anyone knows any good articles on how to improve the tactical combat on RPG. something that goes beyond the basic of "use terrain"

perhaps a war-gaming article or something. i want to improve my combat scenarios. and make them more like a tactical puzzle.

>>46094280

I can't think which one would be best but, probably some tooling on hit points or health levels or whatever alternative.

I've been trying to create a small, sort of fast paced miniatures game where you are attempting to find a suicide bomber in a crowd of people.

Is this too insensitive or controversial? I wanted to call it Allahu Ackbar.

>>46095699
yeah you're gonna get defamed as soon as you finish it
but the idea is pretty good

what you could do is go ahead but change the theme
OR
downright doing the same but never stating or specifying the characteristics of the suicide bomber, if people assume that it's a muslim that's on them

the title is pretty insensitive though, allahu ackbar literally means "god is the greatest" so not only it's insensitive it also doesn't make any sense and would blow (kek) your cover

>>46095884

I was just going to give it away for free via PDF here. I don't know what else to call it since there aren't any non-muslim suicide bombers lately.

>>46096107
look for a title that has more emphasis either on the bomb itself or on the players' role, search for the name of the procedure used when searching for bomb threats and do something with it

>>46095699
>>46095884
Going with a title that basically says "Those Muslims sure blow themselves up a lot am i right?" kind of ignores the fact that there are plenty of chill muslims, and that non-muslims also do suicide bombings.

It does, however, give your game guaranteed sales due to controversy.
I think it very well might anyway, though, just due to the subject matter.

I agree with the other guy; call your name something that more directly evokes the task you'll be performing thematically.

>>46096357

Well, they do.

>>46095699
it's not the worst idea but it is in very poor taste. you are taking a premise and doing it in the most obvious and racist way possible.

it could be cool to have a game wherein your players are asked to look over a range of characters and determine which amongst them is the dangerous element. basically clue.

what you should focus on is the opposite of what you are currently focussing on.

>there aren't any non-muslim suicide bombers lately.
i'm sure there are plenty.

if you change the game to give the game a wide variety of races/genders/ages to choose from it will actually force players biases to work against them and reward people for looking past the images and thinking logically.

>>46099622
>i'm sure there are plenty.

I don't know about that.

I think I'm just going to keep it as Muslims for now and then decide to change it later. It's not like I'm selling it and have to worry about someone going "WELL THIS IS OFFENSIVE SO I'M NOT GOING TO BUY IT!"

>>46099819
>posts in game design general with bad idea
>multiple people point out that the idea is terrible
>"i'm going to do it anyway"

the system works ladies and gentlemen

>>46100275

The idea is good so has been said. The feelings of others when it comes to being hurt is the problem, apparently, but I don't really care about that. Muslims do blow themselves up in suicide bombings, so I don't see the problem here.

>>46094280
I'm also interested, 1'll deliver some basic maps with my game but they should be balanced, untill now i'm only using simetrical terrain for everyone to have the same advantages but i feel like playing on de_dust2 feels repetitive i wan't to have more detail and variety

>>46100275
the idea isn't bad
his theme of choice is bad

>>46100420
>grown men do rape little girls, i don't see the problem with making a child molestation board game, sheesh

>>46094280
http://deltavector.blogspot.my/search/label/Game%20Design%20Index

This link has been posted before, maybe it should get included in the >>46093954

>>46095699
There's already a social deduction game with the same theme and is way less racist known as 'Two Rooms and a Boom', which involves blowing up the president.

Is it acceptable to reskin an RPG that nobody on /tg/ seems to like?
(Magical Burst)

>>46102832
yes why not

>>46102017

I don't see a problem if someone wants to make some weird game out of it. Hell, look at Japan.

Still working on Sword Fury.

I'm preparing for a rewrite including a character class overhaul.

A couple of new classes I'm scribbling notes for:

>Automaton
Your starting skill, 'Wind Up', allows allies to spend minor actions on their turn to give you additional major actions on your turn.
Other skills gained through this class give you various buffs or healing effects when you are wound up, or special effects that trigger when you make multiple attacks on your turn.

>Angel
Angels get wings and angelic aspects (aspect of the eagle, aspect of the lion, aspect of the ox) to buff their charge attacks, as well as various healing and party buffing effects that trigger when they charge.

Still working on Null Strike. Managed to get a large scale game in last weekend with a friend, and a few rules/units got tweaked in the aftermath.

www.nullstrike.com

>>46094280

Buffs/Debuffs/etc?

>>46095699

Might want to pick a new name, but you could play up on the dark humour aspect.

I've been working on a sci-fi fleet combat/skirmish game for the past few years and now I want to develop it properly.

The setting for it is the tipping point of a cold-war like situation between the major governments/factions (not specific races/species in most cases) with smaller governments/factions/Independent planetary systems and in a futuristic/alternate timeline yet realistic in tone and feel.

I have all of the factions, species and background fluff roughly sorted out as well as some core game mechanics nailed down and how I want it to play.but I've run into a few problems.

-can post these if any body is interested

>>46107022
>forgot to list name I've been running with for it -ETHER

1- the mechanics and stats I have are more suited to a few ships vs each other rather than massed fleets. I've been told the way it plays would be Ideal for team based/multiplayer stuff and also 1v1 but I can dumb down the mechanics and stats to make it easier (and less complicated) for larger battles but I don't know if I should or or just run it as two rule sets but for the same game as it were.

2-So far all the ships I have designed and used for play testing I have drawn on graph paper and thus I have no 3D models or designs for them which is a slight problem (I am working on some at the moment but I have 10 -15 ship classes per faction with 9 factions and then miscellaneous ships also).

3- Due to the way I've done it where the same ship in a class will always have the same load out and its the training/experience of the crew that is the variation, how do I make it so people wont just roll out with the most experienced and therefore better crew option.

4- I have no idea how to make this into a actual way for me to earn a living.

>>46107291
1. Go the Wings of War method and dumb down the basic game to the absolute essentials. Everything else would be additional advanced rules that players can attach on if they want to.

2, 4. If you have a ready prototype (rules playtested and mostly completed) and you live in a country that has board game publishers, maybe reach out to a few of them? Paper stand ins are fine just to demo everything out.

3. Randomize the crew + ship combination maybe? Maybe even make the ships asymmetrical and play differently from other ships.

File: Sample Character.png (711 KB, 721x523) Image search: [Google]

711 KB, 721x523

Hey hey, I'm trying to work on an old project I abandoned that was basically MGSV+XCOM+AssCreed as a board game.
The idea is that you build up your group, manage which aspects of your base you build (hospitals, research stations, training grounds, etcetera) and send people out on missions, both diplomatic and combative.

Originally it was MGS themed, with the game's setting being an oil platform in the Seychelles and you running a PMC. I'm changing it, so now it's running a fantasy adventuring guild.

I'm currently messing around and trying to figure out how to handle things. I'm making card mock ups to give myself ideas. I know I want *some* sort of player character choice aspect, where you pick a character or something that serves as your representation and encourages a playstyle (Arkham Investigators, 7 Wonders Wonder Boards, Pandemic roles, BatHotH characters, etcetera), and possibly something that could encourage homebrew (like all the Investigators and Wonder boards I've seen).

One thing that I'm really trying to figure out how I want to handle is the actual "Adventurers" who go out on missions. Originally I wanted them somehow randomly generated, but that's *way* too complex, and would likely require marking the tokens somehow, or would involve having way too many cards on the table. The other option is handling them the way that XCOM the board game handles it's recruits: All recruits of a type have the exact same stats, unless they're Elite. The compromise here would be something like Dead of Winter, where there are some 33 unique characters last I checked.

Suggestions of games I should look into? Some Youtube videos like Watch It Played or Rahdo Runs Through would be great.

>>46107291
For your 3rd point, what force composition system are you using?

>>46108234
How many adventurers would the average be on each player's team?

>>46108234
Assuming you're playing as the guild leader, look at Scythe's variable player boards for customizable characters, which is basically a combination of the faction board and another player board that has actions on it, but the combination of actions in each space is different (one board has Move + Upgrade in the same space, the other has Move + Recruit, for example).

You could also look at Memoir 44's method of having unique infantry, which is simply placing a token with a unique shield representing various elite forces. The forces themselves can have unique rules attached to them as well. You could use this in addition to the XCOM thing to make certain parties of adventurers more unique, such as being 'Honor-bound' or 'Mercenary'.

Also, maybe look at Nations for how the main board should be like?

File: Sample Character.png (691 KB, 721x523) Image search: [Google]

691 KB, 721x523

>>46108481
Dunno, that's dependant on how much work it is. *Originally* the idea was that there would be four adventurers for each mission. Now I'm thinking that adventurers will basically be just a +1 to specific things depending on which Meeple they are. A Blue Meeple would give +1 Acuity, for instance.

Originally, though, everything was a d% roll. Each team of four adventurers assigned to an Event would have a leader, and the leader would roll d100 and try to get under their stat. Equipment would add +X% and each additional soldier would provide +1 for every ten their stat was (so Dark Heresy's "Bonus"; 35% gives the team leader +3). Equipment could also change which stats the additional bonus was determined by (so a Stealth Suit would use your Stealth Bonus instead of Combat).

File: Motherbase RPG.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

>>46108672
The current idea is that the players are the Guild Leaders, or at least represent champions within the Guild.

A second idea is each player represents a *different* Guild (so you'd have Necromancers, Adventurers, Apothecary, Thieves, Mages, etcetera), but I'm trying to focus on cooperative, not competitive. I may have a traitor mechanic, a la Dead of Winter, though.

Also, fuck it, here's all my old notes. They're really badly organized, and I'm basically scrapping everything and starting over.

>Event Tables
These are the cards that get drawn and you deal with "Talents" are the special abilities a soldier could have
http://pastebin.com/6qyvPxVU
>Lexicon
This is sort of the dictionary of game terms
http://pastebin.com/MJVhVNA3
>Example of Play
Gives a sort of idea of what I was going for.

And the PDF attached is the rulebook, but it's sort of a mess and I'm not sure anyone but me would understand it, and half of that is me sort of remembering what I was thinking when I typed it up.

File: Talents.png (1 MB, 1262x1631) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1262x1631

>>46108765
Also it's worth noting that the original version was actually a one player game.

Well the last build is working somewhat okay I guess, the players are kinda comfortable with the rolls and everything.

I have a huge problem that i'll have to try my best to fix when I switch to the d100, which is character creation and dealing with starter stats, both in character stats and in equipment. Their numbers are too low so they had a hard time fighting three minor enemies just because they could hit one out of four times. Starting to think the roll-high-under is biting my ass.

How do you guys deal with starting stats so they're low enough to suit new characters but high enough to avoid making the players useless until levels start kicking in?

I wanna bring Night's Black Agents to Powered by the Apocalypse. How fucked am I?

File: Jack.png (118 KB, 900x540) Image search: [Google]

118 KB, 900x540

This mess of a document >>46108765 is my original idea. Your characters have six stats (Combat, Stealth, Comms, Medical, Engineering, Recon) generally between 20 and 50. You subtract the difficulty of the Event from it, then you get to add your bonuses for equipment. Each mission has four people assigned to it, and the additional team members are treated as equipment: they give a bonus equal to 1/10th their total stat (including their equipment) and some of their Talents (>>46108811) can be used even if they're not the Team Leader (some of them even switch what stat gets added; the "Intimidating" trait adds [] to checks).

The problem is that keeping track of all of this (Stats, Talents, equipment, modifiers for Morale) is difficult, even without adding on things like randomly rolling to see what rewards you get (including "Prisoners", who can be worked over and converted with a Communications Project to become usable Recruits) and stuff like physically tracking who is what. I mean, I'm not going to be able to get every token to match every recruit card, like Dead of Winter, and even then dealing with multiple Recruits all with their own equipment and weapons (one Equip, one Weapon each, unless they have a Talent)...

And of course you then have other things to worry about, like managing base funds (₹) and materials (�) which are two not-quite-similar resources used to purchase/build/research things, and Morale, which is your overall base health, and Reputation, which determines how well the rest of the world likes you.

Of course, that's the game as it exists now. I'm trying to cut out a lot of the bloat, and I'm starting from scratch to try and get somewhere better. In a way I'm trying to make a game that feels like a simpler Dead of Winter style game, focused on building up a Guild as opposed to surviving zombies.

I seem to be the only one in the thread, but is there anywhere I can find a list of copyrighted terms?

I know Wizards has "Tapped" copyrighted, which is why other games use terms like "Exhaust", and L5R uses the sort-of-fitting-but-clunky "Bow".

File: Gangrape LARP.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

I'm a little disappointed these threads aren't more popular.

>>46113433

WHOA HOLD ON NOW THIS IS OFFENSIVE

Would a static mechanic actually work? I'm thinking of doing away with dice rolling and instead use a set of rules to govern types and is always true, e.g. fast weapons will always hit slow enemies.

The idea is that instead of relying on stats to improve your roll chances, you would exploit circumstances and use tactics to improve your type. Is there any system out there which uses static mechanics?

>>46113433
Why would you want to play this? This is fatal tier

>>46113893
Not really. It's a Nordic LARP. And if you actually read it, it's not as bad as you'd expect.

>>46108481
>For your 3rd point, what force composition system are you using?


Basically ships are divided into 4 categories, patrol/attack ship, escort, line and and capital.

- patrol ships are similar in size to small commercial freighters but larger than fighters and torpedo bombers
-escorts are your light frigates/frigates/heavy frigates (acting like flak platforms with a small anti ship capability) and corvettes (which act similar to modern submarines and are stealthy and design to snipe) and light carriers would also fit in this category but are more support than the other two (they usually provide transport for two wings of fighters/torpedo bombers).
-Line ships are your destroyers,light cruisers and cruisers and are your main ship vs ship fighting force and in most factions this is where your main anti ship armament begins to appear (i.e. a single weapon which can be fired one per turn instead of multiple systems which can be fired twice or more). Cruisers for some factions are counted as both Line and capital ships.
-Capital ships are your carriers/heavy carriers, battle cruisers and battleships and fulfill the command role with in most fleets

The system for force organisation is that you have to use at least 1 capital ship, 1 line and 2 escort but you can add more to the force if you have a higher point limit. Games I have played with this organisation are usually well balanced
and it coming down to both the tactics used and the crew skill as the most important factors.

Reminder that if the thread slows down to not be shy about bumping with a link to your previous unanswered post.

>>46113594
You'd need to be able to offer a variety of situations to make up the loss of 'roll dice and fill in the blanks'. Also, usually when a mechanic becomes more about numbers, you usually lose storytelling capability since players shift into a number managing mode. So a game can be less 'I'm going to sneakily attack from behind!' and more 'I'm going to move behind this enemy and gain x bonus while removing his y bonus, just enough to deplete it's health to 0.' Thus you'll need to balance that too.

>>46111650
This could work as something similar to Tales of the Arabian Nights I think. Writing down all the different possible events is another beast, but it could work. Have a look at Above and Below and Agents of SMERSH as well, see if you get any ideas.

There is also probably going to be a need to move away from a system you're used to (such as rolling dice and applying modifiers) and try something new altogether, so don't be afraid of doing so.

>>46114093
Points makes balancing skills easier, just assign points values. It means that players can either take a few ships and load them up with experienced crews, swarm with ships with cheaper inexperienced crews, or strike a balance between the two.

Going back to your thoughts about simplifying for fleet games, here's an article that makes a good point http://deltavector.blogspot.com/2016/03/game-design-66-designing-with-focus.html?m=1
Basically, decide on what you think is the strength of the rules, and focus on that, instead of trying to cover everything. If you think your rules do 1-on-1 well, focus on that, if you think there's not enough depth, focus on the fleet aspect of the rules.

File: Miller.jpg (40 KB, 800x533) Image search: [Google]

40 KB, 800x533

>>46107022
>The setting for it is the tipping point of a cold-war like situation between the major governments/factions (not specific races/species in most cases) with smaller governments/factions/Independent planetary systems and in a futuristic/alternate timeline yet realistic in tone and feel.

>>46107291
>4- I have no idea how to make this into a actual way for me to earn a living.

95% of game designers have a day job.

>>46116272

Points bring their own set of problems, e.g. granularity & scale

There have to be more elegant solutions.

Hey dudes, I've got a question about formatting that probably isn't worth its own thread. I'm working on a small d20 system campaign for my local game group in LaTeX along with a bunch of feats and monsters and stuff. Is there any way to make a bunch of identical sections in LaTeX short of just typing it all in manually?

>>46116634
Luckily, in the 70s they invented copy and paste just for this sort of thing.

>>46116448
There's always going to be problems. Another way is skills come with their own disadvantages, but its also not as clean. An example could be something like "Hotheaded", ship gains a bonus to close range attacks, but a penalty for whatever skill that would be tied into careful planning or disengaging to regroup.

>>46116725
It's more the fact that I was thinking I could give LaTeX a CSV file with all the feats or monster stats and a standard form of the section and just let it generate itself, rather than going through a bazillion sections of data in the document. Ah well.

>>46116272
>>46116448
Both the ships and the crews have point values and the ship classification organisation system is more a highly recommended advise for a more balanced game, but its just trying to find the incentive for people to use less experienced crews which is the problem (other than the obvious numbers advantage).
I suppose I could do a system where there stats are boosted if they are grouped into a formation with other ships much like how I have one ship for the Pirakatan faction which acts as a host ship for attack ships and they share a combined crew experience level.

My game supports quick inventory swapping--largely for gaining advantages against certain foes by looting them on-field.

Their stats are simple but should I go with a card-based design or just have people pencil-in values on their character sheet?

>>46118698
Cards would be quick, but limiting, so that you don't overwhelm players with amounts of cards to manage.

>>46115300
>You'd need to be able to offer a variety of situations to make up the loss of 'roll dice and fill in the blanks'.
That's true. The core idea is that you'd have a bunch of types like Heavy, Fast, Slow etc and there would be rules that governs how each type interacts with the others. Your type would also change based off of things such as terrain, teamwork, etc.

Enemies would usually lie *just* slightly outside of the players' type capabilities, so under normal circumstances the players will always, always fail to do anything to the enemy. I want players to focus on exploiting available resources strategically and help each other out to get the right type for the right enemy.

But I'm afraid that it will become Rock Paper Scissor: the Boardgame or get old real fast, so I'm wondering if there are any game out there that has done something similar.

Christ, don't die no me, thread.

>>46123738
Plz no

>>46116993
You could take some of the skills and have them limited to capital ships, but the buff other ships under its command. Have some that are cheap and minor buffs to the individual ship, so their okay, but not necessarily must-haves, and then these powerful command skills that are expensive and you get more out of them the more ships you have.

File: rulebook 1956.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

I like writing, and I sort of want to make up my own space-based RPG. the only RPG I've ever made before was a super rules-lite cold war spy game that was really shit (pdf related) to run one shot sessions on.

So my question is, what's the best dice to base all rolls around?

File: Flip Control V2.0.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

>>46121584
>so under normal circumstances the players will always, always fail to do anything to the enemy
>focus on exploiting available resources strategically and help each other out
This could make for a pretty neat puzzle, and knowing that it's a board game, you can worry less about having a narrative since board games tend to abstract a few things anyway.

As for the RPS thing, there's probably plenty that have a similar mechanic for a single part of the game, and usually in combat. Fury of Dracula 3rd edition has this for combat, where same symbols cancel out Dracula's cards. Here's my own thing, Flip Control, where card suits are stronger and weaker to other suits.

The key thing is to have something else other than 'this type beats that type', and the stuff you said about failing being common and exploiting resources should satisfy that need quite well.

>>46095699
Call it something like "Counter Op" and the antagonists don't necissarily need to be bombers. I'm thinking like atmed gunnman or a serial murderer and stuff along those lines too. The game might not seem so flagrantly racist at any rate, though I do like the idea of the bomber simply because it makes the stakes seem even higher. If you really want suicide bombers you could call it "Uni-bomber" or something.

Anyone else want to help me spitball this?
>>46108234
>>46108684
>>46108765
>>46108811
>>46111650

I'm really bad at describing what my ideas are. Currently I'm mentally playing over a system similar to Dead of Winter meets Pathfinder ACG with a dash of XCOM. Trying to figure out the best way to make it cooperative.

>>46134304
Let me throw at you how I imagined the game would be when you first posted it in /bgg/. It'll probably be a lot different with what you have in mind, so take what you want from it.

In essence it would be a deck builder thing, with each player playing a guild in the same large city, dealing with any day to day happenings. The players would have unique character board, and a similar action board, where each board has its actions ordered slightly differently. The part of the character board that connects with the action board would have stuff that modify the action that it is connected to, maybe increase draws or higher capacity, etc. The character board would also list any special traits or powers, maybe a little back story on the character.

The main game itself would have two main phases. The first phase is where players either draw a card or roll dice to figure out what event would happen in the city today, as well as several missions. There'd be perhaps number of players + 1 or so different missions each turn, and the players would need to resolve as much as they can by the end of the turn. Any unresolved would have certain consequences. The event are stuff that affect the whole city, and thus all the players, such as "Healer strike: healers cost more to recruit this turn" or something. It can also be something lighter, like "Fireworks festival: gain happiness for every adventurer that goes to the festival".

The next phase is guild management phase, and this would be where the action happens. Players can freely use any cards in their hand, and also perform an action. Cards would be used by placing them on the action board, which is divided into sections according to what action will happen. An action is performed by using all the cards assigned to said action.

>>46134304
>>46134729
For example, the action Recruit lets you use the card's "Recruitment" stat to persuade new adventurers into your deck, or in other words buy new cards. Adventuring would be clearing the missions, and use a different stat. Then there's the "Sell" action, which lets you sell loot from adventures or missions. You'd also be able to use cards to upgrade your facilities instead, placing something on top of the action board or attach it onto one of the sides to improve your available actions. You can also have an Alliance action, where cards can be sent to other player's actions to help them in something.

The management phase would have 4 rounds, Day, Noon, Evening and Night. Night is important as it is only at the end of this phase that you gather all remaining cards from the action board, discard pile, and draw deck, shuffle them all together, and form your new deck. Then a new day begins, and everything happens again. The game lasts until the event deck is exhausted, which would have less cards than the total possible events. There's also the possibility for urgent events, which is a single huge mission the players must overcome. Some events or missions might even have players lose adventurers.

The winner would be determined via 3 categories, and it is possible to have different winners in each category. Wealth is how much money the guild has made. Glory would be the amount of fame the guild has acquired. Popularity would be something like the guild with the happiest adventurers. Maybe have a 4th category too for the guild that helped other guilds the most.

>>46134729
>>46134732
Hrm. It is a bit different than what I had in mind, but that's not a bad thing.

You've touched on a thing that I've mused over, but I'm not sure how to handle, though: Everyone running *different* guilds. I really like the idea, and that would allow for the specialties of the players to be better, but at the same time it emphasizes the competition over the cooperation. I really want a thing where everyone is working together... but also not. The way that I'd thought about doing it was essentially doing something like Dead of Winter, where everyone is working to build things together and survive, but everyone has personal missions, some of which are just goals like "If the survivors win the game and you have five food" and others that are actively fucking everyone over, like "if the survivors win the game and you have five food". For this, you'd have secret goals like "Have the most money" or "build XYZ". Or "bring the Guild's Morale to 0".

I'm wondering how to handle "you're all working as different groups" while still having "but you want each other to survive". The idea I just described would basically have fluff of internal power struggling and wanting to rule the Guild yourself, even if you clearly want it to survive and do well, or even just personal goals like wanting to venerate your God, so you want to build Chapels instead of something else.

Your proposition (which is something I'd thought about) seems to be that EVERYONE is running their own Guild.

Avery is the Healer's Guild and gets bonuses on healing related things
Bailey is the Necromancer's Guild and gets to turn dead adventurers into resources
Casey is the Bard's College, so gets bonuses to social events
Dylan is the Seer's Guild, so gets to draw twice and choose an event
And so on.

>>46135263
No matter what I ultimately do with how the players interact with each other, what I really need to figure out is a way to make an engaging (thematically, mechanically) win state. Win states contextualize play. For more on that, this Youtube video https://youtu.be/fgIeBgLO6rY

Which, by the way, ANYONE who's interested in game design really needs to check out Errant Signal, especially when he does these discussions of design theory as opposed to reviews (and even his reviews are more critique heavy and talk about design than most others).

I'd also suggest Game Maker's Toolkit.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqJ-Xo29CKyLTjn6z2XwYAw
And maybe PBS Game/Show, but I feel like Jaiman is sort of... Less thought provoking lately.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr_2H8pPitVJ85bmpLwFUyQ

I'd also just suggest watching things like Rahdo or Watch It Played (I don't know any for more traditional RPGs).

>>46135263
>>46135320
In the case of my suggestion, a subtly implied win state is that the city stays safe and prosperous, having managed to avoid any disastrous outcomes from failing/not completing the missions. Some guilds are better in a certain way than the other, but in the end they're living together in the same city, and if that city is safe wouldn't you be able to call that a victory? It's a bit like in Galaxy Trucker where as long as you survived the horrendous darkness of space and made some money, you're a winner.

I definitely thought up the rules while keeping a mental image of a serene city scape with its denizens living a peaceful life, which is why the "who wins and how" is mostly an afterthought. Perhaps let them have secret objectives for players to go for (no malicious objectives however, just benign stuff that other players may accidentally fuck over), and as long as an objective is cleared, they win. I'm partial to "city is safe, everyone wins (though some might be better than others at something)" though.

File: PACG Link.jpg (357 KB, 1280x734) Image search: [Google]

357 KB, 1280x734

>>46135445
Well, I didn't want to make assumptions, but from what you laid out it sounds more like there's no "Win State", only an End State--running out of event cards. There's really just the non-Boolean win state of having the most points at the end of the game (presumably).

But I wasn't so much criticizing you as I am thinking of how I need to focus on things. I keep meaning to sit down and write out how the game will go, but I keep getting tripped up by questions like "what IS the goal of the game?" and those are the kinds of questions I really need to answer. I'm also tempted to sit down on the floor with a bit of cardboard and start making feelies to help wrap my head around my own ideas, specifically in terms of how much set up and space I'd need. I don't want to make a game that I can't playtest because it's bigger than my friend's dining room table.

I've also been looking through the PFACG deck I got from a convention a year back. I really like some of the ideas the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game has, and I'm thinking to myself "how do I take ideas from this without ripping it off?"

As for a mental image, I've been thinking something like a less war-minded Ravnica (and I'm thinking of calling the game Guildpact or something), or even the Conspiracy sets. Something like dickery and politics, but not to that knife-in-the-back level.

>>46116634
How about defining a new command ?

>>46135516
It does feel like you should probably start organizing your ideas, there's already plenty of suggestions and possible stuff you could use. Maybe start with just writing down the rules and go from there, even doing just that can trigger some insight on stuff that you may have concerns about, no need for any tactile input yet.

I'm interested in how you'll handle politics, since I can't find a way to make it convey certain feelings that I want it to in one of my own project.

>>46116789
Define a new command, as >>46135637 said. It's basically defining macros. Alternately you could use some shell magic, if you're actually using *nix; parsing CSV to output TeX using a template shouldn't be hard even just using utilities in a shell script. It's probably possible to do it in a spreadsheet program entirely, if you like jank.
It's a bit of trouble but automation is generally less work than the alternative.

File: Magic Notes.png (1 MB, 1312x1032) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1312x1032

>>46135733
>It does feel like you should probably start organizing your ideas
I'm bad at notes. I actually hand made a journal because I felt like I do better with unlined paper instead of having to do regimented sequential notes.

As for politics, I'm thinking things like the Crossroads cards of Dead of Winter, where they give the group choices. Buying and selling things between players is also a good way of handling that kind of thing. The Will of the Council cards in Conspiracy are also a good way of doing things
http://magiccards.info/query?q=o%3AWill+o%3Aof+o%3Athe+o%3ACouncil&v=card&s=cname
Possibly even the Vows.
http://magiccards.info/query?q=Vow+e%3Acmd%2Fen&v=card&s=cname

Which are political in that the Will of the Council ones involve voting and choice, while the Vows prevent (or you could discourage) things being done to you, and encourage them being done to other people.

>>46116634
I wish I knew anything about LaTeX. I tried it but didn't understand it, so I'm stuck half assing pretty pdfs in OpenOffice.

>>46135860
That picture looks like something you can post in /x/ without saying anything and leave it for them to speculate.

What I meant was write down actual rules, with formatting and stuff. It forces you to break down stuff into sections and use proper sentences in a way that a stranger can understand it. As such you'll often catch yourself with irregularities concerning certain rules that you may or may not have yet thought about.

Maybe look into Archipelago too and see how their politics work. That game still amazes me for being able to be a co-op while letting players stay selfishly to their objectives.

File: hoarder.jpg (234 KB, 1600x900) Image search: [Google]

234 KB, 1600x900

What do you guys think of personal hidden goals in cooperative games?

The thing that comes to mind is Dead of Winter, where everyone draws a personal goal. Some of the goals involve intentionally causing the group to fail the game in certain ways, while others involve making sure the group wins under specific conditions.

I'm giving another swing at design, with a potentially odd time/turn mechanic. I'm aiming at dynamically changing turn speed depending on actions.

Mental Actions > Magical Actions > Physical Actions

A simple mental action is faster than a simple magical action. A simple magical action is faster than a simple physical action.

To keep it from being magic wank, better spells will have speed divisors. While physical skills have more ways to speed it up, as well as a lot more flexibility.

Also if you want to cast that lightning bolt you better take a physical action to get into position first.

The question is, at the base, how much faster is a thought to a spell, and a spell to a physical reaction.

>>46138813
I think it's pretty cool, and pretty fun to play too.

I'm trying to make a game with exactly just that about pioneers trying to make it big on new frontiers. The settlers have to cooperate to survive, but at its base they also have to outrich each other. At its worst, a couple of players can side with the BBEG at the end, turning the final moments of the game into PVP.

QUESTION FOR EVERYONE

>What sort of content have you made using the D20 OGL?

I know a lot of people dislike it because it's "overused", but I have a lot of experience with it, and my group seems to enjoy using it. I've been writing a variant player's handbook for a 3.5ish sort've game that mixes elements from many D20 OGL things.

>>46138813
Always fun, any additional element that requires you to think a bit more to achieve is always nice. With certain games it also allows you to evoke certain interactions that otherwise wouldn't be possible.

>>46143459
>With certain games it also allows you to evoke certain interactions that otherwise wouldn't be possible.
Such as?

>>46145202
Dead of Winter: Intentionally withhold some items to complete the objective, causing suspicion.
Archipelago: Going for a particular resource or building, sometimes upsetting another player's plans (or even the overall win condition).
Castles of Mad King Ludwig: Pushes for certain combos that give the most points at the end of the game instead of one that the player is comfortable with.

So basically it promotes playing differently each game, letting the players try new things. Especially in the case of Archipelago and Dead of Winter, where without it the players would most likely happily help complete the overall objective instead of trying to ruin it for everyone for no reason.

>>46145878
>Especially in the case of Archipelago and Dead of Winter, where without it the players would most likely happily help complete the overall objective instead of trying to ruin it for everyone for no reason.
See, the person I've been spitballing with seems to think this is a bad idea, and that I should "focus on either co-op or competitive", and arguing against "win more" conditions like winning but with certain features (because that means slowing down or prohibiting everyone else's Win+ conditions or stockpiling a resource other people want), arguing that even if it doesn't hurt anyone else ("each other player must have one resource from you" or something) it means doing useless things.

Personally, though, I like those things. I feel like they provide roleplaying, and they encourage each play through feel different. The game where I want to bankrupt another player is going to be different from the game where I want to have all the sheep is going to be different from the game where I want to take the most damage.

File: do not fear.jpg (21 KB, 539x349) Image search: [Google]

21 KB, 539x349

>>46093954
I'm working on a rule-light collaborative world-building RPG system. Think about half-way between Fiasco and Dungeon World. Basically, the players are inter-dimensional hobos who travel between worlds. Kinda like a shabbier, dirtier version of Doctor Who where every session they go to a new world and encounter some kind of messy situation.

Right now, world building is collaborative and very free-form. A lot like Microscope if anyone's heard of it. GM chooses a "theme" for the world, like "a civilization is crumbling", and then the players get to say things that either exist or don't exist in the world, like "zombies exist" or "post-renaissance technology doesn't exist".

I've run the system twice: once as GM, and once as a player (trying to keep quiet and let the GM read my rules). World building and character creation is pretty good, and takes about 30 minutes. Actually running the game is less smooth: it's really tough on the GM to improv an entire story on the spot.

So, anyone have any ideas for how to make it easier for the GM to run a game with a world, some ideas, but no other prep to speak of?

The second time I tested the game, I tried adding an NPC-creation step to the world generation, but it didn't really seem to help the GM very much, so I think I'll remove it. I'm considering writing up a few decks of cards with location, character, and conflict "seeds". They could be a GM tool, or maybe a few could be dealt to the players so that they can have a limited ability to "backseat GM". There might also need to be some kind of sorting step to filter out things like "CEO" in a medieval dimension, or I could rely on people to interpret it as "duke", or just make everything super-generic like "wealthy boss". Thoughts?

>>46147086
You'd only be doing 'useless' things if the secret objectives were badly designed. DoW's can probably be placed under that category, since while they encourage you to do stuff differently, it's a whole separate thing that does not take into account the rest of the game. Castles of Mad King Ludwig for example has you do the same things as you would without secret objectives, but rewards you for playing a certain way, while not punishing you (beyond not awarding you more points) for not completing it. That is what you should probably strive for in your secret objectives.

There's also the option of how Scythe does it. Once completed, the secret objective immediately lets you place a star (enough stars and the game ends) and said objective is immediately forgotten.

As for 'focus on either coop or competitive', the two are hardly mutually exclusive. Archipelago is still the best example I can think for this. There's also Cutthroat Caverns I think, where only the last hitter gets stuff, so you don't want to do too much damage in case somebody else gets in that last hit, but then you find out you're the only one who held back and your friends are like "why didn't you hit hard" and you are like "I don't know" so you hit for more next turn but you don't quite kill it so one of your friends deals the last hit so here you are now with nothing.

I can't really see how you could use secret objectives to roleplay, considering they're secret and all.

>>46148056
Take a look at how SpaceOpera Anon (I think) does world generation in his game, it's pretty neat and involves just rolling stuff up. Story improvisation will always be a pain though, but you could use something similar to improv plot points too.

>>46148986
You're not talking about this, are you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Opera_(role-playing_game) Couldn't find any other rpg called Space Opera.

What do you guys think of this game?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EotLSr-A5s&list=PLmQverenaaqKePCY0DK7whqiCJQEfX9Wa

>>46149264
No, he's one of the regulars of the general and has an ongoing project, have a look at the projects link in the OP, maybe he has stuff there.

>>46149415
Yeah, I see his name in there but no link.

Working on a skirmish system and wanted to get some help.

Got some things I want to see get fleshed out, but honestly feel a bit burned on them so I can't make progress myself currently. I'll give a short summary though.

I currently have stats for 38 weapons, but I've only made sprites for five different axes, four different shields, and five different firearms. The firearms are archaic in essence, with only the pistol being a generic one. I need to balance range on them though, but that'll be easy enough once I've figured out the average size of a map.

I want to include a few classes that I've already built for a different system that should work well enough just on axes, shields, and firearms. Rangers, which are excellent trackers and are pretty well rounded. Slayers, who specialize in focused damage and are a combination between fighters and barbarians from D&D. Guardians, dynamic tanks who provide cover for allies and support the party.

There's no real designated healer class so far. Rangers can provide healing to themselves or other targets nearby. Slayers recover health when they deal damage. Guardians can restore health to themselves and all nearby allies as burst healing.

Think this is enough to start, or am I missing something?

>>46154567
Seems fine, though the combination of axe + shield + guns is kind of weird, any in setting reason? Also, I don't know how skirmish threads work, but there doesn't seem to be too much potential combinations with only 3 classes and 3 types of weapons.

>>46149591

That would be me, actually. I haven't posted any links to anything because everything is in flux, and I'm constantly tweaking it to make it more streamlined and stuff.

The stuff I've put together uses the One Roll Engine to generate random characters, monsters and alien races; what you're looking to assemble >>46148056 here is a lot more ambitious, and central to the core gameplay. My random-roll systems are based on filling in details in a story, not creating the story from scratch.

The fact that you're basing it on Microscope is interesting, since Microscope is an awesome, inventive game that a lot of people struggle to understand. Never played Fiasco, though.

What's your overall mechanic? Does it use dice?

File: Goblins!.jpg (276 KB, 1600x1200) Image search: [Google]

276 KB, 1600x1200

Where can I get die cut tokens? I've tried a few online printing services, but none of them do that sort of thing. Thinking something like the Pathfinder pawns sets

File: 1.jpg (510 KB, 1186x812) Image search: [Google]

510 KB, 1186x812

>>46158459
Pathfinder pawns are great.

/tg/, I'm doing a homebrew where the general public can perform a few cantrips but only true Mages have access to real magic. What other public cantrips should I include? Pic related.

Give me an elevator pitch for your game.

>>46160087
It's a game perfectly optimized for any sort of space adventure, with extremely versatile technology creation rules and a tried and proven system that can be learned on all of three-minutes. You can make anything from Star Wars to Star Trek to Dune to Mass Effect to John Carter of Mars with ease.

File: Hellsgate v0.26.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

Did a huge overhaul on things. Now uses a 'roll over armor' damage system, standardized health system, and changes to rules that affect those systems.

I also added the background notes for 2 possible future factions, but no army lists yet.

>>46160087
Hellsgate is a D12-based small-scale skirmish wargame set in a near-future sci-fi setting, where humanity's abuse of "magic" resulted in an apocalyptic invasion of demonic hordes. Heavily inspired by games like Hellgate: London and DOOM.

>>46160087
It's a semi-superhero-based homebrew reskin of Magical Burst.

>>46154972
Resources for weapons are pretty limited, and the only reason why the firearms are there is because they're resurfaced artefacts discovered through exploration.

I've got two more classes, and about eight more weapon groups still being processed. Also for axes there's a standard battle axe, hatchet, halberd, and great-axe. The shields range from a parrying shield, a buckler, a kite shield, a spiked shield, and a heavier shield. The firearms are all two-handed and offer good range or AoE, with exception to the pistol which is one handed and only targets as an attack.

>>46093954
I'm working on a combat system using mainly the d6, since I figure most people have some of these at home. I am going for something that is between war games and fully-fledged RPGs.

So far I have for ranged combat:
>To-Hit:
>2d6 + Ranged Skill (RS) vs. Evasion (EV)
Where glancing hits occurs in range of EV+/-1, penetrating hits above this, and complete miss below.

>Damage mitigation
Basically AC/2, but when you make a penetrating hit, you get to subtract the Armor Piercing (AP) value from the AC to soften damage mitigation. Damage type resistances/vulnerabilities basically give bonus/deficit to AC.

Any feedback?

>>46166834
Does unmodified AC do something?

>>46168104
>unmodified AC
AC only serves to mitigate damage so far. The reason its not DR directly is I wanted a wider range of values, without increasing the damage dice too much. A weapon has an AP value, and when you make a penetrating hit, the DR goes from AC/2 to (AC-AP)/2. Or did you mean something else?

>>46160087
Survival game about giant robots fighting even bigger monsters to protect the even hilariously bigger turtle island they are on.

>>46168210
When you only ever use the value modified you can streamline the division away.

>>46168576
Yeah. I removed the division, and upped the to hit to 4d6 to get some good normal distribution going, though I worry this will be crazy since you have to roll for damage as well.

>>46169144
>>46168576
I have been toying with the idea of having damage multipliers, basically multiplying whatever you got with some fixed number for damage.

>>46160087

Slave selling card game with a bit of Monopoly mixed in.

File: Screenshot_2016-03-21-23-13-36.png (1 MB, 1080x1920) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1080x1920

It's been a while since I posted here. Not a lot of progress has been made in terms of the game itself, now we've moved onto worldbuilding and working on the lore book. My co-writer is going to be moving back to my town some time this year and we plan to get an apartment together and we'll be able to write a lot more. Also I picked this up the other day. Oh and I recently sold another copy of Guns n Grenades.

File: Probspng.png (30 KB, 726x252) Image search: [Google]

30 KB, 726x252

Normally lurk, but here's something to rouse the thread at dead hours.

Thinking about a skirmish board game that uses ability cards. Abilities have set damage, so rolls are only used to hit and to determine other effects. Dice don't have numbers, just colored symbols.

Abilities have a hit requirement and so do enemies. Some abilities require you to roll their own requirement, others indicate to use the enemy's. Generally non combat abilities would use their own, and combat would use the enemy's. Abilities also have a base number of dice you roll, which can be improved with buffs.

Example, combat ability gives you 3 dice to roll. Enemy's hit requirement is 1 blue, so you hit if any of the dice roll blue (41% chance). Easy to hit enemies and easy to use abilities have many options to roll. Difficult to hit enemies have less probable requirements, as do special secondary effects like crits (example roll 3 dice for crit, but you must get two green, 5% chance).

Pic related is probability of hit with some example conditions and number of dice. I think I did the math right.

It's meant to be colorful and intuitive. Seem fun?

>>46172270
Seems pretty similar to the Commands and Colors system, except instead of moving sections of units cards are for determining the number of dice. Could definitely work, you'd probably need a mechanic to emphasize on though (hand management, positioning, ability deck composition, etc.)

File: Exclusive.0.jpg (139 KB, 1200x776) Image search: [Google]

139 KB, 1200x776

>>46156393
It's got a dice-based conflict resolution mechanic, but it's kinda a mess DESU. TLDR: it's a mashup of FATE and Apocalypse World. When you do stuff, you roll 2d6: If both dice are < 4, you succeed. If both are >= 4, you fail. If it's split, you succeed but only at a cost.

On top of this, at character creation you pick two core "beliefs" for your character. If your actions are aligned with your beliefs, you roll 3d6 and remove the highest. If your actions go against your beliefs, you roll 3d6 and remove the lowest.

I want to keep the core idea of having each character have 2 or 3 traditions/beliefs/instincts I also like the idea of "success at a cost" as a common outcome. I run Dungeon World frequently, and I love how "ugly choices" and "worse outcomes" can up the stakes, drain resources, and push the characters forwards.

Fiasco is a really strange game. It's basically just a way to randomly generate "scenes" and then you spend a few minutes role-playing in that scene. You actually roll to determine a positive/negative outcome *before* you start acting-out the scene. It also has fixed points where you roll on tables to introduce a twist in the story, and then roll on tables to determine the final outcome for your characters. Because it's GM-less, it's really focused on crazy character drama and all of the scenarios/tables in the book use very simple, stereotypical settings so you don't have to worry about any kind of world building.

I'm kinda trying to make something in-between Microscope and Fiasco. Microscope is all about building a world and a history for that world. Fiasco is all about tense, dramatic character interaction. I want the GM to be able to portray a short, compelling "slice of life" of an exotic world, and I want the players to be able to have interesting ways to interact and change that world.

>>46093954
I destroyed my combat system.

>>46176651
same

>>46174868
That dice mechanic also kind of reminds me of Fantasy Flight Games dice as well.

I actually think what you'be put together mechanically is pretty solid, so nice job with that. I'd heard about Fiasco but never seen it played, but your explanation gives a good idea of the concept behind it, which is pretty rad. It's sort of designed to create Coen Brothers style dark comedies, yeah?

My one thought is that bringing in Microscope is maybe too ambitious; Microscope is an entire game, one that can potentially generate hundreds of thousands of years of history over the course of its run time. Taking that and then saying "Let's enact a scene in this time and space" is maybe a tall order. There's a reason, I think, why a lot of improv-heavy games don't venture too terribly far outside an approximation reality or at least known literary territory, because it's hard enough to do it when you know the rules and history of the universe, nevermind when they were just made up an hour ago.

>>46160087
It's a political fantasy game about factions trying to take the spot of a recently murdered city council member.

Do you think engine building is a crucial part of the enjoyment one derives from the deckbuilding genre? If so, do you think that it is right to broadly categorize all cards as being either engine pieces (what you use to get your combo pieces together) or payloads (cards which give you value)?

Could you imagine an enjoyable deckbuilding game in which engine building is not a thing?

>>46180290
Most likely, as deckbuilding (or deck construction, in the manner of CCG/LCGs) is itself about putting cards that work well together into your deck, then hoping you draw the right cards at the right time.

Maybe? I don't see the need though. There's also the reducers that trim down your deck.

Assuming a good engine is when you:
-are able to play more cards than usual
-can play off of previously played card
-can play a particular sequence of cards due to good draws
-consistently make the above happen

Then a deckbuilding game without engine building would be:
>the deck built isn't to let YOU do stuff when you play them, but does other things
Example: go on adventure, draw cards for encounters, as you get stronger you buy cards into the deck, with encounters always getting worse. Having combos happen would just be a terrible side effect, not because of a good engine.

>the cards are completely independent from each other and is not affected by game state changes
Example: the deck dictates the actions you can take this turn, but since the situation frequently changes, the same actions may not always be useful. As such you wouldn't benefit much from having an engine going.

>you are unable to increase the efficiency of your deck
Example: add cards into deck every turn, but only 1/100 chance of reducing the deck by 1 card. Cards may still combo, but since the deck will always be an inefficient engine, you focus less on the engine building aspect and just try to have good cards pop up at the right time.

File: 2062.jpg (408 KB, 915x1280) Image search: [Google]

408 KB, 915x1280

would this be good idea for wargame?

>battles are played out similarly to warhammer, but a little bit more simplified as it is on a larger scale. Models would be somewhere around 15mm(would probably use essex miniatures because they have a wide range and are small enough to have regiments of men)
>each battle is a part of the larger main game, The Campaign. Basically, you have a duchy/kingdom/continent(based on how long and complex of a game you want) that you fight for control over
>you have to manage logistics and stuff(ie, make sure there are clear paths connecting your holdings, make sure your armies are properly prepared, ect)
>every unit type has strengths and weaknesses. ie, cavalry get fucked up bad by pikemen, ect
>random event system maybe...?

yes no maybe so?

>>46181629
I think although there's probably plenty of board games that do area control with resource management, there not many that also have skirmish level miniature wargaming (am I using that right?). And there's probably a reason to that. You'd probably need to simplify either combat or resource management pretty significantly in order to make it happen, unless you don't mind a 1-2 hour per player game.

As for events, I think it'd be pretty neat to have a matrix of sorts that shows you what event happens according to the board state. Like maybe 3 points to A, 2 points B, and 4 points C gives you a different event than other different points distribution. Alternatively, a flow chart of sorts, where the campaign progresses according to who was the victor last round.

>>46181629
Probably going to be a game that takes a weekend to play. There's a reason most campaign systems for miniature wargames are set up for weekly games.

File: UNFINISHED RoT Lore Book.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

Anyone care to r8 my lore book for Realms of Triumph?

>>46181629
so.. Total War: The Board Game version?

>>46181629
>would this be good idea for wargame?

>>battles are played out similarly to warhammer

Stopped reading there.
No, it would not be a good idea for a wargame.

Help me fill in the following table /gdg/!

Size Rating | Weight | Machine
1................25kg......Light Powered Armor
2................50kg......Medium Powered Armor
3................125kg....Heavy Powered Armor
4................250kg....Motorcycle
5................500kg....???
6................1 ton......???
7................2 tons.....Ground Car
8................4 tons.....???
9................8 tons.....???
10..............16 tons....Fighter Jet
11...............32 tons...???
12...............64 tons...Battle Tank

how would a stealth based game be like?

>>46190570
Players are penalized for talking out loud.

>>46189444
Bolt Action works like Warhammer and it's good and fun.

>>46190430
Size Rating | Weight | Machine
1................25kg......Light Powered Armor
2................50kg......Medium Powered Armor
3................125kg....Heavy Powered Armor
4................250kg....Motorcycle
5................500kg....Motorcycle w/Sidecar
6................1 ton......Dune Buggy
7................2 tons.....Ground Car
8................4 tons.....Helicopter
9................8 tons.....Drone
10..............16 tons....Fighter Jet
11...............32 tons...Armored Transport
12...............64 tons...Battle Tank

>>46192037
Thanks!
It occurs to me that players might want semi-trucks in there for smuggling missions or for playing as Optimus Prime.

So, maybe...

Size Rating | Weight | Machine
1................25kg......Light Powered Armor
2................50kg......Medium Powered Armor
3................125kg....Heavy Powered Armor
4................250kg....Motorcycle
5................500kg....Heavy Motorcycle
6................1 ton......Light Ground Car
7................2 tons.....Ground Car
8................4 tons.....Helicopter
9................8 tons.....Semi-Truck
10..............16 tons....Fighter Jet
11...............32 tons...APC
12...............64 tons...Battle Tank

Oh, and in case you're wondering, I'm designing a sort of homage to Palladium's games.

Here's the idea here:

Each character has an armor.
You build your armor by selecting two 'forms' (vehicle types) from that list above (you can select the same form twice).
You can use the Transformation tech to alternate between your two forms.
Each form has a size rating to determine its capacity and evolution points. Larger forms have more capacity at the cost of having fewer evolution points.
You can reduce a form's capacity to gain more evolution points, or spend evolution points to increase a form's capacity.
You want your forms to be fairly close in capacity, as the difference in capacity is used to determine your Critical Fumble score.

You can also spend a form's evolution points to add the following features to that form:
Weak AI (+1 Cognition, +1 Sync)
Strong AI (+2 Cognition, +2 Sync)
Grip Claws (+1 Manipulation, +1 Sync)
Full Hands (+1 Manipulation, +2 Sync)
Walker (+1 Coordination, +1 Sync)
Upright Walker (+2 Coordination, +2 Sync)
Humanoid (+1 Appearance, +1 Sync)
Perfect Humanoid (+2 Appearance, +1 Sync)

(Sync is spent to decrease your Critical Fumble or Critical Hit values)

So... it's a little bit of Rifts, a little bit of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and a little bit of Robotech.

>>46190907

Looks pretty cool, actually.

>>46192463

Adding to this, I'd like to have six 'savant' types for players to choose from:

>Spirals
Brave heroes that enhance their armor-piloting skills and the skills of their allies with fighting spirit!

>Holics
Doomed anti-heroes that enhance their armor-piloting skills through the use of designer-drugs at the cost of greatly shortened lifespan.

>Crazies
Cybernetic madmen that use extensive cortical implants and brain augmentation to enhance their armor-piloting skills at the cost of their sanity.

>Cyborgs
Futuristic berserkers that enhance their armor-piloting skills by integrating fully into their armors at the cost of their humanity.

>Revenants
Fatalistic soldiers that enhance their armor-piloting skills with brutal discipline and grim determination.

>Idols
Pop-stars that dazzle foes and enhance their team's armor-piloting skills with the power of music!

Also...

>>46187569
I'm reading this now! I'll let you know what I think. :)

>>46187569

Okay, so...

Halflings were created by the god of war?
Why? Out of all the Tolkien races you are putting your own twist on, why is it that only halflings play against type when all the others stay true to their most recognizable tropes?

Why do nagas prefer deserts while on land? Please come up with an actual explanation for this. Also, they seem really out of place in a setting where all your other races are Tolkien expies.

I like your maps though! Keep up the good work.

Is there any research on how big of a board a player can account for at a given time? I've read that card games tend to feature 5 card hands because most humans can remember 5-8 details at a time without chunking so those games are the easiest for new players to pick up and so are consequently popular. I'm wondering if this can somehow be applied to board size.

>>46196602
Boards I think can be really quite large so long as the game itself isn't played on the whole board at once. Newer players will still be able to strategize when it comes to sequences of smaller actions but won't be as good at reading the whole board state to see how they really stand to make decisions based on it.

That's just a feeling I got from watching the AlphaGo games; I understood the smaller interactions but even knowing how to count score I had no idea how to read the interactions between groups across the board. Research on the topic probably does exist, but I have no idea where I'd look for it.

>>46196602
If I'm not mistaken board sizes are basically standardized, which is why multiple games have the same board size. Can't remember where I got that info from though.

I think the limit is how willing the player is to move around and do stuff, plenty of wargames need large tables for all of the terrain needed to make things work. But rather than board size, the organization of everything on the board is far more important I'd reckon. Too much information or everything being cluttered together is a sure way to ward off people's interest. The largest board I have is either Twilight Struggle's or Fury of Dracula's, and on both of those all the art on the board is displayed in a way that makes it easy to differentiate everything.

>>46160087
Objective is to drive your opponent insane. Everyone starts at their own sanity level (life total). Cards are played by paying sanity, or in some cases, cards can gain sanity back.

>>46174868
Wait, what? You roll dice to determine the outcomes in fiasco? Are you sure? I've been going this whole time acting out the scenes in-character and claiming certain color dice based on if I got what I want or not. Oh, we do roll for the epilogue, if that's the conclusion you mean.

>>46193364
I chose the desert because Lamias are half snake and snakes are common in deserts. I do plan on changing the Halfling thing. I kinda made something up for them at the last minute, for lack of a better term.

>>46174868
Ah, we're both playing wrong, actually. Somewhere between this semester and last I changed it up. In core, other players decide if they want you to succeed and just hand you the relevant dice color to indicate without stopping the action.

>>46160087
Post-apocalyptic romp across the ruins of 2066 Spain. There is some weird shit around, and you're liable of being eaten by big ass monsters.

Got a really bare-bones idea for a game, wanted to see what you guys thought.

>Card game
>City building theme
>Probably no combat, though some type of conflict isn't out of the question
>Each player has three rows where they can place cards
>The back row (closest to the player) is for resource generators (farms, quarry, lumber mill, etc)
>The other two rows are for citizens and structures (the resource generators are technically structures, but there would be a difference)
>Citizens provide bonuses to structures they are next to
>Structures do other things, mainly affecting citizens or the player themselves
>No clue on a win-con yet, like I said, this is bare-bones right now

File: lando.jpg (39 KB, 780x344) Image search: [Google]

39 KB, 780x344

>>46160087

X-wing meets Mad Max, gets kinky.

>>46203818
So....tactical miniatures using battle car models?

>>46203818
>X-wing meets Mad Max

Sounds cool.

>gets kinky

Uh.

>>46206096
Mad Max was pretty kinky in the first place.