains the following effects (these are still being workshopped):

....+2 AP for that Round
....Any attacks he makes deal extra damage equal to his Trust in the Player who passed it to him. During the first round of combat, this is based on the Player's Tag rank instead.
....Any attacks against Taboo Noise deal full damage, bypassing the Taboo Noise's damage reduction effects.

>Passing the Puck
Each Round, the puck is passed from one player to another. There are currently two systems for how this can work. In both cases, the Player with the puck chooses which Player he passes to.

(continued below)

File: DSfight2.jpg (72 KB, 256x384) Image search: [Google]

72 KB, 256x384

>>47910234
(continued from above)
>Combopass
If the Player holding the puck successfully completes a Combo, he can pass the puck at the start of the next Player Round.

>Trustpass
At the start of every Round after the first, the Player with the puck chooses another Player to pass the puck to. The two Players make a Trust roll (add the Trust ratings they have with one another and try to roll under with a d10). If they suceed them the puck is passed.

Priority in passing should be given to Players who haven't yet held the puck in that combat encounter.

>>47910053
We still need to work out a good way for Communal HP to work. Based on the polling we're in favor of a pure shared HP total rather than a more abstract Drop-Out system, but we haven't yet determined how exactly that will work and what the repercussions will be.

Oh, here's another Skill I put together:

Express: Your ability to create and perform as an outlet for your thoughts and feelings. Play music, graffiti an underpass support, recite a poem. What Stat you use with this determines the nature of the expression.
>Express: Rhythm- Crude yet compelling, gritty and real.
>Express: Flow-Smooth and seductive, dreamy and exotic
>Express: Insight-Smart and complex, challenging the mind
>Express: Bravery- Bold and fiery, soaring and inspiring.

More of a roleplaying skill but one that's definitely relevant to TWEWY with its emphasis on art, fashion and music.

>>47910300
I suggested that total player HP could be based upon adding up all of the RFIB stats of each individual, and then possibly doubling or what have you. Players can willingly lower their combined HP pool to get better rewards a la the game.

>>47911187
Right, but that's not the real problem. The real problem is what it means for the game. Here's what I posted in the last thread:

First off it means that a Player who makes decisions in favor of HP and Defense is making plays that favor the Party, whereas a Player who makes decisions in favor of Attack is benefiting himself. Here's the reasoning.

If a Player eats Food or wears Threads that boost HP, it's adding HP to the communal party total. He's not seeing any direct benefit from doing so. If Player A makes a decision that adds +5 HP to the party pool, then it's no different from if Player B makes that same decision, because it's all going to the same place.

Defense is slightly different, but fundamentally shares the same approach. By boosting your Defense (probably by adding extra dice to your Protect or defensive Psych rolls), you're attempting to reduce the total damage that the party takes. Where this matters is that a Player with low Defense is more of a party liability. If Player A has better Defense than Player B, he's better able to shield the communal HP from damage. If either Player A or Player B take 5 damage, it's the same effect (the Communal HP pool is reduced by 5), but Player A is better equipped to keep that from happening.

(continued)

>>47911246
(continued)
Attack is where the real difference is. A Player who prioritizes Attack in his Threads and Food will be better able to eliminate Noise than a Player who prioritizes HP or Defense. This is an obvious statement, but what we need to think about is "Is it more fun?" Some Players enjoy playing Tanky rolls, but a Player with lots of HP isn't himself Tanky-- the entire Party is. A Player with high Defense is indeed able to keep the party in battle longer, but that ability is undercut by Players with low Defense. This is kind of a tautology, but it's a bit more profound when there are only two states for the Party: either Everyone is Alive and Kicking or Everyone is Dead.

This is the second point: If there's no option for one character to be incapacitated or even killed during or after combat, battle outcomes are completely binary.

We need them to determine what happens if the party is defeated. Is it Game Over? Or are they kicked back into the UG with some kind of penalty?

My initial thought on this (back when I proposed the Drop-Out idea) is that if a Noise battle is lost, the Players are penalized in Time, since I'm in favor of a hardcoded system of measuring how much Time players have to complete their tasks each day. This introduces what I think is an interesting management mechanic, where players need to split their activity between shopping, eating, bonding, fighting and trying to solve the Day's task using a set number of Rounds to do so. However that idea seems fairly unpopular so I'm left without a good alternative for what happens if the Players lose a Noise fight.

On less heady topics, does anyone have a suggestion for a good heading font to use for a character sheet? I'm starting to tool around with one.

>>47911246
Hm, I'll think about these carefully and see if I can come up with solutions. I will say that I'm in favour of a hard coded time mechanic and I think that losing time is a fine punishment.

>>47908992
>differentiate stock AP from puck AP

If it's only the one or two AP, just say you have to declare what you're using it on to use it, and that Taboo take full damage when hit by a psych you declared as using Puck AP.

And probably something about how you can't split up the AP if the activation uses more than one AP, so you can't have two four-AP activations that are both use Puck AP.

>>47911285
I thought of this problem myself, the way I see it, short of adding an entire Defense stat, defensive abilities on threads need to be viable.
There also needs to be a way for that player to actually tank for the team, some way to draw aggro from everything. I can't say at this point if that should be a thread ability, some quirk of how psychs will work with Noise, or a custom psych, but it needs to happen for tank to be a real role.

>>47911246
>>47911285
I think that the Time mechanic is an excellent one to impose on the players. I'll add that Players should be able to bond and shop (though perhaps not at specialty shops that are only open during the day, etc.) after the task/mission is complete, as I outlined earlier. In this manner there's both a time constraint and a way to sit back and relax.

I think that players should be able to be killed during boss battles and the like, and of course if they don't complete the task. But not against junk Noise.

As for questions of offense and defense, I think that that can best be answered by differentiating the ways that a tank works. For example, we have reactions that can occur in response to an enemy attack. But let's say that that attack doesn't have to be on you. In other words, we could have abilities that let you take hits for other players, or that let you move other players out of harm's way. Let me give you an example:
Rock is more offensively oriented, while Jazz is more defensively oriented. Both are on the same Measure. During the Noise Round, Rock is attacked by a powerful Noise. Jazz spends 2 AP to "Guard" (perhaps, he rolls Protect:Insight as well) and is able to get in between Rock and the enemy, and takes the hit for Rock.

Say that Rock is in the Near Left Measure, and Jazz is in the Centre. Jazz has a Teleport psych. When the Noise attacks Rock, Jazz activates the Teleport psych for 2 AP, then spends his last 2 AP blocking the attack so that Rock escapes unscathed.

Those are just a few examples off of the top of my head, mind.

>>47911957
I believe that someone made a TWEWY font pack a while ago. I'll see if I can find it.

>>47914034
>Rock is more offensively oriented, while Jazz is more defensively oriented. Both are on the same Measure. During the Noise Round, Rock is attacked by a powerful Noise. Jazz spends 2 AP to "Guard" (perhaps, he rolls Protect:Insight as well) and is able to get in between Rock and the enemy, and takes the hit for Rock.

This is fine and is the idea behind the Protect Skill, but that idea kind of fails when you've got communal HP. If one player Tanks for another Player, that damage still goes to the same source. The Tank may be able to reduce that damage somewhat but it's not the same effect as literally taking a shot for someone else. The act of sacrifice is weakened because that damage goes to the communal HP pool instead of to the person taking the hit.

Also I found some nice fonts that I'm going to try out tomorrow, including a TWEWY clone script which I hope will look good.

>>47914614
You suggested that we have an actual defense stat that could reduce damage. Likewise, that player might have more AP or threads put into reducing damage. If Rock had been hit, perhaps the damage to the communal pool would have been 10, but Jazz is able to reduce it to 5. It doesn't have to be a direct sacrifice to be a tank, you know.

Guys guys

I think I figured it out. Literally while I was getting a hair cut. Posting from my phone now, so I'll have to explain it later, probably in the morning, but I think it solves the HP problem,

bump for later this evening hopefully

My HP idea is just have a 'circle' of the HP bars and you steal from/add to your neighbors.

>>47914653
I feel like adding another stat might be a bit much.
Count my vote for pushing defensive abilities.

>>47910234
What do you think of using Trust for initiative and turn order, as stated >>47891399 ?

And where do enemy turn orders fit in Light Puck Sustem A-1?

I looked through the Psychlopedia and noticed something - for some reason there's no Rhythm based Resonance? Is this intentional?

>>47917627
This is my point exactly. We should defensive abilities rather than having "players that put points in Defense" or what have you.

>>47915982
I'm excited to hear this.

>>47915982
You better deliver.

Good night, /twewy/. Hopefully we sort out the HP stuff tomorrow.

just for fun, using what we have so far, let's make a character
or a pair, either way

>>47921095
First thing's first, male or female?

Bumping for incoming content.

>>47918402
>>47919217

Alright so here's the idea. It's super simple.

You've got your Group HP. We could call this GHP or we could call it something else like Spirit or Harmony or something. Whenever someone is damaged, the GHP is reduced, and if it hits zero the fight ends. GHP is, as suggested, calculated using the total Stats of the party added together (we might want to add a baseline number to this as well if that proves too low for practical use).

However, Players CAN ALSO have their own HP, which we'll just call regular HP at this point. They don't have it by default, but they can get it by equipping certain Threads and eating certain Food.

Group HP isn't affected by Threads or Food, only Player HP.

If a Player with HP takes damage, that damage is subtracted from his HP before it impacts the GHP. That's it.

Here's an example of a three person party with Pop, Jazz and R.B.

Pop is a glass cannon. All of her points are put towards her attacks, and she has practically no defense and literally no HP. If she gets hit, all of the damage she takes goes to the Group HP.

Jazz is defense focused. He has some HP, but mostly he put a lot of focus on Defensive Psychs and Skills. This means he's very good at preventing damage from being taken, and his HP serves as a small buffer for the GHP.

R.B. is a meat shield. He's got lots of points in attacking, very little in the way of defense, and lots of HP. If he gets attacked he may not be able to block the damage, but that's okay, because he's got HP to spare, which protects the GHP.

If Pop gets hit and takes 10 damage, all 10 of that damage is deducted from the GHP.

If Jazz gets hit for 10 damage, let's say he has 4 HP, then his HP will soak that up and the GHP takes 6 damage.

R.B. has, like, 25 HP. If he gets hit by an attack that deals 10 damage, he'll be reduced to 15 HP and the Group HP is totally unaffected.

>>47923328
I like this idea.

Under this system, each Player has 3 sub-stats that are purely battle related:

>Attack
Each point of Attack you have gives you an extra dice when you perform an offensive action
>Defense
Each point of Defense you have gives you an extra dice when you perform a defensive action
>HP
Your Player HP. When a Player takes damage, it is subtracted from their HP first, and any leftover is taken from Group HP.

The Battle Sub-Stats start at 0 and are increased two ways:

1. Threads can increase your Battle Sub-Stats as long as you continue to wear them.

2. Eating certain Food can increase your Battle Sub-Stats for that Day.

So let's say you're wearing a Thread that grants 10 HP, and you eat a bowl of chowder that grants 5 HP. For that Day you'll have 15 HP; at the start of the next Day you'll be back down to 10 HP, provided you're still wearing the same Threads.

>>47918090
Player turn order isn't super important most of the time because each round of combat is broken into a Player Round and a Noise Round.

During the Player Round the Players take their actions, and during the Noise Round the Noise act and the Players react. Since the GM controls the Noise he can basically deploy them in any order he wants, which allows him to manipulate large groups of Noise without creating extremely protracted initiative ladders.

I started a reply but 4chan managed to lose it, so I'll rewrite it. Bump for incoming response.

>>47923328
This, this is fantastic. I love it. Would the extra HP regenerate between non-chained battles? Perhaps that from Threads, but not from food, as per my suggestion below.

>>47923626
This I'm not quite sure about. Bonus dice can have a significant impact on the course of battle. Generally speaking, we want for Threads to be the better long-term investment but to require saving up for them. If you can achieve the same thing for cheaper just by buying food every day, well.

Perhaps the food isn't permanent for an entire day, but rather grants a pool. For example, a food item might grant you a pool of six +1 Attack dice. We can either say that the first six offensive actions will get a bonus dice, or let the player choose how to spend this pool of bonus dice.

That might be too complicated, but consider that adding on bonus dice to all offensive or defensive actions can be a big deal. Threads that give you +2 attack will result in significantly more successes for you in the long-run, and if the minimum food you can consume gives you a +1 attack or a +1 defense, that's quite a few dice over the course of the day. We can certainly do tat and balance accordingly, but.

Having food be in a pool can also affect the timing of food consumption, so people might be more inclined to save it for boss battles.

>>47923626
Ah, something else that I neglected: We could refer to attack/defense as Treble/Bass akin to what we have for Noise.

>>47924665
I thought of that, but I think we're approaching if not already reached the limit of our unconventional naming system, so keeping stuff like "Attack", "Defense" and "HP" simple may be to our advantage.

>>47924615
>Would the extra HP regenerate between non-chained battles? Perhaps that from Threads, but not from food, as per my suggestion below.
For the sake of simplicity I'd say all HP regenerates between non-chained battles, but we can try it multiple ways.

>Perhaps the food isn't permanent for an entire day, but rather grants a pool. For example, a food item might grant you a pool of six +1 Attack dice. We can either say that the first six offensive actions will get a bonus dice, or let the player choose how to spend this pool of bonus dice.
My thought here is that we're already dealing with quite a few resource pools (Props, Sync, Soul, Player HP, Group HP...) and adding Food Dice as another may be pushing our luck.

It's a good solution and a good way of handling the Digestion system, which I've been prepared to largely ignore in favor of a simpler "this is how much food you can eat in a Day, go nuts" approach.

Doing it that way could also potentially trivialize boss fights, since the players could just carbo-load before the fight and roll out all their bonuses at once.

But at its core I think we've got a good system here. Communal HP was the last hurdle we really needed to conquer for basic testing and I think we got that nailed down now.

>>47924762
We could still set a maximum amount of food that can be eaten at one time, and the food would only apply a single bonus dice to the first however many rolls.

It's not entirely a matter of emulating the Digestion system, but of not trivialising Threads or stats. If the applicable stat is 4, and you have a +2 Thread and consume two +1 foodstuffs, then you've doubled the stat you use for offense that day.

>>47924963
Hmm that's a valid point, though it's worth saying that in TBZ you're frequently expected to have pretty big pools of dice when in combat, which is why they use d6s (because they're easy to get).

I figured that Food would also grant Sync, which can also be used to add dice to your pool, so it's possible that by eating you can pretty significantly increase your pool. It's a tricky thing to balance, that's for.

Actually I do have a though on how that could look.

The character sheet, which I'm currently messing around with, has a section for food, which has a series of boxes that you fill as you eat and fill up. Under the boxes there's a line where you say what that amount of fullness gives you.

When you eat the food, you draw a / through the boxes that the food fills up based on its Bites. When you decide to use the bonus from the food, you digest that Bite, getting the bonus and drawing another \ through the box to turn it into an X.

It makes more sense in my head but as I'm currently experimenting with a character sheet right now I may be able to express what I mean soon, though maybe not this week.

>>47925227
>The character sheet, which I'm currently messing around with, has a section for food, which has a series of boxes that you fill as you eat and fill up. Under the boxes there's a line where you say what that amount of fullness gives you.
>When you eat the food, you draw a / through the boxes that the food fills up based on its Bites. When you decide to use the bonus from the food, you digest that Bite, getting the bonus and drawing another \ through the box to turn it into an X.

This works perfectly and would allow us to have said bonus dice. Having big pools of dice in combat is fine and will likely happen anyway, but I would rather avoid people consuming enough food to make Threads and stats irrelevant. +1 is a big deal in a system with small numbers.

That also gives us the chance to have more strategy. For example, we could something like a Parfait that gives you three +2 attack dice (as in, three times, you can opt to pull in two extra dice), versus something like Baked Potato that gives you 6 +1 attack dice. A player going into battle would think carefully about which one best suits their playstyle.

>>47925227
>>47925362
To clarify, I think that only a single "bite" should be applicable per roll. So you can't use the Parfait and Baked Potato to make one roll +3.

>>47925377
Exactly. You can only Digest 1 bite at a time.

>>47925386
I think that players can deal with quite a few different dice pools as long as it's clearly marked on a character sheet for easy reference. As I've said previously, this might be due to my history of crunchier games where you have to keep track of damage on separate hit locations and whatnot, but a well-designed character sheet can go a long way.

I'll start moving this into the google document. This weekend I'll start the process of organising everything into an actual readable format, and we can start working out the specifics of stats and actions and testing.

File: Character Sheet (Draft).pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

Speaking of character sheets, here's my progress so far. Not sure what to put in the space next to Soul yet. Maybe HP.

Okay guys, sorry I missed a whole day.

What'd I miss?

>>47925481
Perhaps a space for the props that you've accumulated so far that day? I imagine that people could just do tally marks for props and then count at the end of the day or what have you.

You might want to slightly increase the space for Tags so that you can write down what the Tag does or pertains to as well. Beyond that, it looks great. Reminders for things to put in: A Trust chart, a list of Threads and Pins that you own with a checkmark or some such that to indicate which ones you have currently equipped.

What are you using to make it?

>>47925557
Rules as written, Props are literally supposed to be physical objects like poker chips or MTG counters, though there's no reason you can't just keep a tally tracker. It's just that it's supposed to be an extra element of interaction in the game.

I'm going to have a second page that is pure Inventory of Threads and Pins as well as a list of Foods you've eaten and your reaction to them (since I figure that Food gives a d10 amount of Sync to a person when they eat, and that amount is fixed after the first time it's tried). But I'm trying to keep the most relevant info on the first page, including Threads but excluding Pins because we want those as separate articles, as previously discussed.

Trust Chart is definitely going in though. That's going to be quite prominent.

And Yeah I'll definitely broaden the Tag fields.

>>47925483
We seem to have worked out a solution for puck passing: >>47910234

And just worked out Communal HP a few posts above.

>>47925957
Sweet.

File: Character Sheet (Draft).pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

Updated character sheet with Trust chart added and Skills. I left a couple blank skills since I figure there are at least two more we can work out still.

>>47925940
Oh, the reaction thing is interesting. I like it.

And while props should be physical, you might as well have a space for it if you're not sure what else to put there. HP/attack/defense seem slike they should go together somewhere.

By the by, we should include an editable version of these for online play.

File: Character Sheet (Draft).pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

Draft #3, now with just about everything we'd want the main page of a TWEWY character sheet to have. Did I miss anything obvious?

>>47926419
Right, not sure if I know how to do that though since I'm using Word to put this thing together. Hence why the boxes don't always line-up perfectly, much to my chagrin.

I left an open area in the Battle Sub-Stats in case we want to move HP down there and put something else in HP's place. Maybe having to do with your Combo

Incidentally I'm going to be away from tomorrow through Sunday evening, so I probably won't have any input until Monday morning after 4:30 EST.

In case anyone wants to mess around with the character sheet (like adding editability to the PDF), here's a dropbox link with the word document:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dnin1xol3noeu2d/Character%20Sheet.docx?dl=0

>>47928244
EDIT: Just realized that killed the Fonts that I used. Crud.

>>47928244
Could you upload a version that includes the .ttf font files?

>>47928325
I can upload them to dropbox; will that work?

Here are the fonts:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qunw8x1x0i96km0/freshmarker.ttf?dl=0
>this is the main text font, you know, the readable one

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c8wc2wi8dboxwlb/Stylin%20BRK.ttf?dl=0
>this is the stylized header link.

>>47927524
This is great so far. If it's Word then it's fine because we can simply upload it as a google doc that anyone can use. I wonder if we can get the boxes to line up better.

I like the use of HP/Max and Soul/Props. We might want to have multiple lines for Effect for "food", perhaps one for the stat affected and one for the + number, so that we can differentiate atk + 2 and atk + 3. That's just a spacing issue, and it looks good overall.

I also have to say, the addition of the questions is fantastic and fits in perfectly.

>>47928469
Thank you, I'll take a look and try to get some things done. I'll also work on the Noise Report over the weekend, and post my progress on that as well as the document.

>>47928509
I just used a single line for Food Effects because food has a variety of Bite levels and I didn't want to restrict players. all they need to do is draw a line on the Effects line to demarcate where each new food item ends.

I'm actually really excited for that system now, that would be a really awesome mechanic to put into place.

> I wonder if we can get the boxes to line up better.
The wonders of Word are such that I can set up 6 perfectly lined up Bite squares, copy them all and paste them and they'll be pasted crooked. It's maddening. That's why professional use Photoshop.

One thing I still need is to put Rank dots for the Tags.

If i REALLY had my druthers I'd replace the border around the Entry Fee with, like, chains. That would be real rad.

Fun fact: the word "Props" using the Stylin BRK font that I used for the main headers is completely unreadable, so I couldn't have a separate box for that even if I wanted it.

>>47928726
Well I have Photoshop CS6 with me but I'm not familiar with using vector tools,alas.

Alright I'm off. Like I said I probably won't be back until Sunday night at the earliest, Monday morning definitely. We've made some real progress here, we're definitely within reach of something playable now.

I'll add that I may be able to sporadically check in on the thread via my phone now and then, though my availability will be erratic at best.

>>47928726
No, what I meant was that effects should have two lines. If a particular food only uses 3 bites it might be difficult to cram in all of the different effects, while if you have two lines for effects it's easier to physically have enough space.

>>47929044
Now's as good of a time as any to learn.

>>47929556
Yes, I think that the next step is to figure out how combos work and then starting statting things. We also need to think more seriously about the time mechanic, but I have a few ideas for that.

We should also design a sheet for GMs to keep track of things, and perhaps a cheat-sheet.

no death

>>47931051
I'll see what I can do next week, but real estate is a a premium here

>>47933777
You could cut out the age/sex box up at the top and move things up. That could be contained within the concept box. I mean, it's nice to have that sort of information off-hand, like other things such as a general description, but they're not vital.

>>47934652
That would work, though it doesn't buy that much space since that's only half the horizontal space needed for that section. I'd need to shorten the Sync, Soul and HP boxes too. I can try that but first I'll try reducing the tag spaces ever so sloghtly. If I crop them all by a tiny amount it may buy enough room. I'll work on that Monday.

Excited to hear your thoughts about the timer.

>>47935113
I'm still hashing it out, but in brief, we would separate the task into a number of rounds (though selecting a different term).

Most activities would take a single round. Changing location would take a round, as would successfully battling, or shopping. The GMs will be advised as to how long their tasks should take and how much leeway is sufficient. Say that a task is split up into 15 rounds, and doing task-related things takes 10 rounds. That means that the players can screw up a bit. Making it more or less changes the amount that players can screw around.

For certain things like movement or shopping, having skills such as driving or speed shopping rolls would allow you to go quick without losing any time.

There would be one distinction however. Running away from a Noise battle (if successful) means that you only lose one block of time. But losing entirely means that you would love multiple blocks, most easily two.

>>47936890
I'm thinking it would be visually represented by way of a "clock", wherein the GM moves some sort of marker to signal the passage of time, and would be a good way to represent up to 24 timeblocks.

Bump for the night.

>>47936906
That's pretty much my thought on the matter too. What do you think about Ticks as the unit we use?

>>47923878
>each round of combat is broken into a Player Round and a Noise Round.
What concerns me about that is that it takes away the sense of danger when passing the Puck around. Proper puck passes were hard in the game because you had to attack while the noise were also attacking.

>>47924615
>>47924762
What if you can only have a single/X Food Effect /s active at a time? It's only on for as long as you're still Digesting it, and people can only stomach so much.

You could further limit it by the party sharing Food, so Food bonuses are homogeneous, but Thread and Sync bonuses are where you specialize.

>>47890437
This actually sounds great. It forces the players to cooperate in order to divide up the sync, and is much more elegant than the puck-passing idea.

Sync Pool Example.

Jacelyn is far ahead of the rest of the party (George, Damian and Eric). She decides to not take sync out of an 8-sync pool, allowing the rest of the party to catch up in terms of character advancement.

Puck Passing example.

Jacelyn gives George, Damian and Eric pucks. If she can still use the pucks she has given them, there is no reason for individual players to have pucks and they should be added into a communal puck pool by the GM. If the pucks can only be used by the person who has them, then giving pucks puts Jacelyn at a disadvantage, so that giving pucks is not always the best choice. This does not fit with the cooperation theme.

>>47939603
That's the idea actually. You digest bites going left to right on the chart

>>47939586
It's a necessary trade off I think. You're exchanging some of the immediate danger for a quicker, better flowing combat experience. Plus Only one person holds the puck each Round, so passing to coincide with enemy attacks isn't viable. That's how the A-1 puck system works, at least.

>>47939642
I think you're mixing up terms here. The props-sync system is completely separate from passing the puck.

>>47939307
Ticks works. I was thinking of calling it Beats or something like that.

>>47939603
That's what we were going to have. I don't think that the party should share food, however. Note that you also have to declare that you're going to use a bite prior to the roll.

>>47939642
I thought that we were going to add up and pool sync for everyone at the end of the day, so that everyone begins with the same sync the next day? You can also augment that with food and whatnot, but at the baseline everyone will have the same.

That said, puck passing has nothing to do with sync. The puck is a singular object passed around and is inherently communal. There's no such thing as a puck.

>>47939845
Players also get to react during the Noise Round, so it's not like there's absolutely 0 simultaneous action.

Regarding GM sheets, we should probably have a Trust matrix for easy reference between the various relationships; a way to measure Ticks/Beats/whatever time mechanic; a sheet for tracking shop locations, what they sell, and how much trust the shopkeeper/shopreaper has in the party; perhaps a track wherein the GM can keep track of the missions to do during that week, especially if he has a series of individual tasks each day (related to ticks/beats); a "Noise Report" of the noise that the party has fought; and obviously some sort of map.

>Noise Report
Speaking of which, I'd like to open up a discussion on what kind of noise is associated with that kind of emotional turmoil. I really think this is could be hella useful GM tool for establishing each mission/day/character/arc's themes and atmosphere, and for establishing a current emotional state. It'd also give the mechanics of the game DEPTH and MEANING and help anchor the combat into the setting and story and make it feel less arbitrary and grindy. But to do any of that Noise Vibes have to be intuitive, consistent, and at least a little fleshed out.

I'm replaying the game (BTW dog have i forgotten how fun low stat combat is in this game) and as of Day 6, from Pink Reaper's reaction to loosing a bet, and Ai and Other Girl's fight, and Shiki's identity crisis

I'm positive:
>Porcupine: Spite - Returning your pain to the perceived cause, often disproportionate and misplaced
>Bear: something like contempt - Standing tall and not backing down, in an aggressive way. Just BECOMING a wall of thorns.

I'm pretty sure that:
>Raven: Envy or Greed (they appear when Envy is a big theme, and they take your pins)
>Wolf: Aggression or Hatred - Just plain viciousness, bloodthurst, trigger happy violence

And I suppose:
>Pig: Gluttony, Consumerism
>Bat: Uncertainty - Feeling "blind" or "in the dark" about the present or future
>someone suggested that Frogs are equivalent to Envy in the previous thread
>Jellyfish might refer to the dangers of group mentality and echo chambers but IDK

Just off the top of my head, this leaves:
>Shark, Penguin, Elephant, Mole, Fox, Mink, Rino.

>>47942877
the Shark's first appearance seems like it would probably be meaningful but IDK. Story wise, both the noise itself an it's place in the characters' perceptions CAME OUT OF NOWHERE and it dialog the event has been tied to the "dog eat dog" theme of the setting.

In combat the Shark noise swims just below the surface of the battleground mostly out of sight, then it rockets to the surface in an assault out of nowhere. It eats the other noise to increase it's power level.

>>47942877
This is fantastic. I assume that you're going by the bosses and yellow noise, right? I'll try to skim through the TWEWY entry on lparchive to see if I can have a comprehensive list of all of the yellow noise in the game.

>>47942900
I'm in agreement with the "dog eat dog" thing for sharks, as well as an element of surprise. I'll look more closely.

bump of STYLIN'

>>47943369
The Noise that are paired with specific character interactions seem to be the most clearly meaningful and least subjective so I was definitely paying attention to the Yellow Noise and the noise that reapers set on players in-person. For instance after declaring revenge on Neku and Shiki for making her loose a bet with Koki she sets a Porcupine Noise on them. This was also the first appearance of the said noise, and I believe a noise's intro is often meant to be important. But yeah Yellow Noise is HELLA important.

Quite a few bosses are also the first appearance of their noise species, but as so many of them are one-time-only enemies I hadn't really been paying attention to them... until now. I'm kinda face-palming for not putting more emphasis on them.

I also believe the appearance of ordinary Red Noise //may// be meaningful. The Decadraven doesn't appear until Week 1 Day 6, the day Shiki's jealousy arc is unveiled. Still gathering info on it though.

>>47944322
The bosses might be important as capstones. We might as well add them to the list.

Interesting on the Red Noise. Let's see if we can pair everything with Yellow and Blue Noises first, then we can see what we have left over and start taking stabs at it.

>>47942877
>>Porcupine, Bear, Raven, Wolf, Pig, Consumerism, Bat, Jellyfish, Shark, Penguin, Elephant, Mole, Fox, Mink, Rhino
Drakes.

Also the Kangaroos 'Boomers,' and the Carcino- Crabs.

>>47941057
Beats worke better

>>47942877
Woolies (elephant noise) seem to be the "insurmountable wall" emotion. You know how you occasionally feel like you're just unable to do anything because there's just this huge roadblock in the way? Like, the defeatist outlook? It seems to be that.

>>47942877
This is fantastic. Great work, keep it up.

Frogs could be pettiness. They are the smallest and among the weakest Noise, but also the most numerous, which fits how pettiness is at one small yet pervasive.

>>47943369
>>47945491
>fantastic
Oh wow. Thank you. I will.

>>47944471
I was thinking it'd be a great idea to prioritize Yellow, Blue, and dialogue/character related Noise connections above possibly coincidental appearances.

My last post wasn't terrifically worded. I didn't mean to suggest that just drawing a line between any predominant theme in the story and the appearance of any Red Noise that day was a good idea haha *self-consciously breaks eye contact*
A word on Ravens: The possible envy/greed theme of Raven Noise is complicated by the ideas of "wanting something you don't have" and "wanting something somebody else has" being so similar. Though we can safely assume ravens stealing your shiny pins could represents at least one of these things it's hard to say which. Though I would say this theft is more like greed than envy, they also appear the same day as Shiki's envy issues which may be significant. There is some overlap between the two concepts of greed and envy in our culture and (literally) more OR less in Japanese society. I'll see what resources on Japanese language and literature I can find to make sure greed and envy aren't interchangeable in Japanese or something, because then the Raven Noise would probably have been meant to represent both concepts.

This kind of research is a good strategy for keeping things CANNON, though as far as keeping things READABLE to Westerners is concerned it may be necessary to snip any really foreign associations. Like maybe if ravens represent both to a Japanese person we should split the two up in our game? The line between what is and isn't too unrelatable for this table top adaptation is pretty tricky to draw. Which is why I'm glad I'm not the one who has to draw it, and that no-one has to worry about it until after we've gathered and accounted for all the cannon.

I say go nuts. The game doesn't make any clear distinctions on the matter, so any amount of conjecture seems fair play to me.

>>47945974
>wanting something somebody else has
This is still greed, technically. Envy is wanting something BECAUSE someone else has it, as opposed to wanting something and someone else having that thing. Envy can also be not wanting someone else to have something for any reason.

Envy can overlap greed, but they can be different too. It's generally the reasoning behind it.

>>47945974
This >>47946247
Go by the Ten Commandments version if you still think it's too close. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet.
Covetousness is different than stealing and ambition for wealth.

>>47947141
I'd just like to say I appreciate everyone's input and help.

>>47947273
Hey I appreciate your work here. You're approach is really well informed and its hacking nice results.

What's important here is that we focus on truly negative emotions. Feelings like fear and anger can be used for positive ends but spite and cowardice not so much.

For carcinos, how about invoking the old crabs in a bucket metaphor? Crabs will claw at each other that are trying to reach the top of the bucket in an attempt to pull them back down to the bottom. It's a very specific feeling of resentment and anger at other people trying to get ahead instead of you. Some kind of petty aggression.

It just occurred to me that Beats works especially well for our units of time because they also invoke the idea of story beats too.

>>47948401
>story beats
You mean like in movies?

((Getting y'all... UP TO SPEED on this terminology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(filmmaking)
>a beat refers to an event, decision, or discovery that alters the way the protagonist pursues his or her goal.
>At 35 minutes: Andy risks his life to offer financial advice to Mr. Hadley. - Decision
>At 40 minutes: Andy notes ease of carving his name in the wall. - Discovery

>>47947273
As R+F said, you're doing some really excellent work, and thank you so much for your contribution.

>>47948401
>>47948499
Yup, this is was my intention. It combined the beats as in musical, the beats of a story (with each one covering some sort of event such as shopping or moving to a new location), as well as having a time-feel to it like bpm.

H-hey, no dying, please!

>>47950993
Still no dying!

>>47951918
we might need a new thread just to clean out the clutter and put something else on the Agenda.

Outside of >>47939845, I don't have much against A-1 aside from personal preference.

>>47951960
It's nice to have a thread up to throw things at though.

>>47950993
>>47951918
As far as I can tell, the thread should be fine for a while.

>>47951960
New threads at page 10. I'll make it, don't worry.

Plus I find that big threads, active threads can give an appearance that work is being accomplished and make people just scanning the catalog interested in what's happening.

Regarding GM sheets, one thing I want to make is a Gameday sheet that the GM can use to track vital data for a single Day. Like it would have a row of Beat Boxes across the top that the GM an cross off as time is consumed and spaces for the main Task of the day and special Noise that will be dealt with,

>>47951960
When we start testing combat we'll try it with the initiative ladder too just to cover the bases and to make sure that the existing systems are the best for the job.

Envy and Greed and definitely distinct concepts in Japanese. I wouldn't think this alone warranted a post if we weren't so close to bump levels, however.

>>47945626
In addition, pettiness is also represented through the tadpoles, being small, niggling annoyances that build up and weigh you down.

>>47951960
Alright guys, page 9. What are our agendas for the next few days, and things that are desperate to get in the game?

Do we have Trust mechanics?

Do we have combat mechanics?

Do we have pin mechanics?

Do we have a Player sheet and DM screen? I have a little bit of experience with Photoshop, so I can help with that if we need it.

Is there anything else we want to address?

>>47956515
Never mind, that bumped us to page 1 again. Apparently I hadn't posted in this thread, despite making it.

Still, ideas for this stuff?

>>47953861
Yes, exactly. That's what I mean. it's also good to keep track of what players have.

>>47954070
Hm, makes sense.

>>47955209
I agree. I feel like Ravens are more envy. There doesn't necessarily have to be a greed.

>>47956515
We have the beginnings of a player sheet but no GM screen. I think we have Trust mechanics somewhat worked out though we have yet to nail down specifics of when it can be used.

I think the next step is balancing combat.

>>47955209
>>47956638
What's greed then? Drakes?
What are the minks? Wrath?

I'd vote for Foxes are pride, I think we talked about Sharks as destructive gluttony.

>>47956942
Sharks as Gluttony I can see. Though right now I'd suppose Drakes are closer to something like rage than Greed, what with their heavy metal music and tenancy to scream fire. Foxes could be confusion or mystification or something but I want to check on their appearances in-game before I commit to that. Care to explain your Mink rational?

Not that I'm putting myself in charge of this or anything but I've been noting down everybody's suggestions. If there's no cannon evidence to suspect other associations through the three weeks plus a day (not to mention developer interviews/commentary if I or anyone else is up to weaseling it out) I suspect we'll give everything it's best suggested alternative, if said alternative isn't already property of another Noise.

I would like to stress that in most campaigns selecting Noise for its difficulty will take priority over doing so for it's "vibe". Such guidelines add flavor to the soup of the setting but aren't meant to be followed strictly (especially the first few days). Just... some inb4.

I'm also adopting a name just to avoid confusion.

>>47957914
The foxes are Deception. They don't fight in their true form, and are always shifting their appearances.

>>47957914
>I would like to stress that in most campaigns selecting Noise for its difficulty will take priority over doing so for it's "vibe". Such guidelines add flavor to the soup of the setting but aren't meant to be followed strictly (especially the first few days). Just... some inb4.

I'll also add that I will include alternate set-ups so that the GM can adjust difficulty if needed thanks to the decibel system. i.e. if your players aren't quite ready for that 120 dB Mink but the 40 dB Mink won't cut it, there's a way that you can scale back the difficulty to be appropriate to the party. I'll outline all of that in the Noise Report.

>>47957914
Minks would actually be spite, if you asked me, it's just that spite also works and makes a lot of sense for the Corehogs.

The minks are actually weasels; Kamaitachi, spirits that ride wind and knock you down and cut you with deep cuts that don't bleed immediately.
The legend is that they just run around and cut people, but there's also a myth that a woman's husband was stolen by another woman, so she cuts her hair (a big deal) and the hair turns into a kamaitachi that cuts the other woman's head off.
Weasels are also apparently banshees and witches. Their spit is mythically poison, and if you kill one, the others will kill your chickens.
IRL, they kill snakes and are super vicious.

Agreed that minks seem to fit very well with spite. Perhaps for corrupts we can do something with the old hedgehog's dilemma, where we are drawn close to people who will hurt us.

I've been wrestling with a skill that I want to add for basically using stuff or interacting directly with objects. So you can use it with Rhythm to break down a door or with Insight to figure out a computer. I've been thinking of Control, Use or Handle but none of them seem right. Handle is pretty close to what I'm aiming for though. It should fit the current pattern of skills as answering the question of "what can you do?" in a grammatically satisfying way.

>>47957914
Also agreed with your last point. Flavor should never trump the needs of mechanics, especially when it's something that can be changed or reinterpreted so easily by a GM

>>47956515
Regarding trust mechanics, we have a few uses for Trust like fusion attacks and maybe puck passing, but what else can it be used for? Since it's got a place on the front of the character sheet it should have some major everyday uses.

>>47962005
Potential uses for trust that have been discussed:
(1) Fusion attacks.
(2) Spending Trust to reroll skill uses on other NPCs.
(3) Spending Trust to "put skills together". For example, Jazz needs to roll Think:Flow, but is worried he won't be able to make it. Rock spends one trust to add his Flow or Think (either skill or stat; alternatively, half of it, as has been discussed in a previous thread) to Jazz's. Say Jazz has a 2 in Think and a 4 in Flow, while Rock has a 4 in Think and a 7 in Flow. Rock spends a luck to add half-rounded-down of his Flow to Jazz, so that Jazz now rolls a 2 in Think and a 7 in Flow.
(4) Especially for NPCs, perhaps they could spend Trust in order to "cash-in" on favours, similar to how relationship ranks work in Magical Burst.

Just skimmed the main document. I'm looking for a random bullshit oneshot to run for my group since we wont be able to do our normal games for a couple of weeks because some people will be busy.

Is this developed enough for a playtest?

>>47965322
While we have many of the mechanics in place, we don't have much in the way of concrete enemies, pins, Threads, etc., statted yet. That's something I think we should tackle next, but we're not there yet.

Unfortunately, it's not.

Okay, are we far enough to have character creation done?

>>47967417
I'm not sure what you mean by this.

>>47968533
Are we far enough that we could whip up a quick character to avoid dead silence and bumps

>>47968683
We need a starting stat amount. I think we should have 8 points to allocate among stats with minimum being 1, max 4. That means you have to pick a secondary stat and can't minmax too much at the beginning.

Not sure how much for Skills, but I'd imagine something similar for that. Double the amount of skills, have that as points. At the moment, we have 7 skills. That's 14 points. Same here, min 1, max 3. For every skill at 3, you have another at 1.

I've never used TBZ before, so I'm not sure about these numbers, but that's stats and skills.

>>47968932
Notably Skills start at 1 already.

When I get back to full computer access Monday I'll see about making a fill-able version of the character sheet which will make this easier.

>>47968932
Those numbers are really quite close to what TBZ uses actually. It's starting stats are 1 to 3 but since we're using d10s instead of d6s a slightly higher starting base would be good.

>>47965322
I think next week we'll be at a basic level where things are playable. Right now we're quite good on basic mechanics so we need to start stating out basic enemies, threads and pins.i'm optimistic about next week.

>>47969764
So realistically, skills would be 1 point minimum and 5 maximum, with the points being 21 (3 per skill average). Either that or upping the dice so you have a higher chance that way.

>>47969795
Something like that. I'm thinking that as play testing develops we'll find that we can give skills a higher cap, since in TBZ at max you're literally trying to roll under.a 6 on a d6.

>>47969819
Actually a scale of 7 for Skills would be quite thematically appropriate because it would mean you could improve a Skill by one rank each day if it started from a lowly 1.

>>47969906
And even then, you have a 30% chance of failure. I like it.

>>47969940
On a single die. By day 7 you're rolling lots and lots of dice.

>>47969965
Adding to this by Day 7 difficulty should be such that a single success doesn't cut it anymore in a lot of cases.

>>47970016
Well yeah, I'd assume that by day 7, you'd be rolling at least 8 dice. Even more, if we're going to limit the stat upgrades to 2 ranks/day in a single stat.

As far is pin output is concerned, so we think this is too complicated:

Pin base damage+Stat+successes?

The first two values will hardly change at all between uses, and will probably remain fixes each day. So really we're just adding successes to a fixed daily value with each use,

>>47971008
Depending on the pin, it's either that or base damage x successes.

Massive hit would use yours (and the amount of successes would tell you if you hit or not) and something like stellar hit would use mine (where the amount of successes would indicate how many hit).

I don't think there's any arguments on that.

I think that skills should theoretically go up to 10, but that it should simply be outside the scope of the average campaign to get there.

>>47971008
>>47971071
Yes, I'm mostly in agreement with these. I think that we should simply have pin base damage + successes, however, rather than pin base damage + stat + successes, but that will depend on the pin. I assume that the to-hit still depends on the success.

Also, I'm in the process of fixing up the main document to reflect the changes. I didn't get as much done yesterday as I would have liked.

Really, though, the sooner we can get statting things, the better. Then we could actually playtest.

My very next project is going to be the format for filling out Psyches so we can stat out that side of it. It will look similar to the Thread section at the bottom of the character sheet.

Sticking my big noise (hehe) into matters unrelated to Noise here. Hope I'm not overstepping anything.

>>47968932
>We need a starting stat amount. I think we should have 8 points to allocate among stats with minimum being 1, max 4. That means you have to pick a secondary stat and can't minmax too much at the beginning.

Has making stat upgrades cost progressively more been discussed yet? It doesn't make sense to me to put a cap on staring skills just to delay minmixxing, imposing arbitrary and immersion breaking rules just to delaying the inevitable. The technical incentive in our system to make boring one-trick characters (even if that's not what the player, DM, and group would enjoy most) would still effect the rest of the game.

>>47975279
If instead we make boosting a stat from 1 to 2 cost (2*#) Sync, and boosting a skill from 2 to 3 costs (3*#) Sync, and so on, then Maxxing will be a viable and possible option but come with the trade-off of less total stat points to balance out it's obvious advantages. This way we (and the DM) won't have to tell anyone (over and over again) that purely optimized builds are bad and to not to do it, we'll be shifting what the "best" minmax strategy is in a direction that minmax builds will be more enjoyable to story/character focused groups and co-players while making character/story focused builds naturally turn out at least roughly within the same league. For the entire game.

This solution is also flexible. If after a few test runs it looks like the rate costs increase is too low or too high, we just bump the factor up or down. If it works at early and mid game but breaks late game, we change it so the increases increase over time: 1x, 2x, 3x, 5x, 8x, 12x, 17x and so on; or something like 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 8, 13 and so on.

Isn't this how we made the Tags anyway? 10/20/40? Stat costs should increase at a rate less than 2x the last cost I image, but this would fix a lot of problems and isn't even introducing new complexities to this system.

>>47975300
A system where each stat upgrade cost 1 point more than the last, starting with an upgrade from 0 to 1 in a stat costing 1 unit of some kind (so the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th upgrades would cost 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; bringing the total point investment it cost to get a stat rank and all ranks under it to 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21) would result in the possible arrays:

25 Points (including the 1's you need to get the 1 stat minimum):
6,1,1,1 |r:1point| 9 stat dice total
5,3,2,1 |r:0| 11 stats dice total
5,2,2,2 |r:0| 11 stat dice total
4,4,2,1 |r:1point| 11 stat dive total
4,3,3,2 |r:0| 12 stat dice total
3,3,3,3 |r:1point| 12 stat dice total

That's what I mean this system would balance max stat builds by providing such them with proportionally lower TOTAL stat points.

>>47975548
The one issue with point pyramids like this is that it can feel frustrating to have little to no progress by the end of the game. That might be the intention, but I know that some players are frustrated with nWoD for example for that. That said, it's as good of a way to discourage minmaxing as any.

>>47976510
I hear you.

All that's important in this pyramid is the ratio of effectiveness between investing in low stats versus investing in already high stats. If the "exp" being rewarded each meeting increases throughout the campaign relative to what the typical balanced build of that level would need to stay interesting, then we can encourage diverse builds while avoiding stagnation frustration. Exp rewards are tricky business in this game so far though, aren't they? Props, having no limit and being completely player decided, no GM attached, cannot be balanced to any normal progression rate, if I understand the current rules right that is. And Soul probably shouldn't increase dramatically as the game progresses either. This is a problem for pyramid progression systems like this.

>>47977708
To accommodate a pyramid stat system:

1. The prices of all Sync and Soul related abilities drops each day to accommodate the increasing Sync supply, which remember is to accommodate the climbing Sync rewards which are to accommodate the climbing Sync costs. (obviously too complex)

2. The cost of stat points increases very slowly, like 1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,4, etc. Enough to offer some insensitive without bogging down progress, or at least not bogging it down suddenly.

3. Though it costs more Sync to upgrade a stat the higher it's stat gets, the cost of all stat upgrades (regardless of the current stat #) decreases each day, boosting the stat buying efficiency of balanced builds while also allowing for regular progression. Though in this case there may need to be measures against players hoarding Sync for more than one or two meetings and cashing it in big-time on late game low prices (unless that kind of deprivation=long-term-gains sounds like a fun mechanic but I think it's arbitrary and OP), the options for this include keeping track of the day Sync was earned and cashing it in to points using the prices that were the day it was earned.

That'd keep the stat progression engine moving at a steady rate while still encouraging diverse, multi-skilled builds with the softest level cap.

>>47977810
any of those sound not awful?

Back in the saddle again.

Regarding Stat and Skill gains, I'll remind everyone that the base-system, Tenra Bansho Zero, is heavily weighted for players to spend Sync on temporary bonuses instead of long-term progression. This is due to the fact that it's designed for 3-act one-shots.

For example, each point in a Stat gives you one more die to your pool each time you roll it, and in the base game it would cost 10 Sync to raise a Stat by one point. But it only costs 1 Sync to add a die to a pool for a single roll, and you can do that as many times as you want.

For Skills too, it costs 10/20/40 sync to raise a Skill up to 4 (you can't get a 5 in a Skill except under certain circumstances), but it would only cost 3 Sync to increase the target number of a single roll by 1, which has the same effect as raising a Skill.

Permanent growth, in other words, is a possibility but is somewhat dis-incentivized. Again, this is in the core game (except with our terms used), and we can change that however we want. I've already made substantial changes to the Karma/Soul system to make it fit our purposes better.

>>47977708
>Props, having no limit and being completely player decided, no GM attached, cannot be balanced to any normal progression rate
The progression rate is gated somewhat by the brevity that the game is designed for. By definition, a campaign in TWEWY has a designated end-point when the game week ends, which means it's less likely that players will be able to stat up into the stratosphere purely because the game is short, and there are lots of incentive to spend Sync on temporary effects instead of long-term advancement (Fusion attacks, for instance, would eat up a lot of Sync). That's if we decide for that at all-- we were talking earlier about separating Skill progression from the Soul-Sync system entirely.

Here's a write-up on the basic Pyrokinesis Pin you get the start of the game:

>Name
Pyrokinesis
>Psych
Pyrokinesis
>Resonance
Flow
>Range
0-1 (so it can target Noise in your Measure or in one adjacent)
>Damage
1 per Success
>Effects
Each Success can be applied to a different Noise in range, spreading the fire from one target to another (Multiple Successes can be spent on individual Noise).
>AP Cost
3 (so you could potentially use it twice per turn without the Puck)
>Uses/Reboot
4/1 Round

The AP, Uses and Reboot are pretty much arbitrary, and the damage output is as basic as it can get. What do we think?

>>47980819
Are we measuring reboots in Rounds in that case? I like it.

>>47980819
I agree that measuring Reboots in Rounds is better than doing so in AP, which may be more bookkeeping than it is worth. Though it does mean that faster reboot times would be difficult to implement since we don't have small enough units to do s.

Late night bump.

>>47980819
I think we should have a limit on the amount of successes possible for each pin, if it's based on damage x successes like a shockwave pin or something.

>>47986457
So now, pyrokinesis would look like this:

>Name
Pyrokinesis
>Psych
Pyrokinesis
>Resonance
Flow
>Range
0-1
>Damage
1 per Success, Max. 4 successes
>Effects
Each Success can be applied to a different Noise in range, spreading the fire from one target to another (Multiple Successes can be spent on individual Noise).
>AP Cost
3
>Uses
4
>Boot/Reboot
0 (no boot)/1

Is that still legible? If it is, I'll start piecing together some more pins for you guys to pick apart.

>>47986554
shockwave

>Name
Shockwave
>Psych
Shockwave
>Resonance
Rhythm
>Range
0
>Damage
2 per success, Max. 3 successes
>Effects
Deals damage to only one foe. If max damage is dealt, knock the enemy back.
>AP Cost
3
>Uses
3
>Boot/Reboot
0/1

>>47885001
>let's make a tabletop game based on the shittiest possible game you can play on Nintendo 3DS, with the worst battle system ever seen

>>47987518
Please, tell me what makes you have that opinion.

>>47986554
Here's my initial thought about Shockwave actually:

>Damage
2 per Success
>Effects
For Each Success after the first, you may spend 1 additional AP to deal an additional 2 damage to the target Noise. If Max damage is dealt, knock the enemy back 1 Measure.
>AP Cost
1
>Uses
3
>Boot/Reboot
0/1

I feel like this effect more closely replicates the impact of the Shockwave Psych, in that you're pressing your attack by using more AP to drive it home. However your method looks less complex which is probably to our advantage.

I figure that we should probably start each Player out with at least 2 Psychs, that way when one is rebooting they have the other one they can use. We should probably have a rule too where you can spend Sync to reboot a Pin automatically or receive help from another player to do so, that way a Player is never left without something to do in a battle.

>>47988244
While I agree that players should have 2 pin slots to start with (perhaps get a third after day 2 or something) and psyches to go with them, I don't think we need a way to reboot immediately. To begin with, you would have 2 pins with a reload of 1 round so you would never be without a psyche. I guess you could have a reboot speed up where it only gives you 1 round off the reboot and can only be done once per reboot or something, so that the power economy isn't blown out of the water.

File: Pin Sheet (Draft).pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

>>47988423
Fair enough. just a consideration I had while working on this.

In other news, here's a quick draft of a sheet for Pins. I'm going to work on making it into a fillable PDF.

>>47988458
I like it, though I was always a sucker for things that flip over. Like, once it's used up all it's uses, flip it and it has a reboot timer which is trackable in the same way that the uses is.

I'm not entirely sure how we're tracking uses and boot/reboot, I imagine it has something to do with tokens or something. Perhaps spindown dice or something. Probably just tokens.