So I'm working on a little project /tg/. I've got a bunch of scattered notes that I haven't quite pulled together into a second draft, but I wanted to bounce some ideas off of you because I value your opinion.
It's basically a 4E D&D clone with elements of Gamma World with some inspiration drawn from Japanese roleplaying games. The classes, however, are based on 3.5 D&D classes from Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, and Expanded Psionics Handbook.
A few features:
You pick two classes. You can select a class twice. Martial classes give you stances and maneuvers. Psionic classes give you powers and power points. 'Tech' classes give you melds and essence.
Pact magic, inspired by the Binder class from Tome of Magic, is available to all classes (for a price!)
Ability scores are ranked from +0 to +5. Your choice of race determines how many points you get to allocate among your ability scores.
Everybody selects a theme to determine their character's role outside of combat. In addition, the players may also work together to select (or roll randomly for) a party theme shared by all characters in the party.
Weapon damage scales as you gain levels.
Primitive firearms are included on the equipment list as simple weapons available to everyone.
Interchangeable augment crystals for weapons and armor are available as a core part of the game.
So, get hype!
The more you talk about how your work is derivative of other, more established systems (especially when it's DnD mixed with elements from DnD, which sounds a bit incestuous), it makes me lose confidence in the project. Revisit your project from the perspective of "what does this system offer that other, similar, more supported systems don't" and then ask yourself "is what this game offers worth a person learning a whole new system".
It sounds like you want a dynamic power system, which can be interesting for combat but you also have to keep in mind that there are other kinds of conflict that don't involve fighting.
There's also a pitfall with the way 4E and the tome of battle presented player options: far too many of them. Choice paralysis can bog down a game with intricate mechanics like melds and magic.
In short: Scale down your scope to it's unique elements and its hooks and find ways to accentuate those parts of your game.
Create something that doesn't describe itself initially with "it's a D&D clone".
>>44417975
There's a time to innovate, and there's a time to refine. I describe this project as a D&D clone because that's exactly what it is, and there's nothing wrong with that. Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a D&D clone. Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyberboria is a D&D clone. Pathfinder is a D&D clone.
What I'm doing here is taking established work, and reexamining things from a different angle.
>>44417975
You are right that I need to work on the problem of analysis paralysis. It might help if there were tables to select maneuvers/powers/melds randomly, provided that the results are fairly evenly weighted. That might even earn the game some OSR cred.
You are also right that it is important to address conflict outside of combat. Hopefully the themes will help out with that.
Maybe I can add a relationship subsystem too...
Check out Strike! for a "retroclone" of 4e. You also pic 2 classes in it, so you may find something you can use.
The "path" system from Legend may also be worth a reading, helps with option paralysis.
>>44417848
I have to be honest, this sounds like total dogshit.
It's okay.
Everyone goes through a "I can build it better" phase. The wisest thing to do is have some good houserules for established systems and save yourself a lot of trouble.
>>44418710
I keep hearing good things about strike. Isn't that one d6 based?
>>44417848
Fuck off retard
>>44418839
I love you too, holiday-fag!
>>44417848
Not sure if you want feedback or are just shilling your idea, but here's some feedback anyway.
1) Don't let players choose the same class twice. Make classes reasonably narrow but don't make them overlap much. You've seen the 4E-style Gamma World, you know what I'm talking about. A Yeti / Yeti is just boring, make them spread out a little. In addition, consider how Gamma World 4E-style handles Origins, and consider basing your Classes around that. For example, consider having each School of Maneuvers be its own class, with specific At-Will / Encounter / Utility abilities you can choose from. Restrict each Class to maybe 5 powers in total so people don't have too much trouble with making decisions.
2) If you're going to use Soulmelds, for the love of god balance them better than 3E did. Also, make note that most Soulmelds gave you minor benefits, many of them skill-related, so if you want to divorce combat and non-combat you're going to have to remove or redo a LOT of melds.
3) This guy >>44418710 advocates Strike!. Strike! is dogshit, avoid it at all costs. There is nothing in Strike!'s design or mechanics that Gamma World 4E-style doesn't do better and cleaner. Legend, however, is a decent suggestion if you can get around some of the bad design (spells per encounter for casters) and omissions (no monster manual and terrible/complicated monster creation rules). Take notes but don't take TOO much from Legend, it's only a 7/10 IMO.
4) Keep weapons (and damage rolls) simple. Don't make players look at a chart in order to figure out how much damage they do. Likewise, keep the rules for firearms and various weapon types simple. This isn't Song of Swords, categorizing weapons as Daggers, Swords, Spears, etc. is probably sufficient. Again, Gamma World 4E.
>>44419136
Cool! Thanks.
>1
Good idea.
I was thinking of splitting each of the psionic disciplines off into a separate class as well.
Maybe six classes in each power source, and two oddballs?
>2
Really? Soulmelds seemed pretty balanced to me.
I was thinking of converting soulmelds into at-will powers you could augment by investing essentia into them.
>3
I should probably at least read Strike! so I can be familiar with it and understand what everybody is always going on about.
>4
Certainly. I was thinking of also tapping into Lamentations of the Flame Princess for some inspiration on weapons and how to keep them simple but distinct.
>>44419337
>Maybe six classes in each power source, and two oddballs?
20 Classes might be a good starting point. That way you can have players roll random class combos easily and see if that works. Ideally you want any combination of two classes to be interesting and viable.
>Really? Soulmelds seemed pretty balanced to me.
Soulmelds were okay at low levels but really started to suck at mid levels and were basically worthless at high levels. I've played all three Soulmelding classes and the only way I got them to work as-written was to play a Necrocarnate and cheese the ever-loving crap out of the mechanics.
>I was thinking of converting soulmelds into at-will powers you could augment by investing essentia into them.
Not a bad route. If you do this, keep the essentia totals and maximums low (1-3 tops) and make every point matter WAY more. Look at 4E Psionics for examples on how Power Points were used to make At-Wills more awesome.
>I should probably at least read Strike! so I can be familiar with it and understand what everybody is always going on about.
I wouldn't recommend it. The layout is poor, it's an eyesore, and the game is hard to decipher. I spent a few hours learning the system and regretted it. I don't think it's worth your time and it really doesn't do anything that Gamma World doesn't already do. The non-combat task resolution rules are really, really bad, and even the defenders of the system admit as much.
>Certainly. I was thinking of also tapping into Lamentations of the Flame Princess for some inspiration on weapons and how to keep them simple but distinct.
Try it and see if it works. Personally I just use weapon categories and give each type a small bonus. For example, for Knife-style weapons I let users add their Dexterity to damage instead of Strength, while Spears let the user make Opportunity Attacks against enemies that engage them in melee (not just ones that try to disengage from melee). It's simple and ends up being a LOT less math.
>>44419538
>20 Classes might be a good starting point. That way you can have players roll random class combos easily and see if that works. Ideally you want any combination of two classes to be interesting and viable.
I might also try having 21 classes, with the twenty-first being a special class that's only available if you end up rolling the same class twice.
>Soulmelds were okay at low levels but really started to suck at mid levels and were basically worthless at high levels. I've played all three Soulmelding classes and the only way I got them to work as-written was to play a Necrocarnate and cheese the ever-loving crap out of the mechanics.
I only ever used Incarnum in an Epic 6 campaign, so I never encountered those problems. Makes sense though.
>Not a bad route. If you do this, keep the essentia totals and maximums low (1-3 tops) and make every point matter WAY more. Look at 4E Psionics for examples on how Power Points were used to make At-Wills more awesome.
Good deal. I need to try and find a good solution to the 'spamming' issue found in 4E psionics though.
...
I'd also like to take a moment to bounce an idea off of your guys regarding roles.
Rather than use the striker/defender/leader/controller scheme found in 4E, I was thinking of dividing the classes up thusly:
>Melee Single-Target Lockdown (Grappler)
>Melee Zone-Control (Reach-Weapon Tripper)
>Ranged Single Target Lockdown/Removal
>Ranged Zone Control
>Defensive Buffing/Healing
>Offensive Buffing
Instead of a dedicated striker role, every class will come with its own striker class feature (charging, multi-attacking, blasts, ongoing damage, sneak attack damage, etc.)
>>44419797
>I might also try having 21 classes
Sure, whatever works.
>I only ever used Incarnum in an Epic 6 campaign, so I never encountered those problems. Makes sense though.
Yeah, Incarnum doesn't scale well past level 5 or so. Compensate accordingly.
>Good deal. I need to try and find a good solution to the 'spamming' issue found in 4E psionics though.
Reduce the total points and make the points matter more. Alternatively make all Psionics Encounter-Powers, make Psychics rely on physical combat when they run out of juice that fight.
>I'd also like to take a moment to bounce an idea off of your guys regarding roles.
Don't worry about roles. Make your classes, I think you'll find certain roles emerging naturally from the power suites you make.
>every class will come with its own striker class feature
I strongly advise against this. Make sure that no Class is purely damage-oriented and you'll find that they will all be able to contribute to total party damage. Basically, don't sweat making them all balanced until you test them. Get them made first, then tweak the numbers accordingly.
A few more suggestions before I head off:
1) Focus on At-Will, Encounter, and Utility powers. Resource management over the course of an adventuring day is hard to balance, and it's hard to justify why a certain martial maneuver or soulmeld could only be used once a day. If you build around the idea that every fight is challenging, and that draining resources over the day isn't as much as a factor, you might find that it makes for exciting, epic-feeling combat even at lower levels. Depends on what game feel you're shooting for but I think it'll fit the vibe you're going for.
2) Limit character options and benefits. 1 power per Class, plus a passive benefit per Class, should work well. A dozen powers by end-game is probably all you need, so aiming for 6 per Class is maybe a good idea. You could get away with 3-4 if you make them interesting or flexible.
Good luck.
>>44418774
Yeah, that's the one.
>>44419538
>The layout is poor, it's an eyesore, and the game is hard to decipher. I spent a few hours learning the system and regretted it.
Are you that faggot who couldn't wrap his head around fly?
>>44419538
>The non-combat task resolution rules are really, really bad, and even the defenders of the system admit as much.
[citation needed]
>>44421699
He probably means Touhoufag. He doesn't like the resolution system because the way the math with twists and costs works out it's supposedly very punishing. I think this is not so, since while the twists are considered mathematically a -1, in practice they are more like a net 0.
To be fair to him, there is not much depth in that part of the system, and not a lot of granularity.
Then again, you are supposed to use it along with the other systems which do have more depth.
>>44418879
Seriously though this idea sucks and you're a fucking retard
>>44417848
Op, I think there's potential to your idea. A sort of 4e-lite based on gamma world would be great, and the alternate 3.5 classes were cool in their own way, even if you don't get the mechanics exactly the same. A couple of random thoughts if you allow me:
- I get why you get rid of ability scores and keep the modifiers, but personally I think that it's unnecessary. I've always found counter-intuitive the idea that you could have 0 strength for example. If you want to keep the scores that way scale them in a way that starts from 1.
- Don't do in-combat classes and out-of-combat themes. Strike does it like that and it's shit, it's like having two completely unrelated games stitched together. Give a bit of both to everything.
- I'm not convinced on having a transversal power source, but I guess that would take the place of mutations from gamma world, right? It could work, but I'll have to see it.
Anyways, good luck for your project, sounds cool. Hopefully it doesn't turn out as autism incarnate as Strike!.
>>44422628
Ah! Found the fly-guy!
>>44422754
What fly guy?
>>44422969
There was a Strike! thread I think a week or two ago and a guy sperged out because you could make a character who has the flight power in combat doesn't necessarily need to have it out of combat.
>>44423017
It might shock you, but more than one people can dislike a thing.
I've never posted anything about flight. Strike! still reads as a tax form though.
>>44423017
>can fly in a fight
>but can't fly out of it
What is this, a JRPG?
>>44423047
Heh. Yeah, he said something like that I think.
Couldn't wrap his head around the fact that if it bothers him, he can just say his character can fly. You have to purposefully make a flight incapable character then purposefully pick flight as a power, then refuse to address it in fluff in any way for it to be a problem.
>>44423089
Dude, why can't I fly out of a fight if I can fly in a fight?
>>44423094
Dunno. What do you have in mind for your character?
>>44423094
Because the game completely separates the two things. Instead of worrying how to balance some utility things out of combat, they opted to put a hard limit and completeley separate the two parts of the game.
Which is a design decision that produces the desired results, but that doesn't sit well with everyone.
But don't you know? If you don't like Strike! you are stupid.
>>44423109
I have in mind mechanics that aren't disassociated as fuck.
>>44423130
I guess you should then just build a character that isn't disassociated as fuck.
>>44423138
Why does the game let me make a character who can fly only when there's a fight?
>>44423159
Maybe you want a character who has limiters that are only released in combat. Maybe you want flight's effect, but not its fluff connotations.
But mostly, because the game expects you to come up with your fluff and expects you to justify your powers as you see fit.
>>44423159
>>44423181
It gives you the option because it expects that you only take it if you have a reason to take it.
It's not that different from other systems giving you free hand with character creation leading to wizards with 5 INT, or M&M letting you make ball of arms man. I guess it places a bit more responsibility on the player to not fuck up his own fluff, but not by much.
>>44423181
>>44423225
Or you could play a system that doesn't let you make nonsensical characters with disassociated mechanics.
>>44423465
Yeah, that's a logical choice if you can't handle a system that doesn't hold your hand. You'll be probably much happier that way.
>>44423498
>Yeah, that's a logical choice if you can't handle a system that doesn't hold your hand. You'll be probably much happier that way.
You know, this line was used in thelast thread too, and it's still stupid.
There's miles of difference between universal systems like Gurps or M&M, where you are expected to bring your own fluff, and Strike!.
Because as much as it sells itself as a generic system, Strike!'s mechanics inform a very specific gameplay and implied setting. The lack of fluff is not because "the system doesn't hold your hands", but because the devs couldn't be assed in trying to marry it to crunch. People have tried to explain this in every strike thread, but you fans (all two of you, excluding 2hu) go in turbodefense mode and start calling names everyone who disagrees.
>>44423567
> inform a very specific gameplay and implied setting
Could you expand on this, just so we are on the same page?
Also, the core rule book comes with 3 or 4 different settings. Just saying.
>>44423596
>>44423567
Also, how does Strike! have more of an implied setting than M&M?
>>44421521
Nope, I'm not the fly guy. I saw his posts in the thread and I can see where he's coming from, even if I don't agree with him 100%.
>>44421699
As >>44422028 said, Touhoufag (the biggest supporter of the game) has been talking about making his own version of Strike! with radically different non-combat mechanics. Personally I think that the way Skills are handled in Strike! is silly, and I prefer a limited and specific Skill list. Some games can handle non-specific Skills well, 13th Age is a prime example with their Backgrounds system, but Strike! is not one of those games.
>>44422628
>I get why you get rid of ability scores and keep the modifiers, but personally I think that it's unnecessary
I think using score as modifier would work. A 0 Strength might just represent that you're average - no bonuses or penalties, after all. Having the minimum be 1 (in place of 8-9 / -1) would make the average 2, and that could work fine as well.
>Don't do in-combat classes and out-of-combat themes. Strike does it like that and it's shit, it's like having two completely unrelated games stitched together. Give a bit of both to everything.
I think we disagree but I'd be fine with whatever way OP handles it, as long as it's fun and simple.
> I'm not convinced on having a transversal power source, but I guess that would take the place of mutations from gamma world, right? It could work, but I'll have to see it.
As someone familiar with Gamma World, I think it could work. The game would probably end up feeling a lot like E6 Gestalt, what with limited classes. They'd have to be set up so that they compliment each other well, and that their power sources don't naturally synergize too much, by which I mean playing a Psychic / Psychic character shouldn't be significantly better than playing a Maneuver / Psychic character. Sharing power points among your powers might make them too good, as would sharing essentia.
