A thread dedicated to discussion and feedback of games and homebrews made by /tg/ regarding anything from minor elements to entire systems, as well as inviting people to playtest your games online. While the thread's main focus is mechanics, you're always welcome to share tidbits about your setting.
Try to keep discussion as civilized as possible, avoid non-constructive criticism, and try not to drop your entire PDF unless you're asking for specifics, it's near completion or you're asked to.
Useful Links:
>/tg/ and /gdg/ specific
http://1d4chan.org/
https://imgur.com/a/7D6TT
>Project List:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/134UgMoKE9c9RrHL5hqicB5tEfNwbav5kUvzlXFLz1HI/edit?usp=sharing
>Online Play:
https://roll20.net/
https://www.obsidianportal.com/
>RPG Stuff:
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/freerpgs/fulllist.html
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21479
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FXquCh4NZ74xGS_AmWzyItjuvtvDEwIcyqqOy6rvGE0/edit
https://mega.nz/#!xUsyVKJD!xkH3kJT7sT5zX7WGGgDF_7Ds2hw2hHe94jaFU8cHXr0
http://www.gamesprecipice.com/category/dimensions/
>Dice Rollers
http://anydice.com/
http://www.anwu.org/games/dice_calc.html?N=2&X=6&c=-7
http://topps.diku.dk/torbenm/troll.msp
http://www.fnordistan.com/smallroller.html
>Tools and Resources:
http://www.gozzys.com/
http://donjon.bin.sh/
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/
http://ebon.pyorre.net/
http://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/carto.html
http://topps.diku.dk/torbenm/maps.msp
http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~amitp/game-programming/polygon-map-generation/demo.html
https://mega.nz/#!ZUMAhQ4A!IETzo0d47KrCf-AdYMrld6H6AOh0KRijx2NHpvv0qNg
>Design and Layout
http://erebaltor.se/rickard/typography/
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4qCWY8UnLrcVVVNWG5qUTUySjg&usp=sharing
http://davesmapper.com
Just a quick question.
In the HERO system (sorry, its the only superhero system I know), there is a power called Absorption. This power allows the user to absorb damage taken and convert it into points for other powers, thus you could punch someone and they would channel some or all of that damage into their strength. The important thing here is that like in D&D, all damage is the same, so 1d6 damage will inflict 1d6 Body/Stun damage (HERO's hit points) which means that all characters will absorb damage by the same amount.
I have a homebrew system which handles damage slightly different. Everyone has a Body Type and every weapon inflicts damage points. However the amount of damage points needed to inflict wounds depends on the Body Type. For example, a human with an Average Body Type takes 4 points of damage - this is a Serious wound. A creature with a Tough Body Type taking 4 points of damage will only take a Trivial wound.
Still with me?
So, if I want to use Absorption for my homebrew would I base the amount of absorption on the damage points of the attack (thus remaining constant for everyone), or the actual wound inflicted (thus making it harder for tougher creatures to absorb)?
If that makes sense, what are your thoughts?
Thanks!
>>46503367
Consistency is key. Base it off the damage of the attack and you won't need to use a table and players will thank you for it.
>>46503548
Cool, kind of what I was thinking and you're absolutely right about consistency.
Thanks!
I am currently making a Fate Hack to allow for playing Mahouka/Rakudai/Asterisk-ish games.
I have some ideas for additional mechanics to put in there (mostly systems for on-the fly generation of plot hooks to aid the GM in creating the "City of Adventure" feel, social linking stuff, and pre-packaged packs of interlocking combat maneuver stunts in packages of three to six) but I am drawing fucking blanks on HOW TO NAME THE DAMN THING for about two weeks now.
Help?
Working on a new iteration of [Dragon Forest].
You will see the following changes:
>Introduction
An introduction and statement of intent (Thanks for taking me to task in that last thread guys. Having to explain my rationale to others has really cleared up a lot of things for me.)
>Format Change
I'm switching to an A4 format for print. I chose A4 specifically because that's the size used in doujin, and I like that association.
>Graphic Design
I'm employing the graphic design advice I received in the other thread. Switching the font to minion pro. Trying to learn how to use paragraph styles. Etc. Some fancy decoration.
Here's a sneak peak!
>>46506405
>Having to explain my rationale to others has really cleared up a lot of things for me.
That's good to hear.
BWUMP
>>46503012
Two new nifty links.
http://www.gatekeepergaming.com/article-6-how-to-get-minis-made/
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/838422/mass-production-custom-made-miniatures
>>46504621
You could probably just skip naming and leave it for last honestly. You'll feel silly once you get stuck on a mechanic you can't figure out and you remember that you stopped working on it for two weeks just to think up a name.
As for an actual suggestion though, maybe you can follow the same format of naming as the anime you're basing it out of, using the English version of their titles.
>>46503012
Nice. Saw this thread the other night and poked in.
I work as a professional game designer, primarily in digital games. I've done a few board games but no actual table top RPGs.
I'll totally answer questions, about professional design in general, or I'll try to lend a hand if anyone wants some help with design ideas for stuff they're working on.
>>46504621
Like >>46512988 said, put a placeholder and come back to it. Putting some space and coming back later is also a good way to help with the creativity. Banging your head against it doesn't always work.
>>46513253
How do you feel about contemporary "AAA" titles?
Which games are you looking forward to?
Which have you sunk the most time into recently?
>>46514699
Conventional triple A titles run the gamut. Some are great, others are garbage.
Looking forward to? Dark Souls 3 (hoping Miyazaki can do what he did with 1 and Bloodborne. 2 was a mess).
Also... P5? I liked 4. I actually don't -play- a ton of new releases anymore.
That said: Sunk time into recently
>Stardew Valley
>The Witness
I like puzzles and resource management, what can I say. I spend most of my free time with my older titles though. Ran through Beyond Good and Evil again on the PS2 a few months back.
>>46515002
>80's kid detected
>initiate brofist
>>46515091
80s indeed. What gave that away? I mean think my first game was... god I mean not counting shit like Connect 4 and Guess Who? I think it was the Super Mario / Duck Hunt combo cartridge. Though Excite Bike was the real MVP.
Hello.
Can anyone here suggest an extremely trim/simple d20 system for me that will be easy to modify?
I have a game I want to run that would work well in a d20 system but not in Pathfinder/D&D shit.
>>46512988
I don't stop working on other aspects though, but still, thanks for the feedback.
I have an idea for a rather simple game, just wanted some feedback. The general idea is that each player has an identical set of cards. Each turn, players play a card onto a space on a 4x4 game board. Cards stay on the board, some score when you play them, others score when cards are played next to them. You can score using other players cards this way.
>>46519553
Sounds... nice? Should be relatively easy to execute. If you want inspiration, I think a little known game called Punimals(?) uses almost the same concept. There's also this one pirate game where everyone has the same cards at the start, but any played cards don't get replenished, leaving players with dwindling options.
What does /tg/ think of this WIP:
Pentest 2015
or
The Hacking Game
In Pentest, between 2 and 66 players attempt to control the “main server” at the center of a network represented as a grid on the board, taking turns at orchestrating their progress toward the goal.
full, commentable rules so far at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9g6EyuXHTnkNHBDSFY2bDhtOG8/view?usp=sharing
Made a system I would like some comments on, anything from rules to grammar and formulations.
It's a success-counting4+=successdice poolAspect have dice, but rolling maximum is bad, as it reduces your dice pool.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pghq2I39S0zWC8fCrKdsJg46llwkXWJFkWiSMHePg84/edit?usp=sharing
How does /gdg/ like it? It's completely untested right now.
>>46522155
I only did a skim through and I dig the concept, that you need a contiguous line from your terminal to the main server is pretty neat. There are a few things that tickle me the wrong way though.
My main beef is the number of nodes and components. Everything is way too large. To put things into perspective, Fury of Dracula 3rd edition only has 245 cards in total. This includes location cards, combat cards, encounters, events, etc. You have almost double that, which could become unwieldy and expensive.
Also, despite the number of possible things you can do, something tells me that the game is rather... simplistic? Like you could remove all the bells and whistles of randomized cards and rolling dice etc. and you'd still experience the same game. I am probably oversimplifying a few things, but there it does feel like it is missing something crucial.
Essentially, this is a hidden movement game. Cards let you move around or do stuff, and there are actions you could do, but they seem rather shallow. I'm probably missing some deeper nuances that I skipped over during the skim through, but it is something to think about. I recommend looking at other hidden movement games like Letters from Whitechapel (no cards, just inherent abilities and deductions), Fury of Dracula (cards provide dramatic turn of events, playing without them can be several degrees duller), and Escape from the Aliens in Outer Space (cards are absolutely necessary for the bluffing it provides) to see how they connect all the different mechanics together.
>>46523153
thanks, I've had someone else tell me it's too big as well, so I'll try to think on how to cut it in half.
I'm fairly certain the game only appears simplistic; I'll try playtesting it soon and see if it starts to get boring, but I doubt it. In any case it just might not be a game for grognards as much as a casual board game... which I'm OK with.
The inspiration comes from my knowledge of hacking, as well as the scotland yard boardgame.
I'm working on a medieval skirmish wargame. Focusing on small, objective-centric engagements with a handful of figures per side. Working in RPG-esque elements including character generation and a fully-fledged narrative campaign system.
Idea for a character death mechanic for use in point-based character games: roll a level-appropriate Knowledge (Religion) skill check.
If the check succeeds, roll d6. On a 5, gain 1 additional character point for your next character. On a 6, gain 2 additional character points for your next character.
If the check fails, roll d6. On a 1, lose 2 character points for your next character. On a 2, lose 1 character point for your next character. On a 6, gain 1 additional character point for your next character.
I'm going to get these fucks to invest in Knowledge (Religion) in a world in which religion is a major component, for fuck's sake. I'll call it reincarnation and introduce it as a fun new mechanic to 'potentially buff' their characters on death. They won't be able to resist.
Thoughts?
>>46524641
What do you have so far?
So, I'm working on a dice pool game right now (count successes and failures, find the difference, there's how well you did). It uses d10s and I've run into a bit of a pickle.
Essentially, a roll of 6 or more is a success and 5 or less is a failure. According to anydice, if you have an odd number of dice, it is impossible to roll a 0 (which, in my system, is a specific degree of success).
Do you guys know of any way to prevent this from happening without implementing a "blank" result on the die (EG 5-6 is nothing, 1-4 is a failure, 7-10 is a success)? I'd rather not implement a blank result because it seems to me like it would slow down the game.
>>46527870
Do you count failures as -1?
>>46528112
Yeah, failures are -1. So if you get 2 successes and 1 failure, it's as though you only ever rolled 1 failure.
I thought maybe to change it so failures only count if you have more of them than successes, but that still runs into the odd dice pool problem.
>>46528269
You could do a 'tie-breaker' die that's only rolled with an odd number and only counts if the rest totals +/- 1. Try roll some and see if it feels fine.
>>46528339
I'm not sure how that's supposed to work, to be honest. It'd just skew things towards mediocre and, effectively, turn most one die, three dice, five dice, etc pools into two, four, or six, respectively. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
>>46528688
Basically when you roll +/- 1 you have another die to see if you get 0 instead. My formulation was bad.
1) Roll odd number of die
2a) Get result of +/- 1, roll tie-breaker die to see if this result should be 0 instead (but not 2 or -2) or stay the same.
2b) Get result that's not +/-1, ignore tie-breaker die.
The idea is making the +1 and -1 results cover the 0 result, but only with 50/50 % chance.
Long story short--
>space adventures
>players have been deprived of their do-everything-for-me suits
>need a dice system that will introduce the idea of skills and capability without overwhelming them (they're entirely new to roleplaying minus a d6-based CYOA homebrew I made)I may or may not want to base these skills on the SPECIAL system from Fallout, because I'm a total hack.
Is anyone aware of such a dice system? I'd be eternally grateful.
>>46525296
Devilish. I like it.
>>46527297
http://www.mediafire.com/download/4f3zziqrd5x8qid/Chevauchee+Beta+v2.pdf
Here's a link to the pdf download.
>>46529626
Reading your greentext, the first thing that comes to mind is a dice pool system. However, it doesn't necessarily have to be like your typical dicepools. More dice = better is easily understood by new players, as is higher numbers = better. You could try something like Xd6 against a target number with degrees of success. Xd6 because the curve will represent both getting better at something (higher total numbers with more dice) and becoming more consistent with increased skill (less swing and better averages). A single target number will help instill that you're aiming for a single level of competence, and will provide that large number that you can check your progress against (more skilled means passing higher TNs). Degrees of success, because without "do everything suits", it sounds like they'll be scrounging around. How well you succeed at various tasks sounds like a very important piece to record, rather than a more binary did you do it or not.
>>46529943
This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. Have a hanzer.
>>46529723
>Random move distances.
Dropped.
>>46517410
like this? or are you looking for d20 modern?
if you want the latter, check the catalog for the PDF thread, the opening post links to a download site.
What are some good dice pool calculators that take into effect changing target number? For example:
>player has a skill of 3, so they roll 3d6
>this is a difficulty 4 task, so the dice must be 4, 5 or 6 to be a success
>to succeed at the task there must be more successes than failures
How can I calculate that?
>>46531117
Custom dice in Anydice. With dicepools, the trick is to treat each die as if it has a number of "success" faces (1's) and "failure" faces (normally 0's when we're just counting successes, -1's in your case since failures and successes effectively cancel out) depending on whatever your target number is. Something like
>output 3d{-1,-1,-1,1,1,1}
would give you the probabilities you need for whatever dicepool and TN.
That said, this particular mechanic is bad for a few reasons:
1) Instead of simply counting successes, players have to count successes, count failures, and then subtract the two. It doesn't take much longer each time, but it adds up.
2) The result curve is weird. Odd dicepools always give you an odd number of successes or failures, evens always give you evens. If you want to track anything other than overall success or failure, this is going to fuck with you.
3) Because of 1, adding a die to an odd dicepool hurts you, no matter the size or target number. It's always easier to get one success than to get two successes while adding a die.
4) When attempting a difficult task (higher target number, more failures on a die than successes), you're actually /more/ likely to succeed if you are /less/ skilled.
Assuming you're the same poster as >>46529626, I'd go with a fixed target number, have the difficulty determine the number of successes, and just track how many hits the dice generate (don't have failures count against the roll). The math is more intuitive, and it lets you do incremental/degrees of success.
>>46531781
Thanks for your advice. All good points and I learned something new about anydice.
I'm not that other anon, but I think I might roll with your idea. I had a few other mechanics to add:
>if your skill is higher than the difficulty TN, add one success
>if you're "trained" in the task at hand, add one success
>because skills and difficulty only range from 1 to 5, the most you'll roll is 5d6
>extra successes can be used for crits, special actions, etc
What do you think? I can't figure out whether you should require just one success to pass, or a number of successes equal to the difficulty. I think the former would be too easy but the latter too punishing.
I also want to incorporate a fail-forward mechanic of sorts after falling in love with Edge of the Empire. Worst comes to worse I might just stick with degrees of success, but I really like the chance of unintended positive effects from failure, too. Here's what I was thinking:
>in addition to the other dice, roll 2d6, one black and one white
>if the white die is higher, positive effect
>if the black die is higher, negative effect
>if the die are in "harmony", extra positive effect
>if circumstances are in your favor, roll two white and use the highest
>if circumstance is against you, roll two black and use the highest
My only problem is, this allows a roll of 8d6 to be a possibility. That might be extremely rare, and rolling lots of dice is fun, but it may be too much.
Just spitballing here.
I have idea for a streamline GURPS and i know that seem strange but 5e showed you can have option but keep simple like keeping it from getting crazy like 3.5 so i want to build something easy to get into and build but still have option to comic characters to video game character or something strange
>>46532769
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
>>46522304
Neat that the dice are permanently lowered, unless the GM gives situation to bump it back up of course. I'm assuming the base dice is a d8?
>>46525296
This is reliant on the players wanting to play the same game again though, or that they die often enough for the skill check to matter. Plus it doesn't seem worth the investment to buff Knowledge (Religion) when it requires your character to be dead and you only have a single shot at it, especially since there's 'nothing happens' results during the roll.
>>46533386
pls
So what do you folks think of this as a way to handle when players find an encounter when dungeon crawling?
>>46529723
I'm not a fan of the random warband generation. The number of models per side range from 2 to 12, and since they are more or less the same value, less model count is just a disadvantage with no benefits.
The core gives a fine rules-lite game, if that's what you are looking for.
Does a card-based RPG exist? Picture DnD that uses something like MtG for combat. Messing around with some stuff.
>>46535253
Publishers have been trying to push things like "power cards", " monster cards ", etc for years now. 4E, FFG SW and Pathfinder all have a multitude of card decks. That's really only one step away. I bet with some elbow grease, bailing wire, black tape and hay string you could make something from those parts.
The RPG I'm working on now represents gear, skills, vehicles, actions, fears etc in a standardized card-like format right out of the book, inspired by 4E, MtG and general distaste for selling them after I already bought the game.
>>46532498
If you want to fail-forward, then why not just have 0 successes be the only way to fail? You'd still keep a target number, but successes below the TN alleviate the bad while exceeding the TN adds additional benefits.
>>46528269
You might want to revisit this, as "failures are -1" generally leads to larger die pools not being useful.
That is to say, with a 6+ being a success (50%), the chance of getting at least one success does not meaningfully increase with more dice. If your aiming for a specific probability curve then go for it, just something to be aware of.
>>46527870
You could extend the effect for rolling '0' to -1/0/+1.
>>46535253
I've tried it. It requires a lot of work and ingenuity to make it work. The problem with just throwing them together is that it is either needlessly complex or abstract.
How many statistics do you have? Is it normal in this world to summon 50 creatures in the middle of a fight?
>>46529723
On a more thorough read I actually like some ideas you have going on here.
Do you have or rather would you mind contact of any kind so I don't spam the thread to living death?
How do you think applying a system of action points, a la Netrunner, to a standard creature VS creature CCG work? Casting spells/activating creatures would cost an action.
If I am to be honest this is actually for a video game; the motivation is to make the AI able to handle the game well by limiting the amount of things that can be potentially done in one turn. Still, CCGs are very much /tg/ related so I hope this is fine.
>>46535253
RPG? No, but the origin of Dominions is in a game modelling adventurers fighting monsters.
http://dominionstrategy.com/2013/06/24/the-secret-history-of-dominion/
http://dominionstrategy.com/2013/06/24/the-secret-history-of-dominion/
Posting the latest version of Hellsgate before heading out.
Been a while since I posted my spiel with it, so here I go: Hellsgate is a skirmish level miniatures game set in a post-apocalyptic sci-fi setting inspired by Hellgate: London and DOOM. Players take control of teams of humans fighting off the forces of Hell, or the invading demons themselves. Right now, a key mechanic to focus on is the depleting Morale system each model had, where as the battle goes south, a model loses their morale and has a more likely chance of fleeing the field.
>>46538379
Which is funny, considering Dominion looks like it was one of the inspirations behind Thunderstone.
>>46538355
I'm not familiar with Netrunner, action points and activations are like any other resource. Like with mana and other resource cost systems, the main goal is to not just limit what can be done, but to add a layer of strategy. While an AI won't care about that, it does add another layer for the player, having to predict what the AI is doing. Being too loose can be just as bad as too restrictive, its about finding that balance.
>>46538355
There have been a few /v/isitors in the thread, so no worries.
If the restriction is done on both players, it should be fine. Otherwise it's just an arbitrary limit on the AI. The goal of Netrunner's clicks is to severely limit the amount of actions the player can do on their turn. Other common limitations are deployment limits (summon only one monster, place only one card), resource limit (mana to summon, specific color needed), or hand limit (deckbuilders). You should probably look into it a bit further, figure out what limitations during a player's turn could make it more exciting.
>>46535253
There are lots.
This is the earliest example I know of by a major publisher. Dragonlance: Fifth Age.
I understand that some of FFGs Star Wars tabletops employ cards to some extent, as a more recent example.
>>46534328
The idea is that characters just get more beaten up, more exhausted, so the characters have an 'expiration' date.
There's no 'base die' per say, everyones dice pool is made like you want it. A higher die cost more, but it lacks reach. 2d6 vs 1d12: same chance for no success, but 2d6 can get 2 successes at the cost of much higher chance of rolling maximum. The current idea is that every start with the same amount of d4's and upgrades (4d->d6->d8 etc) and spread out the dice and upgrades among aspects.
>>46538576
Put that way, wouldn't there be chance at characters 'expiring' early if they roll the maximum too often? Plus it seems odd that they would be more 'beaten up' due to the effect of rolling their own dice rather than due to receiving damage.
>>46538715
Test difficulty comes with two parameters, how many successes needed to beat and the Exhaustion level, with zero there's no tax (short for reducing a die), with Exh lvl 1, even if many dice roll max there's only 1 tax. With Exh lvl each max trigger the tax and with 3, the die that rolled max is reduced (choice is taken away)
Exhaustion is not a typical game of heroes gaining abilities, learning new tricks or spells, but rather about having to push themselves to the limit. Slowly using up every resource they have to fight the challenges before them.
Given Xd4 and Y upgrades a character only have [X+Y] 'hp' - at 0 hp they have no dice left, so the game must end before. Exhaustion is not created to be a long game, but you can offer some upgrades along the way, though advancement of abilities is the opposite of the goal of Exhaustion.
>>46538791
Ah, so the goal is for short burst sessions with one time characters then (or even multiple sessions, just reset the dice to initial values). Neat, though finding a campaign suitable for it could be a challenge. Did you get the idea for short campaigns from Japanese TTRPGs?
>>46539056
>Ah, so the goal is for short burst sessions with one time characters then
Yes, that was the idea
>(or even multiple sessions, just reset the dice to initial values).
That is a great idea.
>Neat, though finding a campaign suitable for it could be a challenge.
While bantering with you, I got the idea that a zombie apocalypse game might be a very good fit. I havent set a specific genre, but if you accept the core idea of exhaustion taking it's toll on the character it could be for any type of game. Maybe, I dunno, to me it seems adaptable by setting some rules on the aspects as the very clearly flavor the game.
>Idea
I wanted to make a success counting dice pool game where you could apply your skills/attributes/aspects/whatchacallit any test if you could argue its relevance. The rules just came from that starting point.
>>46531781
>this particular mechanic is bad for a few reasons
I disagree.
>1) Instead of simply counting successes, players have to count successes, count failures, and then subtract the two. It doesn't take much longer each time, but it adds up.
Your way of doing this is BAD, but if you just take out 2 dice at them time, one failure and one success and count the left over it will be extremely fast as you are likely only having to count to one or two.
>2) The result curve is weird. Odd dicepools always give you an odd number of successes or failures, evens always give you evens.
True. And this have to be addressed in the rules, because the probabilities are also wonky when comparing odd and even dice pools.
>If you want to track anything other than overall success or failure, this is going to fuck with you.
There's still by how much you success or fail, though the tendency is to be very low numbers. The extremes are unlikely but still possible.
>3) Because of 1, adding a die to an odd dicepool hurts you, no matter the size or target number. It's always easier to get one success than to get two successes while adding a die.
An odd dice pool is 50/50 to succeed. An even dice pool have a chance (actually the most common result) of hitting 0 and depending on what that means in the system,
>4) When attempting a difficult task (higher target number, more failures on a die than successes), you're actually /more/ likely to succeed if you are /less/ skilled.
You are confusing variance and probabilities. There's one truth to your statement and that is the shift between odd to even, but a shift of two (odd to odd and even to even) IS better at beating a higher difficulty.
Overall, he might be right, that treating failure as 0 instead, is better and easier to work with.
>>46535868
Odd dicepools always have 50/50% for success. Larger pools leads to greater variance and greater chance of beating a given difficulty and indeed a greater "Degree of success".
Even dice pools can roll 0, but with greater dice pool, lower chance of rolling 0. That 'probability mass' is distributed equally between failure and success. This means with larger pools are more likely to succeed (rather than rolling 0).
>generally leads to larger die pools not being useful.
The truth to this statement lies in that
>>With larger pools there's the potential for bigger failures.
But not with greater probability of failing, just distributing the same failure chance out to bigger failures.
Right now my game has four stats:
>Skill, your general strength and coordination, which determines your probability to hit with a weapon
>Vitality, your physical toughness, endurance and discipline
>Intelligence, your knowledge and cleverness, which determines your ability at things like medicine or technology
>Willpower, a combination of wisdom and charisma, that affects your ability in social situations
The problem is I can't really think of anything useful for vitality. To encourage diversity I made number of wounds a function of your highest stat, not just vitality. And I can't find a good place for stealth ability; logically it would be Skill but that might make it too good.
What I'm thinking of doing now is just making the four stats less general and more about your problem-solving approach: Violence, Guile, Knowledge and Negotiation. This makes them all useful, but I worry players may not immediately understand which should be used to roll skills (there is no set skill list, the GM determines what stat a player rolls for a given task). What do you think?
>>46539176
Zombie apocalypse is definitely an easy fit. There's also simulating siege battles, where the soldiers become ever more tired, a single run into the dungeon, a run to the supermarket and back, etc. Basically any super focused campaign about a single thing could work.
>>46540248
The latter seems a lot more preferable. To avoid the confusion of picking which approach for a test, try finding words that little overlap with each other. As an example, when talking with a person and you're rolling to trick them, do you roll Guile (because it tests your ability to be witty and conceal certain info) or Negotiation (because it tests your ability to not let slip that info during a conversation).
That said as long as you clarify the approaches, they should be find as is, though Negotiation seems out of place, as you'd usually use both Guile and Knowledge to negotiate and reach a compromise. The way I see it at the moment:
>Violence: Brute force, no tricks, straightforward.
>Guile: Cunning, being tricky, deceit
>Knowledge: Using known information, puzzle solving
>Negotiation: Compromise?
I've got a question for you /gdg/. I'm homebrewing some rules for an old RPG called RECON, where stats are percentile and generated with one single d100 roll. I don't like how swingy this is, and I was wondering if you could suggest an alternate, better way to generate stats between 1 and 100.
>>46541737
I intended negotiation to be the general non-violent (though not necessarily nice) diplomancer approach: talking, threatening, lying, etc. Guile would be solely for underhanded physical dealings, like sneaking, stealing, infiltrating, spying, etc. Knowledge would be about using your intelligence and professional skills to accomplish things, like hacking a computer, researching a topic, performing surgery, etc. I absolutely see your point about naming, I intended neither to really be about tricking/logical debating.
Basically, I was inspired by Dogs in the Vineyard and how non-violent social "combat" can be escalated into violent combat and vice versa. I want to incorporate something conceptually similar.
>>46541828
Roll multiple times, find the average? Or use smaller dice instead, then bump it up to the 100 equivalent (Result of 3 on a d6 is 50).
>>46541828
Basically, 1d100 has a 1% chance of rolling any number between 1 and 100. This means it's basically a crap shoot, and you're as likely to be shit or extraordinary as you are to be "average".
To prevent this swinging, you want more dice. This will give you a nicer bell curve, with greater chance of being average than anything else. But because each die must equal a minimum of 1, increasing the number of dice essentially pushes the average up bit by bit - the minimum number is equal to the number of dice you roll.
http://anydice.com/program/8178
As you can see 5d20 has an average of 55, but rolls of 5 and 100 are still possible, if extremely unlikely. You can see the curves for some other dice, too. Depending on the to e of your game, you can choose the curve that suits you.
>>46541828
Maybe some rules that allow you to swithc the tens and the units of the result so 27 could become 72? Not sure how well this would work though.
Alternatively re rolls or multiple rolls and taking the best one will help reduce the swinginess.
>>46538020
yeah, go ahead. My e-mail's the first one on the back page of the pdf. [email protected].
>>46542400
One thing Recon has going for it is that if your character is shit, meaning a single stat (of your three) below 30, or if the combined three equal less than 100, you're allowed to reroll. This is if you're playing grunts freshly arrived in 'Nam.
For playing special forces, MACV-SOG, or SEALs, a stat below 50 or a total of less than 180 means you're allowed a reroll.
However, the real umbrage I have with the system, which I otherwise like because it's super simple for a Palladium game, is that when you gain a new skill, you also determine your effective skill level with it by rolling a percentile. Every skill has a minimum base effectiveness, meaning if you roll less than that then your skill instead becomes the base effectiveness. It varies from skill to skill; Rifles, for example, have a minimum of 30%, whereas skills like parachuting have no minimum.
>>46535868
>>46539734
Yeah, I'm considering just making it number of successes vs Target Number set by the GM.
I'm not entirely sure I want to do that, since part of the reason I'm not using a D&D style additive system is so that the player can just roll and be like "Oh, neat, I succeeded" instead of having to ask the GM if they succeed.
Although, if I simply had the GM give them the TN up front (sorta like "Hey, I wanna scale that wall" "Okay, roll Climb against 3"), that might make things a little better.
So what's your thought on a dice pool counting successes where the success value is based on the task difficulty? So, using d6 (say, although I would probably use d10), Easy would be 1-4, Average 1-3, Hard 1-2 and Difficult 1.
Is this acceptable or not fun?
>>46545840
How many successes would be required to pass? How many dice would be rolled?
>>46545969
Good questions...
I was thinking that 1 success would be needed to succeed, but opposing rolls would be highest amount.
As to amount of dice, equal to the skill - range from 1-6 with 3 being Average.
>>46538020
>>46535164
https://www.mediafire.com/?uai6uwdnfiw6d93
This version has re-worked warband generation.
>>46545840
>>46546019
I'm actually thinking of using a very similar system in my own game! I want to do some light playtesting this weekend just to see how it feels, and I'll report back here when I do.
>>46546084
I'll be waiting for your report with baited breathe!
>>46545840
I prefer systems where the difficulty determines the number of successes required (1 for easy, 2 for average, 3 for hard, etc), characters have 3-7 dice reliably, and the success threshold is determined by your proficiency/training in the task at hand.
Example: John needs to jump a fence, and fast! His Physique attribute is 5, so he'll roll 5d10. The GM decides that it's a task of average difficulty, so he needs two successes. John is trained in Athletics, which seems appropriate for this action, so he gets a success on a 7+. He rolls a 10, 8, 7, 4, and 2, for a total of 3 successes, more than enough to leap over the fence without any complications.
(The above rules are pretty much lifted directly from how the Riddle of Steel works, by the way).
I am currently trying to conceptualize a combat system that is more rewarding/punishing depending on how much thought the players put in to it. It is based on a duel like gameplay where the majority of fights will be fought 1v1 or similar. Each turn of cambat will have two rounds, where the player will choose two skills to complete in the time interval and then they will be acted out simultaneously with the opponent. Using descriptions of the enemies current movements and positioning they will be able to block, strike, engage or disengage intelligently for extremely lethal short combats. I am stuck right now and was wondering if any systems out there work similarly that I can pull some inspiration from.
Does anyone has a template or short list of how to organize homebrew system? I am really stuck with how to approach stuff in my head and how to neatly file it.
http://anydice.com/program/8186
How bad is it?
>>46546042
Much better.
>>46548377
>Guys I want to create a system!
>What are some systems I can plagiarize?
Envision it this way: You have two teams of two players. They pair off and play rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock. You can't have it be rock-paper-scissors-hole because math.
There are four possible results - two wins for red team, two for blue team, one win each, or no wins for anyone.
>>46548870
What's the metric? Above/equal to 0 is pass? (Assuming that.)
There's nothing busted in your curves. Your effective skill range goes much higher than 5, though - 1 difficulty is worth 3.5 points of skill. See http://anydice.com/program/8188 to see how difficulty scales faster.
Having a small range of numbers for difficulties (which are usually made up) and a large range of numbers for skills (which are usually things you want to increase so you feel like you're having progress) may actually be a good thing.
One more minor nitpick: The emotional crest is when people see the result of their dice rolls - when you add a non-dice number to it, you risk the actual result being different than that emotional response. Your system is fairly safe from this sort of thing, since the number is small relative to the dice.
>>46549099
No no, I was more looking forward to how things like interupts, action timing, attack placement etc are handled, plus the minutia of damage or rolling in a more specific combat is handled.
And please, it's like saying studying writing or science to become a writer/scientist is plagiarizing, and everything you do has to be 100% original.
>>46535253
Yeah... I kinda made one.
>>46553023
I think Burning Wheel has the stuff you want, but I don't know because I could never stand to read it.
Also, you can build a tiered Rock Paper Scissors system to get timing. Using rps-9 for a base (left)
Round 1, both players choose one of these lists:
- Scissors, Paper, Gun
- Fire, Water, Sponge
- Rock, Air, Human
Round 2, both players choose one of their available options and resolve it.
And you can make Rock Paper Scissors actually rather interesting if you play Weighted Rock Paper Scissors:
- Winning with Rock is worth 7 points.
- Winning with Paper is worth 3 points.
- Winning with Scissors is worth 1 point.
- First to 21 points wins.
Combining tiers and weights, you can actually make something pretty interesting.
Hey, this may not be the right thread to ask but does anyone know where I can buy a physical copy of Apocalypse World? The website says it's coming soon but from what I gather people have been playing this shit for years!
I'm mainly interested in how it handles combat. Right now my game has a pretty typical round structure: take turns, you get a movement and an action. But I think it's all rather arbitrary and rules-y, so I'm interested in seeing how rules lite system do it.
>>46553227
The weighting actually is usuable, and gives me a good idea. And I'll check out the burning wheel, thanks for the info. The rock beats paper idea though isn't necessarily working though, it's more like 'the goblin steps in to striking range with sword held high in his right hand' 'I lift my shield to my left, and begins strike to my right' 'the goblins sword slashes down, hitting your shield. It does not move you, and your strike cuts deep, killing the goblin'
It would be more intricate for more skilled combatants, with dodges, different weapon styles and speed vs strength and knowledge of enemy weak points for more learned fighters.
>>46553468
Left shield beats right-handed overhand strike = Scissors beats Paper. It's just a re-skin.
I was suggesting you think about it in those terms because it's easy and intuitive to work with that model while you're rebuilding it into the game you want.
>>46551109
>What's the metric? Above/equal to 0 is pass? (Assuming that.)
Honestly I'm just not sure. I'm thinking of ditching dice altogether for cards.
The players each draw a number of cards equal to their skill in the task at hand (from a deck of regular playing cards). Certain actions require certain types of cards (ie any red card, any spade card, any 9 card, etc) with more powerful actions requiring more specific cards.
In non-violent situations, your target has to play a card with a number higher than your card to negate your action. If they can't, they lose the "roll." If the situation escalates to the point no higher cards can be played, it turns into violent combat.
In combat it's reversed, and lower cards must be played. Once it's bottomed out the losing side surrenders or something.
Just thought of that in the shower, might be worth exploring.
>>46554052
>>46553468
Following on what he said - I was suggesting doing the two-tier rock paper scissors because it's what you're asking for with...
"the goblin steps into striking range with sword held high"
-> "sword high" = scissors, paper, gun
"I duck under my shield and prepare a rising slice"
-> "rising slice" = rock, air, human
"the goblin slashes down!"
-> chose scissors
"I block and strike!"
-> chose rock
(Rock beats scissors at a high weight)
The point being that your desire to care about the stances is the first stage, and the resolution of strikes is the second. The interplay of which sets of weights go to which strikes makes the meat of the system. You just need to pick intuitive-enough groups.
So I have a basic idea for a game.
>You have three stats, Speed, Wild, and Technique
>Speed's dex, Wild's strength, Technique is intelligence.
>You assign three different dice to them: d4, d6, and d10.
>To preform a stat check, you roll that die.
>Example: I make a Speed check. My Speed stat is a d10, so I roll that and if I get over the target number, I succeed.
>Depending on RP stuff, your stats can go into "Top Gear" and change die size, so d4 becomes d8, d6 becomes d12, and d10 become d20.
>>46556567
So it's savage worlds?
>>46554358
>>46554052
Ahh I understand what you mean. Thank you for the break down. Each piece has a tree of options, which can even help with differentiating between each monsters move set, as in certain enemies are more likely to follow the same route so as to build some pattern recognition.
The weighting can help with timing. So if the PC wins with a high weight, it's almost like a crit, but if they win with a low weight they could even be counter attack depending on enemy skill. So as the enemies get bigger, you need to be even more careful about your combat, as even if you win you can still lose HP.
Let me know if any of this doesn't make sense, so I can rework the idea.
>>46557008
Yeah, you're getting it.
Even with unpredictable, smart enemies (say PvP), the fact that the branches have different weights under them makes the decisions tricky.
For example, say the stances are "weapon raised," "guard," and "lunging." The "lunging" stance has the most powerful followups, but also the most ways to get completely shafted. It also generally performs better against "weapon raised" than against "guard." If you're losing, high variance is good for you, so you want to pick lunge, but your opponent knows this, so they may pick guard, and you know this, etc. But you might just want to yolo lunge anyway, because the one lunge vs guard followup where you win is still worth it.
You can easily complicate this by having stats affect which specific followups are best (and thus which stances), or by having a larger palette of followup moves so not everyone is picking from the same menu.
>>46556710
Huh? Weird, never played that game before.
>>46557909
Savage worlds does stuff a bit differently, but ya your stats are different die in that system.
Game design is hard.
>>46557931
Ah.
>>46561126
Game design is super fucking easy.
Visual design, production, and publishing are super hard.
>>46561911
If you think it is easy you haven't gotten good yet.
>>46561969
I'm open to that possibility.
Let me rephrase, then: I find it very easy to write an elegant set of rules that result in interesting decisions for a number of players. I also find it very easy to playtest and spot what isn't working and use that information to retool.
>>46562028
Let's see some of your elegant work, then.
>>46562701
Rekt
>>46561624
It's a pretty good system, but I don't like how your minimum roll never goes up, since you only ever roll 1 die.
I've got this steampunk wargame that I'm working on, thoughts on the rules?
>>46563454
>Obvious bait
Lurk moar, fag.
If I use the term "perks" instead of feats, will people reflexively hate me?
>>46563542
Yeah, but only douchebags.
Note: lots of douchebags exist.
>>46563542
Only dumbfucks who've only ever played post-3e DnD.
>>46562701
No time at the moment.
If you've been in these threads much, you might recall a discussion about orbital mechanics games. One of those was an early-stage design I'm working on.
I'd be interested to hear about whatever design problem prompted you to post, "Game design is hard."
>>46563171
>he's not lurking /tg/ 24/7
>clearly this means he's rekt
wut
>>46563872
He was saying you'd been wrecked.
>>46563872
>bragging on an anonymous image board
>"no time" to export to PDF and post it here to back up his boasts
You're the wurst :^)
So this is what I have so far...
>>46564048
>Wil Wheaton
Stopped reading there.Just kidding, I read the whole thing and think it's really interesting. I will say, however, that your stat advancement is very punishing. In a system where a higher number is better, 1d6+5 is much more likely to consistently roll a higher number than 2d6. See here:
http://anydice.com/program/819d
In the former, rolling anything less than a six isn't even possible, and the latter only adds a 2.78% chance of getting a 12.Wil Wheaton is a fag though, you should be ashamed for watching/liking him.
>>46563435
>CCS
Close Combat Saxaphone?
>cannot be seen cannot be shot at
So you're using True Line of Sight of this?
Debuffs for <1/2 might need playtesting, seems a bit too much to me.
Airships immediately exploding into a ball of fire is dramatic, but could prove frustrating. Maybe if no 6s appear, give it the Flaming status, and explode it at the end of the next turn instead, maybe give a chance to fix it.
Infantry/ground battles seem rather basic, while I don't know if the complexity for airships is justified.
One way you could increase depth for infantry/ground is introduce formations. Formations give bonuses, models in a formation fire as one. If a model in the formation is removed from the game, the formation breaks (unless you want a certain threshold to be reached first). Models not in formation can fire as normal.
Airships could prove to be unintuitive to learn. Maybe make it a bit more similar to how ground models work? Though I might just be dumb and can't grasp it that well at the moment.
Overall it's alright, just rather basic and nothing stands out as an exciting aspect of the game. Maybe work on a hook to get prospective players interested in playing.
>>46561126
>>46561911
Game design is easy. Rule writing and game balance is hard.
How do I make playtesting actually fun? I have several different mechanics I want to try and see which are fun but shiiiiiiiiiiet, sitting alone rolling dice/drawing cards repeatedly is just about the loneliest, saddest thing possible.
>>46567233
Best to grab a buddy.
Okay /tg/, how do I make crafting interesting?
I'm working on a campaign idea right now, where crafting will play a big role in character advancement. The best weapons/items/macguffins in the game are made by the players themselves.
I've got a rough system worked out with the following ideas,
>Players have a variety of crafting skills to choose from, allowing players to specialize. This gives every character an added essential role to the party, such as the party warrior/tank/blacksmith.
>To craft things, players use materials that they can acquire in the gameworld. The rarer materials can only be found in dangerous locations, are taken from bosses treasure, or are given as quest rewards. This gives added incentive to adventure and take big risks.
This next part I'm not sure about,
>Players craft their items from learned recipes. For example, 'one flour and two dingleberries makes a super awesome bread, which does x, y, and z when eaten'. I can't decide how players should acquire these recipes.
If they purchase the 'recipes' from learned craftsmen, then you get the following effect,
>It gives players a reason to visit town between adventures
>It adds a much needed goldsink now that the players aren't purchasing much equipment
>Special recipes make excellent quest rewards/treasures
>It adds an extra layer of character customisation, especially if two players have the same crafting skills - they won't both have the same recipes.
tl'dr, are there any game systems that have a really good crafting system? How would you/do you handle crafting in your system? Critique my ideas?
>>46563435
I'll read through this in a bit, when I get a chance.
>>46568151
Made this in about a half hour, haven't had a chance to playtest yet. Anything stand out as exceptionally bad?
I want to add special cards (jacks count as any card, aces might be an instant win or whatever) in the future too. I also want to make a stealth version and a skill version, where the player is straight up against the GM throwing obstacles in their way.
hey /gdg/, id like to make 4x map for civlization game (based on id rolls and more) for another chan community but i have no idea how to make a good looking map. any tips regarding how to make one? also any info how to make economy or something?
Hey, I wanna make an item who's effect is making someone immune to other people manipulating time.
My game has a crossover thing going on, meaning the name can be inspired from greek legends, some video games or some weeaboo shit.
Chronos is alive right now though, so it can't be his finger or anything like that, first thing I thought about and I'm now out of ideas.
>>46571477
Chronos Tear - a pendant of intricate silver encircling a small glass vial said to contain a single tear shed by the God of Time for an unnamed tragedy that may have happened or may yet to happen.
>>46571877
That's great, I just put a banal perennity anchor, but I like that one much more.
Thanks anon.
>>46571925
An anchor is a good symbol for being immune to the flow of time, too.
Is there a meme-based RPG or there?
>>46567233
Removing that mentality is the first thing you should do. Just because a game is meant to be played with others doesn't mean that playing it by yourself - especially to test something before unleashing it on others - is a bad idea.
>>46568151
From a non-mechanical standpoint, maybe make crafting central in the setting of the campaign? You're probably going to need a few charts for rolling up random recipes too, though you could just do "this recipe does this because I said so" and jot it down somewhere.
>>46577537
>Just because a game is meant to be played with others doesn't mean that playing it by yourself - especially to test something before unleashing it on others - is a bad idea.
I agree, but it does make it difficult to judge how fun a mechanic is in practice.
>>46579661
Self-testing should be more about working out math and such. You do also need to test with other people to test how things actually play.
>>46563435
Rolling under the accuracy is a little weird, since all other rolls are over.
It also feels more like you want to make an air combat game, and not really a mixed arms, since the air combat feels more fleshed out.
>>46579661
That depends I think. A mechanic based on hidden information and bluffing would definitely be impossible to test by yourself. Simpler mechanics like level progression, resource management, movement around a board, etc. is much easier. Even if it's just rolling some dice or playing cards, the 'fun' should immediately be apparent, and if not, then call it a successful playtest because you found something to fix (though that implies an unsuccessful playtest to be when you don't find any errors).
>>46579969
Any thoughts on >>46570367 ? I kind of like where it's going, but I'm not sure how to make it work with multiple players and enemies. I thought about having the GM just draw five cards and share them across all enemies, but the drawing might get out of hand. Or maybe only one PC goes per round? But then how would I keep track of who played which card at whom? Confusing!
>>46580023
Well, I'm gonna be honest with you: I have never found merely rolling the dice to be fun, which is why I took up being the GM. I get a lot more satisfaction out of crafting a story or entertaining the players (I really like pouring effort into making a good time for others).
I've been dicking around with various OSR-style rpgs for a while, picking and choosing rules from one game, blog, or whatever that seem neat and smashing them together (almost like how some kids play with dolls). In any case, I've been ruminating on why melee combat has to be (attack roll + bonuses vs. armor and enemy bonuses), while most fantasy spellcasting relies on enemies needing to make a roll, often against a static number completely unrelated to the attacker.
The thing is, I'm not terribly keen on splitting defenses up into physical, magical and psionic defenses for every character. Trying to keep things as simple as possible. However, the way I see it now, it's looking like splitting defenses is unavoidable, at least if I want to homogenize spellcasting to the same mechanics as swordswinging.
I'm just wondering if there's any other RPG like that out there, so I can see how it works and whether or not it's worth the effort to try and balance the multiple defenses, or just stick with the tried and true Armor Class and Saving Throws.
>>46571477
>>46571877
>>46572475
Have the vial be the middle of an anchor-shaped pendant.
>>46581479
In Rogues To Riches, your Defense is the sum of a few numbers (normally Armor, Dodge, Insight, and Luck). Everyone rolls against Defense to attack, but some abilities ignore one of the numbers ("Ignore Armor" or "Ignore Dodge"). This includes a handful of quirky melee abilities, but also almost every magical one.
In D&D 4E, they use Reflex, Fortitude, and Will defenses instead of D&D 3.5's Reflex, Fortitude, and Will saves. So that's literally just changing who's rolling the deice for consistency's sake.
>>46580067
Looks good. Only suggestion I could add is make each round go until someone can't play a card. If its "I play a card, you play a card, end round", with the increasing ante, you'll soon have really big hands.
>>46519553
Hang on, that sounds like the card game from final fantasy... 8? I think it was 8. Though I think that one was a 3x3 board.
So I've been thinking about a way to create a new breed of magic user for a DnD styled game. Essentially, imagine magic users getting loadouts instead of spell slots or mana points per day.
This system is represented by Σ, or Potence. Each level you gain +1 Potence. You can also take some minor character flaws, magic curses, or some other negative traits for +1 Potence, but only rarely.
Magical powers, spells, items, and minions all cost -Σ. Single use but powerful spells may cost -1, long term but weak powers may also cost -1, depending on the nature of each. Magic items with limited uses may also cost -1, or more for increased uses or flexibility.
Some powers can be reduced in cost based on restrictions. For example, a moderate power may cost -2 or -3 Σ. But if you take a flaw for the power, such as requiring you to touch your target, then this may reduce its cost to -1 or -2.
Σ must be positive or at 0 for you to bring your character on the adventure. This is essentially your 'point loadout'.
Does anybody here think this idea has merit? I think its easier/simpler then dealing with spell slots but still allows magic users to specialize, even going balls to the wall with one good power but costing for it in every other aspect.
>>46564739
Had an idea for a different kind of task resolution
Yahtzee styled rolling where the target number will be "get a certain of a kind number (like three of a kind)"
>>46585891
I think this is an interesting idea, but it would take a lot of play testing - and a lot of work before it could be playtested. It kind of reminds me of Pathfinder's neglected "words of power" optional system.
I think you should write up a PDF with clear, specific instructions and defined options, then test it!
>>46587066
Never played Yahtzee so maybe I'm talking out my ass here, but wouldn't that make certain checks impossible? Say you have 1d6 in a stat, and the target is three of a kind: you either roll your 1d6 three times (which is very unlikely to succeed) or you just shouldn't bother.
>>46587066
>>46588101
Yahtzee requires using up a pool of dice to assign to targets, ranging from "snake eyes" to "1-5 straight". 1d6 roll would be an autofail since you don't have the necessary dice to complete it.
Yahtzee style sounds pretty neat, it open up possibilities to divvy up your efforts in multiple fronts, then when you give up on a front you can use previously assigned dice in a new front.
>>46588101
I'm still thinking out some kinks, as I'm also considering it be "for each x-of-a-kind, you get to narrate one thing that successfully happens, so if you get five of a kind, you get to narrate five things" and probably have average start stats be 5d6 as opposed to 1d6
My trouble with my fantasy ww1 game is that I must wrap my head around battalion/regiment/platoon/squads. I need to figure out a simple way to set up units.
Maybe 60 man platoons split into 6 10 man squads to control.
>>46589585
>start stats be 5d6 as opposed to 1d6
I'd be really interested to see what you come up with, renfag. Your PDF really inspired me to take a second look at my own RPG and see what kind of cruft I could cut out. I want to make a simple, fun game, not a 300 page tome.
>>46589752
Would depend on the scale I think. What are you going for exactly?
I've hit a wall trying to figure out combat for my ECG. All that I have so far is
>I'd like the game to be futuristic mech/military themed. Obviously this isn't too important right now, but it's on my mind.
>There are two rows for the unit cards, very similar to the Vs. System and the online CCG Spellweaver, where there is a combat/main/front row for the attacking units and a support/back row for supporting or utility units.
>There is a separate resource deck that consists of 12 cards (could change) that the player pulls from and puts the resource card into a resource zone. When that resource is used, it is turned face down until the player's next turn.
I was thinking about having a "location deck" and revealing a single card at a time from that deck, then having the players fight over that. But that might make the playing field too cluttered or hectic when put with the two rows and resource zones. Any thoughts?
Another thought was to have the support row basically be your base. You would play unit cards there face down for free and when you turn them over is the point where you pay their resource cost or sac them.
>>46593256
What's the objective or story of this game by the way? It could help determine or inspire something about how it plays. Netrunner has the Runner vs Corps struggles, Game of Thrones has the conflict between houses, and Warhammer contests planets/galaxies(?).
>>46593429
Well, the story isn't really fleshed out yet, just the basic theme (futuristic military with mechs), which is where I got the idea of a Location deck, since real conflicts tend to revolve around taking and holding specific areas.
The idea (right now) is to have 3-5 factions that represent PMCs (Private Military Companies) who are at war.
>>46593256
Location deck sounds fine. You're not going to run into too many zones with just what you've described, and the location deck is the least space-intensive of the ones you've mentioned. My biggest concern with clutter, with what you describe, would be any sort of add-on or enchantment style cards for your unit rows.
I'm also not sure why you need a resource zone when you already have a support zone. I'd look in to consolidating those in some manner.
If you're adding this location mechanic, you should make heavy use of it. To me, it's really screaming to turn this game into a resource allocation / bidding problem. Here's three ways I can think of to do that, in increasing order of grognardiness:
> 1 - When the location is revealed, players simultaneously reveal how many units to commit to it. Most or all of these troops are lost in the process, so you don't want to overspend.
> 2 - Multiple locations are revealed, and players simultaneously reveal how they're allocating units. It's possible to win more locations with less total troops, gerrymandering style.
> 3 - When a location is revealed, players commit troops to it now, but the actual combat is resolved over multiple turns, and they don't get the survivors back until it's over. In the meantime, each turn sees another location getting added to the fray.
>>46593554
Are mechs capable of turning the tide when they enter a battle, or are they just infantry?
With the locations, I thought I had was to make a sort of mini map using the location cards, with points on them for players to move into. Some cards might have 3 points, another might only have pathways. Each half of the map would be dictated by both of the players, which you could include as part of the deck build.
Another thought that I had was to divide the units into several main types, maybe Infantry, Ground, Air, and Mechs. The back row would also have something similar. That could help introduce some depth in deploying cards. Also, columns would be a group of units that move through the points in the mini map, so only units in the same column may interact.
>>46593949
Addendum to columns thing:
During deckbuilding, you have to select 1+ leaders. Each leader will command a column, and have a particular leader power. This also limits the number of columns you may have (maybe put a limit on the number of leaders you can have). Out of these leaders, you choose the commander. The chosen leader will now also have an additional commander power.
>>46593815
>I'm also not sure why you need a resource zone when you already have a support zone. I'd look in to consolidating those in some manner.
Well, the resource zone would basically be where you put your lands in MtG and the support zone would be for unit cards that could technically be put into the combat/front row, but would likely die too soon to be useful (units that would do things such as pinging enemy units, healing damage, etc). To me they don't seem to go together well enough to consolidate or combine the rows into a single row. I could be wrong though, and in all reality, if it makes sense later on I may change it to a single row. Just not now.
As for combat, what you posted may have given me some much needed inspiration. How about this
>Location is revealed.
>Players declare which of their force in their front row are committed to that location and move those up/tap/whatever to signify that they are committed.
>After both players have done this, combat occurs, with players taking turns using abilities of their cards, declaring attacks, etc.
>At the end of combat, if one player has more units on the location, they win the location (this could also be done with something like a "Presence" stat on the cards, player with more presence wins the location)
>In the case of a tie, both players pull their remaining units back and that location is used again next turn.
Throw in some effects when certain locations are revealed, won, or lost and it seems okay. Thoughts?
>>46594130
> Resource zones
If you just make your "lands" be mining mechs then they go on the support zone.
> Location mechanics
Sounds fine. You should learn to play, and preferably actually play, Condotierre. You'll learn a lot that you can apply here.
Here's a how to play video:
http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/how-play-condottiere/
(And a mech-themed ECG version of Condotierre sounds exquisite.)
>>46588101
>I think you should write up a PDF with clear, specific instructions and defined options, then test it!
I didn't want it to be TOO specific as to allow for player creativity and also being able to find or create spells in the future, but I get the point.
>>46594412
>If you just make your "lands" be mining mechs then they go on the support zone.
That could work, but like I said, for now, I really like the idea of the resource zone. I will keep that in mind though, because if I do change my mind, that is a good solution.
And the game you linked...not really what I was going for, that is basically a better version of gwent, which is not quite what I have in mind. Seems like a really fun game though.
Instead of HP, I was thinking of using a system of "consequences" similar to FATE.
>character levels go from 1 to 5, players start at level 3 (you advance in other ways than levels)
>get an amount of "wounds" (physical consequences) and "stress" (mental consequences) determined by your level
>failing rolls leaves a wound/stress, reducing your effectiveness (-1 modifier apiece) and having narrative consequences (broken arm, etc)
But I can't decide how many is too many/too few. I feel like 3x would be way too many, since skills only go from 1-5.
Maybe you get 3 wounds before -1, 3 before -2 and 3 before -3? But that seems a little complex, and I don't know how I would scale it.
What are some mechanics you like, /gdg/?
And I don't mean d20 vs d100 or anything like that. Not the numbers themselves, but the concepts.
Personally, I like games where the characters are hindered by taking damage, whether through flat stat debuffs or simply not being able to take particular sorts of actions after a particular wound. It feels more dramatic to me than just HP-bags wailing at each other, but I think it can definitely get out of hand if done too aggressively.
So quick question. I have somewhat of an idea of how to go about this, but I'm thinking of ways to help players customize their characters outside of how they distribute their points.
My idea is having classes that each have their own effects for stuff like Full Houses and Straights.
>>46599987
Need more info. Is your system playing card based or something? What are your classes?
>>46599807
I really like classless systems. I can understand why classes are used, I just find them really arbitrary and stale.
>>46599807
I like games with reducing mechanics, or mechanics that create a slow and steady downward slope for party members.
Things like healing always leaving unhealable wounds behind, gambling slowly draining money, resources slowly dwindling. It really adds to the feeling of either horror games, survival games and/or dungeon crawlers.
Secondly, I like games with simple yet intriguing level up systems. Such as each time you level you only get 1 skill or stat point, but pretty much anything you could increase is useful and maybe even multifaceted.
I like game mechanics with built in adjustment allowed for creativity and cool powers, especially magic systems. I also like systems with roll under stats/skills, but I also understand that they are somewhat reductive and some people don't like them.
>>46599807
Yeah, damage penalties can easily turn into a death spiral if it's not done just right (though even that isn't necessarily terrible if you're trying to go for a very lethal system).
I'm considering a variant of this where, as you take damage, your defensive options are penalized, but your offensive options are bolstered up to a certain point. The basic idea behind it is that, once you receive enough damage that your life is definitely in danger, you toss defense off to the side in hopes of taking the enemy down before it can kill you.
One mechanic that I really like (even though it's everywhere) is the concept of Fate/Luck points. I find it to be a really great way to increase the tension of a scene without necessarily dicking the players over. One thing I especially love (though I don't think I've ever seen it before) is if you can put your character at risk in exchange for more Fate/Luck points.
>>46600278
To be honest, I think you easily can have classes while still having a freeform, point buy system.
What I've started working on is essentially a GURPS-like point buy system, but with classes and races presented as the default option with the remainder of the book basically being rules on how to create your character ala carte.
>>46600278
Dice-based.
>>46587066
Ideas for classes include:
>Swordsman who gets bonus damage depending on how long of a straight he has
>Archer who is able to attack multiple times depending on his long straight
>Inventor who is able to create stuff
>Scientist who is able to use his discoveries against people.
>>46596406
Do players have any stats or attributes?
>>46601040
Yeah, they have four stats whose names are shamelessly cribbed from Apocalypse World:
>hard: skill with violently solving problems using melee weapons, guns, brawling, explosives, etc
>quiet: skill with stealthily solving problems using sneaking, cunning, eavesdropping, etc
>sharp: skill with solving problems using professional, well, skills such as medicine, hacking, repairing, etc. (note players have to buy proficiency in skills separately)
>cool: skill in solving problems using social approaches like talking, bribing, flirting, etc
Each stat ranges from 1 to 5 and your level is just equal to your highest stat.
>>46602544
Why not have the stats be their "health"? If they fail a test hard enough, the associated stat takes the penalty. Too much of that and they become useless and need a break.
Anyone here know of a good system for slasher-horror style gaming? I keep getting this "clock tower" vibe and it makes me giddy.
In a similar vein, any thoughts on a workable single-player rpg style adventure?
>>46557252
That pic is some serious autism, m80.
Thought this might be a decent place to ask: how do I format a Word file when saving as PDF to preserve the image quality and sizes within?
>>46604814
you havent seen true autism until you've been to the poohadventures wiki
>>46606803
>the poohadventures wiki
OH GOD NO
>>46603458
That's a good idea. I'm just worried 5 health being the absolute max might be too fragile. I'm trying to balance typical cyberpunk against "dying in one hit is not a fun game".
I was trying to keep the numbers low, but maybe I'll increase it to ten or something. I was thinking a handgun should take you out of the action in, what, three shots?
>>46604814
>calls serious autism
>on gdg
Thoughts on this? It's super simple and honestly it took me by surprise how few rules I had to use to get the point across. Hasn't been playtested yet, just wanted to see if anyone saw any issues before moving forward. I'm also really afraid, it seems so simple that I'm sure it's already been done exactly as I've written it.
I tried some things to reduce gamebreaking abuse of meta-game features.
>using enchanted weapons costs mana , whever stored in the body or with external devices (if you have low MAG)
>weapons cost stamina to swing based on used STR and base STR requirement
>bows cost the amount of stamina equal to drawing power
>special perks reduce the max. stamina and mana capacity when activated or use up energy on usage (things like magical resistance , physical enhancements)
>additional equipment and package weight reduces stamina recovery (i could have gone with putting stamina penalty on every step , but it got a bit too complicated for my players to keep track of)
>only blessed items are an exception since they get their energy from somewhere else. Used for when some GM wants to break the game by himself
This worked quite well so far, what do you guys do to prevent game breaking?
>>46615417
Seems like too many rules to me, desu. What game?
(Notice me)
Hey guys, I'm trying to brainstorm for hex wargame design. A sort of generic modern war setup utilizing classic hex-and-token mechanics but modernized to be more "gamey" and flexible (think the advance wars games). The game scale for each unit is approximately company (30 man squads)
Running into some conundrums with the unit types and wanted to run over the concepts here:
-Each unit would have a manpower token beneath it, representing the number/experience of the stack. The counter can be flipped with the choice of GREEN or VETERAN status.
-unit types can be "upgraded" up a tier-type ladder by spending resource points. For now it's a two-stage process dependent on the counter (IE: Infantry I aka Militia or Infantry II aka regular forces). Taking losses can reverse the tier process and devolve the unit unless supply is expended
-motor/mech transport is effected by placing the appropriate truck/AFV token over the leg unit in question. 1:1 scale for transport, so 1 point of truck can transport 1 point if Infantry I
-motor and armor forces are handled somewhat differently, and are constructed based on a chassis concept. The same truck/AFV tokens can have appropriate infantry guns MOUNTED on to them thus forming a mech equivalent. IE: 2 points of AT gun can be mounted on 2 points of AFV thus forming conventional tank. Same goes for mortars ATGM AA etc.
Unit types I've considered so far are. evolutions beyond 2 phases would be mixed into hodgepodge tokens
Inf I (irregular) /Inf II (regular) /Inf III (elite AKA para)
Mortar/Howitzer/Siege Gun
Truck/AFV/ Heavy AFV
scouts/SF
Engineer
HQ
AA/AT
ATGM
However, I'm not sure if this is the best way to go about the problem. It seems to me another possibility would be to have mech/motor variants as a further upgrade on the unit type echelon. IE: Inf III is mech infantry, Mortar II is SPG, AA II is SPAAG etc.
it just seems to me like the alternative might be too token intensive. Let me know what you think
What's the preferred manual order? Fluff and then crunch, crunch and then fluff, or crunch with fluff mixed together?
Im running a torchbearer game soon, but my 2 players want a heavy seafaring theme. i plan on having lighthouse, island caves, etc for land based dungeons, but do you have any ideas for how to have conflicts at sea, or how to have more extended explorations about a ship?
>>46609790
Statistically a fatal shooting is 4-7 rounds to the torso of any "standard round." So that's going to be your .22lr all the way up to your 7.62 NATO. How lethal a firearm is however is basically a roll of the die. Some people go into shock from a .22lr in the meat of the arm and die - an otherwise superficial wound. Other people tank a dozen rounds from combat rifles due to adrenaline and dumb luck that all the shots missed vitals.
It is something to take into consideration, depending on how lethal you want things, and how often you want players out of the fight for 6 months of recovery in how realistic you want it.
With firearms where you are hit is pretty much everything unless you get tagged with a bear-round or bigger.
>>46620328
Fluff isn't game design, chumbo.
But answering the question, if your theme is heavily tied to your mechanics mix them with sidebars of fluff in your mechanics section. Then put setting notes and whatnot in the GM section, which is in the back.
>>46619151
I seriously don't understand why physical hex-and-chit wargames exist anymore. Surely it's all so much easier as a videogame?
With models I can at least understand the aesthetic appeal.
So I think code up your idea and playtest it. Always always more playtesting, theorycrafting gets useless very quickly without new data.
Question:
I want players to have an asymptotic power level. I normally do this by having lots of mutually-exclusive, situational abilities that get you to a target power. Each one increases the percent of the time that you're at the target, but eventually most of your improvements are from "good enough already" to "perfect" so each step is worht less.
I'm doing a classless system (like very chunky feats) this time. My combat math needs a certain power level for attacks and for defense. Attacks are easy - 4E style powers do it trivially by making it so you can only use one attack at a time. Defenses are weird because some are passive (armor) and others are active (using a ranged attack). What are some ways to reconcile this?
>>46615417
I normally balance things with opportunity cost. You're supposed to get X much more powerful every option, the only downside is not picking one of the other things.
But I'm here today to ask a balance question so maybe I'm full of shit.
>>46620328
Opinions, but I'd do it in this order:
1 - Pitch / distinguishing features. What kind of experience is this going to be? What kind of person plays this instead of the other zillion systems?
2 - Ultra-condensed setting info. What sort of world is this? Be more precise than "fantasy" but don't start naming kingdoms. What sort of people are the characters? What are groups of characters, why do they work together, and what do they do?
3 - Core mechanics as needed to understand the game.
4 - Character creation.
5 - Character option / relevant fluff blocks. Always the same order (fluff then mechanics or vice versa).
6 - Whatever fluff isn't covered elsewhere.
>>46621113
the reason why is I've no programming skills. I just kind of like the feel for hex-and-chit even if the rules often get unwieldy
>>46619151
>1:1 scale for transport, so 1 point of truck can transport 1 point if Infantry I
So Infantry II needs 2 points of truck? That doesn't seem right.
>The same truck/AFV tokens can have appropriate infantry guns MOUNTED on to them
Is there a particular necessity for requiring multiple tokens to build a single thing? Since you're already using multiple tokens I don't see why you shouldn't make another token that specifically has tanks or whatever upgraded unit you're going to have.
>>46620328
I prefer a fluff introduction, then crunch with fluff peppered around it in small paragraphs or side boxes (but not mixed in with it, as that could result in ambiguity).
>>46620657
Look around for summaries of books that have a seafaring theme, then modify any ideas that pop out.
>>46621583
Good on you for replying while asking. As for the question itself though, maybe instead of calling them 'attacks' or 'defenses', call them an encompassing term like 'skills', then lump in any that requires 'activation' and use the same maths for all of them. Passive skills can then be handled differently.
Unless I'm understanding the question wrong, in which case I'd like clarification please.
So guys. Here is the draft of my system so far. It isn't too long and there is plenty of whitespace. I have only done the core rules so far but here is the brief features/goals list:
- Traits that change as you play
- Cinemactic Pulpy feel
- Tactical gameplay without tons of rules
- Stress/Damage mechanic that drives tension.
- "Pips" as a stunting mechanic for varied manuvers.
>>46614517
Feels a lot like a euro Neuroshima Hex at first glance. There's potential, as super simple games are getting popular recently, but I do think you need some sort of hook to seal the deal with. Of course, if the card balance is good and play is super tight, then you might not need one (eg. Jaipur). Have a look at Arboretum as well for ideas, as that game also has a very similar 'step-by-step' turn structure.
>>46623232
Hey my dude, I'm too sleepy to read this now but I WILL read it after work tomorrow and I WILL give you some feedback. If this thread isn't up, expect me in the next /gdg/.
>>46622928
>Good on you for replying while asking.
Eh, I usually answer first then post my question. This is strictly greedier than that, since I get to take credit.
>As for the question itself though ... Unless I'm understanding the question wrong, in which case I'd like clarification please.
The problem is that I need a method for taking mechanically diverse options and limiting how many a player has access to at once. (This is only a problem for combat - everything else is solved.)
I've already got the math down for making very different options balanced, but that breaks things down into attack and defense options. Some things you wouldn't normally consider defensive, like pushing attacks, are under the defense column. This probably sounds overly complex, but in my previous system I managed to entirely hide this from the player, so things just look magically balanced.
But that was a level-based system, so I just gave everyone +2 attack-equivalents and +2 defense-equivalents by hand.
I'm trying to do a feat-based system, but work out to the same (capped) numbers. But the only way I can think of to do this so far is to give everyone a bunch of "slots" for active attack, passive attack bonus, active defense, passive defense bonus, and only allow them to use one option of each type at a time. I'm not satisfied with this, because it's really gamey, and last time I managed to completely hide these system guts.
So the question is - what other ways can I use to cap a couple categories of player power at once?
>>46623998
Working on a similar problem (posted the veera PDF above). What im toying with is having a "pool" system. Kinda like dnd 4e. Each pool has a list of abilities, and some things you get upon entering the pool. So the pool "wizard" would give you a bunch of spells to choose from. Pools can come in tiers, each being more specialized than the last. So while there isn't massive prereq trees, you might not be able to take an advanced pool until you already have 5 abilties. A player can trade 2 abilities to open a new pool.
That way a player only needs to look at a small subset of pools, and might not even need to see the abilities in them if they are flavourful enough. They just need to say "I Want to be a Warlock who rides bears" and they know to go for the warlock and beastrider pool.
>>46623998
If you are open to randomization, you could introduce some form of hand management. A thought I had (which you might recognize as from Roll for the Galaxy) was roll several d6, 2-5 represents each respective category, 6 is a wild card, and 1 is either remove the dice or give it to the GM to roll for an enemy (they recover it afterwards). Then they can assign those results to feats. If no results are to their liking, spend one of any of the dice to change a die to their desired result.
This could result in some interesting outcomes, but I do admit that it doesn't hide the mechanic of 'some attacks are defensive' at all. You could further divide feats into 4 categories which mix together attack and defensive feats to obfuscate it.
The pool thing mentioned by >>46624190 also reminds me Terra Mystica's bowls of mana, which go around and only change bowls when the bowl overflows. Once it reaches the last bowl, only then you can use the mana to cast stuff. Maybe this can be reappropriated?
>>46624394
>>46624190
The mention of pools reminds me of Tome Of Battle and its maneuver recovery mechanics. Those are pretty clever, since they automatically mean you have a reason to use less perfect abilities as you go along. (But it's still pretty gamey feeling.)
Any idea for passives? Going with the Tome Of Battle analogy, I could use stances. But to have that cover both offensive and defensive slots separately, I need to make up a second name for the same mechanic. Like you can have both a Stance and a Grip. (And that works, but I'm hoping there's a better way.)
>>46624674
Why can't it simply be Stance (Offensive) Stance (Defensive)?
>>46624743
Feels weird to me to have two stances active at once.
But it's the same thing with less words.
I'm hoping there's a completely different way to resolve this that's less fiddly.
>>46624851
Oh, for some reason I thought they were exclusive.
In that case, Technique and Stance then? or Style and Stance?
>>46622928
the original concept being that it'd actually require less tokens, as anti-tank guns could be converted into AFV's, which could in turn convert into multiple tank types. But the idea was getting too out there so I've scrapped it for higher tier units having mech. Separate motor transport units can fill in gap in a pinch without undermining this anyways
inf II is just a nice way of saying LINE INFANTRY. The points value would be their unit strength - the number of strength tokens beneath the stack. Not sure if this is also getting a bit far out but w/e
>>46624976
If I have to go with this route, it's very likely to end up being something off the wall like Footing and Disposition to accommodate all the character options that are non-martial or not even combat-themed in the first place.
(Footing and Disposition is an exaggeration but not by much.)
Trying to find a decent way to build vehicles in the ORE system. This involves mechs, battle armor, jeeps, tanks, helicopters, and so forth.
Any ideas/suggestions?
>>46617130
complete homebrew for medieval fighting and optional fantasy elements, realism based. got a friend of mine who does HEMA to help me with stuff.
these additions only require to keep track of mana/stamina regeneration and taking some side notes for weapons, things like adding 5 rolls per average turn would be complicated. the way we made our system allows for loads of alternative tactics and relating RL knowledge to the game
>>46627722
Simple: do it like Monsters and Other Childish Things
1. Get/Draw a picture of your Vehicle
2. Circle the important bits
3. Say what each bit does and assign hit boxes to it
Aaaaand you're done.
>>46624982
Again, 'converting' would just be a simple matter of switching tokens. The only benefit this 'add-on tokens' thing would give is that you wouldn't run out of tokens for a particular unit (though you will run out of tokens of a particular part).
The upgrading stuff to new stuff or splitting a counter/token/chit into 2 new units is fine and possibly neat, but the benefits of combining multiple tokens into a single thing is minimal and clunky to do, and would only serve as rage fuel when someone inevitably bumps the table losing everything.
If you still want to do this though, I recommend a standee which lets you slot in stuff, anything to hold the multiple tokens in place and further accentuate the unit being formed instead of just putting lots of tokens onto a single (which I'd like to remind you is likely to be relatively small) hex. Maybe make them puzzle pieces or something.
Another bump
Where do I start if I want to design board games? How many games do I need to have played?
I feel like this is something I'd love to do but I'm lost.
>>46633297
The more games the better.
Best place to start is to either start with an idea for a mechanic that you have, and figure out what fits it best; or think about what kind of game you want to make, and start thinking about mechanics that fit it. Eventually, you'll come to a point where you'll have a list of ideas that you can whittle down into fitting the game.
>>46513253
Can you give a recommended reading list for game design and the like?
>>46623232
It's >>46623743 reporting in, here's what I think as I read it:
>1d12 is gooing to give you a lot of random, swingy results ala DnD, so make sure that's what you want
>the difference between red "situation is dangerous" and black "situational hazards" dice isn't very clear
>you might want to rephrase pip spending from lowering difficulty to adding to total; this is mathematically easier and more consistent with negative pips subtracting from the total
>if you're using pips to activate special abilities, you need to be extra careful about balancing your numbers; Edge of the Empire failed at this and most special weapon properties are useless
>depending on how you assign dice colors, black counting as red might massively imbalance things
>also red dominating gives an abstract negative while white gives a lesser concrete positive; might want to make that consistent
>adding risk is almost certainly a bad idea given that increasing the likelihood it will dominate puts you at the mercy of the GM
>"While you don’t normally make checks using your character’s level, a higher persona
enables you to gain better abilities." What is persona?
>I think the trait depletion rules are a little too complex and could be trimmed down - maybe they start at 3 (or whatever) after a long rest, and every time they affect a roll their score decreases by 1 until it's fully depleted?
>I'd like more clarity on flags
>I didn't see how to calculate stress/wound limit, but I like your consequence system
>I like the idea of the group sheet, it feels more freeform than asking each individual to pick a relationship with the player to their right, but it should probably come after character creation
>your stat generation allows a character to almost max one of their stats at creation, which you might not want
>I like the traits idea, but your example for background is a little muddy; "being a doctor" is pretty similar to first aid
cont.
>>46637312
>I won't bother with the class stuff since it's just paceholder, but I think you should choose between "the expected" mage/thief/fighter or something more exotic
>I like the idea of an "encounter difficulty" adding extra dice to all rolls
>you might just want to crib range bands from Edge of the Empire or similar RPGs, I know Numenera has a simple system
>prepared actions, I assume once the trigger condition happens the prepared action does not cost one of your two actions per turn? Otherwise what's the point?
Overall bretty gud, I'd be interested to see how it develops. My own game I'm working on has some similar elements (but I don't have a fancy PDF) so watching us grow apart might be neat.
>>46637312
Thank you for the feedback!
1. I am going for somewhat swingy, though I hope to make it up with abilities later on.
2. Red dice are supposed to increase your chance of success, while also increasing your chance of consequence. So your character is more awesome in stressful situations, but there is likely cost associated. Black dice are purely negative.
3. It is true that it might be more consistent to make pips add to total. I did find it somewhat easier to subtract on the fly than I did add though. I will try changing it.
4. I am assuming that half of all pips will be spent on abilities and balancing the numbers accordingly.
5. I do need to do play-testing for black counting as red. I probably should change white dominating to a less concrete thing as well.
6. Adding risk does make it more likely to put you at the mercy of the GM. However it increases your chances of success/uses of abilities over all. Going to have it so you can always take stress to avoid being at the mercy of the GM so it is more encouraged. However that is an intentional design.
7. Persona was what level used to be called. Will correct the typo, and clarify wording on flags. There is more stuff on flags on the group sheet.
8. Marking traits is meant to be for moments where your character is in a pinch. Using a character's motivation as way to shrug off wounds, or give them a momentary extra boost. Imagine a knight resisting fire that would normally kill him to save his sister.
9. You start with a stress and wound limit of 6. It is currently just on the character creation sheet.
10. The idea is that backgrounds are more nebulous. Picking "doctor" would make you good at first aid, but also at talking to doctors, knowing the layout of a hospital or knowing how medical equipment works.
Pardon the wall of text. Your feedback is really helpful, and I will definitely make changes!
>>46637554
And yep. You keep an ongoing trigger prepared, and it doesn't cost anything extra when it goes off.
>>46633297
You can always stand to play more games, and more varied ones. You should especially make sure to play games that /tg/ would consider pretentious, to expand your palette, and minimalist games, because those are harder to design and easier to examine.
I would recommend Mysterium, Codenames, Bunny Bunny Moose Moose, Bandu, and String Railway for games that are well-designed and feature concepts you're unlikely to see on /tg/. I'd also recommend Condotierre on sheer merit.
And read good game design postmortems. I recommend the full design diaries for Dominion - DXV really does a good job of explaining the considerations going into things. Also if you dig through the archives of this guy's blog - mightyvision.blogspot.com.au - you get get some good insights.
Finally - good design takes practice and reflection, and there's no substitute for those. But you can totally munchkin your practice sessions by cranking out minimalist games.
>NORMAL DOORS: Doors in a dungeon are usually closed, and are often stuck or locked. A lock must usually be picked by a thief. An unlocked door must be forced open to pass through it. To force open a door, roll Id6; a result of 1 or 2 (on Id6) means that the door is forced open. The roll should be adjusted by a character's Strength score adjustment. The number needed to open a door can never be less than 1 nor greater than 1-5.
Wouldn't this make it harder to open a door? Adding the modifier would make the chances of a roll being 1 or 2 much more unlikely if not impossible?
>>46639956
Maybe forced open is different from opening it normally.
>>46639956
Yeah, that should be backwards. As it is now, being strong means less likely to open a door.
>>46639956
...It's roll under.
>>46642571
this
What interesting ways have everyone seen skill checks done?
Is freestyle rapping to perform an action or check as stupid as it sounds? thinking of homebrewing a really shitty hip-hop fantasy rpg.
>>46648014
It is as stupid as it sounds. I love it. Make this game. Make the shit out of this game.
>>46648014
Seconding >>46648089, do it.
You could also maybe steal the mechanic from "Jazz: the Singing Card Game" where you take turns to play cards with words, and you say/"sing" all played cards so far before playing a new one.
>[DRAGON FOREST]
Still working on this. It's getting there.
I don't have the introduction ready yet though. Still working on shaping the meat together before I stick the buns on.
>>46648014
It's brilliant but you need to think a little more boardgame and find some specific mechanics to judge results and, more importantly, force the game to give people prompts.
I made that sound more rigid than I meant.
I mean like there's a deck of required subjects or words, and the GM passes you a stack of appropriate ones for the task at hand, and you have to work them all in to your rap. And you're only allowed to look at the next one in the stack until you mention it, so you don't know if they threw a curveball in there to increase the check difficulty until it comes up.
>>46649601
You changed the name? Not feeling too great about this
>>46649601
Why the cards?
So here's a rough draft of the basic rules.
>>46651930
My initial critique is to stop comparing it to other games in the mechanics. Don't say it's simple, or say that your system 'unlike other systems doesn't use target numbers'. Just say what the mechanics are. The comparisons are just wasted words, or you trying to convince me that your game is better than a hypothetical other product.
>>46649601
I like what you're going for with the graphic design (something about the new title page reminds me of Dark Souls), but something about the body typography scale just seems a little off - too much leading.
I'm interested in running a political intrigue campaign, but am unsure how to run it.
I'd like players to be able to work against each other, and pursue their own selfish goals. I was thinking the players would start as advisers for a duke to give you an idea of the scale i had in mind. Any tips?
