[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Game Design General - /gdg/
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /tg/ - Traditional Games

Thread replies: 316
Thread images: 56
Formerly /hbg/ - or Homebrew General.

Last Thread: >>44487019

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.

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.

>Thread Topic:
What are your general thoughts on implementing set classes for players, and what's your approach when dealing with them?

Useful Links:
>/tg/ and /gdg/ specific

>Project List:

>Online Play:

>RPG Stuff:

>Dice Rollers

>Tools and Resources:

>Design and Layout
File: 1435802883523.jpg (421 KB, 744x1044) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
421 KB, 744x1044
good luck anons
Cross posting some unanswered questions from last thread

Also to clarify, it's +1d4 to attack or +1 damage for each bullet.
I like your combat idea just because mixing dice is a mechanic i'm fond of for some reason and it doesn't seem very hard to follow

your grid, on the other hand, is a bit too complicated for my taste
Is there anything for CCG design?
I'd use it, depending on how combat is handled. I usually like light out of combat, in-depth in combat. But that's just me. All I'm saying is there's probably a market assuming you have supplements to expand it a al GURPS. That's honestly the best part about it.
Why should I spend countless hours making and refining my game when I'll never be able to make money from it and do it as a career?

Aside from having a personal system that is viewed to have no flaws
Maybe damage could be something like "stages" like you have 3-4 "stages" each with penalties, and for every successful hit you move a stage, and if you get over twice toughness they move 2? Players can choose to go down early to avoid being killed, because it kind of sucks to have your guy go down from a lucky swing.

Removing dodge from ranged attacks seems kind of OP, you can make it easier on yourself by maybe requiring them to be able to move or something? So it's less modifiers for attack rolls and an immobile target is a sitting duck.
Well I know I need to do grid based to do a proper Tactics game. Unless anyone knows how to do Tactical Combat without a proper field to work off of. I like grid based in general because it makes it easy to know exactly who is where, where different objects are in relation to each other and the like. Helps prevent "no I was standing by the door" or "I wouldn't have walked over that trap".
>What are your general thoughts on implementing set classes for players?

It depends on how freeform/restricted you want the game to be. 3.5 and 4e DND both have set classes but the differences between the spell/combat systems meant a world of difference in supporting character concepts vs supporting game balance.

Personally I prefer strictly defined classes. I like class skill trees in the style of FFG Star Wars, or classes that can branch into different archetypes (think 4e but done better). Meanwhile I hate multiclassing with a passion. It only seems to encourage asshole minmaxers and create headaches for the DMs trying to rein them in.
Gonna try to get in on the ground floor of this one --

Posting a repeat invitation from the last thread for anyone that wants to try out a really really big, complete system. I'll list the main points.

>Downloads section

>Current version is 0.3, but 0.4 is coming relatively soon
>PDF is ~250 pages
>There are some premade character packs also on the dev blog
>There are some structured playtests also on the dev blog
>System is rules-heavy, only crunch (though there is some fluff injected to exhibit how the crunch works)
>System is high game, moderate simulation, low narrative

Currently working on expanding mundane combat. Essentially, I was unhappy with the idea that a player buys Basic Combat Proficiency, buys Advanced Combat Proficiency, buys some Advanced Maneuvers, masters them, and then they are done. I wanted players who wanted to focus on mundane combat to go deeper, so I'm working on Paragon Maneuvers and Elite Maneuvers.

>Paragon Maneuvers
These work by isolating a group of five similar, or themed, Advanced Maneuvers in each Expertise, and providing ~3 Paragon Maneuvers that become accessible once a character has all five prerequisites and masters them fully. This, in total, is a Paragon Style, and there are three styles per Expertise.

>Elite Maneuvers
Same sort of non-CAP progression as above, but the prerequisite for these are that the character can use every single Advanced Maneuver in an Expertise (all 25). Then, they are provided with a few 25 CAP Elite Maneuvers that are kind of a, insane, cinematic, penultimate display of the Expertise.

Here is a link to what will be the Mundane Combat Expansion doc... Keep in mind that the system as a whole is still under construction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H5o0BV3z0QDTAnBBMZ9cS9EN3jRJlyM4jwc26IeUovY/edit?usp=sharing

Will respond to thread topic tomorrow, too tired now.
IMO what you wrote after "Aside from" is the only thing that matters. I'd venture to say that most of us just genuinely enjoy designing games, even if only our friends play them.
Thing is I'm an unemployed/unemployable NEET
So, aside from

What other skill are "needed" for a squad tactics game? I was thinking something like reflexes and leadership, but one could fall under agility and the other could be a whole-squad stat. Is it worth it to split them?
Mostly so I can have the game I've always wanted to play.

If someone came out with it RIGHT NOW I'd drop what I was doing and buy it.
I think Reflexes could certainly fall under Agility. There is an argument that Leadership could fall under the purview of Knowledge.

What about Explosives? I feel like that skill set could be different enough from Firearms and Melee for it to be its own thing. That also creates an avenue for someone to create an "explosives expert" which, with little investigation, sounds cool off the cuff.
Fuck, I always forget explosives! Thank you you beautiful person you.
No prob. My brain also leapt to a "breaching" sort of skill set, but I feel that sits pretty comfortably within Knowledge... Like knowing how to enter a room, where the targets will likely be, how to assess and locate the best cover quickly, etc.

Do you have anything online yet that I could look at? I love the idea of a squad based tactics game.

Also, some real life research for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop
Maybe you could do Knowledge for like abstract things that you know (potential for Leadership to be here) and then have another skill called Tactics for procedural knowledge like breaching, positioning, etc.
I need a very fast and simple but still interesting way to have fleets of spaceships fight.
Got our first batch of rulebooks printed! Tomorrow's our first session with this edition. My buddy is writing a quick one-shot adventure for it.
>Knowledge and Tactics
That's a good idea, I'm not sure what I'd use Tactics for, maybe reflex and things like that?

And the links I posted earlier are all I have online atm, honestly I just got back to the system the other day after a while hiatus to work on All Around the Fireside. I have a sample weapon chart, and a WIP character sheet and a sample enemy (Type Z-9 Lether-gen Infectee) but those are all one actual paper.
Nice, I am just getting into contact with a few friends and we are debating on digital or print.
So what do you guys use to format and publish the rules you write?
Scribus or something else?

What is your preferred workflow?
What are you planning to do?
with a TTRPG, it's ok if only one gaming group is playing your homebrew, good luck distributing a fucking cardgame. Even a deck-building game is kindof doable, but a CCG? how many people are ever going to play? 2?
Some of us are hoping to make it big in the world of tabletop gaming.
Alright, are you, in addition to being a game designer, a graphic designer. You're gonna need one of those if you plan on selling a CCG.
File: Vanguard Final.png (2 MB, 1200x1200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Vanguard Final.png
2 MB, 1200x1200
Me, personally? No. But I'm working on a wargame, and my artist is putting out quality shit, as you can see.
Link to my play by post pseudoHex based wargame
psuedo only because hex is not necessary, any discreet node location map will work
Mechanic Inspiration : MTG and RPS101
Inspired By: Erfworld
The last part i didn't write, was heavy DM involvement through Player surveys, and during in game spell development
That is pretty great. Color me, as an artist, impressed. But by graphic designer, I meant someone who can manage card layouts and all of the design other than the card art. These are things that any CCG needs to have if it wants to stand out from the crowd. The cards need to look good beyond having good artwork and you need a hell of a printer.
When it comes to card games and being successful, looking good is as important to sales as the rules are.
Interestingly enough, I'm actually planning on publishing a lot of the material for my game in card format(taking a page out of X-Wing's book) but also making the cards important to the wargame, not just ways to list upgrades.
What works best for a science-fantasy (admittedly Star Wars-esque) game:
D100 or Roll and Keep
D100 allows for more precise stats, but R+K makes results less random. Not sure what would feel better in a space fantasy setting as I haven't played R+K myself.
Fishing for opinions on an idea I've just had

So in this game, we have all sorts of cards; a Commander for your force, special pilots for your mechs, Rigs(basically loadouts) for those same mechs, various artillery batteries, minefields, and infantry forces that can hang out in their trench and then leave later.

I've been thinking this whole time in terms of doing it the same as X-Wing, where you have all your cards face up and your opponent can see exactly what he's up against at a glance, But what if you could keep your cards face down until they became relevant to the game. Fluffwise, your opponent won't necessarily know who your commander is until he recognizes their signature strategy, and he wouldn't know who your mecha pilots are until their unique abilities/tactics start showing through, and you won't know what's in the enemy artillery battery until they fire.

So does being able to keep this all secret and slowly having to figure out what list the enemy's running over the course of the game seem like a neat dynamic to you?

(If I do this, the Chivalrous Knightly faction will have a commander who makes you play with all your cards face up in exchange for certain advantages.)
I'm working on a hybrid TTRPG/CCG and i've been teaching myself how to use InDesign and Photoshop with youtube tutorials to get over the graphic designer hump. I feel like my messy prototypes will work well enough as a design doc if I ever try to go professional.
is it solely cards or is there a battlefield or board or minis or something as well?
There is a battlefield with miniatures, but a lot of stuff, referred to as Support choices, affects the battlefield from offsite, primarily your Commander and any Artillery you decide to take.
File: 1449969431940.jpg (133 KB, 900x1386) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
133 KB, 900x1386
What are some systems with good examples of gunplay? I hear gurps is supposed to have good gunplay but I'm not really sure which splat to flip through.
Then I like your idea, but i feel like those face-down cards would need to be fairly generic in their effects in order to not give them away immediately? It would be fun to play a reconnaissance-based faction though to see the opponent's face-downs.
The idea is that they'll flip face up the moment you use them. Like, you fire a battery of rifled muzzleloaders, your opponent now knows you have at least three RMLs, but he's wondering what those other two artillery pieces you have cards for are.

The idea of recon as a unique ability is a good one, and I'll probably give it to Nzemya, the nation of Communist Romani Zulus in power armor.
So your making Stratego?
While I've never heard of Stratego before, it does seem like the creators were thinking along the same lines is me. But turn it into a company scale dieselpunk wargame with mecha, rather than a generic game of capture the flag.
>never heard of Stratego

what your the gameplay goal? utter opponent destruction?
I'm just gonna throw this idea at you because I've had it floating around for a while now and don't have a project to use it on.

So, for a tabletop RPG, you have a section of the book that's just sihlouettes for various common positions people will be found in(prone, crouching, standing at ready, standing at rest, sitting at a desk, etc.)

When you want to shoot a gun, you don't have modifiers to hit or to miss, but rather modifiers that affect how far off target your bullet will go; you combine this with a directional die like the Scatter Die used in Warhammer 40k, so you roll a scatter die and whatever die you're basing your system on, then adjust the number for all the relevant modifiers, and that's how far off your initial point of aim the bullet scatters. Distance from the target could be used as a modifier(long range doubles scatter, while close range cuts it in half, etc) and stuff like wind, bullet drop, and the coriolis effect(for long range shooting) could apply directional modifiers.

It sounds complex at first, but it seems like it might actually be a more intuitive system than most gunplay. Rather than abstract "hit" or "miss" you can figure out exactly where your bullet went, while cover is as easy to add as sliding a piece of paper over the bottom half of the silhouette to represent a waist high wall. Shooting at multiple targets, you could just have some sihlouettes on transparent projector sheets so they can be placed next to each other rather than one per page, and so on and so forth.

It's just an idea I've had sitting around for a while but haven't had a game to fit it; do with it what you will.
Sounds fun, works for bluffing certain strategies then swapping it out for the one you intended, and also works fluffwise. I say go for it. You should probably add a few rules on determining when to reveal your cards, I imagine it could be hard if each of them has multiple abilities.

It could also get problematic if you're aiming for tournaments to be viable, due to needing to inspect the lists for balance, as well as spectators and such.
Since it's trench warfare, you're trying to capture the enemy trench. Mecha aren't good at this because they have limited operational times before they run out of power/overheat, so infantry are still critical to capturing territory. Which means the most common means of victory will be moving as many infantry models as possible into the enemy trench to gain victory points. You rely on your mecha to support and escort the infantry.
I figure tournaments could solve it by having each player add up the other player's list after the game is over, or at least giving players the right to demand to see all the other player's cards.
you just belittled Stratego's capture the flag, and your gameplay is capture the point?
File: mole.jpg (40 KB, 620x368) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
40 KB, 620x368
>Trench warfare with mechs
Saying "I have fluff instead of being generic" isn't belittlement, it's just that this is a wargame rather than a board game, and wargame players want more than an abstract battle. They tend to be at least as invested in the fluff as the rules.

Don't tell me you don't want a Art Deco Knight mech with rockets and a giant hammer facing down against an Egyptian sarcophagus armed for war with tesla coils and lightning cannons.
That would basically invalidate (don't know if that's the word I want) the commander idea you had for the chivalrous knight faction though, which would be a shame. Of course this problem only really matters for tournaments, in casual play it wouldn't really matter. You could put it in the back seat this early in development for now, but having a plan ready for when it comes up should be a good idea.
fluff makes mechanics more generic
abstract makes gameplay way more unique

if this is a quick setup game players will be just as if not less invested than in Statego

play Stratego against a competent opponent and report back

>Don't tell me you don't want a Art Deco Knight mech with rockets and a giant hammer facing down against an Egyptian sarcophagus armed for war with tesla coils and lightning cannons.
visual fluff is a crutch for hollow gameplay
>Don't tell me you don't want a Art Deco Knight mech with rockets and a giant hammer facing down against an Egyptian sarcophagus armed for war with tesla coils and lightning cannons.

I feel like the entire point of trench warfare is that you can't leave the trench without getting blown to shit. What's the point of digging a trench if an enemy mech can just fly over/dig under the no-man's land into your trench?
I have an iron age set in the ice age thing I am working on, going to run it on rollz.net soon. It will be centered on cold weather survival and exploration, run in GURPS. Still looking for one player so if anyone is interested they can join.
Wall of text incoming:

Before the world froze over and killed off most of the human population it was filled with thriving civilizations that were at the technological level of the early middle ages,
however most of the kingdoms and empires went extinct with the coming of winter, while the remnants of the old world huddled together and migrated to southern warmer lands, lead by aristocrats.
After many years of travel searching for habitable land in the cruel and frozen world that came to be they found a large crater that was always warm (there are underground geysiers at the place of the crater keeping it warm and fertile.)
and they settled there. As time went by their population grew and they proclaimed themselves the city-state of Propirgonia. As the climate grew more forgiving they ventured out into the world as explorers and colonists, finding a warm sea to the north,
great elk forests to the east and southeast and an unforgiving plain of ice that covered the whole south, making any travel southward difficult and deadly. The elk forests were inhabited by wildmen split into many small tribes the size of villages and they often
warred amongst eachother over land, family squabbles or tradition. The wildmen knew not of agriculture until the arrival of the Propirgonians who carried it from the old world, and soon agriculture spread across the continent. Beyond the great icy waste of the south
to the southwest was a large tribe of people in the middle of nowhere called Karstzeme. The people were goatfarmers and tended to livestock while they lived off of the geysiers in the area using them for heat and working the fertile land around them.

to the far southeast was a immensley large tribe of slit-eyed people called Oristeri who used mammoths as livestock and as beasts of war. They cannot conquer the north due to the great track of ice between them (their mammoths would starve) so they simply trade mammoth
pelts at extortionate prices. The Propirgonians spread across the shores of the warm sea working the land next to it which was rich, and soon their city state grew into a very large empire, that ranged from the western ice wastes to the eastern elk forests. When the
Propirgonian borders grew to the elk forests they started subjugating the wildmen that lived there, using them mostly as slaves and cutting down their trees en masse as they had land that was favorable enough for agriculture. Many wildmen were also used as mercenaries
or slave warriors as they were great in number and their men willing to fight. Once the colonies in the east grew too large to control from the Capital they delegated the work to a dictator named Perequs. Perequs was a general that conquered most of the elk forests under Propirgonian
domain and knew the land quite well. After the current emperor of Propirgonia died the dictator attempted to take the empire for himself with no bloodline heir to claim the throne his, the defense of Propirgonia was left to the beurocracy. Perequs waged a bloody war attempting to take over
Propirgonia but failed, only siezing the eastern colonies and the eastern shoreline of the warm sea. A truce was signed and the second empire was born, dubbed Profilakia. In the aftermath of the imperial war one of the many traitor generals that was cast out into the wilderness to die by Propirgonia
managed to survive long enough to travel to the untamed elk forests where wildmen were still free of the subjugation of the empire. This general formed a band of adventurers and educated them in Propirgonian tactics which were far superior to their undisciplined ways. (cont)
>What's the point of digging a trench if an enemy mech can just fly over/dig under the no-man's land into your trench?
...these aren't anime mechs. They're about four meters tall and fairly slow. They essentially replace tanks in this world, but I chose them for coolness factor and because they provide for more interesting visuals.


Take a gander at my rules and see if you still think they'll be hollow. If so, please point out where they fall short, because I know there's plenty of issues.

But I'm not really concerned with comparing my game to Stratego. They share some elements, but if someone wants to play Stratego, they'll just play Stratego. The two games have very different audiences.
File: DERATAIR.png (276 KB, 761x909) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
276 KB, 761x909
and started subjugating the wildmen tribes,
harshly punishing internal squabbles over tradition or culture that came from the newly conquered tribes, preaching unification on an ethnic basis. Some tribes were happy with this while many were discontent, but he formed a professional army to help keep the tribal confederation from falling apart. Within nine years
his great tribe of Deratairish became a force to be reckoned with, greatly outnumbering the northen empires in sheer manpower. The tribal confederation has proved to be a great thorn in the backside of Profilakia, often sending armies to aid tribes that the eastern empire is trying to conquer, thus slowing down their growth.
Many times it served as an accidental ally to the western Propirgonian empire who still have a strong rivalry with Profilakia.

Technology has degenerated somewhat from the old age, and now the technology of the early iron age is the norm. Reincarnationism is the dominant religion of the land, but it slightly differs from culture to culture. With no strict set of laws reinforcing religion and with no heads to lead it it is not as influential as the abrahamic
religions were, this is however also a negative thing since the positive effects of the coming of christianity/judaism/zoroastrianism/islam are not present, ie; there is no force upholding virtues such as kindness at a moral level or even 'thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill' and the like. Kindness is extended to immediate family and close friends in this setting, and
it is quite uncommon from strangers, and it is viewed as a debt to be payed, but it is also valued far more and materially even.

map related. the bright blue stuff is ice, the northern blue stuff is the warm sea.

what do you think /tg/?
I took a gander

At best i can say it is undeveloped and haphazard, especially the core gameplay unique to your game
The way its worded Units move EXACTLY their move distance, no more no less, when they can by available movement order card (instant turn off)
If the cards available in an order deck are in the "orders document", are consumable, and recycled each turn, I have warning lights going off for "CHANCE BASED ORDERS"
It looks like a Chance based Escort Quest, but will take far longer to learn, than to play an entire game your "target" already knows how to play (Quick indoc is important), and will take far longer to play than will be fun due to chance based mechanics (Risk, Monopoly, etc)
There are plenty of references to undeveloped things(no big deal, i know its a work in progress)
I don't know if players move their own infantry, and when infantry move (along with mechs?)
I don't know where scoring tables are
To be honest I'm having trouble actually following turn structure's written connection to the orders deck and d12

Generally with a escort quest, You can effectively win by:

allowing the opponent to get a number of units into your trench, without getting any into theirs
Using your inherent field advantage, destroy all but a few of their units
Keep their isolated units unable to progress with crowd control (or deduct their points if able through capture of these units)
Walk your remaining units unattested to their trench for victory

>resolves into progress quest with dice and dec randomization
wargames turn me off with their chance nonsense, your pseudo-wargame is no different
abstract and discreet state without constant randomization is always better
>Units move EXACTLY their move distance
Whoops, wording error, gotta fix that.

>On Order cards
It's nothing more than a way of planning your actions secretly from your opponent, like X-Wing's maneuver dials.

>I don't know where scoring tables are
Oh, those are a reference to something I eliminated a while back. I have comments enabled on all the documents; could you put a comment on where I mentioned them so I can get rid of that.

>wargames turn me off with their chance nonsense
Gonna have to discount your opinions in general, then, just because if you don't like wargames you probably won't like whatever wargame I finally end up with.

Thanks for the read through, but you obviously don't want what I'm making.
>Oh, those are a reference to something I eliminated a while back.
>eliminated scoring
>mentions scoring In how to win
>mentions scoring In this thread
Then how do you determine a winner?

>Gonna have to discount your opinions in general, then, just because if you don't like wargames...
dude I wrote this one
I don't like you giving handouts to the gods of chance, they don't need it
I got rid of scoring tables, which were a complicated way to get points, and just went for infantry scoring points.
I've been working on optional rules to add distinctiveness to the 10 Megacorportations in SR5 through what the players interact with the most: Their gear.

SR is basically a shopping simulator, so I figure that if the gear itself gives meta-information about the setting, it would help? It also gives some mechanical consistancy for the NPC'S gear.

It's a bit clunky right now, but I'll post it here for feedback, opinions and suggestions in case some of you are familiar with the system.

There's two sheets.


Just wanted to point out that "Stratego With Mechs" exist. What Anon is saying, sir Trenchbreak, is that Stratego is OLD AS SHIT and that it survived the decenies through being an actually good game, and the visuals are simply a context on which to project the mechanics.

The common "modern" commercial iteration was piggybacking the same setting as "Risk" because it's easy marketing. The original game was setup in the animal kingdom and shit.

So far from what we can read is that you're essentially using a game system to promote a theme, rather than making a theme promote your system...

Tell me anon, have you ever heard of the term "Ameritrash"?

If not, you might want to research it? That's basically what Anon is being afraid of here >>44580147 & >>44580291
Any help? Really scratching my brain here, I tend to make things way too complex.

I didn't really mean to hide by implication the re-skinning of boardgames, I thought it was common knowledge

Fuck, monopoly does it on a weekly basis
Have you figured out the infantry issue yet? I'll always be here, waiting.
File: 121.png (116 KB, 279x308) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
116 KB, 279x308
>A million silhouette cards, the game

Only works for human, too. I think just using a normal standing silhouette would work just fine and letting a person' imagination do the rest.

Or use a phone app and 3D models.
Just play X-Wing
X wing is tactical, I'm trying to develop a grand strategy game.
...and we were supposed to know that how?
From your initial post I thought you wanted a mechanic to roll out fkeet battles in a few minutes not a whole game.
I thought it was understood, from "Fleets of spaceships have fast simple fight"

X-Wing has fighter squadrons, not fleets. Essentially, I want some way to have star destroyer and other capital ships in fleets fight it out, with the game being more about where you move your fleets and such than the battles themselves, without it being "you have 29 ships, he has 30, he wins" And also not star wars.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Yes exactly. The game is about maneuvering to protect your stuff and take the opponents, with fleet battles being less common, and hard to make decisive (although if you go all out, you may reap big rewards but with a big risk alongside).

Also, since actions could be anything from catching a couple of cruisers trying to nail one of your colonies to slugging it out over the enemy homeworld with your battlefleets, ideally it would be able to handle both somehow.

I'm in the very early planning stages here, so I don't have much worked out yet, and I'm trying to avoid my typical overcomplexity.
Ever played Eclipse?

It's a better, streamlined, boardgame version of Master Of Orion
Just play Armada

Never heard of it. Who publishes it?
Infantry now get replaced if they die or score.
Fantasy Flight
>wargames turn me off with their chance nonsense, your pseudo-wargame is no different
I disagree with your aggressive method of voicing your opinion about games of random chance and how abstract and discreet is better. Harsh words and dismissive statements are hardly the only ways to recommend better mechanics.

Would you mind giving a few examples of a grand strategy game to look at for inspiration and ideas?
Can they still do jack shit against mechs, making everyone wonder why anyone bothers with them in the first place?

Your core issue, which you've just blustered past so far, is that infantry have no reason to exist.

The game is about getting infantry to the enemy trench, so they can fight the enemy infantry I guess. But why bother, because the enemy infantry can't do anything to the mechs. And if you do capture the trench...what do the infantry do, wait to get raped to death by enemy mechs?

You should. It was rated #1 game on BoardGameGeeks for quite a while.
Diplomacy kinda fits, although this game is less about the actual diplomacy part. I know there are others but I'm beat and can't think of any atm.
I think it's difficult if not impossible to handle both battle scales in detail.
That said, most space wargames are just sea wargames in space, so you might want to start there. Ganesha games has a simple ruleset for ship combat, iirc galleys and gallons.
>I think it's difficult if not impossible to handle both battle scales in detail.

Yes it is pretty difficult. Especially if you also take space stations and such into account. Ah well, I'll keep thinking about it.
One method would be to divide them into different mini games. Have one part of the game be solely about fleet battle management, representing the battles in the frontlines as damaged ships retreat and new ships are moved into position, while the other represents the political aspect, trading territories when certain ships are defeated, or certain goals accomplished. The fluff justification could be something like a "neverending fleet battle that continues at length, with reinforcements shuffling in to replace defeated troops, battle lines shifting every minute, and all the while political intrigue happens in the background".

Basically like playing Star Wars: Armada at the same time as TI3, and having both games influence each other somehow.

A simpler method would of course be to focus on one aspect and simplify the other. Something like using battle cards that have fluff in addition to its effects to simulate how the fleet battles go down, or have deckbuilding representing the political aspect.
What do you think of the idea of using 3 dice to determine action resolution?

skill+attribute+tool quality ranging from a coin to a d12
I'd be surprised if that hadn't been done before. Without putting much thought into it, it looks fun.
If I am gonna go for fudge ( opposed rolls and against DC ), how should I handle character ability scores ( was thinking of {-4,4} range ), or should I just sweep them under a rug and use something else?
Forgot to add: skills are static values.
I had idea of doing skill rolls as 4dF+skill+1/2 attribute, but not so sure. It might end up with bit too little variance.
Good morning, replying to keep it alive and bumped.

>Classes in TTRPGs

Personally, I don't like them. I feel like they provide for an elegance in game design, but overall make a game less fun than it could be. There's also an argument for the simplicity, that having classes simplifies the process of character creation and gameplay - My opinion is they certainly do simplify things, but that simplicity can be sacrificed for fun. There's also a question of rules saturation. I think classes are fine in games that aim to be rules-light.

In TLB, I sort of use a hybrid. Characters are built using points from the ground up, but there are several "packages" that a player can purchase and inject into their character. Take Templar for example, a package which costs somewhere around 100 CAP in total (if the character buys some Prayers with it). That's 1/5 of the total points available to build a character, so they still have points for Attributes, Combat, et al. A lot of my players will identify themselves this way ("Oh, I'm a Templar"), but one Templar can be, and usually will be, radically different from another,

All in all, I prefer no classes to classes, but if implemented carefully, neither is a better option than the other.
File: Tabletop...jpg (2 MB, 4928x3264) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
2 MB, 4928x3264
What are some good basic rules for designing war games? Is a roll under system generally preferable to a roll over one?
>What are some good basic rules for designing war games?
Depends on the kind of game.
>Is a roll under system generally preferable to a roll over one?
Imo it is just important to keep it consistent.
Going for the higher numbers could lead to a bit of book keeping and math depending on what you do with the rolls though.
So you guys are not interested in talking about publishing your rules I take it?
Not too many of us have the know how to start publishing anything unfortunately, especially since many projects are still in development. Drop a link or two if you have anything, we could add it to the OP or something.
I would discuss it, but I have nothing to do with the graphic design of my PDF. A guy in my group does it, and I think he uses Adobe InDesign or something like that.
>Imo it is just important to keep it consistent.

Yeah, that's a lot the problem so far, I want to keep it consist but what works for some works better for other.

right now I'm going for the roll under but high as possible system which seems to work well for opposing rolls.
What do you guys think about attribute systems? I feel like 4-5 stats is optimal. More than that is really hard to balance powerwise and it is really hard to make all stats interesting. Like I have no idea how to make endurance/constitution fun.
>Like I have no idea how to make endurance/constitution fun

Just fold it into strength con into a single score. It's a waste of a stats if con just does hit point and endurance checks and hitters are going to need the extra hp any way.
What do you guys think about skirmish wargaming? Do you see it as tactical and with a lot of depth?

I've seen that some games have huge amount of tactical possibilities, like Infinity for example. And others which are based around combos (for example Warmahordes), that have a lot of tacticallity in that aspect but not really in other stuff.

Do you think fantasy/medieval/ancient wargames, with their focus on melee, can be made really tacticaL?

What about stuff like Mordheim, but with a tactical edge?
The problem is that sometimes it's nice to have a roll under and a roll over, or roll high mechanic at the same time.

Imagine Warhammer for example, it has a roll high in attack-type stuff, and roll under in attribute checks. If they didn't have the roll under, they'd have to have a standard 'difficulty class' for stuff. I guess it could work though
I'd say medieval era stuff is doable. If you can't rely on ranged weapons to cover large areas, you can go the opposite and make cramped spaces, with plenty of hiding spots. Focus on terrain and being able to affect them. The key thing though is to either discourage 1-on-1 battles in order for there to be less 'trade hits until one dies' type duels, or make them more interesting, so that 1-on-1 fights are just as tactical as the rest of the game.
I say go with both but I've had more success with print.
I use six attribute, 3 physical (Strength, Agility, Stamina) and 3 mental (Intelligence, Willpower, Awareness).

In terms of making them interesting, I just try to make sure they all do something unique at every level of the game. For my project, Attributes are actually the skeleton Parent-Child system for the entire game - You can trace literally everything in the game back to an Attribute eventually.

Now, to balance, I go to ambiguous levels and investigate what each attribute does.

Derived Attributes and resources - Intelligence governs learning rate (important in a point build system), Willpower governs a character's favor with his or her god, but even if they don't have any priestly abilities, it still partially governs how easily they are stunned or rendered unconscious.

A level deeper, into combat - Strength governs any weapon that the character can swing, and how much damage they deal with any weapon whatsoever. It can also determine how well they block with a shield or weapon. Agility governs any weapon that the character thrusts, and it also determines how well they can parry and evade. Awareness determines how well a character shoots a bow an arrow.

Going sideways a level, I have packages, or sort-of-classes - Willpower largely governs Priestcraft, Intelligence largely governs Alchemy, Stamina largely governs Conqueror (the idea being that the high Stamina, the more resolve with which to inspire allies).

At the end of the day, I think just being able to trace back in a parent-child system ensures that all the attributes are robust.
The optimal number of stats is however many the system you are envisioning requires. You could use the classic six-spread if that's what your game demands. You could use more unusual stats if your game requires tracking something else. For a good example of the latter, the first to spring to mind (since I looked at it recently) would be Don't Rest Your Head. You won't find Strength nor Wisdom in it because the mechanics do not require metrics for such concepts.
But how can you make melee tactical?

Some choices like ways of attacking and defending could be a way to do it...

Like, fast attacks, strong attacks, defensive, etc, with different bonuses to different throws

>But how can you make melee tactical?

If you allow for a bit of cinematic combat versus strictly simulation, it opens up a lot of options. Knockbacks, Knockups (fall damage), strikes to body locations with different effects for each, strikes that include movement (charges, rushes, etc), defensive maneuvers, different types of damage that all produce different effects (slash, pierce, impact, etc.), multiple attacks (within a period of time that typically only one attack would be allowed, strikes that hit multiple targets (think of a spear sweep), et al.
Those are a few. Reading the opponent's attacks, defending yourself blow for blow, take a dangerous swing that could leave you exposed, there's plenty of minor things during a melee battle that could be simulated to make it interesting. You could also have melee move you around, travel several spaces as the momentum from attacking or defending pushes their back to the wall, limiting their movement further. Or maybe they have a misstep and fall down the stairs, only to be greeted atleast two other opponents at the bottom. Basically take whatever choreography you found interesting in movies, and try to get them onto the table. This is in addition to whatever tactics you employ in positioning your troops or placing terrain obstacles too.

You could probably read up on modern melee-ish sports for further ideas. Kendo, fencing for starters, then the hand to hand martial arts might have something.
This guy gets it.
File: overwhelm.png (91 KB, 407x254) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
91 KB, 407x254

My system has got an entire library of "Advanced Maneuvers" for melee combat. Pic related.

So, to outline the tactics involved in this particular selection, I'll go through it using laymen's terms.

>5 CAP
This is a point build system, so a character spends 5 CAP to learn the maneuver and be able to use it

A character can either Swing to use this attack (Swing is governed by Strength) or Throw to use the attack (Throw is governed by either Strength or Agility, which is chosen at character creation)

>Fatigue Cost
This is a pool that is exhausted by using Advanced Maneuvers like pic attached. Character expends 2 to use this particular move

Used to exhibit how wide a character leaves himself/herself by using this maneuver. This number equals the penalty to defenses until his/her next round.

Some maneuvers add to the damage of the strike, this one adds 4

>Speed reduction
Main idea of this maneuver is to daze the shit out of an enemy so they start moving slower in combat, therefore, -1 Speed for every 10 damage inflicted

>Damage inflicted vs. damage dealt
Damage inflicted is the measure of damage after the victim's armor reduces it. Dealt is how much damage came out of the strike. This maneuver requires that 10 damage is inflicted (after armor) to reduce speed.

Within the game, this is a hafted weapon maneuver. There are 24 more. Hafted is one expertise, and there 9 more of those, so all in all, there is a total library of 250 Advanced Maneuvers that span across daggers, swords, hafted, long weapons, shields, ranged, etc.

My opinion is that there are plenty of avenues to build tactics into melee combat.
File: thrash.png (75 KB, 397x223) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
75 KB, 397x223
Another example with some similar characteristics.
I think this is great solution for lighter games, but I'm aiming for something more realistic. It is prolly stupid to try make something realistic and at the same time try to balance it super tight but that is my goal

Yes, but unless you are doing something really focused I think it is pretty hard to find optimal balance between detailed representation of everything you might need and choking players with shitload of stats.
I really need to read up on this again the next time my group wants some nice crunchy combat, I keep forgetting how much depth the entire system has.
Yeh, some people find the depth overwhelming, but we love it. I've found that once you realize that everyone is functioning on the same system (GM and players) and that the entire system is just a ladder that leads to Attributes, it becomes less complicated.
True, but if a system has a shitload of stats confounding the players it has been designed wrong. A massive statblock is not, as I put it, what a system requires.
In a 1v1 card game, if Player A is bidding their units against Player B, but Player A only gets to see roughly half of Player B's forces when deciding what to bid, is that fair? Does it add a good layer of strategy since Player A does get to see some of the opposing forces?
I think if both players are bidding only for part of their force, and both see only a part of the opponent's force, then that's okay. For both sides there's then a known and unknown factor on the field.
I think it depends on what info that Player A can see, but in general partially obfuscated information is always an easy method of introducing bluffing and prediction into the mix, either by tricking the opponent using what they know about you, or by predicting their actions by using what you know about them.
Well, in the example I posted, Player A has a fixed group of forces that are stronger than most, if not all, of what Player B has, and Player A would be the only player with cards that do something when played (think Instants or Sorceries from Mtg) while Player B has to rely on their forces that do something when they enter play or are revealed.

I just realized how convoluted this sounds out of context.
Derp, this was meant for
File: damage.png (228 KB, 841x1194) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
228 KB, 841x1194
A quick runner up of the basic damage system without going into details:

>Damage is calculated by a damage roll
>The resulting number then is marked in this damage track in the correspondent slot
>Light wounds give a /
>Severe wounds give an X
>Filled dots beneath the slot mean armor, which needs to be broken in that particular spot before being able to actually deal damage
>Your Vigor stat determines the amount of severe wounds you can endure before dying

it's a pretty simple thing that doesn't require that much bookkeeping and I love it, but I can't wrap my head around how I can do the damage rolls correctly because each approach brings a different issue

The number of maximum slots isn't final if you have any ideas that would require a bigger or smaller damage track

Those are great for skirmish games. I'd rather not have too many counters or hitpoints, so effects would have to depend on movement, a few counters and decisions with almost immediate consequences.

I love this, but it's too complex for a wargame with 15-20 miniatures per side.

Do you have a link to your system?
I have no idea how this is supposed to work
So, quick question.
Needing a 3 per success on d4's + 1d(4-12) seems VERY likely to get a lot of successes.
I want them to mean something, and presently there is only an average of 2 DR. Should I move to 4 per success, making a shot harder to land? Maybe 3's needed for Melee? Or should I find a way to increase the average DR?
you get hit, you get a number and you mark it on that number's slot with /s until you start stacking up on Xs and dying

i.e. you get an 8, you mark the slot 8 with a /
next attack you get damaged for 9 but the attack deals damage in 3 slots, therefore 8 is now an X, and you have 9 and 10 marked with /s

if you reach the maximum number of Xs you can endure, you're fatally wounded and will die unless someone helps you out before your time runs out

the issue is how you get that number without everything going to shit
Or I suppose, I could have some kind of Minimum Successes required? But that feels weird with the Attacker Oriented system I have now.
Yep, there's an official post somewhere up above but...


It's also in the project spreadsheet in OP.

Let me ponder about some interesting melee combat in a mini wargame format and get back to you.
I just used Scribus once, but wasn't really all that happy with it. It's been a few years though.
Nice, I'll be waiting for that then.

I'll check out your system too
File: Ancient Scroll.png (223 KB, 500x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Ancient Scroll.png
223 KB, 500x500
So I've been working a lot on a magic system lately and been having a nightmare about how to balance spells per day or mana points or whatever and then I thought.

Why even worry about that? Why not just hack the system to make it a no mana system?

Make all spells very low powered, with any attempts at empowering them requiring time, physical resources, or a risky roll that can corrupt the caster or cause magical backlash in some way. Magical spells in combat are similarly balanced to attacks and out of combat their effects are limited and specific. Things like Harry Potter style charm magic, or prestidigitation-like effects to a greater degree.

How would people feel about this? Would you think its possible and would you think it would be interesting/well made enough to want to play as a Wizard or caster in this potential ruleset?
File: Hellsgate v0.23.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Hellsgate v0.23.pdf
1 B, 486x500
Latest Hellsgate. I've tried hosting it online for the project list, but Googledocs keeps fucking with the formatting. Not a big deal, since its just a rough draft, but it does it in a way that makes it hard to read. Also, found a mistake that was fixed in the main document, but not big enough to justify exporting a new version of the PDF for; its refers to defense modifiers, which were changed to be attack modifiers now.

Model A, but instead of armor needing to be broken through, it downgrades the strike by a step, IE. The dirk would be hitting those low numbers, but if it keeps getting light wounds, it won't do anything? Make armor breaking something that special rules deal with (Armor Piercing attack: Breaks armor on that spot instead of dealing damage). You could also add armor pips to show armor health. They'd still have the same effect, downgrade damage by one, but hardier material would take several armor piercing attacks to break; a full suit of soft leather gives all spots 1 pip, while a breatplate of studded leather only cover the first 4 spots, but gets 2 pips each.
File: spears.jpg (2 MB, 3264x2448) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
2 MB, 3264x2448
What advantages should different weapon types confer in a melee-based wargame?

What advantage should spears confer if combat is simultaneous? (also in a wargame)
The fact that you really should spend your time on more productive things is not really an argument for why people who have things going for them can't enjoy pissing away hours on whatever hobby they like.
Publishing and what tools to use is like the least interesting/most irrelevant part of the topic.

It's like talking about what kind of shelf you put your miniatures on in a WIP thread or what monitor you use in an art critique thread. Yes, it's tangentially on topic but not what anyone came there to talk about.
Spears are generally seen as giving two advantages in wargames, reach and speed. If placement is a thing, IE. different weapons can strike things as different physical ranges, then generally spears would give a longer range. If there is no distance or placement required (all melee is in base-to-base combat), then they would give a boost to when you strike before your opponent. There's also the support approach, where a model in contact with a friendly model, but not in contact with the enemy can boost combat in some way, either a bonus to the friendly model or an additional attack.

If you mean combat is simultaneous, with no initiative style system, you can either have them boosting, which means the model carrying the spear doesn't get a bonus if in combat, or give it a "defense" boost, since the model is striking before the other. And example of that would be a system like what Frostgrave uses, where combat is each model rolls off and the higher rolling wins. In that case, the idea would be the spear gives you plus to that roll, making stealing the initiative easier and winning.

Generally, it depends on how combat works. If you have a basic version to share, it'd be easier for me to make suggestions and pitch ideas to you.

So this is a compendium of RPG design patterns where the author has basically sat down and listed what kind of mechanics are used in different rpgs, what rpgs use them and what the pros and cons or things to consider are.

It also has a "getting started" and "things to consider when making an rpg" sections.

It's not really about telling you what to do, but more about what things you need to keep in mind and what options other games have chosen. I think it is a really useful tool for anyone who wants to design an rpg. If nothing else, it can be really hard to know what other games have already used the mechanics you're considering and how they play, and this is a great help.
What scale and model count are we talking about?

I mean, if you're doing 6mm with huge blobs, then reach and stuff like that is really hard to make useful at that scale.

The most likely candidates are stuff like bonuses when defending against a charge, bonuses for extra ranks, bonuses against cavalry or monsters etc.
I beg to differ.

Thing is you can write the best rules possible, but if you suck at communicating the system you created to your audience you failed as much as a game designer, as if you made an unplayable game, since in practice, it become unplayable.

First and foremost that is down to how you write the rules themselves, sure, but formatting is important, especially for larger rulesets.
Visually structuring your rules is as important as logically structuring if you want to communicate them successfully.
At first I was thinking about a system which had "I strike, then you do", but eventually I discarded it in favor of a more LOTR-like system.

Both roll and whoever wins, can wound.

I would need an option for that.

Support is also not so viable, since it's a skirmish game.

A skirmish game, so that wouldn't work
I'm hoping that if I refine what I have enough that somebody will come to me to talk publishing. Perhaps I'm insane, but at least the thought powers my drive to revise and refine.
Everything you say is true, but you have to be dense not to realize that publishing and formatting is getting way ahead of most people in a thread where they are asking questions like "so what rules are good for spears?" And "Do people like rolling under more than over?"

You shouldn't be surprised that nobody bothered to reply to you the first time.

I can respect that you're brimming over with insight and knowledge you want to share, but make a pdf or something, don't sit around acting pouty when people aren't jumping you to bask in your wisdom.
Well you've kinda shot yourself in the foot as far as options for weapons with better reach go if combat is simultaneous but skirmish level.

Do something like the lord of the rings battle game where spear-armed guys can assist guys can fight enemy models in base contact with friendly models the spear armed guy is in base contact with, or let them get a free attack before regular combat starts maybe?
Hey, I'm the guy that playtested the tcg for someone a while back (I've also been working on an rpg, but I'm not ready to post). Anyone working on a tcg with finished cards I can look at?
Are you kidding me? Trying to start something? Or just projecting that hard?

I just asked if anybody here wanted to talk about it and if nobody does that's fine too. I can't ignore something like this >>44587481 though.
The whole reason to do this in the first place is to get the rules to the players.

And while some people are talking about dice rolls I don't think it's up to you to try and tell people what they can and can't talk about in here.

If nobody wants to talk about, because nobody is there yet the problems solves itself since there is nothing to talk about then.
I wouldn't be so fast to discard support as an option. LOTR is a skirmish game, but it uses spears for support. But yeah, if you are going with the rolling off system, look into spears giving a boost, to cover the idea that they generally outreach the opponent. Something like "If a model with a spear was engaged in combat this turn, it gains +X to its rolls". Or if you want to take reach into account, it could be that models are engaged when not in base-to-base combat, giving spears and things like that a certain distance for engagement, but models without reaching weapons get a penalty of some kind, like they can win combat, but instead of wounding, they move into base-to-base.
I know, but the truth is that I need to have combat options and choices after seeing who 'wins', moving the combat to one place or another, stunning the model, etc. And I think it's a cool thing

But I could change it back I guess... I just don't want to have any tables, because most players nowadays HATE fucking tables, and besides I don't wan't to make it too similar to Warhammer

I've thought about marking the 'distance' of the melee combat. Short reach would give knives an edge over all other weapons, average range would be bad for both knives and spears, and long range would give an advantage to spears and polearms.

But every combat should be marked and changed every time someone wins (if you win a combat you can choose to get closer to your opponent, to change the advantage), and sometimes I think it'll be a little bit too clunky.

The thing about support is that the game is about 10-15 minis per side, heavily objective based. I don't think there will be too much time for supporting or anything. It works well in LOTR because you're supposed to make formations. This is a fast and brutal skirmish.

I guess I could just change to "roll to hit, roll to save" in speed/initiative/agility order, instead of rolling off and then one saves.
Bahahah I'm not reading that, make an elevator pitch version or a hook to make it seem interesting and someone, hell, I, will give honest input.
See, I think that when going low model, objective heavy, you can get away with things that would be clunky like shifting positions and such, because placement plays a role. The combat range thing would be a mess if you were going for 20+ models a side, but when its less than that, it would add a dynamic to combat, making it more engaging. Simple is good, but you still need to take scale into account when determining if its too simple.

If you mean to have an average of 6 models per side, and all combat is one player rolling a 4+ followed up by a 5+, that's not going to keep people attention. Part of why I feel AoS is a bad system, its too simple.

The other part of it is, the best way to handle special circumstance comes down to how you present them. If you look at my skirmish game here >>44587216 combat isn't complex. You roll dice equal to a stat, you opponent rolls dice equal to a stat, and how much you win by determines damage. Its, like I said, how you present it. Movement and positioning is important, since the Backstab rule is there. Some weapons play complete different because of a simple rule or two. A model with a rune-etched sword goes from an rounded character to a melee powerhouse against demons with the inclusion of one rule. You can easily put it that base-to-base gives knives and other short weapon +X, standard melee has a range of 1", and spears have a 2". Make it so the winner can either strike to wound, or they take the advantage to make a 1" move, turning combat from just a slugfest to a tactical choice without adding overly complicated rules.
>If you mean to have an average of 6 models per side, and all combat is one player rolling a 4+ followed up by a 5+, that's not going to keep people attention.
Should say, this was just an example I pulled out of my ass to make my point.

I do think that giving the other player something to do to react to your attack is good. Either rolling off, or how Dark Age does it, where the opponent makes the to wound roll.
Yeah, AoS doesn't have any kind of tactics at all, it's just a rollfest. It's why I think Warmahordes is more like a CCG/TCG than a wargame. The turn sequence (classic IGOUGO) also gives this impression.

Infinity's reactions are really cool, but only work for sci fi or modern. An ancient/medieval game with that kind of reactions doesn't work that well. SOBH works pretty well, but it's too simplistic in my opinion.

The LOTR turn sequence is actually really good, even more so with the might-using interventions, that can create good choices.

About melee again, I think the combat range could be cool, but I'm afraid to implement it and watch as the game just becomes a sluggish marker simulator. But it could be a nice choice.
Right now I'm focusing on the effects of attacking, either to knock back/push the combat according to your facing, wound your enemy, stun him, etc.

I like your idea of damage depending on how much you win by, in fact I was using something similar. But then, since it's so low scale (and since it's campaign based), I started thinking about different weapons which could have lower armor penetration, but higher chance to cause deeper wounds, like hunting arrows.

Then I tried with 3 rolls, one to hit, one to save (the defender) and one to wound. The wound result would have few bonuses, and would determine wether the enemy is pushed back, lightly wounded, taken out of action, stunned or just killed in a gruesome manner, demoralizing allies around.

I'll check out your system, glad someone else is making a wargame around here, I don't usually get much responses
Alright, so after some toying with things, I have a Stat Line I like, and rather than get caught up with deriving sub-stats from that, I decided to give a Trait associated with that Stat every 2 ranks, at the owners choice.


At each interval of 2 Skill, gain a Trait for that Skill

Suppress- Drop Weapon Die and Skill Dice, target all in a Square
Fire Control- Make Burst Rate 1, divide Max rate by difference, gain 1d4 to Attack

Akimbo- Replace 1 skill Die with a second Weapon Die, add +1 to Burst Rate and double Max rate, add Lethality Bonus
Commando- Replace 1 Skill Die with Melee Weapon Die in Melee, add Melee Skill Dice

Breach- spend 1 ammo to unlock and open door, may be used in conjunction with an Attack
Slam Fire- Increase Max rate by 1, replace one Skill Die with Weapon Die

Snipe- Double Range, gain 2d4 Attack and +1 damage if only firing one round
Pinpoint- Reduce Called Shot Threshold or Penalty by 1, gain 2d4 Attack or +2 damage for Ammo Spent

Spray-Fire: Drop Skill dice, target all foes in 1 Square or 2 adjacent foes
Unload: Make Max Rate equal to Ammo Cap

Frenzy: Use 2 actions, attack at double Skill
Deep Cut: Replace 1 Skill Die with Weapon Die if higher

Smash Down: Reduce foe's speed by 1 on successful hit
Heavy Swing: Reduce Skill Die by 1, treat all Skill Die as Weapon Die, +1 lethality.

Nimble: +1 Pin, +1 Threshold/Penalty
Sprint: +1 Speed
Quick Step: Free Step Action
Quick Hands: Reduce Ready actions by .5

Die Hard: +2 Lethal
Mule: +4 Kit
Armor Skin: +1 Armor
Tank: +1 Lethal, +2 Kit

I still have some Stats to cover, but I feel this is much more elegant than what I had. Also, technically now the Weapon Die replaces one of your Skill dice and you get 1 Ammo Die just for attacking. However the net result is EXACTLY the same. It just make more sense in my head that way.
You keep ignoring the fact that infantry are there to score points. That's their role in the game. If there were infantry-portable anti-mech weapons in the fluff, there wouldn't be any mechs, just squads of infantry where one guy has the rocket launcher/AT rifle.

>And if you do capture the trench...what do the infantry do, wait to get raped to death by enemy mechs?

Bring up the artillery. Mechs fold to artillery shells easily.
Stratego is a board game. I'm making Trenchbreaker as a wargame. The two have nothing in common besides the fact that they're war themed and you can keep what you take secret from your opponent. That's literally it.

I don't want advice about how to make my wargame from people who want to make board games, for the same reason that I don't want advice from a ramen house chef on how to make spaghetti. While the utter basics are the same(still has noodles/still about war where you guess what the other guy is doing) literally everything else is different. Stratego plays completely differently from what I want to make.
File: 546245666.jpg (3 MB, 3264x1836) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
3 MB, 3264x1836
Playtested my game today. Very fun and very eye opening to finally actually play it. Even if it was just the very foundation of the game we tested. Can't wait to fine-tune it.
What did you learn from playtesting?
How turns really progress, how players come to their decisions, how options emerge, how certain things aren't implemented as well as they could be. There's still a lot for me to do and a long way ahead I think.
Neat. I'm approaching the point of playtesting myself. Gotta rig up some cardboard cutouts for the mecha and lego stand ins for the infantry.
I know I'm late to the discussion on making melee combat in skirmish games more tactical, but I'd like to see what /tg/ thinks of my combat system so far.
The basic premise is a RPS-style choice of attack or defense, ordered as such:

attack<block<power attack<dodge<feint

To declare what type of attack or defense the models make, each player places a card face down, on the back of each card is a symbol denoting offense or defense.
Before the cards are flipped both sides 'wager' an amount of d6's they wish to roll for their action, with the attacker wagering first. Next both sides flip their cards and roll, and whoever has the single highest die wins, with the next highest breaking ties. Additionally, whoever wins the card match-up gets +1 to their roll.

This is a very rough draft of what I want my combat to look like. What I really want to play up is mind games and bluffing your opponent.
Are you doing shooting with a similar level of detail? If not, I feel like getting into melee would slow the game down a lot.
With magic, yes, but with bows and crossbows, no, as I can't think of any options other than 'return fire' and 'dodge', which don't strike me as interesting.
I admit my main concern is that melee will bog the game down too much, but I'm hoping that low model count between 6 and 12 will off set that.
Also, I havn't decided how to determine damage yet, but I'm considering either a static number, ie. 1 wound, 2 wounds, etc based on weapon and stats, or somehow tie it in with the first roll. Hopefully either will streamline combat a touch.
"Publishing" for me generally amounts to me printing out a few extra rulebooks and putting them up for sale on ebay. I try advertising in random places here and there.
Is it bad that I don't want to post my game here for fear of it being stolen? I want honest outside feedback but I'm clearly an insecure human wreck.
AoS is the Snakes n' Ladders of wargaming.

I think alternating activations or LOTR system are the best. I think LOTR's would be great for a large scale game.

>but I'm afraid to implement it and watch as the game just becomes a sluggish marker simulator
That's part of why I suggested using actual distance on the board. If you just mark the units as being different distances in combat, it takes another level of abstraction further removing players from the game. I think giving the ability to move or push the enemy instead of wounding would add another level of tactics to the combat.

I'd suggest reading Dark Age if you go the multiple rolls instead of rolling off. They do a system where the attacker rolls to hit, using a success range determined by the attack skill and defense skill: You add together the attack skill of the weapon and the defense skill of the targeted model, and try to roll under with a D20. To wound is each model has an armor value, you subtract the power of the attack, and the defender tries to roll under to save. The third roll can be instead of wounds. You roll and determine what state the model is in. Similar to how Mordheim handles a model reduced to 0 wounds, come up with levels for the roll and only apply a new state if its worse than the one on it, IE. a model is lightly wounded, only further rolls of better than lightly wounded would be applied. A way to avoid issues with toughness on various models could be a system inspired by Wrath of Kings, where this tract could be individualized for each model. WoK has a system where each card has a chart that you roll against to determine the attack outcome. Could have a similar set-up.

The other thing is what kind of die are you planning to use? Personally, unless you need large pools, I'd go with D10 at the lowest. I'm not a fan of how little crunch room D6's give you, and are really only useful if you need a mass of the same result.
I've seen this sentiment expressed before, and it seems silly to me. I mean, I doubt too many professional game designers come here looking to steal stuff. And if someone does steal your idea, so what? Unless you plan on publishing it/making money off of it, there's no real harm done. You can still make your game, and get to see the direction someone else takes it in too.
I'd think about using the dice as the model's action points. For example, a model get's 6 D6 a turn, which can be spent to move or attacks. To counter, give models a pool of defense dice to use, so both sides have to think before they wager. Do you wager a lot of dice in an attack to force your opponent to use up their pool of defense for the turn, or do you wager only a few to save some for another attack later? On the flip side, do you risk being hit by an attack by a model using a large pool of dice so you can use your defense dice against another potential threat?

The only problem is the amount of emphasis this system would put on magic and combat. Ranged would fall to the wayside. If you want, you could always fluff it to remove ranged from the equation: The world has erratic weather, making non-magical ranged near impossible, or something.

Yes. Number one thing to remember when designing a game, everyone thinks their game is the next hot thing, they'll more than likely prefer their own project over yours. Even if someone likes parts of yours over their, they're more likely to pick and choose than steal the whole thing. Which is generally fine, that's where most people get their inspirations, from others. Worry about the project as a whole over the individual mechanics.
Its not a bad attitude to take in some markets, but this isn't one of them. So I can understand the mindset, its just learning to apply it appropriately that needs to be handled.
anybody else making a game?

i just started making mine after seeing a picture on 4chan that i will post. imagine if the purge was real but it is only effecting some areas and for 1 day murder is legal because of a fuck up by 1 mad man who had power. the only problem is that there is little area's effected by this and the one place that is fine to do it is a high school as it meets the crossroads of another area that has this law.

you play a boy who is in a school lock down and he must escape high school killers who's where either abused by people or killer teens who are trying to kill to get rid of someone who is getting to close to someone they like.

the game will look a little like yandere chan but mostly Akiba's Trip

>what you must do.
hold out until the law is removed in 24 hours
get people in the school to safety in a room that is only known to you (watch out people you bring in may be killers and if you let them in they will kill the people and leave making you have to hunt them so they don't rat your safezone)
Find and save your childhood friends and female teacher

>What you must avoid doing
Killing.....why because ("He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster.) killing in self defense is fine
bringing killers into your zone
letting people from outside help you(the door is closed and parents can't come in nor anybody else unless they wish to be shoot and sometime they may throw things this is sometimes to help there kids or to help others) if this happens throw it back or destroy it to save there life.

also if a child see's there parent die a mentality bar drops to zero and well..... here is a link of what happens http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeWhoFightsMonsters

sorry for my spelling and i hope to see you all when i finish
Regarding dice pools, I didn't go into them much earlier but you've got the right idea that wagered dice are a limited resource, so wagering gives your opponent an idea of your intent. That said, I havn't pinpointed what the average pool size should be yet. I'm going to have to do some rough playtesting for that I think.

I also forgot to mention that when you are on defense and win, you can then follow up with a counterattack, thus giving you the opportunity to attack, feint, etc. I was thinking the attack and defense dice would come from a shared pool, so if you are too aggressive you won't be able to protect yourself, and turtling means you can't kill your opponent.

I'm not sure I get why ranged would be ignore. Sure it's simpler, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be an effective means of dishing out damage. And there are otherways to bring variety to ranged attacks: called shots, indirect fire, covering fire/overwatch to name a few. Granted, I havn't put much thought into how ranged attacks will work yet, but I'm open to suggestions. Though outright removing bows from a fantasy game is too bizarre to me.
Why bother with the whole thing of the law when illegal school shootings happen all the time anyway?
sorry, wasn't exactly clear on my intent. Its not that ranged would be ignored, probably the opposite. It would be overshadowed. When you have a system in place that has a lot into it, and one that's simple, the simple system feels out of place, which gives a negative feel to the game.

I actually had something like that I ended up removing. I wanted certain models to have command skills to support the army, so I had an extra phase for models to do that. But they didn't feel fleshed out, the abilities were just there, and were lost in the rest of the turn (a few test games, we completely forgot about them, even). This is what I mean, it just didn't feel as fleshed out as the rest of the game, so there was no excitement for it, it was just there.

The other problem is, if its too simple compare to the other mechanics, it may end up being unbalanced. Either too powerful, since there's not that balancing effect combat or magic has; or too weak, since it may be overlooked for the previously mentioned reasons.

I'd definitely think about the called shots-indirect fire-etc. route, bring it into line with the combat and magic systems.
Why on earth did you put the summary on the bottom separate from the rest of the crunch, especially when it has the same bg color? All that's gonna do is make it a little harder for the reader to skip to the next move via visuals.
because i don't want it to be just any mass shooting. i also think if something like that was to happen the military won't stand by and shoot parents because of it. I want the military to look like monsters in the game for following orders that people in the country say fuck no too
It still seems like an overly convoluted explanation for a scenario that's basically happening all the time anyway.
At least that means it'll appeal to the anime crowds.
Now that you've got me thinking about it, I suppose there should be defense rolls vs ranged attacks, which would mean ranged attacks could help whittle down a model's melee potential and encourage focusing on one enemy at a time. That will definitely be a challenge to balance. Shields will probably get free bonus dice against ranged attacks, so dice won't have to be expended dodging arrows.
>>44595640 here again
I also like the idea discussed earlier about choosing between wounding and moving yourself/your opponent around as mentioned here: >>44594420
I'm thinking on a successfully dodged attack you can choose to move away, or towards if you're dodging a spear.
Ok, well, if anybody wanted to take the time to read my rules and give feedback it'd be greatly appreciated. It's a TTRPG/CCG that, if ever released, would have a release structure similar to Netrunner or any other FF LCG.
aaaannndd i forgot the rules https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kJfJ0aqP6m8OFny8XuDqZqqxQ9le41MA10tBMrNZiCI/edit?usp=sharing
There was a guy in here earlier looking to playtest card games, by the way. I'd keep an eye out for him, might be useful.
Makes me think of something I came up with, too. 3D10, Cost/Damage/Secondary skill effect (things like pushing the target, causing ailments, etc).
Cost would be double if the associated die was a 1, or half if 10; damage would work vice versa. Secondaries would have their own target number, and some higher level skills could have more than one effect.
Also, regardless of the attack's success, the sum of the 3 dice would be added to a "drive point" pool, that could be used for "super moves."
I'm making a worker placement game that takes place after the apocalypse happens and you need to rebuild society.

That said, I'd like some input on something. I want there to be a survival theme in additional to a worker placement scenario. Here's what I have so far:

>Each play may place up to 4 workers in a space.
>Players do not actually do the action until the start of the round.
>At the start of the round, survival phase happens
>At the survival phase in each space in numeric order (spaces are listed 1 to 5), each player in turn order rolls a number of D6 equal to the number of workers that player has in the space.
>That player has to roll a number equal to or less than the the number of workers that player has.
>If there is another player in that space, the amount is decreased by one.
>For each worker that got the passing number, return that worker to your playerboard.
>As long as one worker succeeded, you do the action on that space.

For example, if Red has 4 workers in space 1, and Blue and Yellow also have workers in that space. It is Red's turn to roll for his workers in space 1. Red rolls 4 dice since he has four workers there, but because that there is another present in space 1, Red needs a 3 or lower on each die for each worker (Under normal circumstances, Red would roll 4 dice.) Red rolls a 1, 3, 4, and 6, so 2 workers return to Red's playerboard. Since a worker returned to Red's playerboard, Red gets to do the action on space one. This process repeats in turn order for the rest of space 1, space 2, and so on.
If the intent is to simulate the experience of living through a traumatic situation that can happen in real life, there's certainly potential. There are already several RPGs that simulate real life experiences as a way to see what's it like on the other side, like a black man walking home from work, or a village being colonized. It'd need to be approached delicately, but it would certainly be an interesting experience.

If the intent is to have a "survival in a world with no laws" type of game though... I don't know, you can probably make a different premise without utilizing such a touchy subject like high school murders. For example, a building gets whisked away into another dimension and the players have to do the exact same things, except the killers are replaced by monsters or ghosts ala Corpse Party.
Uploaded to mega.

Really need to get to summarizing the links in the OP soon, these links without context are making my butt itchy.
I didn't know which post to quote so I'll just use this one, but I do think that this is one problem where cards are a much better solution for resolving combat than dice. Something like, anyone who is in combat, draw cards. Then the effects are pitted against each other, maybe one card has 5 attack and 'gain +2 attack if they have higher attack than the opponent', but oh no the other card is a 'negate the other card effect if it is a red card', making the 5 attack card wasted. Just imagine each model on the field having a duel like this, all the while moving around, too engrossed in their own duels to notice the reinforcements coming right around the corner.

Have a look at Middle Earth Quest's combat system and how they handle the cards' effects. Actually, take a look at how they handle movement too, it might be relevant to how you can handle movement. An entire game could probably be done just out of choosing which cards to discard in order to move around without sacrificing potentially useful attack cards. Alternatively, you could go Mansions of Madness and split a card into two effects, one for each side, then draw cards when combat occurs, looking at the effect belonging to the side whose turn it is.
There are infantry portable weapons in real life and we still have tanks, you stupid fuck.
I'm trying to come up with hacking rules for my cyberpunk game. If you gents could refer me to an existing game that does hacking well, or help me brainstorm, I would greatly appreciate it.
Here's a few ideas I would like to bounce off of you:

>Purposes of Hacking
1) To gather information.
2) To detect enemies.
3) To disable enemies in combat.

Programs running have a 'depth' ranging from 'surface' to 'deep' to 'dark'.
Programs running at the shallow end are easier to detect and easier to attack, but they are also more far reaching. Programs running at the deeper end are harder to detect and attack, but their effects are also much narrower.

Team Networks typically run at the surface level.
Personal Area Networks typically run at the deep level.
Neural Networks typically run at the dark level.

>Action Points
Each character has a pool of Physical Action Points (PAP) and Mental Action Points (MAP).
PAP's are spent to do things like run, punch, and use 'Hardware' (armaments) while MAP's are spent to do things like examine in detail, aim, and use Software/Programs.

Some programs have a 'Lag' rating. When you use a program with Lag, it raises the MAP cost of all other programs you use for the rest of your turn.

>Cyber Attacks
Cyber attacks work much like normal attacks, except that you use programs instead of weapons, are opposed by the target's security software instead of armor, and you attack do disable the target's programs instead of dealing damage.

well he's being a salty cunt every time he gets any criticism whatsoever, so there are no saints here.
File: 1451661783529.png (436 KB, 487x495) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
436 KB, 487x495
do you guys ever suddenly realize the extremely simple and obvious solution to a problem that's been keeping you stuck for weeks and feel like a complete idiot
>>44596318 Here.

I'd really like some input for this. To me it doesn't seem quite right.
Seems too convoluted
File: 0.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1 B, 486x500
So, for the purposes of game balance, I'm wondering if I should stat up Combat Magic similar to how I stat guns, but using Knowledge as the skill and supplying the source of Mana (used like ammo for spells) or if I should just have combat magic Talents that have a unique but simple effect. I know I'm only going to have combat magic either buff or cause Pinning, it won't deal damage (except to certain races) due to how magic works in the setting.

I'm also debating letting players choose Talents at every skill level, there being 4 total, and just adding 1-2 Talents per category.
This is really good.
So, because I'm a nostalgic weeaboo idiot, I'm thinking of making a Naruto RPG system - i've got the following design principles in mind:
•Capable of depicting events from the start of the manga to the timeskip – post-timeskip stuff will be an expansion book if it appears at all
•System should encourage battles to be affairs in which each side spends time and energy attempting to gain advantage to deliver a final blow, rather than rocket tag or HP grinding
•System should be combat-primary, with the understanding that players are warriors and assassins above all else
•System should begin gameplay with characters competent, and go up from there
•System should encourage players to focus on a specific theme, rather than being broad generalists (while still allowing generalists to be effective)
•Different weapons and jutsu should feel meaningfully distinct
•Creating your own Jutsu as a player should be relatively simple

So far, I'm thinking of a dice-pool based system for default rolls - combat would steal Exalted 3Es initiative system (one of the only good parts of that system, IMO), in which your initiative is also a measure of who has advantage over who at the moment, and it can be spent to make gambits or attempt to finish the fight. Taijutsu gives you an array of buffs for your mundane attacks and at higher levels, allows you to make multiattacks or reflexive attacks if you can set your opponents up in the right conditions. Ninjutsu and Genjutsu would be point-buy systems where you start with one of an array of basic effects, then combine multiple effects with various modifiers to create specific techniques - the substitution technique is modelled as a movement technique with the reflexive bonus, but the flaw that you need an item the same size as you nearby to activate it, and can only travel to that item.

File: zzCover1.png (172 KB, 2177x625) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
172 KB, 2177x625
Repostin my now old system, thinking up starting work on a revised version that doesn't use multiples of a D6 to calculate things, it just wrecks game balance when you add levels into the mix, though I think I'll still use at least 2 dice for damage, maybe even D5s instead

New system is going to use D10s, but maintain the concept of having the game balance and rules based around stat blocks for humanoids, not sure when/if I'll ever get back to working on it, need to focus on other things, or at least I should be focusing on other things

don't make naruto create something new. trust me you don't want a lawsuit or to be called the naruto game guy

>Implying it would get any more legal notice than any of the other shitty naruto rpgs out there
>Implying I use my own personal info rather than throwaway accounts

That said, you have a point in that it might be worth considering making it heavily flavored after the better bits of early Naruto, rather than stick with the show proper (and have to deal with BS like jinchuuriki, the fuckin' sharingan, and all that shit).
So it's a roll under, but other players decrease the TN? That makes survival harder when there are other players, which seems a little weird.

Also, if I'm reading it right the action goes through as long as a single worker makes it, and extra workers just increase your chances of success.

What happens to workers that don't return? Can you get stuck with one guy on a space who needs to roll a 1 to leave?
Gentleman, I want to run a Hellgate London game, but I'm not sure what would be a good system for it. There's demons, magic, power armor, melee, guns, futuretech, and other things so I need a system that can handle all of those.

I was thinking of using the 40k RPG systems and modifying it as needed but not sure if there's a better one.

Any advice for a system to start with?
Workers that don't return are gone. They go back to your supply, but there are ways to get more workers. Most of them will be Wanderer cards, which can give you up to 1 to 3 workers. Just be sure to have enough food to support them. Alternatively, you can kill them for an immediate bonus.
>That makes survival harder when there are other players, which seems a little weird.
The wasteland is a dangerous place, but I'm thinking of reworking the rules a tad. If a player "discovers" another player's settlement (playerboard) then you don't have the penalty if you share a space with that player. I can understand if it's complicated, I haven't written all of the rules down. A lot of them are still in my head. Hopefully the first playtest will reveal some useful information on the matter.
Fuck off kike.
A worker placement game where workers come and go pretty fluidly seems interesting. Usually, an extra worker is a pretty big deal. (Make sure those 3 worker wanderer cards aren't too strong)

My biggest issue with your idea though is that one or two workers have pretty bad odds of ever actually doing something. Two workers are going to just ingloriously die almost half the time. Unless there are ways to improve your workers, you're always going to want to place 3 or 4.
Just 'cause it's pasta doesn't mean it isn't true.
There will be ways to increase the odds, so you are never truely locked out of something just because you don't have enough workers.
Still here, every day, though I don't really bother reading posts I miss while I'm gone, thus my slow reply. Unless I'm bored, in which case I'll accidentally spam short messages to bump the thread.

That card game, though, looks like an RPG in a card game skin, so getting my crew to playtest would be a little trickier. Someone would have to DM, and, as the forever DM, I have to really like the system, because I do soundtracks and maps and whole dossiers and it's exhausting. I'll help with card games because I don't need to GM those.
So, I don't know how many of you have played D&D 5e, but to cut a long story short:

I want to create a lush space adventure setting with a die pool mechanic, but I'm starting off using 5e mechanics since they're fairly easy to modify.

I'm going to post a visible copy of what I've been working on for the past hour because I'm a sadist and I figure any input is better than no input.

The other concern is that more workers means more dice, but also a different target number. You might want to do it like Stone Age, where different spaces have their own fixed TNs.

Except with workers dying on bad rolls.
It's just vague questions and vague answers.
Anyone would react negatively when such a confrontational attitude is taken while giving criticism honestly.

Plus he has already given a good enough reason for infantry to exist I think.
>infantry fire artillery shells from the trenches
>mechs help get infantry to the other side
>infantry now (maybe) has better angle to fire at enemy mechs

Would make tactical decisions even better if the infantry could fire from both trenches too. Then they'd have to choose between either keeping the infantry put and have cover fire, or move them at the risk of getting overwhelmed by the enemy.
Probably the biggest problem with hacking systems is the lack of abstraction. Think about how quickly technology has advanced over the past 40 years. Extrapolate that to however far ahead your setting is, realizing that change is actually accelerating, and there's no particular reason for computing to look like anything we have today. The more you try to model "real" computers, the more likely you are to bog things down, break the setting under your computing paradigm, or be laughably wrong somewhere.

The second biggest general problem is the "drop out" paradox. If having something hacked is incredibly debilitating, people are just going to turn the wireless off. This restricts the actions hackers can take, which means those actions need to be more effective, which means more things are worth having the wireless turned off, etc. This is mostly a problem in combat, where hacking an opponent's X has to compete against shooting them in the face with a glock. To that end, separating hacking action costs from physical action costs is a good idea, because now they don't need to compete, but keep this in mind when deciding what hacking actions are capable of. Generally, stripping away bonuses from programs is fine, as is jamming devices that need the wireless on, but anything that would be actively debilitating if hacked will either have hacking set to "no" or won't be used at all.

Finally, the Shadowrun 4e and 5e matrix rules are probably the two most well-known and -dissected hacking systems. Dig around for threads on their pitfalls, especially on Dumpshock and on critical forums such as the Gaming Den. Ignore the vitriol; 90% of what they say is a legitimate issue.
I wonder if it's due to that weird mix of worker placement and randomness. Plus there's no real sense of "surviving" either. Putting the players into a confrontation might be good, have any who share a spot fight each other, and the loser is punted out completely. Alternatively, they could share the spot, but gain less instead, even less if there's more than one player.

Not to discourage you, but I think there's already 1 or 2 Naruto games out there, maybe try looking for them and see if you like how they play. If you don't or there aren't actually any yet, then go ahead, there's not much reason not to.
File: page.png (670 KB, 903x883) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
670 KB, 903x883
Good morning /gdg/

I have nothing to do with the graphic design. For this game, I only design the system and write.

However, it's really not difficult at all to differentiate between abilities. I dunno what to say, I have no problem with it visually at all.
PS - The negative space in the pic attached example (and throughout the book) is space for artwork. Some artwork is going into the next version.
File: 2016-01-05.jpg (5 MB, 5248x2952) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
5 MB, 5248x2952
Alright /gdg/, you have possessed me. I designed a card game last night. It's not a TCG or LCG, but more like a board game style card game like Splendor or something like that. The idea of the game is that you are an alchemist and you're working to fulfill commissions for House Kem, who has a monopoly on potions trading in the region. You are trying to obtain wealth before the other alchemists.

Here's the link to the rough draft rules: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_NNVhrFKTp81xgZwmNiwXECvGLwzSBUMVQvSd5DzY84/edit?usp=sharing

The rules in red text are maybes. My biggest concerns are with the Reagent Deck. I can't decide if 100 cards is enough, or if I have my ratios right.

>Essences are wild cards so should be pretty rare
>Commissions and Merchants pay top dollar for Explosives, so Minerals should be pretty rare
>Substances are mid-range, so more Organics than Minerals
>Medicines are the cheapest, so More Herbs than Organics
>Fluids are necessary to create any potion, so should be pretty common

The way I made the Reagent Deck last night was this...

>10 Essences
>10 Minerals
>20 Organics
>30 Herbs
>30 Fluids

What do you think? Should I change the total amount of cards? Should I change the ratio between Reagents?

(Pic is what I threw together last night)
The only thing I can suggest is taking the summery boxes and dropping them a shade or two, to make them pop. Its not really an ease of reading thing, more just that its a bit boring. A slight color change would break it up a bit more and make it more visually appealing.
I will pass that along. I think the guy that does the graphic design has mentioned getting rid of the summaries entirely, so it may not even be a concern. Thanks for the tip
I wouldn't go that far. They're a good tool, the main body to thoroughly explain the rules, and then a quick post for people that just need a reminder for how it works. It helps cut down time spent in the book during gameplay, when you're just looking up a reminder for what a certain ability does.
i know this is pasta that gets autodeleted every single time but it's true

and the fact that it gets deleted instantly every time it shows up proves it even further
Noone cares.
Giving it a quick glance, reminds me a bit of Puerto Rico, the focus on manufacture and such.

My brother-in-law is a board game collector and extremely good at those kind of games. I can see if he'd be interested at giving it a look over next time I talk to him.
I do
The number of available actions seem a bit much. I think you can narrow it down somehow... Something irks me about dividing Gather, Discover, Refine, Hoard and Buyout into 5 actions, but I'm not quite sure how to go about changing it.

Discover is probably the weakest of the 5 since gambling on a single card isn't much. Maybe increase to 3 cards?

Buyout also might be too expensive, but then again, maybe not. It would have to depend on how easy it is to get coins.

I think you can combine Gather and Hoard into a single action, since it's kind of weird that an action that is about taking two cards are two different things. In exchange though, you could have drawing 1 Essence cost either 1 coin, or trade in 3 cards of the same type. Maybe separate them from the other Reagents too, would emphasize on how valuable they are.

Also, instead of having Potions be your hand, have drawn Reagents be your hand instead, and the marketplace be the default backlog of created potions. So for actions you'd have:
Reagent Collecting (the 5 actions)
Create Potion (add a potion to Shelves)
Complete Commission (spend potions on Kem)
Sell Potion (spend on merchants)

Commissions could also be number based, something like "needed 10 potions of X", then for 3 - 5 potions sold at once, get a bonus. Merchants would basically be quick cash, a way to get rid of unneeded potions, maybe make them available while they're in play, and change to a new one every 5 weeks?

Hopefully you can go far with this, looks pretty fun. In my mind it'd be a bit like Splendor + Jaipur, both solid games.
Replying to let you know that I appreciate the feedback. On my lunch break at work, I am playtesting with 3 coworkers with the rules as is. After that, I'll reply to your points individually and be able to include results from a playtest.

Thanks man!

That'd be excellent, thank you!
Actually, you might be able to combine Discover together with Gather and Hoard too. So to summarize the action list:

Get 2 of any Reagents, 1 of which can be unknown/from the deck
Exchange 1 coin or 3 Reagents to get an Essence
Get all available known Reagents for 5(>=?) coins
Create and add a Potion to Shelves/Market
Sell a Potion from Shelves/Market to House of Kem
Sell a Potion from Shelves/Market to Merchant

Less available actions, but the same amount of choices. Kinda. Also maybe reset the Stockpile after a player turn ends, to avoid "gonna take this card. Ooh the new one is good too, taking this" situations.
Initial playtest complete - 46 minutes, two players. 46 minutes is artificially high because we were obviously discussing rules and such in between turns.

Overall, way more fun than I expected for the first play through. Events and Merchants garner a lot of excitement.

>Discover is probably the weakest of the 5 since gambling on a single card isn't much. Maybe increase to 3 cards?

Discover is intended to be a last resort. Both players in the test used it at some points and it was comfortable. I'm on the fence about possibly increasing it to two cards.

>Buyout also might be too expensive, but then again, maybe not. It would have to depend on how easy it is to get coins.

Yep, Buyout was way too expensive, neither of us never even considered it. Might drop to 3 gold, or eliminate the option entirely

>I think you can combine Gather and Hoard into a single action

Well, the thing is, almost all of the Commissions require two types of potion. The reason they are separate options is to dissuade there from ever being an "obvious choice." If I could take two cards, even if they match, the default move would always be taking 2 Minerals, if not then 2 Organics, if not then 2 Herbs or Fluids. In this playtest, there was often struggle about what to choose, which is a good thing.

>Also, instead of having Potions be your hand, have drawn Reagents be your hand instead, and the marketplace be the default backlog of created potions.

I did enact an immediate rule change related to this. Basically, instead of requiring that Commissions be fulfilled using cards in your hand, you can also use potions that are in your Marketplace awaiting Merchants. This actually gave us more incentive to risk setting cards down for a shot at the Merchant buy (which is inherently more valuable).

I'm gonna make a series of posts with pictures of some of the cards (Commissions, Merchants, etc.) so you guys can get an idea of that end of the game.



>Discover is intended to be a last resort.
Ahh, I see, I went in with a 'extra option in case there is no other' mentality rather than a 'not meant to be used unless desperate' one. 1 card does seem pretty fair in that case.

>obvious choice
Looking back at the potion combinations, I agree that always taking 2 Reagents of the same type would almost always be the better choice, I assumed that there would be more potions with weirder combinations. Plus I can see how the randomization of the Stockpile could effect decisions to be not as clear cut as "take one reagent for commission A, and one for commission B".

If you ever consider using the list in >>44605708, you could remove the ability to choose 2 Reagents of the same type altogether, and thus making getting two cards of the same type be a matter of luck instead. No need to worry about it if you're already comfortable with how things are of course.

>incentive to risk setting cards down
Is the risk from letting others know what commission you're planning to take?

By the way, are weeks a single turn, or are there 7 turns in a week?

>Is the risk from letting others know what commission you're planning to take?

That is the only risk remaining. Before, you had to fulfill Commissions from your hand, so if you set one down, you risk the Merchant that is drawn not buying whatever you have down, and you'd have to waste a turn picking it back up to use in Commissions.

Now, when you set it down in the Marketplace, the other player may still deduce what Commission you're going for, but there's really no consequence anymore if the particular Merchant drawn doesn't want to buy it (because you can use it from the Marketplace to fulfill a commission).

>By the way, are weeks a single turn, or are there 7 turns in a week?

Sorry, I really need to pen this clearly into the rules. A week is a round, or after all players take their turns.
I can see I have my work cut out for me.

I think it helps that TacNets are going to play a huge part in combat in my game, and you really do need to turn on WiFi for those (because it's really hard to fight when you are chained to your teammates by yards of cable.)

I have played Shaowrun 4e a few times. I'll be sure to check the forums and study them closely for ideas. Thanks!
It might be a few days until I talk to him next, though.
File: commanders.jpg (233 KB, 1125x523) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
233 KB, 1125x523
Since my game will eventually focus on using cards to store info for pretty much anything you buy, I've started working on some example cards in MSE. Eventually I'll hire a graphic designer to get a fancy art deco look put together for the cards, so ignore layout, I'm just focusing on content right now.

Pictured are the three Commanders I've created so far. Still working on what Commanders will be appropriate for a nation built on religious control of the military tempered by scientific meritocracy.
Hopefully you playtest these thoroughly since they seem to vary in usefulness. Why percentages and not a fixed point amount?
Because they give bonuses to your entire force, so their points cost vary with how many points of game you're taking. Else they'd be too efficient in large games but too expensive in small games.

I'm building the game around 200 points as your standard game, so those two will usually cost 10 points each.
The absolute minimum would be 20 points then at 1 point each? Kind of neat how it scales. Encouraging an easy to divide by 5 points games in the rules would probably be best to avoid wonky fractions.
File: Minefields.jpg (414 KB, 1125x1046) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
414 KB, 1125x1046
And here's Minefields.

Triggered mines detonate any time a unit(friendly or enemy) comes within 3" of them. Cable mines can be detonated at any time. Time mines detonate on the listed turn.
Well, theoretically, except you don't have to buy a unique commander if you don't want to.
any game with player created cards in them with events and shit
Night bump, be back to comment after sleep.
Some RPG design questions I have for you guys, opinions needed.

What are your thoughts on role-play mechanics? Either incentives, punishments, or general Framework for role-play? Or do you prefer a hands-off approach entirely? Mixed good/bad consequences, or only one kind? Etc.

I find most of the lightweight stuff in this regard is lacking for in-play inspiration.
I like to reward good role-play mechanically, but that's just me. In fact it's a central, if not THE central mechanic in my system, without it being a narrative system. I think I can be done, and I'm banking on the premise it can be done well.
Are you referring to, for example, how Fate does things?
Actual mechanical details?

Right now I'm looking at ripping off an older obscure system with an evolving psych profile using events/relations/opinions. It tracks more realistic social rolls rather than relying on "face" characters, complete with slight-RNG subconcious impressions beyond player control. The incentive is a penalty for some rolls with too low or high of self esteem where acting out/in 'of character' will alter said esteem. Heavy, but I've got an idea to offset the work using pregenerated random numbers.

Any mechanics directly related to role-play. Most systems just give a minor bonus you can use when the GM decides you earned it, and the most detail a character has are minor descriptions from character generation which never change.
> Any mechanics directly related to role-play.
Fate has aspects, which are descriptors (for example of your qualities). You can invoke them to help you, which costs a fate point, and compel them to hinder you or complicate matters. which grants you a fate point (the GM can compel you too).
So RP is presented as an optional challenge (unless the GM forces it). Not a bad option for a 'universal' system.
simplify and homogenize your wording. Countess Vartesi should have her card just called that, not have three names up top.

Agarson should probably say "your home edge'
I think it really depends on the game goal. I mainly use roleplay mechanics if I'm running a one shot and want it to be more focused on the story.
Meta-narrative mechanics in general can make it harder for players to become immersed since they require decisions from a player rather than in-character perspective.
I think of them as being good if a game is focused on creating stories rather than immersion in a world.
I love the randomization of rolled stats, but hate rolling threes. My solution to this problem is poles (similar to pendragon). What are some good stat pairings/ways to generate stat pairings? General setting is science fantasy/magitek/greasepunk, in a city on a bunch of leylines, where magic is harnessed via engineering. Wizard powered cybernetics. I'm blocked on stats currently, which is frustrating : /
You might want to expand on what the mechanical concept of poles is.
Two ends. Hypothetically you roll 3d6 x 6 for stats, against 6 poles. Physical/Magical Tough/Quick, et cetera. IDK, I'm stuck for ideas on good pairings. Being good at one means being bad at the other. It makes the 3 just as useful as the 18, with 9-12 still roughly average.

I've thought about using themes as the poles, and letting players assign, but then I'm introducing more choice complexity on character creation, which is what I'm trying to avoid with stat rolling (also non-standard builds, like my B/X cleric with 14 str 17 dex 9 wis)
Ok, so opposte pairings of stats. Well, Gods and Monsters, a worldbook for Fate, uses three pairs of opposite approaches. The concept of approaches is to tell HOW you do things, so this is not directly related to D&Desque stats, but might give you something to think on. The pairs are:

Bold versus Subtle
Clever versus Mighty
Wise versus Swift

(Again, these answer the question "how you do it?")
So I started adapting these rules into a version of Necromunda with giant robots. Would anyone be interested?
Heya guys, I'm going to be doing a lite game for some friends coming up. I'm a longterm DM, but most of my players are going to be new to the concept.

What are some of your guys favourite systems, and what do you think contributes to easy-to-understand design?

The standard D20 system works, but I've always liked roll skillD10, count successes.

So rather than throw books around and such, I'm going to try making a much lighter, flexible and likely broken silly simple thing. I'm mainly aiming for something simple so the players can focus less on the texts and more on the story and interactions.
Thinking one-page character sheets, focus on character Merits vs Flaws, a handful of attributes and write-in talents.

If you get any cool ideas, I'm doing a spaghetti Western with some silly twist like Roswell aliens.
I'd need to retread through it, but who doesn't love giant robots?
Its more concept than the mechanics. I've got a lot to add, ruleswise, like experience and campaign play, but idea is you have a robot that gets.special rules and special power attacks, and a bunch of gang members to fill up support. You can choose what weapons and gear to give your guys, went through and changed some things to allow melee weapons with separate stats, while still taking into account physical strength difference, and added a malfunction system.

Premise is far future human megacity colony loses contact with the rest of the universe and devolves into anarchy. Gangs fight for control, with some smaller groups, the remains of the military protecting the rich, psychos that scrap build things and are into cybernetics, doomsday cults, and people that have gone native and ride alien monsters.
I'd be interested to see how it turns out definitely. I enjoy progressive skirmish games like that, where there's at least the suggestion of an ongoing story involved, with experience and watching things grow.
So, random idea I'm throwing out, for a kind of action-movie style shooting system. Basically each player has a certain number of action points, that can be spent on actions. For this example we'll just deal with 2 semi-auto pistols.

You can either spend a point to dodge, seek cover, or shoot, the action taking place almost simultaneously. But we'll assume they have the same initiative.

One player takes "high" and one "low" or + and -. Roll 1d10-1d10 +/- each character's modifiers, this is your "superiority gauge". You can either spend a point to shoot and reroll your die, dodge and shift the gauge by 1 point, or use cover and gain a "minimum to hit" equal to 1d4 for every point spent.

Basically at the end of it, you tally the Superiority, and then you can spend it to do shit, like if you have 5, then you can do your weapon's damage (say 3), and a trick (slowed him down, so he can't dodge next turn).
Is there anything inherently wrong or awkward with using only one race for all civilized characters, and a non-human one at that? Like a game based around a world with only elves, for example.
The only I want to avoid is the systems where the progression is too much. Despite using it as my example above, Necromunda and Mordheim are worst offenders. The base game is weak until you get into progression and have a few games in, but then you can quickly snowball and out level everyone else.

Trying understand this, so you'd have an action point pool of D10-D10, plus modifiers?
No worse than human only settings.
Just go the FF XI route and change the name, so people do go "elves? But where are the humans?", while still have qualities that say "this is an elf".

That's understandable. Maybe some manner of balancing system so you can gauge roughly who is where in terms of progression, to keep a newbie from having to go at a badass with way better gear and guys.

No, you'd have a pool of action points, and the 1d10-1d10 is the "gauge" that kind of shows who has superiority in the fight. It would be rolled at the start of the round, and then the two combatants would spend action points to try and tip the gauge in their favor, so if the "gauge" started at 3, the - player would want to spend their actions trying to lower the gauges or set up a "minimum to hit" to prevent themselves from getting wreaked, while the + player would be pushing their advantage to try and get the number as high as possible to get the maximum superiority.
Had our first session today! Me and my friend had to fight Forest Guardians and I nearly died. One of them got a critical failure and he picked up the other Guardian and slammed him into the ground, thinking he was his club. We didn't get a lot done but it was fun and it ran very smoothly.
>create homebrew class
>its stupidly OP
>spend most of my free time fixing things so it isn't broken
>ask friends for suggestions
>they tell me they dont care

the class is primarily geared for combat, but I'm not sure if dealing over 70 damage/round (max achieved is 150) @ level 10 in Pathfinder is too high.
>Damage actually mattering after level 10

Don't worry.
File: daylands.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1 B, 486x500
some OC I posted on the previous thread.

3 page rules game, World of dungeons/pbta based mechanics (2d6+mod against a fixed TN), with three deconstructed classes (warrior rogue mage). I think I've made my fantasy heartbreaker, and now I can enjoy life at least!
why is that
After 10th level, fullcasters have enough spells to cast one spell almost every round. They can then lockdown foes through their spells that turn combat into coup-de-graces.
So, I actually tested this, and decided a few things.

1. This works great for Melee Combat
2. Tying it to Stat=Dice Size works great with some tweaking.
3. Multiple dice are more fun, as you can Reroll individual dice to try and tweak your odds
4. 2 actions a turn works great as long as they are kind of balanced and offer unique options
5. Options, options, options are what make this interesting, so I need to keep coming up with them.

I can dump to quick rules I have now if anyone would like.
Agarson should say your own edge, yes, thanks for catching that. Countess Vartesi's huge amount of names will probably be a fluff thing in the final version.
What's the best way to approach classless systems that still have certain approaches, like shadowrun does with their archetypes of street samurai, decker, mage, etc.

How do you balance all that? How do you give players their starting gear and set them on the road they want to hike without having boundaries or starting points to work with?
Take a look at the later 40kRPGs. They have some interesting approaches.
Hell, show them Dark Souls. It basically says: Here's a starting point, now go be whatever the fuck you want.
guess it's time to visit the 40k rpg general i guess, thanks for your suggestion

I was considering that because i love dark soul's idea behind classes as the game's point A for the player's point B, but then I realized that dark souls can work like that because of inherent rules of videogame design, such as preset item placement and starting gear for set classes, as well as story rewards and progression that allows you to do your own approach if you KNOW what to do and where to go because builds are attached to what you want to get and how you want to customize it

it's character creation freedom and it's definitely something to look into, but the only thing i can salvage that can be translated to tabletop rpg language is stat dumping to meet the requirements of what you want to use
adding onto this, dark souls' class systems makes you your own character when you've gotten your stuff after rolling with the exact same starting point out of 10 possibilities, but it doesn't truly feel like your own character until way after you've been through a lot and seen a lot of shit on your way
File: chuunin.jpg (29 KB, 511x382) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
29 KB, 511x382
Can vouch, am making a Naruto Tabletop system myself. It's a lot less canon though and after the final product is planned to be renovated into a Naruto-like world, but more Western/European.

As for differences between what I got and your planning:
*Avoids canon info things vs your desire to have them tied in.
*Characters in mine if they start at lvl 1 tend to be pretty weak, like not even average adult male stats, but at lvl 4-5 (which are considered Genin start), they are significantly better and thus unless you want to do academy arc, you skip to lvl 4-5.
*Min-maxing is pretty rough, it can be done but tends to go poorly for them since all "Stats" can be maxed at 40 points, and by final "Non-Madara" level, your have like, 32 points filled, (33 if Non-clan High Potential trait), then you throw Madara levels on are your damn near perfection, plus the game has a bit of a "You may use handsigns while moving" so people can do things like bunshins and taijutsu attacks in the same turn without it being this huge mess.
* Create your own jutsu system uses a tag system and parent jutsu system, such as Learning Bunshin which is E rank, can be upgraded to a Sand Clone (If sand manipulator Non-clan is enabled and picked), which adds "Sand element" tag to it. Giving a listed bonus and making a technique that is D-rank, assuming the user has a feat that upgrades their Bloodline skill level to allow D ranks.
tl;dr jutsus: Players have a list of tags they can use based on what they learned, apply to basic fundamental jutsus of Naruto universe to make custom moves easily and quickly.
Is there any advantage on having part-by-part damage and equipment other called shots and narrative effects on limbs?
rather than* not "other"
Okay, the really annoying thing is that this system I bulshitted up in a couple minutes feels nicer and more fun than the one I've spent 1-2 months on. All I'd need to do is add additional trait options see if it starts to sag under its own weight.

Not terribly. Unless you're talking mechs/robots, then you can get into the fun stuff.
See the 40kRPG critical hit tables.
Yes! You can make locational damage very fun if you don't mind lethality and brutality.
File: D5.jpg (218 KB, 462x1832) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
218 KB, 462x1832
I've discovered something rather interesting

any 2 or higher combination of 5 sided die always yields an average roll of some kind of another

I suppose that's probably something I should have learned in basic math, but whatever, I think I've found my damage dice for the D10 conversion
So I played this light wargame called Anaxis with my gf and found that the combat and rules were superb while the actual numbers populated into the game were horribly fucked (favor big ships).

Created new ships (two factions so far) and changed the numbers to work correctly.

-Target to-hit is equal or greater, not just greater.

-Ships have systems that take physical hits (track with pencil/damage counters) and are tracked on separate ships, each box is 1 Hull. This alone took it to mediumweight. Systems are destroyed or lose power when hit equal to the number listed. Blast symbols are just cargo and can be taken as hits without anything being lost (scenarios can be made where jettisoning the enemy's cargo to pirate it is the goal for example). Cubes are the armor spots and hitting one gives -1 armor, etc etc.

-Fighter docking. Fighters in the old game were garbage so I just gave them some interesting weapon systems and made them dockable in ships. Now the other ships transport them and dump fighters behind big ships.

-Big ships STOP having 360 secondary weapons. This irked me. You can take little shits adjacent and REAR of a ship and it still kills them in one hit. One reasons (besides 0 Penetration) that little ships are garbage.

-Penetration is now Pierce. Tracking is always 0 unless listed. Arc now has Line type, which is exactly what you think. Reverse and Turn were combined into Thrust, no reason these needed to be separate as they provide no measurable gradient.

-IMPORTANT: Initiative is *flipped*. Higher is better and goes last but fires first. In the base game, higher moves first AND fires first so big ships just win.

-Buys are in 10s for more gradient.

Requires Anaxis base rules to play. Ships are doubled on each page for easily printing multiples.

Anaxis here:
Personal recommendation: Try lots of them. Download "Melee" and check the 3d6 roll-under.

Then play Anaxis. This one has an interesting system where the to-hit target is calculated: Number of hexes away / Sensors rating. Whatever the quotient is (this is basic calculation) is your target on d6. You can modify the final target by evading or pursuing or having tracking weapons but basically that's it. You roll your weapon's Power number of d6 (usually 2 minimum, 10 max). Number of successes are die faces that at least show the target number (canon rules are "greater than" but fuck that).

Now here's where it gets interesting and after this clicked, I loved it: You take the number of successes rolled and roll that many more d6. Compare the results to the defender's armor (1 is passable, 6 is horse shit) and your pierce (1 is normal, 6 is lolfuckyourarmor). Their armor - your pierce = your target for damage. The dice that show ABOVE this number are taken as their value for damage. Here's an example:

Star Corvette targets stationary Dreadnaught.
Corvette has Power 4 and Sensors 2. Dreadnaught is 8 hexes away.
8 Hexes / Sensors 2 = Target 4.

Rolls its Power of 4 dice. Gets:
3, 1, 6, 4. Two successes (6, 4)

Dreadnaught's Armor is 5 and Corvette's Pierce is 2. So 5-2 = 3. Must roll above 3 to damage it.

Rolls its successes number of dice (2):
4, 3. The three plinks off armor but the four goes through. Dreadnaught records 4 points of hull damage.

In practice this is lightning fast. You do this like five times and it just flows. Reducing a ton of complexity down to one number like a funnel extremely quickly feels elegant. Plus armor makes much more sense than pure DR as the armor only blocks things of its number or weaker. The idea being that any hits that are inherently heavy (die result) are just heavy regardless if you have armor; armor only stops damage that is in the same class as it.
File: Parallax War.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Parallax War.pdf
1 B, 486x500
I should probably fucking include the PDF and not a screenshot of a ship...
You should really drop by more often to lend your expertise on matters of probabillity and almost obsessive need to house rule everything, could help quite a few of the questions people ask.
So I'm looking into making a skirmish wargame ala Mordheim but I'm caught in a bit of a snag; mostly with setting. I know I want it to be a western, but I'm unsure if a straight western would even work. I'm finding it hard to think of several unique scenarios for multiple Posse's to engage in a firefight. Any opinions would be grateful.
File: 020-ClearAgumon.png (374 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
374 KB, 450x627
Well, fuck. Yeah I probably should. I almost didn't post this in the thread.

Okay here's another one. I don't have the 200 cards ready for download and I'd show the gallery but my site got totally fucked a couple months ago and I CBA to redo it all.

Digimon Battles (because weeaboo/faggot/nostalgia/etc) is based on the PS1 card game but isn't simplistic and unbalanced.

There are 8 colors:
-Enigma (pictured)
-Dragon (red)
-Jungle (olive)
-Marine (blue)
-Nature (green)
-Nightmare (purple)
-Machine (grey)
-Wind (cyan)

For those who haven't played, you send out one digimon at a type, Pokemon style and buff/debuff stuff. Battles are FORCED and every turn each player selects between their Circle, Triangle or Cross attacks. Usually Circle being powerful but counterable easily, Cross being a special ability but weak and Triangle being medium power but hard to counter. Unlike rock paper scissors, it has inherent power differences and supporting cards.

Each turn you may play exactly 1 support card after attacks, apply the effects and deal damage to HP (track on a calculator, a la YuGiOh lifepoints). The game is intensely hard to cheese because you get 1 effect card per turn. Digimon ALL have support effects and Option cards are more powerful support effects (at the cost of not being a digimon). You can send out any level but C and U level Digimon without proper evolutions will have their power reduced to "Abnormal" status. Evolving happens once per turn and requires DP (discard cards to a special zone for this) or Evolution cards. This fully heals a digimon.

The game is played to a number of KOs (4 in my version, as it's fast but less swingy than the PS1 game).

8 colors were necessary over the original 5 as too many colors had hamfisted odd things in them and shrunk design space, contrary to what adding more colors usually does. The colors naturally balance the game as you can only evolve from the same color OR my new addition of the evolution box (top).
File: middle3d12.png (5 KB, 634x335) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
5 KB, 634x335
Anybody think this would be a good option to introduce a curve into die rolls while keeping it simple?
Roll 3d12, take the median value, aka "3d12 middle".
I've tried it and it seems quicker than 3d6 and requires less thought. Maybe on par with FUDGE. Interestingly it's got "checks" for crits essentially built in.

The median die trick with d20 or larger produces a flat plateau, and anything smaller is not far off from 2dY anyway. So 3d12 middle seems to be the sweet spot.
File: 100-Angemon.png (453 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
453 KB, 450x627
This has gone through EXTENSIVE playtesting by myself and my SO, both of us are pro competitive TCG players. So far, we can each win with any color and most of the builds for each color which is promising.

Changes to the original skeleton of a game:
-Addition of "Recycle" and "Trash". The former meaning put the top card of the discard onto your deck (reverse-mill) and Trash meaning mill essentially.

-Side deck of 10 cards for competitive meta play

-Color-hate is extended to make it less sacky. Including color hate isn't just some noob-trap and is a viable part of the side deck. Most deal 2x/3x to 2-3 colors. Picking the correct hate to protect your color is key.

-Digimon limited to 4 copies in a 40 card deck. Option cards limited to 3 copies. Evolution limited to 2.

-Limit to 1 total "Partner" declared when you start the game. No more than 1 partner can be used and 1 copy is allowed. Also up to 1 Option card can replace your partner's Support ability from outside the game. Up to 2 Champions that list the selected partner can be included here as well.

-Partner evolution is immediate (like in the PS1 game) and uses one partnered C level from the Destiny Zone.

-Destiny Zone. Cards such as Mega digimon, Partnered-Options and Partner Champions placed here. Anything that leaves play after coming in from the DZ is Deleted.

-Deletion: Means "exile", "banish", "Remove From Game"

-Cards usable outside the Support phase. Usually very rare and not incredibly powerful as this grants action economy.

-ACE cards. Limit 1 of any ACE and 1 copy of that per deck. These are powerful cards. May seem swingy but the game has ulimited mulligans.

-Hand changes: Draw 4 in opening hand, but draw 1 on your Preparation Phase. If you have 2 or less cards in hand, you must draw 2 instead (faster mill in 40 card deck and comeback mechanic). Mulligan rules the same: discard hand, draw that many cards at any time, any number of times till your deck is empty (no hand-screw).
File: 183-Partner-Finder.png (399 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
399 KB, 450x627
What little chance is in the game is mitigated by infinite discard-mulligans, the double draw rule (when at 1 or 2 in hand), and the fact that several Support effects Draw 1 incidentally when they are weaker effects.

This reduces the need for a card game to have searchers (aka "Tutors", fucking dumb term) with the exception of Partner Finder, which helps find a very key card in your deck. If this didn't exist then decks that rely on the partner can end up with 50%+ of their deck discarded just to make it work unlike in the PS1 game where you could have up to 3 partners in a 30 card deck.

Using powerful effects often requires self-trashing which can help mill decks eat you alive, kill your ACE/Partner cards, and run you out of options fast. If your opponent KOs your last Digimon that you can play they also win (deckout does not trigger a win in this game, but often leads to it) self-mill is risky but also rewarding.

Cards are balanced around these main key factors:
-Granting Power (temporary). Can cause OHKOs and generate quick knockouts and has a very strong come-from-behind game.
-Granting HP (permanent). Keeps the same fielder in play longer which matters for their effects and KO-denying opponents, as well as hard countering Powerspam decks.
-Fast evolution. Either through high DP racking, low DP costing or effects, fast evolution decks re-heal frequently and gain power as they step up. This momentum eventually runs out but the plan is to make the most of it by effectively negating early attacks from the opponent while 2HKOing before getting to level U and OHKOing.
-Cross specials: Draining HP on hit, countering, reducing multiple attacks to zero (combined with support that do the same for other attacks), color hate, attacking 1st to surprise gib digimon.
-Control Supports: Effects like Voiding, drawing, opponent discards, milling and tricksy things etc.

Each color trades off between these 5 foci.
The inclusion of Mega levels was a really hard decision for me. The game was intensely balanced around only 3 levels (2 max evolutions per Digimon). What happens when you evolve is that you gain a ton more power (easily OHKO more things), heal all your HP, raise your max HP, and potentially swap out for a more situational useful Cross ability.

Adding the ability to do this potentially 3 times seemed like it would either be way too powerful because it's easy, way too hard to be worth it, or somewhere in the middle causing swingy games.

Plus, there's the problem of deck balance. Do we even want to get into the monster of probability trying to draw the right level at the right time when there are 4 different ones in your deck at different amounts (and this doesn't have quite the drawspam as Pokemon, a la Level X cards from way back)?

In testing, every color can make a Mega-focused evolution deck and pull it off just fine. The megas were balanced between each other. Level C and U were able to take out level M with Support help and tight play. Level Ms can get 2 kills for their 1 death more easily than other cards but essentially it's the same principle as in the base game. However, this was achieved with a lot of refining and balancing between M levels. They're essentially slightly more powerful Us that you can only have 1 of.

Instead I created the Destiny Zone. A place outside the game where you can decide to put in 1 M level. They still require the same color U to evolve from and also have evolution bonuses (will get to this later). This eliminates the need to draw them but makes them infinitely reliable. So their power was reduced to just above U to combat the fact that they're basically guaranteed if you make it to U. However, they were also given abilities that can be used (once per game) and not even take up your Support for the turn. These are usually powerful but less than ACE cards.

In practice, Megas can be tough but generally only a nuisance.
File: 155-Boltmon.png (458 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
458 KB, 450x627
Seeing this example, they often also cost a lot of DP unless you get an evolution bonus.

Evolution bonuses are the things in those top textboxes. They do 2 important things:
-Reward players for tight deck design and tactical execution (but only minorly)
-Invite cross-color decks without breaking the color paradigm

See, if your currently active Digimon is listed as one of the things in the textbox (say Neodevimon in this example), not only do you get the indicated bonus (the evolution requires 40 less DP) but also you can evolve to it regardless of color, level or any other factor. Just having the name is sufficient. For example, I followed Bandai's hilariously weird decision to make Tekkamon a champion, however he can DNA evolve into Hi-Andromon which is a Mega, skipping Ultimate.

DNA Evolution: This was added to make cross-color and same-color evolution more consistent and provide DP-less solutions to evolution in case you get DP-starved or have a deck idea that puts in a lot of +10s and +0s. It works like this:
-Have one of the listed DNA requirement Digimon as active.
-Have the other in hand.
-Have the card evolving to in hand (or Destiny Zone if Mega)
-Perform the evolution by discarding the in-hand DNA material as though it were an Evolution card. This takes the place of your normal evolution card and cannot be used to cheese higher levels.

Mega abilities: Pictured, this one allows you (once per game) to discard 2 and triple your power against the listed colors, then take an HP hit. Most of the designs are similar to this with a few downsides to them. If you notice, its Cross has 3x hate on 2 other colors AND it has a Triangle special (extremely rare thing) with 3x hate on 2 MORE colors. So what this does is add the missing coverage as an ability but at a cost.

We kept a lot of the good design from the original game and took out all the bad, while replacing it with more good. We have 300+ combined hours in the PS1 game.
File: RevenantCover.jpg (2 MB, 1235x1725) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
2 MB, 1235x1725
Here's another game we've made.

Revenant: Age of Dusk is a pen and paper RPG in the thematic vein of Demon's and Dark Souls.

The mood is one of "Gloom Fantasy", something I can only attribute to the Souls series, the manga Berserk, Lovecraft+Fantasy and so on.

Before time itself there existed only frozen trees, unmoving primordial dragons and an endless lake. But then the dragon mother Kasamet gave birth to Chaos, ripping the fabric of reality open. From this void spewed lifeless vessels; husks that powerful souls from the enigmatic aether dimension would come to fill. These bright shining souls called themselves Archons and made civilizations, filling the floating husks in the lake with pieces of themselves. The Aurelians - the first humans, were born. After ages of dawn, peace and plenty, the bright golden Aurelians grew tired of their monotonous lot in life. A thoughtseed grew until there was treachery. After the Archon-Aurelian war, only a few remained; removed of their golden mantle and glory. These humans settled in the Upper Realm, above the highest mountains. Their children became cursed by the Archon keeper of the dead and so they inhabited the world below Upper Realm and above the lake; an earthy place called Midheim.

These undead Revenants live in squalor, fighting day by day to survive, unable to recall much of their past lives before they died and awoke in the Field of Nightmares. Countless new Revenants are born each century, shambling from the Field into makeshift civilizations. Seeking souls. Seeking power and freedom. Pestilence, treachery and powerful Archfiends threaten the existence of every Revenant while the humans above live rich lives.

In this game, you make a cursed undead Revenant, bound to various Shade Anchors located around the world. One central feature of the game is that as long as your soul isn't charred pure black, death forces some memory loss and rebirth at an Anchor; soul becoming blacker and more tainted each time.
File: Revenant-CS.png (914 KB, 2550x3300) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
914 KB, 2550x3300
Revenant uses a d10 with dice pool system similar to World of Darkness games. I've tried to keep some of the good in the WoD system but much of the combat is so appallingly bad that this system is very different ultimately.

Each character has Attributes which derive some other stats. When doing things (say, in combat) they can perform Physical Feats as an example. Each feat is listed in the book as having a stamina drain and attribute associated. Roll that many dice with a target (usually 6) and number of successes are "spent" on effects within that feat. Generally things such as recovering stamina for swinging effectively, dealing more damage, etc. The magic system is the same except magic spells are divided into 4 classes: Arcane, Enigma, Fire and Bane. Each are cast in different ways and use slight variations on spell storage, casting restrictions etc. Generally, you use AP or Aether Points granted by Willpower. Fire spells have limited use instead and Banes are a mix of the two. Spells often get to split with more variety such as distance, number of targets, becoming AOE, dealing more damage, buffs lasting longer etc.

Healing in this game is proactive rather than reactive. Unlike most games where healing after the damage is essentially just a counter-entropy system for damage, in Revenant the healing spells are all unique in that they are cast before combat (ideally) and apply things like passive regeneration, overhealing for temporary HP, etc. So that players who play support can still support but also free themselves up to bring something to the fight.

There are also crafting, smithing, enchanting and potion/poisonmaking in the game (the latter of which is very powerful). For more character customization, she might take one or more "Edges" which are a Property just like Endurance or Willpower but grant new features to a character (often with a downside, such as a merit+flaw). One lets you explode enemies into gore if you deal the last damage.
File: Revenant-CS-pg2.png (759 KB, 2550x3300) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
759 KB, 2550x3300
Unlike WoD, however; each "point" in a Knowledge (Skills/Talents/Knowledges all inclusive) grants a new "thing". With an example being that Local 3 allows purchasing really rare and amazing things from shady vendors (who won't usually be easy to find unless you have the street smarts to know where to look). They might sell rare herbs for ridiculous potions or dragon's blood which has uses in smithing and many other things.

Armor in the game works as pure DR, however weapons and armor have types of damage: Pierce, Bash, Slash, Normal. You may only provide your full Armor rating if the incoming weapon matches the armor's type (an armor might have +B and +P for example allowing all its protection to work versus Bashing and Piercing). However, if it has a negative to one, you cannot apply any armor and take full damage. Any unlisted types (almost always Normal) allow half armor to be used.

In playtesting, the social systems tend to be very fun and open a lot of role-playing. The combat flows quickly after 15 minutes of execution, the game feels very sandbox with tons of systems for crafting or enchanting things and character customization is very high. Combat itself felt tight but extremely deadly. Though death was more of part of a story arc for a character than a pure setback and led to interesting narratives.

More playtesting required but eventually I hope to sell this one.

To be done before Beta 1.0:
-Finish the factions (aka Covenants) you can join
-Finish the remaining baked-in locations

While the game as some semblance of a setting, none of the actual mechanics are completely reliant on it and makes for a great skeleton, useful for any desolate fantasy campaign.
Hi /gdg/. How do you guys handle ties on opposed rolls? I have people compare their base stat, but since that runs 1-5 in my system, and the system itself discourages 5s a little, my playtesters hit stalemates on the roll and the attribute. This is nearly a once-a-session problem. I know some people dislike rerolling, which is what I usually fall back on when I get the double stalemate.
Aggressor wins. Categorize which is which depending on the action. Character traits and specializations can allow you to win if you're defender instead.
Is it imperative that a victor be decided? If not, why not let it be a stalemate; neither side has gained the advantage. Alternatively let it fall back to your games equivalent of initiative. Those quicker get the upper hand at critical points. Another alternative is to have a NOT!feat that people can get that allows all stalemates to be considered victories for them.
You could either favor the actor or the reactor. This will have obvious consequences to for example how combat plays out. Or you could make tie a halfway there sort of result. In Fate, attack that ties does no damage but gives the attacked a boost (a transient situation aspect) they can exploit on their next turn.
Man, those abstract lines and arrows on the front got me PepsiDNA-triggered for a second
I have a Protagonism stat. Like strength measures how strong you are Protagonism measures how important you are to the story. It can unlock plot armor and the like.
Another aspect of it is does is tie-breaking. Enemies have an Antagonism stat which tie-breaks over Protagonism of equal value.
Half of these Knowledges seem like they would have zero value in a Dark Souls-style game. When in any Souls game would Mathematics come up? Or Pilot for that matter? What does "Conditioning" mean?

Also your healing system is decidedly not in line with the Souls series, where 9 times out of 10 your healing is not coming from an arcane source.

On the plus side, your character sheets here are kicking rad.
File: 1446884333499.png (182 KB, 420x407) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
182 KB, 420x407
More pronounced Gaussian distributions emerge as you continue to add individuals to your sample--and with dice sums, you just need at least 2 dice with at least possible 2 outcomes each: 2d2.
This is the basis for a lot of dice curves for systems, like 4dF or 3d6

Convergence, bish
Okay when can I play this this sounds amazing.

There really is kind of an empty design space for gloom-fantasy done right, so every time I see something I get super excited, especially when there is a good bit of crunch/options to it.
Hey uh I should've asked earlier but if any of you guys has any useful links for people seeking guidance on card games, war games, and general non-RPG stuff, it'd be much appreciated if you can share it with the rest so I can add it to the OP pasta

Also if you have any suggestions on a broad thread topic before moving that also helps out a bit
What about Skills vs Attributes?
Alternately: Custom Verbage
Is there a way to make melee duels interesting other than using a die pool to force recourse allocation, and prioratazation of attack/defence/grapples ect
As I said, just the mood is Soulslike. It's a close setting but not implementation.

Conditioning gives innate physical buff such as poise or resistances. Mathematics adds to ranged weapon damage, gives an automatic success at max level and allows use of siege weapons (like fixed ballistae for Archfiend arenas)

Pilot is a catch all for transportation. Just because it's nearly impossible to force players to go without horses, carts, ships etc due to some campaign settings. It's mostly optional in the core game anyway and allows some Hun-level archery.

Healing is proactive because reactive healing is a flawed design. I've hashed this out with math. Right now I'm on mobile and this is engraging enough to deal with, without going into logistic entropy and player engagement. Safe to say nothing is forced to be based on souls.

Thanks for the char sheet compliment. I'm a graphic designer so I hoped they didn't look crap.
What are some examples of unevenly matched (1v2, 1v3, etc.) card games? Trying to see if an idea I have has been done before.
Still populating monsters, locations, and covenants. After that we'll do a first edit run and release a beta (probably for /tg/ only) asap. If you want to know when it's available, you could find @BitLandGames on twitter or something.

And Jesus Christ if you want options. This ended up a project four times the original vision due to wanting more options one after another.
shit i posted it by accident instead of leaving it floating til this one sunk
okay folks time to leave i'm sorry

I will have an eye out for it then.

And I have the same issue. "Oh I'll scribble up a light little combat- fuck now I have 3 pages of combat options."
File: 1451759634460.png (26 KB, 775x591) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
26 KB, 775x591

Thread replies: 316
Thread images: 56
Thread DB ID: 412656

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.