[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: 61
File: 1451295130227.png (386 KB, 676x540) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
386 KB, 676x540
Formerly /hbg/ - or Homebrew General.

Old Thread: >>44573474

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 the advantages and disadvantages of using locational damage and armor over full-body damage, as opposed to full-body + called shots? How do you like to approach damage and equipment?

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

>Project List:

>Online Play:

>RPG Stuff:

>Dice Rollers

>Tools and Resources:

>Design and Layout
I'm great at coming up with general ideas for a game isn't everyone? and decent at setting the game math though not so great at thorough playtesting.

But I'm terrible at turning my piles of notes into a well laid out, well organized, easily understood document.

How do I get better at making readable gamebooks, /tg/?

And while I'm at it, how do I get better at releasing unfinished versions for playtesting? I hate showing off anything that isn't feature complete.
I asked right as the old thread was dying, so I'll ask again here.

What are some examples of unevenly matched (1v2, 1v3, 1v4, etc) cards games? Do any even exist?
Study actual rule books. See how it's done. As for understanding that you have to sift through a mountain of shit before you get to something good, and you'll need to show the shit covered good thing for other people to tell you how to clean it off, well that's just something anyone practicing a creative pursuit gets to endure.
Mtg had a good nemesis format where one player got a special super deck with unique event cards and played against everyone else
One of the best things to do to learn about making a readable product it to just read as many as you can. Go to a FLGS and just read the various books that are out there (With permission, of course, its not a library). Also get feedback from people about which books that they like and don't like. There's plenty of resources out there for how to make the book, but they'll only help you once you know what you want to make.

I've seen plenty pf board games like that, but not card games. I don't know a lot about card games, though. Wouldn't be hard to set up a system like that, plenty of dungeon crawler games that do it already.
File: Clockmon.jpg (81 KB, 320x320) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
81 KB, 320x320
There was an Anon on a different board a hour ago who mentioned a Digimon homebrew and redirected me here. I already looked in the previous thread and someone made a Digimon card game based one, but I'm not sure if this was what he was talking about.

You here, Anon?
File: 30.jpg (144 KB, 550x1679) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
144 KB, 550x1679
Don't try to make a universal system anon. Tight and focused is what you want.

There are tons and tons of generic systems on the market, some are good but most end up being unfocused and bland.
Here you go!
Thanks m8
Does my system's wording have to parse into its own internal language like MTG does? Should it? Or can I just explain things in regular English and count on players to understand what I mean?

Making a tabletop wargame by the way.
make a glossary and use internal language to simplify things

This. It isn't 100 percent strictly necessary - especially if you're always going to be playing/present when it's played - but rules should be as unarguably precise as possible, and having very specific language helps with that.
I was planning on this anyway. For instance , each faction has a different name for its mechs, but they're all synonymous. Mecha=Knight=Suit=Platform=Sarcophagus.

>if you're always going to be playing/present when it's played
Not a thing that'll happen. I might try to make it an MTG style internal language then.
>For instance , each faction has a different name for its mechs, but they're all synonymous. Mecha=Knight=Suit=Platform=Sarcophagus.
Random guy here, can I reccomend using a generic universal name when addressing all types of mechs in the rules like Mech or Unit or Titan? Means you use less words & makes it easier to pick up game from reading rulebook.
How do you guys set up starting points for characters? I have no idea how to procceed with the most basic point of the game, which is starting out.
I'm truly in-love with FFG's SW system.
I really, really love the idea of a single roll giving you the amount of info that it does in this game. I love the threat mechanic, how do I implement it in a game using regular numbered dice?
I don't want to outright copy the system, I want to think of other ways in which this type of result might be achieved.

Shadowrun does something similar with its glitches, since you can both succeed and still get a negative effect on your roll, but they're extremely rare, required half of your dice tome come up as 1s. At higher level play when you're rolling 14,15 dice at once it's almost statistically impossible to get a glitch. Also you can't get the opposite result (failure, with positive outcome) like in FFG's SW, so it's far from the ideal solution.
I generally figure out about how powerful I want them to start out, based on the theme/powerlevel of the system. Say you want everyone to be average joes, find out the stats, using system math, that would produce what feels like an average person. If you want then a little stronger, start tweaking numbers by the smallest amount, then up and down to see if that feels better.
File: pkch.jpg (9 KB, 256x256) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
9 KB, 256x256
>Trade caravans are replaced by high tech vehicles that can haul an enormous load of supplies and people
>They call them Caravans for the sake of simplicity
>Cars, for short

it's the little things

Any favourite tidbits about your game/setting/rules, /gdg/?
File: image.jpg (73 KB, 740x210) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
73 KB, 740x210
I based all my ranged weapons on the Girandoni Air Rifle, from pistols to heavy artillery, to the point where bows just aren't a thing.

Also: The Breaking Bond sigil, that basically removes any magic trace that you were at a location, is basically a styalized hand flipping the bird.
Here's the RPG Design thing from last thread

Mega link in the OP has a Game Instruction Template you can look through. As for releasing unfinished versions, just dump in everything you want, playtest, add and remove stuff, repeat. Don't bother with illustrations and stuff until the basic rules are solid.

Star Wars?
Whoops, wrong link.
The only issue I foresee with this is that it's hard for a DM to always be able to come up with a way you can fail, but also succeed or succeed but also fail, if that's makes sense? It can really put them in the spot and gets really hard to juggle it all.

That said, I knownthere are systems that have 4 ranges of Fail with Cost, Fail, Succeed with cost, succeed. Some having more or slightly altered ranges.
Does anyone have OP's pic without the title plastered over it?
File: 1451295130227.png (487 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
487 KB, 1920x1080
here you go my dude
Thanks bro, love that art.

Well, in SWs case they give you plenty of examples and guidelines in how to deal with it. My group has been having a blast with it; once you get the hang of it, it's really easy.
Working on 'jobs' for my game.

Every character has three stats: Spine, Heart, and Brain. Spine is used for physical and hardware actions, and determines how many Physical Action Points (PAP) you get to spend on those actions. Brain is used for mental and software actions, and determines how many Mental Action Points (MAP) you get to spend on those actions. Heart is used for social actions, and determines how many Hit Points (HP) you get to soak damage.

Every character has three connection ratings: Hardware, Software, and Cyberware. Connections determine how many wares you start out with of each type, and how many wares you can afford to maintain between game sessions.

I'm thinking of featuring ten 'jobs' for players to choose from:
>Gun Bunny
+1 Spine, +1 Hardware
+1 Spine, +1 Cyberware
+1 Spine, +1 Software
+1 Heart, +1 Software
+1 Heart, +1 Hardware
+1 Heart, +1 Cyberware
+1 Brain, +1 Software
+1 Brain, +1 Cyberware
>Grease Monkey
+1 Brain, +1 Hardware
>Corporate Shill
+1 Hardware, +1 Software, +1 Cyberware

Do you think that list of jobs looks good for a cyberpunk/post-apoc game with weeb influences?
You need cyborg. Yeah, as a class. I guess +2 hardware.

Mad Max wasteland raiders

>weeb influences
Well you have idol already. Maybe you can justify magical girls somehow.
The cyborg class is meant to be entailed within Samurai (as in Street Samurai, like in Shadowrun).
Raider is a good point though.

Also, you pick two jobs, plus one of the following 'homes':

>The Arcology
+2 Software
>The Annex
+1 Software, +1 Cyberware
>The Old City
+1 Software, +1 Hardware
>The Scrapyard
+2 Cyberware
>The Frontier
+2 Hardware
>The Ruins
+1 Hardware, +1 Cyberware
File: 022-Solarmon.png (389 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
389 KB, 450x627
Reposting my thing for you.

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: 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.
Forgot pic
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.
Im gonna leave this here and hop off to bed. I'll look over comments and questions tomorrow.

* Might - Melee Dice Size
* Endurance - Health
* Finesse - Ranged Dice Size
* Agility - Dodge Dice Size
* Knowledge -Used for stuff

Lowest to Highest
* D4 (Below Average)
* D6 (Average)
* D8 (Skilled)
* D10 (Expert)
* D12 (Master)
* D20 (Legendary)

* At start of round, roll 2d(Attribute) for each person in the dual. Record the numbers or leave the specific dice on the table. One player is the + player, the other the - player. The - player subtracts his value from the + player, giving them a Net Effect (+ player gets 3 total, - player gets 5, Net Effect is -2. If + has 5 and - has 3, Net Effect is +2)

* After both players have taken 2 actions, compare the results. The sum is the Effect that player has to spend. (-2 means the - player has 2 Effect to spend, +5 means the + player has 5 Effect to spend)

* If the sum is 0, it's a draw, and each player may elect to disengage for no cost.

* After it is spent, start over. Each option may only be chosen once, any leftover Effect is lost.

* Normally you may only have 2 Attack Dice, 1 Press Die, 1 Dodge Die, 1 Assist die per person and any number of +1's per side in Melee combat at a time. Some Special rules may supersede this.

* Press the Attack: +1d4 towards your side, any additional uses adds +1
* Flurry: Reroll 1 attack die
* Parry: Force Enemy to reroll 1 Attack Die
* Retreat: Roll 1d(Agility), move the end Effect towards 0 by that amount. (Retreat can never grant Effect, only force a Draw)

* Damage: Reduce Foe's endurance equal to Effect spent, up to weapon's damage (*)
* Knock down: Reduce Foe's Agility to 4 temporarily (2)
* Stand: Restore Agility (1)
* Daze: Reduce one of Foe's starting dice to 1 (4)
* Power Attack: Deal an Additional 2 Damage (3)
* Press the Advantage: Get a free +1 (1)
* Disengage: Break off combat (1)
Specifically I'd like some better names for Actions and Effects. The ones I have feel kinda. Meh.
File: RevenantCover.jpg (2 MB, 1235x1725) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
2 MB, 1235x1725
Reposting this too:

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.

Not meant to be an actual analog to "Souls" in case there was confusion. It's just a gloomy dark fantasy game with an original setting very akin to Berserk and Souls.
File: Parallax War.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Parallax War.pdf
1 B, 486x500
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:
I remember you mentioning you were the graphic designer, so I'll dump feedback on the sheets:
* Personally, I'd design a track graphic for the five-dot tracks; the O is quite blatantly the letter O and it kind of throws me off a bit. Something for the Health/Stamina/Aether pools' boxes would also be nice to give it a bit more tone - unique shapes indicating the type of resource, or whatever.
* Space the lines associating stats to their tracks slightly, and maybe make them a light color - their presence is good but they're not as important as what's around them, so should be de-emphasized
* Probably shift things in from the sides a bit
* Ditch the background pattern, it's bad for home printing which is 100% a concern for character sheets. Probably the same for the embossing on the decorations - using flat colors means they'll look better with worse printers, at least in my experience. Looks great on screen, though.
* Text from the gems aren't vertically centered with the spaces for recording them. Assuming they're currency denominations it makes more sense to group them alongside items rather than with your spells and what I assume to be casting-related stuff (Covenant and Hexgage)
* Are social styles meant to have six points when everything else has five?
* Why is your main/offhand durability listed with your Aspects rather than with the equipment it's associated with? You probably have enough space to expand the equipment into the items section.
* Horizontal padding should probably be increased on the body to the border, and on the section heading text to the lines (by Attributes/Aspects etc)

In addition:
>makes for a great skeleton
Seriously though, it sounds good. I'll definitely be keeping an eye out. The sheets are really nice, in case you think I didn't think that, but there's always room for improvement.
File: not-Pokemon.png (57 KB, 988x614) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
57 KB, 988x614
Hello. I'm in the need of some help.

I'm making a board game to replicate the pokemon games. You go around, capture wild pokemon, train them and fight other players and gyms.

It will have abou 3 or 4 elements, and character progression will be with monster fusion.

NOW! My problem is the battle system and stats.For reasons, the main battle stats MUST BE only 3! I am thinking of the following:

Strength: For physical attack damage
Defense: To reduce damage from physical attacks
Special: For special attack damage and to prevent damage from special attacks.
(attacks can be physical or special)

I think this can lead to some balancing issues. If I recall correctly, the original Pokemon games also had only attack, defense and special. In the following games, Special was split into special attack and special defense.

I want to know what are REALLY the problems with having a single Special stat. And how could I mitigate those problems.

Thanks in advance.
(pic for awareness)
If there are reasons for limiting to three stats, you should definitely state those reasons. If it's just visual design, redesign.

It'd make more sense to have Mundane and Special, Attack and Defense as a matrix - that, or you apply Special as a bonus to Attack when using moves matching one or more of your elements, and to Defense when being dealt damage matching one or more of your elements, in which case "Affinity" is probably a better term (since it's based on the monster in question's elemental affinities).

The reason is physical, as in the physical nature of the components.

I want to develop the monsters by fusion. Monsters are represented by cards. On the edges of the cards are the stat boosts they have / give when fused:

TOP: Strength
LEFT: Defense
RIGHT: Special
BOTTOM: New attacks.

So when I fuse two monters, I get one of them and shove it under the other, with the side I want to boost peeking out.

I want to fuse an abra aad a pikachu. I want the Abra to be the main, and the pikachu to give it's special stat boost to it. I grap the pikachu card and put it under the abra card (making a pile) but with the right side peeking out. So now when you look at the abra, you see that it has two Special stat boosts, its own and pikachu's.

I could have a RPS type stats. 3 stats: PHYSICAL, TECHNICAL and ENERGY.
Physical attacks are defended with technical
technical with energy
and energy with physical
If it's physical limitations, you could print the stats on the long side of the card. I could see you fitting four or five stats that way, assuming playing card sized cards.
I see. That's a clever way of doing it; it'll get a bit messy but that's generally okay.

Personally I find RPS systems a bit unsatisfying, and it wouldn't play well with type affinities I don't think (unless you just set up strength/weakness as static bonuses).

Yeah, but I want only one stat per side because I want to boost only one stat per fusion.
A better asymmetry would be to lump both defenses or attacks together, so Phys Attack/Spec Attack/Defense or Attack/Phys Defense/Spec Defense.

Alternatively, you can do Offense/Defense/Speed.

Alternatively alternatively, RPS stats work.

Yeah, I still not sure on how to make the combat.

I would enjoy a dice chucker system. Here's my idea:

Monsters would have equal base stat by "unfused" level. (in the beginning all wild monsters are level 1. as they run out higher level monster start appearing)

so all level 1 wild monsters have all stats at 5, all level 2 wild have all stats at 7, for example.

Then, each monster has it's own stats boost. Pikachu could have str+1, def+0, spc+2.
That would make him with Strength 6, Defense 5 and Special 7.

We have a d6, with 3 hit symbols and 2 shield symbols. Attacker want to roll hits and defenders want to roll shields.

Pikachu attacks caterpie with a Lightning Bolt (special attack). (Caterpie is level 1 and has defense +0)
There are two ways to go now (still have to decide)

1 - damage on Caterpie = (pikachu's 7d6 for hit) - (caterpie's 5d6 for shield)
2 - (less random)
damage = (pikachu's base + (pikachu's boost)d6) - (caterpie's base + (caterpie's boost)d6)
damage = (5 + 2d6 for hit) - 5

Fuck, forgot the point of the post.

Weaknesses, Resistances and Same-Type-Attack-Bonus would be fixed modifiers that would translate into more or less dice to be rolled
Partially seconding this anon. Attack/PhysDef/SpecDef actually works really well, because you're not penalized for mixing it up. If you have an array of Physical and Special moves, you'll use them all as the situation demands. You can still bias mons towards one form by giving them access to predominantly Special moves or an ability that boosts Physical moves, but with this a Physical move on a Special attacker isn't a wasted slot. If you want diversity, and to not feel bad for giving a Gyarados Surf, this is the way to go.

Your current setup doesn't work as well (and PhysAtk/SpecAtk/Defense not at all), because after the numbers shake out even a "mixed" mon is going to either be primarily a Physical attacker or a Special attacker, which they deviate from only rarely. Just like in the games, where 90% of offensive sets (even for pokemon with good stats on both sides) are either all-Physical or all-Special, with mixed sets being uncommon and generally limited to a specific coverage or "surprise" move. Which I guess is cool if that's what you're going for, but I don't think it will make for a better game.
The main problem with having a single stat determine special attack and defense is the lack of variation on Special oriented monsters, and a clear advantage against Physical monsters. If you have a Strength 2, Defense 2, Special 15, you basically have no reason to pick any other Special monsters because you already have the highest Special, while Physical monsters will almost always have low Special, thus letting you steamroll them. It's basically why Mewtwo was so crazy strong in 1st Gen.

One way you could handle this is have Defense handle both Physical and Special, then give Physical and Special a differentiating characteristic. Something like Physical does more raw damage, while Special almost always has side effects like confusion or poison, as long as both attacks are always an option.

I'll also second (third?) >>44664156 and >>44664849 on Attack/PhysDef/SpecDef, especially since the variety of attacks increase by a good bit.

> Attack/PhysDef/SpecDef
Doesn't this turn Attack int a must have stat?
But doesn't this mean that Attack becomes a
Not really, there's the Stall team route of Toxic+Recover, among others.

hum... ok.

I have to think about it, as the battle won't be exacly like pokemon.

As this is a board game, to reduce downtime, battles will have limited turns. At least against wild pokemon (most of the battles are against wild pokemon. to capture new ones or tog et XP). I'm thinking a 5 turn limit.
Maybe on paper, but you can't really avoid that unless you want to substantially rework things further away from Pokemon. As it stands, you're taking a fundamentally four-stat system and compressing it into three, so something is already going to change. There's six possibilities for which pair of stats you combine:

1) Combine Physical Attack and Physical Defense. This is inherently unbalanced, as >>44664960 pointed out.

2) Combine Special Attack and Special Defense. See 1.

3) Combine Physical Attack and Special Defense. This is silly and makes no sense, unless you're going full RPS (and away from the games).

4) Combine Physical Defense and Special Attack. See 3.

5) Combine Physical Defense and Special Defense. You have no reason to ever use a damaging attack off your lower stat, because it's overcoming the same stat regardless. Everyone uses 90% Physical or Special attacks, and things are less interesting because you've cut the viable options for a particular Pokemon in half.

6) Combine Physical Attack and Special Attack. Pokemon use both Physical and Special moves they have available as the situation demands. Attack is only a must-have in the sense that Attack OR Special Attack were a must-have in the games - it kinda is, because you win by dealing damage, but there's ways around it for the have nots. The only thing you really lose with this setup is having Skarmory wall Physical attackers and Blissey wall Special attackers, because everyone is (in theory) a mixed attacker. By simply redefining "Physical attacker" from "has a higher Physical Attack stat" to "has mostly Physical moves available", you don't even lose that.
Playtested a round of Flip Control today, was pretty fun despite messing up some of the rules, both during play and explanation. Here's a few things we found. Unedited pdf used during play included for comparison.

A main thing was that it was a bit confusing to keep track of what the units were worth in the different lands, especially in lands that the units were weak to (thus needing two units for 1 point). There was also a confusion on my part where there was a X.5 amount of units on of the cards. One possible change we thought of was when putting down a unit that was weak to the land, you must spend/burn/sacrifice 1 unit for every 1 you put down. The sole 1 that was put down counts as 1 point, not 0.5 points. It makes sense thematically since soldiers dying in unfamiliar land is logical, and good mechanically since it maintains that "you can put units there, but at a disadvantage" angle.

Commander movement and actions still needs further refinement, stuff like commander vs commander, where a used up commander is moved to after a battle, etc. One immediate amendment was to allow commanders to stand on the same card at the same time instead of forbidding it, since there was the matter during the end phase of reducing cards until only one was left. The matter of forcing the commander to move somewhere was also commented to be somewhat advantageous to the player, since they had the extra chance to move their commander and plan ahead. This will probably need further testing, though we toyed with the idea of letting the opponent decide where the commander goes just because of how funny that could be.
The back and forth battle was reduced to a single "I use X to take out your Y", simply because it was much easier. Was somewhat fitting too, as it not only kept the action simple like the rest of them, but also because there were usually too little units on each card to do any back and forth. Speaking of actions, I need to see how moving units around fits in the game, we mostly focused on adding and removing units during our session.

Regarding the end phase, while taking away cards and shrinking the field was nice, there was a pretty clear advantage to the player who is last, as they have the chance to do anything without any retaliation from the others. There was also some confusion on whose turn it was after taking a card. I'm thinking of maybe letting the round start with the player whose turn it is to take a card, and then moving the card taking to the end of the round. That way taking cards wouldn't be as clear cut as "dump all units into this, so round ends, it's my turn, so I take this card", and players will always have a chance to mess up the other's plans.

All in all, pretty insightful and fun. This time we had a two player game, so hopefully there's a chance to play with more players in the future.
Anyone have the 3d500 "make a game" image and pdf?
File: 1447269604012.png (318 KB, 1597x1178) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
318 KB, 1597x1178
Tell me about your sword rules, please. Alternatively, please refer me to games that you feel do melee combat with edged weapons well.
>Anyone have the 3d500 "make a game" image and pdf?
Rolled 356, 470, 473 = 1299 (3d500)

what do you want to know about swords exactly?

also thanks, rollan
My system uses swords as kind of a "basic, but you can learn techniques to replicate anything another weapon can use. Also, parry for days"

A good place to look is Song of Swords, there should be a general floating around. They're huge sword geeks.
>>Anyone have the 3d500 "make a game" image and pdf?
Earlier thread:
Working on ideas for gang progression for my game. I'm thinking of the model of sending out gang members to find random events, like how Necromunda, Mordheim, Frostgrave, and This Is Not A Test do it: you roll on a chart to see what they find, and each thing is a little event, not just loot numbers.

I've got 3 rough ideas of how to do it. 2 uses a safer chart, one would be a limited number of people can go out and search, rolling on the chart; the other is you send as many as you want, but roll for each one, on a high enough roll they find something and roll on the chart. The third idea is as many can search, but the risk is higher. You automatically roll on the charts to see if they find anything, but there's a chance of not only finding nothing, but run of the risk of bad shit, like being kidnapped by enemy gangs or injured by hazards.

What would people prefer? I'm petsonally leaning towards the third option, where everyone can search, but there's bad things out there. If I go that way, I may include a system to allow it to be groups looking, to lower the risk of bad things when working together.
So someone described Apocalypse world to me, and the engine seems pretty sweet as a basis for a project of mine.

But what struck me as odd was the leveling up system.

They said you level up if you roll 5 times along a certain stat. Which seems weird, and easily abuse-able to me. Is that how it works?
I've only once quickly read through a PbtA book, but I believe that's how it basically goes, though the technical jargon for that, I recall, goes "when you mark experience for the fifth time."

...someone with more knowledge should probably answer you instead.
>Ideas harvesting general
No wonder every RPG that comes out lately is fucking garbage, you're stealing all your ideas from the worst place on the internet after rpgnet
So, I chalked up Ranged combat rules, though they are a bit more nuanced, as ranged combat brings with it some inherent difference in regards to things like whether or not both combatants have guns, whether they are dodging, taking cover, or a mixture of the two.

The basic idea is you can have two dice on the field of either Dodge, Cover or Attack, each affecting the outcome differently. So if you don't have a gun you can have 2 dodge dice down and make it difficult for the opponent to get any effect, or you can have 2 Cover dice and make it so your opponent has to overcome a high threshold to be able to spend any effect, finally you can just roll in with 2 attack dice and risk the potential of either you or your opponent getting a lot of Effect against the other.

There is also, of course, the option to take a balanced path, shooting behind cover, running and gunning or spetsnaz rolling behind a wall. I find that there is rarely a "best" action to take, and your choices are heavily influenced by how the die are decided, making it feel like a calculated risk a la poker and less the whims of the dice. I've run a few combat tests, and the outcome of even a pitched match between equals comes down to who makes the better move that who rolled highest to begin with. I've had a fight that started at 1,1 vs 8,6 and the 1, 1 came out on top.

That said, I feel like 2 actions is very constraining, and maybe 3 would give more potential for an upset, but at the same time I feel like that would be slow and completely invalidate the results of the starting dice.

In any case, I'm really liking this system, and I think I'm going to see how much I can bulk it up before it becomes unwieldy.
There is no need to be a rude dude.
Whoa bro, what's with the hostility?

Is there something you'd like to say? Instead of throwing out vague insults?
I'm thinking about doing a 2 player game (One DM, one player), based on solo adventure board games.

Are there any 1P systems out there?
Aw shit. I know there a book that gets dumped in Pdf share threads all the one. But now I'm blanking the name. Might be a good place to start.
2 player games are pretty interesting because you can do a shitton of things that wouldn't work in groups

i only did it once and it turned into a small campaign, and my friend (the player) was a time-based mageknight and timejumping was pretty cool
Getting ready to do my first playtest this week. Gonna start off with single mechs backed up by a squad or two of infantry and small amounts of artillery.
Knock 'em dead.
First lists

Astaria: 50/50

Mechs: 20

Vanguard, Guardian Rig: 20

Infantry: 19

19 Trench Fighters

Support: 11

Rifled Muzzleloader: 2
Ballista Rocket Barrage: 6
Table of Ordinance: High Explosive, Gas: 3


Shoshkepal: 50/50

Mechs: 30

M79 Herald of Oblivion, Rig A: 30

Infantry: 12

12 Sharpshooters

Support: 8

Modern Breechloader w/ High Explosive, Armor Piercing, and Smoke: 8
File: 7779.jpg (10 KB, 200x275) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
10 KB, 200x275
What are some good upgrades to make available for motorcycles?

>Double Rotor
>Spokeless Tires
>Gyro Stabilization
>Transformation (Legs)
>Transformation (Arms)
>Smart Wheels
>Adaptive Suspension
>Newtonian Fluid Armor
File: slenderman.jpg (24 KB, 992x558) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
24 KB, 992x558
I'm interested in creating a Slenderman cult recruitment rpg. or is that passé already?

You're about two years late.
I wouldn't necessarily make it about the slenderman he'll know because you're buying into a somewhat popular set of lore, with many varied and equally valid depictions.

What do you mean by recruitment though?

Are the players going to be slendermen, recruiting operators?

Or operators, recruiting operators?

Or regular tom dick and harries who have the misfortune to somehow pique the slenderman's interest?

I don't think the first is a good idea. Playing as the slenderman would ruin the horror elements of it.

I don't think the third is a good idea either. Slenderman wins, full stop. The players either die or are recruited.

The second seems like it could be interesting though: You play as a guy already recruited into the slenderman's club. You have to work within modern society to recruit more people, all while evading both supernatural wrath from what is probably a terrible boss, and the blowback from society and those you're recruiting.

that is kind of what I had in mind, play as a cult operative, and you have to serve the slenderman in various ways. recruitment of more submissives, doing cult chores (human sacrifices?) , avoiding/subterfuge various paranormal investigators, and keeping the boss happy at all times.
Maybe try going the Tales of the Arabian Nights route and have them be able to choose stuff during the events. Like they meet a rival gang, and you can either Talk, Punch, or Pray. Talk unlocks a quest about their missing gang member, Punch makes you lose several members, and Pray doesn't really do anything since the rival gang got creeped out and left your guys alone.

That way the players would have an actual choice in what happens to their gang, and not just randomly lose half of their gang members. I misread and accidentally assumed you were making some sort of mafia game though, so sorry for the weird example above.

So basically whoever rolls higher gets points to spend on that turn, then it moves to the next round? Kind of interesting.

The Enemy rerolling their Attack Die might not be that good, due to the probability of getting a higher number. Maybe reroll and reduce? Like from a D10 temporarily reduced to a D8 or D6 after a parry. Though maybe explain the rationale for the actions? They all feel pretty weird.

More engines, jet engines, more wheels, wearable as armor, transformation (wings), transformation (weapons), more weapons, remote controlled, sentient AI, transformation (form change). I hope you're making what I think you're making.
I want one of the countries in my fantasy campaign to be ruled by wizards, every child and every peasant knows at least cantrips like message, drench, etc. I also want them to essentially have no huge castles, with everyone knowing message and the like they can broadcast information as it happens to the big wig wizards that shit's going down. Pretty much have it be like a bad stealth video game where you alert one dude and suddenly every mother fucker knows where you're at and what you look like. How does this idea feel to you? Anything you can think of that you'd like to add? I'm sure there's a lot more I can do with a whole country of low level commoners with levels in wizardry but I don't know where to go from here without going to over the top
First you have to justify why it's only one country.

maybe less slenderman, maybe more options for "patrons" that affect missions.
*It's actually not the letter O. It's a symbol font that I tracked down. I've considered using different shapes for HP/AP/SP. Like Square/Starburst/Reuleaux triangle though that hasn't been as much a priority as getting the rules down
*Sure, that makes sense. My concern with lighter lines is printers with black ink only. Often times that's how Charsheets get printed and they only recognize something like 3-4 tones of black before they give up and go white. I will have to toy with this and determine a good average for most printers.
*Shifting things in was on my to-do list yep. They were always supposed to be in as far as the pool boxes but I just forgot to get it done.
*Believe me, I've gone up and down on the bg over and over. At first I was adamant that I won't put it in. Then I tried some test prints and it worked out so I added them in. Then I realized they were on laser printers at Staples and that's a flawed sample. Printed from my inkjet fine somehow but was prone to smudging immediately after. Yeah it has been a nightmare. What I'm trying to do is create a gothic feel without a ton of damask patterns due to this very problem. Simplistic goth is hard.
*I originally had them centered along the line but it looked de-balanced, so I stuck them on the ends to balance them. Rather than, y'know, be not lazy and figure out why that font looks unbalanced when away from huge circles. I'll look into that. As for the currency thing, they're both for magic and currency (including the Hexgage). So they belong in both places. I could look into moving them into the center.
*Yep, six.
*So this is one that originally wasn't this way. Durability for weapons is on the main sheet because it's things that "change often" or require "lots of tracking". Whereas the second sheet is more of a reference. The idea is that a player's top sheet is in front of her more often.
*Can do

Thanks so much for your feedback!
I don't like what you're doing here. It seems overly complicated and long for what most games present as very simple processes.

Consider, that for any round of combat, you have to resolve three different processes, one of which has its own mini rounds.

1. both players roll

2. Both players take turns spending "actions" to modify their roll

3. finally, winning player gets to take all the last bits of sub turns in the round to spend his gains.

If I'm playing this, I'm wondering why I can't just roll 1 die, or a bunch of die, compare that to a single number, and get an answer, all in one fluid step.

Also, I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem incredibly unlikely for a legendary guy to lose to a below average guy several times in a fight.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish with all of it either. Which seems bad, because if you're going to make the resolution of actions really convoluted, you should have a good reason for it.

Your system reminds me of a way more complicated version of apocalypse world.
In Revenant, you pick a weapon. Let's say you want an Arming Sword. This weapon has a size class of 2 (classes range from 1 (small), 2 (medium), 3 (large), 4 (oversized) ).

Arming Sword
Type: N, P
Damage: 3
Range: 1
Drain: 2
Requrements: 3 STR / 2 DEX
Wgt: 2

If you meet the STR/DEX requirements and can fit the Weight onto your character without losing actions (going over half your equip load means you only get 2 actions, instead of 3), then you're good.

From here, within combat you select one of several feats available. I'll show one:

Drain: 2
Target: 6
Traits: Dexterity (Requires Weapon)
The character uses her weapon’s thrusting attack to stab at the opponent. Any melee weapon except slashing-only can thrust. Each additional success can be spent increasing the damage of this attack by +1.

Declare a Thrust with your Arming Sword. The range of your sword is 1, so you must be in an adjacent hex (or for theater of the mind, within 3 feet/1 meter). Add up the weapon and feat Drain (3) and remove that from your SP or Stamina Pool. Roll d10s equal to your Dexterity stat for this attack (others use Strength or Willpower etc.) Pick one of your two damage types (Normal or Pierce, N/P). For each d10 that hit the "Target 6" or higher, you get a success.

The first success is always spent to hit and the remainder can be spent on the special text. In this case, we get +1 damage each. Let's say we rolled 3 successes and get +2 damage. This weapon does 3 damage Piercing +2 more. If the enemy has any P-resistant armor, it applies all of its armor rating as damage reduction. If that type is weak, it applies none. If the type is unlisted, it applies half. Subtract the damage from its HP.

This ends up flowing very quickly after the first 15 minutes, especially once you've used a weapon more than twice and don't have to look up its stats.
File: setting_info.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1 B, 486x500
>More engines, jet engines, more wheels, wearable as armor, transformation (wings), transformation (weapons), more weapons, remote controlled, sentient AI, transformation (form change). I hope you're making what I think you're making.

Probably not.. see attached pdf for some setting info.
Basically I'm consolidating a round into a single turn. You roll your dice, based in that both parties decide their actions to try and maximize their numbers. It makes combat a kind of mini game where you get to feel like each step is progress. Then at the end you resolve. Honestly it makes combat less "I swing, you swing" and more like an actual duel, you aren't just trying to hit, you're trying to gain the upper hand.

If you just rolled a die, then that's pretty boring and out of your control what happens. If you roll a die and can slap modifiers on it, then that's more interesting, but feels like the other guy is doing nothing. It takes the "active reaction" aspect some games use, and draws it into its own enclosed conflict. With actual physical dice on the table, it resolves fairly quickly, not much longer than a normal pair of two turns. And that's what it is. It's grouping two turns (or more with assisting rules) together. It keeps players from sitting there impotently while another guy smacks away at him. Which sucks and I don't like in game design. If someone's taking an action against you, you should be able to affect the outcome.

And yes, it's incredibly unlikely that a weak guy can beat a legendary guy, which is good. I don't want that. But equal aversaries have a good chance of turning tables, and even a weaker foe can buy time of play to his advantages to get a leg up.

And in simple terms, yes. Both players can reroll, and it brings an inherent risk of, if I reroll that 4 on a d8, I could end up getting the same, or potentially even lower, meanwhile my foe is stacking +'s on me. That's why I went with 2 dice, so a reroll only changes one half of the equation.
>This thread.


Here's my Homebrew. Feel free to rip it apart.

Sorry, I misread that last part. It is not actually common for a super skilled guy to lose, as he can get his numbers much higher, and when he does it's usually not by much, just enough to give the other guy a bit of an edge. It's possible to lose through poor planning, but if you know what you're doing bigger dice means a much higher chance of winning.
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't clear at all. I'm making a gang skirmish wargame, like Necromunda.

The basis is each player controls a mech and a bunch of gang members. So the idea is after a game in a campaign, you'd be able to earn extra to improve your gang. There wouldn't really be anything that outright ruins your gang, more like they'll miss the next game. Only the most extreme case would actually eliminate the gang member.

And yeah, giving some interaction is a good idea. This Is Not A Test gives players a choice in their encounters. Its usually stuff like "You found a perilously perched car that may have a cache in it. You can attempt to check it, and if you pass a characteristic test, you get the cache."

An idea I came up since that post for how many you can send out could be tied into victory points. The scenarios I have are all objective based, and most reward something like 10 points for the main objective and a smattering for the side objectives, and it could be something like "For every 3-5 victory points you score in the game, you may send one gang member out." It gives a bonus for winning, since generally they'll have more victory points, but rewards playing a close game.
I just realized I skipped a word, I meant that Parry forcing your opponent to reroll their die might be more beneficial to your opponent than it is to you, which is why I suggested for it to reduce and reroll.
Well... I haven't been here in a while but I'll just share my current project [name pending].

Take Yugioh, Touhou Hisoutensoku (I know, WTF), Turnless combat and hexes, throw them in a blender and you got my new combat system. I know it sounds horrible, but this, the most unattractive way to explain it, serves as a groundwork to show how it works.

I am currently making an RPG with Card-based fighting system. Probably gonna try to run it with Tabletop Simulator once I get the lite version of rules down, and have made enough cards to have it playable (Artless cards for now, but maybe later add artwork).

So the gist of the system is this:
-Beginning of combat, everyone draws cards
-New cards are drawn at set intervals (Such as 90 seconds) / or when everyone agrees to draw (Haven't decided yet)
-Actions during combat can be taken any time, as long as someone else isn't doing something already
-All actions save moving one safe hex (battles happen on a hex-map) are done with cards.
(Cards have four main points: Mana cost, mana gain, Power [used for actions during combat such as running or bashing someone's head] and card effect)
-If you use a basic action, such as bashing someone in the head, you play one card and roll 1-3 d6 (Depending on skill and equipment), add in the card's power value and the dice number to see whether you've hit.
-If you're casting a card, you count up to the mana requirement, and count mana from cards in your hand (The cast card's mana gain is included) and if you can meet the requirement (Or go over it, in a pinch), the card's effect comes to play.
-After casting a card, the cast card is put into an "extiguished" pile and the mana cards are put to the bottom of the deck.
-One can also put up a defensive card in front of them, face down. If the card is a counter-card (Meaning quick card, duh), it can be used in conjunction of other card effects / actions, to negate them, enhance them etc.

That's the gist of it, but there's more.
More innovative combat systems in RPGs are always nice, but usually if the combat is the main focus and has lots of neat mechanics, the rest of the RPG can fall flat, so do be wary of that.

Regarding the system itself, turnless combat might not be a good idea, as it could get hectic with multiple players and multiple DM controlled enemies.

Placing down defensive cards seems weird, in the sense that the rest of the mechanics are about playing them directly from your hand. But then again, that's like saying placing down a continuous effect card in deckbuilders is weird, so I don't know.
Tabletop Simulator actually worked really well for playtesting my homebrew card game. I found out that there were some big balance issues with the costs of cards, and the entire damage-tracking mechanic is really clunky.

I understand the concerns...

Well, the idea is still pretty raw, but I think the turnless system might work better than turned, because while in more chaotic situations it might become chaotic, having individual turns would probably slow the game into a crawl (though it would give me more stats to work with!).

And about the other parts falling flat... I have come to conclusion that the more rollplaying is included, the less roleplaying gets done... Thus I've basically turned the non-combat into a mix of RISUS (Meaning characters have "backgrounds" instead of skills) AND playing the cards. The cards effects will be transferred to the non-combat with descriptions and flavor text of the cards. Thus the most interesting aspect of the game doesn't disappear entirely...

My current problem is the lack if stats. I only have Fortitude (health basically), Defense (duh), Luck (dunno even what exactly I'll do with it) and Deck (deck size is a stat!). Maybe I should add something to restrict getting OP cards in the beginning... That be a new stat!
Oh! I see. It's mostly there in case your opponent rolls their highest number or something. Roll and reduce might be good, but I never really figured out where to go under d4's which is a little important. I'd probably want to make it so they count reduce the same dice twice or something like that as well.
The reduce would be temporary, so either eliminating the die altogether, change it to a d2 (flip a coin), or don't anything would be fine I think. Not letting the dice be further reduced would be the equivalent of "even after a parry, at a certain point, the weapon would still be dangerous". After the round (turn?) that the dice were used in, they would be reset back to normal.

Is combat flow more a "discuss, do an action, resolve, discuss again, took too long so the DM does a thing, repeat" kind of thing than the usual turn by turn thing? In which case turnless might not be that much of a hassle after all.

Using the cards as fuel for roleplaying in addition to combat is pretty neat. Maybe you could do something like in Funemployed and let players play any or all cards in their hand during a non-combat scene, gaining bonuses and stuff, as long as they roleplay the traits or characteristics on the cards they used.

You could keep it simple with cards having only "Attack, Defense, Effect", then use the deck itself as Health. Or maybe make it skills/background only and forego stats altogether?
Makes sense.

I have a weird/neat idea about how weapon's would work as well. Basically they have a "Damage per Effect" and "Max Damage" score, so a basic fist would be probably 1/1. The way I want to handle weapons is that as you progress, you can "upgrade" your weapons. Either actually getting them reforged, getting a new one, getting better with it, what have you. The net effect is the same however. You can either increase the Max Damage, or maybe add an additional effect or "tag" like reach, piercing, finesse or something. Once your damage hits a multiple of 5, you can increase your damage per effect by 1 as well. I'm not sure how to scale it in regards to your other stats, if it should be an option between that, potentially bumping a stat or gaining a Special, or if it should just be in addition.

I have a lot of work building on it, but I want to get the basic structure as strong as possible.

Well, the flow is supposed to be quite slow, if you draw cards only when everyone is pretty much done with their actions (Or at set intervals). You can only do two actions between draws, unless buffed, with the GM having some exceptions. I think the way you explained it might be a good way of describing how it would optimally happen. Of course, helping teammates and discussing what cards they have in hand should be limited, unless using card effects etc.

I first though that they would need to cast cards as usual normally, but being able to just use any of them sounds pretty good. Cards do have a "returning" period after being used. Though thinking about the non-combat, it's kind of hard to think if it would be better to let them use cards from the deck freely (Deck stat's starting point is 20, so it isn't that much to go around with)

Well, I figured to have four stats in the end, Health (Fortitude), Hit difficulty (Defence), Card level restraint (Magic) and Deck size (Deck). Health will be counted as Fortitude x d6 dice. Defence will be the hit difficulty others have against you (Finality pending).
Magic will be the mana cap you can use for cards (i.e if you have a Magic of 5 you can only cast up to 5-mana spells)
Deck will be simply the amount of cards in your deck.

Using the deck as a health source would be interesting, but I see the dice approach being a little more lenient, because burning the deck quickly will be one of the ways to play the game (Such as for warriors). Because when burning through cards, you make them go into depletion for x amount of rounds... Now if I made the depletion time correspond the mana requirement, it would become riskier to take high-mana cards. But at the same time their effects could be more devastating, because they basically lock your depletion pile for a long time... Huh.
How easy was it to set up?
File: Zerk 0.2.5.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Zerk 0.2.5.pdf
1 B, 486x500
I have two different groups of friends who will be starting campaigns soon, one lead by a seasoned veteran and the other comprised entirely of newcomers. My worries are with the newbies and how they might handle wording, is there anything I can change to make this more beginner friendly, or should I just let it happen and be there to clarify things?
Let it happen, be there to clarify things, take notes of what needs clarification, use those as the basis of your revisions.
I might have to get a middle man later on. I can only appear in person for the first session, after that the schedules begin to conflict like nobody's business.
What are some cool unique abilities for mecha pilots?
Custom gear is always cool, as is enhanced battlefield awareness/reflexes or being able to spot weakpoints, but that's just general stuff. I can't really think of much specifically. Look at Gundam or Warmachines and the cool shit those pilots can do compared to "ordinary" pilots.
>A tale as old as time...
Got rid of distinct "Fire Artillery" and "Artillery shells impact" steps. Artillery now share their firing phase with mechs, but can have varying Seniority values allowing them to fire at different points in the turn.
It suddenly occurs to me that shooting later in the turn might be beneficial for artillery.

Mecha want to shoot early, because they can eliminate threats to themselves, killing their targets before they get a chance to shoot back. But artillery don't have to worry about being destroyed, because they're offsite, shelling the battlefield from hundreds or thousands of meters away. With that in mind, artillery might want to shoot last, because that could let them pick off targets the mechs' shooting has already weakened, or targets that unexpectedly survived the turn, and they don't have to be worried about being killed off.

So it upgrades the weapon category rather than the weapon itself then? That does sound neat, though like you say I have no idea how could affect it. Bumping a stat after upgrading a weapon sounds weird, though it could happen if say you're using the same weapon all the time and you know all the little things about using it. Which would mean that if you upgrade the weapon, you'd lose the stat bonuses as well.

My thought was actually to force the players to only use (or cast) the cards in their hand, that way you can get interesting roleplay happening due to weird combination of drawn cards. You'd allow for some sort of backup like "cast any card to use X at a penalty" in case all the cards were terrible. Though I guess that might go against the spirit of RPG due to how constraining it might be, so I don't know.

Since you already have Seniority values, skewing artillery timing to happen later in the turn is probably doable. That said, how does artillery targeting work? That could probably decide when they should fire.
Since the artillery in this is fairly primitive(the generic gun everyone can take is similar to a French 75) artillery targeting is a matter of picking a spot, then rolling a d12 and a Scatter Die(like the one used in Warhammer 40k) in case of a direct hit, that's where it goes, but in case of an arrow result, it scatters d12 inches in that direction.
>it scatters d12 inches in that direction

So targeting happens at the same time as firing then? In that case I don't think it matters too much when they fire, since they're basically invulnerable units with slightly random targeting. The main danger of artillery was not knowing where they could land, so it is important that the targeting position is not known by the opponent, but this is already more or less maintained due to eliminating/combining the targeting and impact steps. Thus, letting the Seniority value decide when they fire seems best. Assuming artillery have their own stats, you could probably differentiate the faster firing artillery with the slower ones somehow.
Kinda yeah. Like, everyone (save for maybe some classes) start at 1/1, and that can represent anything from a junk sword to a knife to a bare fist, and then as you advance you're either repairing your sword or dropping your knife for a spear or learning advanced martial arts, all of which is represented by either getting modifiers or upgrading damage or what have you.

I was thinking of having it as part of the leveling process, so you level up, spend experience to raise stats, beef up your weapon, learn techniques, what have you.
I've also run into the quandrary of how expensive to make artillery compared to mecha. Generally, mecha can mount a lot more firepower than artillery and apply it more accurately as well as locking down infantry more effectively, but at the cost of being possible to destroy. Artillery also has access to a wide variety of shells while mecha generally only get high explosive shells.
Not easy at all. I'm makign custom decks and getting things to work and look right in Photoshop is the pain. Actually importing it into TS is kind of annoying too but it's easy once you write down all the URLs.
I'm making stand-ins for my game's cards in Magic Set Editor for now, until I get a suitably art-deco card frame set up.
Prototyping is in the works. All I need to do before the very first playtest session is copy the playerboard for each player, make faces for all of the cards, and actually write the rules.

I accidentally threw my dice for the game in the trash ;_;
File: 20160111_004732.jpg (144 KB, 816x612) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
144 KB, 816x612
God dammit I always forget the picture when posting on /tg/ for some reason.
Have any of you ever used/created a setting where planet is in synchronous rotation around its sun? How did it affect the setting?
So that one half of the planet is always light and the other half is always dark? I imagine the light people would either adapt by absorbing solar energy through copious amounts of sunbathing, or develop some way of getting shade. It wouldn't necessarily be hot, just really bright.
You mean a tidal locked planet? You might even be able to find real-world sources for that, though none of them would be from our solar system. We've only got moons and other non-planetary objects doing that, but even those might be a relevant read.
Hello /gdg/. I posted in the last thread about a boardgame style card game that I was inspired to develop, and I've made a lot of progress so far.

The game is called Kem.

Here is the rules document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_NNVhrFKTp81xgZwmNiwXECvGLwzSBUMVQvSd5DzY84/edit?usp=sharing

Here is the spreadsheet that shows the composition for the decks: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLQgcoUYdjqTJwu6Qx0NQm1rx6u1erYz1pCsMGuqJgA/edit?usp=sharing

Tell me if you can see anything glaring that needs to change. I've run ~10 playtests so far, but I want to do more because I haven't yet run one with 4 players.

>Pic attached is what my friend has come up with for the Reagent Deck so far. It's not an ideal style for my "vision" of the game, but my ideal style would be way too expensive for this stage.

Fuck I just got it.
Haha, yep!

That's just a consequence association, in the fluffy forefront, it is the name of the house/guild/organization that is providing commissions.
>those cards
>Arabic writing for essences
Very neat. I don't think it's written right though, but I could be wrong.

Is there a way to help predict what merchants appear in what order? Like for example, in San Juan the trade tiles are shuffled at the start, but whenever one is drawn to do a trade, it is returned to the bottom of the stack. As such trade prices cycle, and you can predict when a good sells for the most. It helps that there's only <10 tiles too.

Standing commissions remind me of the always available point cards in deckbuilders, might not be a bad idea to have. You'd have to balance them in order for standing commissions to always be less beneficial over regular commissions and merchants.
It would be a safe bed if a planet was always light on one side and always dark on the other any living thing would be best adapted to those living conditions.

So things on the light side would prefer the light unless they utilized the shade in some way (think a cat hiding under brush to pounce on prey)

Respectively things on the dark side would prefer the dark unless they utilized light.

Squids use lights to take attention away from their heads, that one fish with the lure light.
Maybe flowers glow in the dark to attract pollinators ?

>I don't think it's written right though, but I could be wrong.

I have a friend who speaks/writes Arabic and he signed off. I will have to get a second opinion though. It should simply say "Essence."

>Is there a way to help predict what merchants appear in what order?

Sort of. After a few games, you begin to understand which merchants are more likely, but that's about it. I tried to convey in the rules document that the Merchants are supposed to be as luck-based as possible, while the Commissions are the strategic aspect. However, there is an element of both in both cases.

>There are two ways to earn gold pieces in Kem - Commissions and Merchants. In almost all cases, Merchants will pay more gold pieces per potion than Commissions. However, remember that Merchants only come every five Weeks and stay for only one Week, and there is no guarantee that the Merchant who arrives will want to buy anything in the Marketplace. In summary, Commissions tend to be a /strategic acquisition/ of gold, while Merchants tend to be a /luck-based acquisition/ of gold.

>You'd have to balance them in order for standing commissions to always be less beneficial over regular commissions and merchants.

I agree. I think the way I'd handle this is a separate deck of some (10-30) high-requirement, low-value Commission cards that get drawn once at the beginning of the game and never change throughout. This idea spawned from one playtest where a player only needed 1 gold to win and he had no good options (all Commissions were high value, and Merchants are quite unreliable by design).

Thanks for taking a look, friend.
That seems right. I think there'd be atleast a few lifeforms that reject the permanent condition and adapt to avoid it too, like digging underground to avoid the sun, or flying high to get as much of the moonlight as possible. A few lifeforms might develop migration patterns too. Then there's the area where it's always twilight and never either.
So, in the setting I'm working on, (almost) everyone has Mana just as a thing they live with, it's as much a part of them as blood or the Carbon that makes up their body. Mana has two primary "modes", akin to magnetism. Positive charged and negative charged.

Now when someone uses Mana in the casting of a spell, they draw it out of themselves using a sigil, drawn on vellum (paper made of animal skin) and draw with metallic ink (typically also organic based). This can be substituted in a pinch with skin and blood respectively, though it burns like a motherfucker.

Once a spell is cast, the charge of the mana stays positive, and as such, it is resisted by those who still have mana, typically reducing the effect to something like a hard punch from an ice spear or being pushed down by a fireblast. As such, combat magic is only used on creatures with negative charges (non-domesticated animals, dusklings, the undead) or creatures with depleted mana (a tapped out spellcaster, elves, half-golems who are used as living batteries).

It's also used as crowd control (giving a whole new meaning to suppressive fire), or to effect the environment in long term (recently cast spells leave mana charged air, that can be resisted by mana charged people, typically undoing whatever effect what performed).

What are some thoughts on this? Potential uses? Whether or not it's a shit idea?
I actually find this to be a very good idea. The appeal is the simplicity, but I can see building in a lot of depth. It is certainly an elegant way to avoid the overpowered magic problem.
Dayum guys.
You all are impressive. Well done.

We quit d&d and VtM, and made our own "NotOriginals", setting. We didn't put nearly the thought into that we should have.
Its very specific of a system, and wouldn't mesh well into another system or setting.
We've played it for about a year, and ran into a lot if messes and situations we had to rough through, and expand the rules. You all have my admiration for taking the time to be creative and try to problem solve before in game problems.
Like I said, we have hit some 'oh shit, we didn't think of (x) happening' moments, but we've had a great time with it.

Love these threads. Props to all of you.
Thank you. I wanted to avoid the idea of "combat mages" while keeping some degree of magic and particularly spellswords which is my absolute favorite class in theory, but I find its not typically done that well.

One of the big meta-plots in the setting is during the equilivent of the 100 years war, this army busts onto the scene from basically fantasy Australia (everything wants to kill you) with this Ancient commander busting out Negatively Charged magic and just lays waste to things because all the usual effects of the spells are multiplied to insane degrees and everyone is scrambling to find a way to protect themselves and survive. This event is kind of the build up point of what I plan most of the starting adventures to lead up to, with this commander as kind of the overarching BBEG, not necessarily pulling any strings, but the build up to his arrival pushes a lot of little events into action.

Basically the idea is that everyone is used to magic working like X, and then suddenly EVERYTHING they thought they knew gets flipped on its head, when really it's just the logical conclusion of what they've always known.
Everyone has their own process. We don't always make it to the okay test stage, so in some ways you're ahead of us
I didn't have rules in my system covering how players died for the six months before play testing started, it just how it is. Honestly my admiration is with the play testers who invited the current rules I use for it on the spot.
Combat is more about very careful planning in ours. So we sorta blew some of them off( not properly tested), then had to pause in game and decide how to deal with things).
The skills and perks we did great on. The magic system we did OK on. The combat tho... Was a grand mess. Situations that we never thought of, kept coming up. Since it was a group design, we all tossed out ideas and fixes as they came up.
13 months, 3-6 sessions per month, and we've just now got "most" of the kinks ironed out.
Its a weird system, since due to some of the supernaturals strength and speed, a human is nearly helpless if it comes to hand to hand. Likewise, vamps aren't great at dodging UV rounds..so in half the combats, no checks or rolls are needed. But for the times they were needed, we struggled.
I wish we'd of seen this thread sooner.
Because whatever logical thing you expect PCs to do, they will do the opposite usually.
So instead of simple, it became things like " I open the gas valve and toss a match in".
How the fuck should I know the damage of a 12x16 room filled with propane?
So, we ended up using more "insta kills" than we wanted.
File: Hellsgate v0.24.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Hellsgate v0.24.pdf
1 B, 486x500
So I added a malfunction system for weapons to Hellsgate.

The system is simple, if you roll 2 or more 1's when making an attack, the attack misses and you have to make a test. You roll a die for each point of Tech Skill the model has, and try to roll under the MAL rating of the weapon. If you roll at least one die equal or under, you're fine, but if you don't you gain the Malfunction effect on the weapon, which means you can't use that weapon again until you make a Repair action with the model.

I had originally had it roll over, but then I realized that both the Arcana and morale systems, which are similar, are roll under, so had to go back and re-do the numbers so it was roll under.
We divided "magic", into tiers. 1-7.
Any witch can cast any lv tier, however casting above your lv tier, causes physical damage. So a lv 1 witch can cast a simple locate spell, at tier 1, with no ill effects. This requires time ( 1-6 he's), ingredients ( very specific), equipment ( candles, runes drawn), and knowledge of who/what the seek. With no harm to the caster. Or the witch can cast it at a higher lv tier, say 3rd, and bypass the need for compents , or speed it up greatly. And lose some con/will. A witch can kill herself by over doing it.
I doubt it would work for most gamers, but we've had a blast with it.
So I come here, and compare our setting and system with some here, and then I leave embarrassed.
You all are much better at this than we are.
Cheers all. And again, nice work guys.
File: Teleforce Strike.jpg (51 KB, 375x523) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Teleforce Strike.jpg
51 KB, 375x523
Have you ever wanted to use a tesla death ray mounted on a zeppelin to destroy your enemies from afar? Because that's now possible in my game.

Also, my cards will need a big text box.
Who DOESNT want that?
Since you're planning on designing new cards later, you could probably cut down on the text by adding extra symbols for some of the more common info (firing phase, point cost, etc)
The people who aren't playing Shoshkepal, sadly.

Of course, Shoshkepal is a nation whose visual aesthetic is "What if Nikola Tesla was an Egyptian Pharoah who built himself a sarcophagus that would let him wage war from the afterlife?" with suitably heavy doses of art deco and SCIENCE!

Probably. I'm sure I'll find a more streamlined way of doing things later; I might clarify in a rulebook that when a card's cost is listed as, say, 10%, that means it's always 10% of your total force. Since anything that affects your entire army's cost scales with your army's max cost, this will be pretty common.
So, any player who makes a witch at lv 1, can cast the same spells as a player who has worked up from lv1 to lv10?

What's the benefit of leveling?
Forgot to have my name on.
Casting above your level is cast-from-hitpoints apparently.
So an NPC witch could blast the PCs with some uberspell? Because NPCs give fuck all about stat loss?
GMs would abuse that anon.
File: Harry Potter face.jpg (86 KB, 620x296) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Harry Potter face.jpg
86 KB, 620x296
So I'm basically trying to create a magic system that doesn't use resources, has a low-powered/whimsical feel like Harry Potter, and as at least moderately balanced.

Any advice or suggestions?
How can I make combat deep enough to be satisfying, but fast enough to get through in 5 minutes per battle if there are going to be 4 battles this turn?
Are we talking about for a tabletop RPG?
Simultaneous card/attack reveals.
tabletop wargame. Think Risk in terms of scope (not mechanics)

A la Kemet?
Wow I need this like asap
Here's an idea. Five-way rock paper scissors with varying values of victory.

I used early-modern/renaissance warfare because it's what I'm familiar with, but basically, you use the wheel in the picture, subbing in whatever basic units are appropriate to your theme. These are the units you've decided to base your defense around. The thing is that the black one-step connections inflict a strong victory, while the grey two-step connections inflict a weak victory. For example, Pikemen do very well against cavalry, and fairly well against fortresses. How you make how well a battle goes affect your game is up to you, but players could simply pick one of five cards to base their strategy on and reveal them at the same time, then tally up any modifiers to see who actually won. This will make combat fairly simple, but more advanced than plain rock paper scissors.
I'll release Digimon Battles as soon as I can be assed to make a master print download (Publisher format) and also a card gallery again so people can put their individual decklists up.

Plus I want the presentation to be all nice with recommended 2 player starter decks.
Works better if I add the picture, huh?
I'm loving the changes, and the new look, kudos good sir, anyway to search this up?
File: 053-Otamamon.png (426 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
426 KB, 450x627
If by changes and new luck you mean in comparison to the original, thanks! I had to do a lot of play testing to get to this point. All 200 cards took 3 solid months to make and test initially.

I'll have a site back up again with the gallery re-intacted. The problem was I had a site for it but the host fumbled and it's all lost.
File: 194-Digidiamond.png (460 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
460 KB, 450x627
A couple of major design changes from PS1:

-Changing opponent's types is more common but usually color restricted to Nightmare (which changes things to Enigma then gets Enigma-hate) and Enigma (Option card only). All color change usually does is shut off some requirement Supports and evolution and with the Evolution tree plus DNA, evolution is rarely shut off.

-Changing back to your color is now an add-on effect for when your other effects are sorta weak. Like "Draw 1. Power +100. Change type to Nature" on an R level.

-R levels never have less than 20 +P. This always pissed me off at the game that certain Rs were useless since Rs are the primary fodder for DP. Every color or just about, has a +30P somewhere.

-Draw is more common and sometimes in larger amounts. It's color-restricted but Drawing more than 1 is necessary when the game changed to 40 card decks over 30.

-Counter Cross is extremely rare (3 in the whole game). This is possibly the most broken thing in the game. Especially if you remember using Saberdramon to force both players to use Cross. Having Counter Cross with that just nullifies whole turns from opponents.

-Countering ALL (Golden Banana) is very powerful and is now relegated to ACE cards and Mega abilities.

-"Hitters" are gone. This is just lucksack disguised as "skill".

-All Digimon have a Support. There are no blanks. Those never end up getting used.

-"Change opponent's attack to ____" is now always both players. You can't just remove your opponent's agency entirely like this. That was bad design in the original game and allowed easy force-counters and forced-to-zero.

-Some of the horse shit cards like Download Digivolve are ACEs. Some that people won't consider horse shit are ACEs (Golden Banana) but in testing, these proved to be way too powerful to allow players to main-deck.

-Using cards outside the Support phase is very rare and powerful due to action economy (pic, which is also ALL gems from the game in one card).
RPS is hard baked into pokemon already with the types and type advantage.
It might be best to ether combine the defenses into one stat or have the both defenses on one side of the card and when you add defenses to a stack you get both. That would give players a reason to consider that over Attack or special as long as you balance the game to handle it it should be good.

You could consider games with "AI" decks or other coops to be Nv1. Just add meaningful decisions instead of random card targeting.
Kemet would be one, though my favourite example is Middle Earth Quest, especially since they have character specific decks, and you have less options if you previously used them to move around.
File: 1448615888959.jpg (37 KB, 190x255) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
37 KB, 190x255
Thank goodness I'm not the only R-P-Sfag
Hello /gdg/. Have this bump.

For my game Kem (see previous posts from this trip for the gory details), I have obtained a Merchant Card proof from my artist and I'm stoked about it, so I thought I'd attach it here.

Also, I know we don't like the Book of Faces here on 4chan, but I decided to try to start some early auidence building, so I set up a page. You can like it if you're interested in following development:

>Well it won't let me post a Book of Faces link
>Search for Kem: An Alchemy Card Game
>Or, the URL after the slash is "housekemneedsyou"
How would you guys design a game with moving monsters that have hp in the 100+ range?

I thought of having cards with counters on them but that's either:
1. Each card gets a big wheel or die put on top
2. You have multiple cards with 1card == hp. Really cumbersome to manage.
3. Hybrid between 1-2 cards give hp in 10/20 increments and there's a counter on the top for everything else.

Can't think of anything better. Maybe detachable stands with dials? Is there any prior art here?
I'm assuming this is for board games? Dials or tracks would probably work best, or some sort of simple clicker thing, no idea if those are DIY-able though. There's d100s and stuff, though you'd only really need 3d10s or something. Why even go above 100 for HP though?

Yep board game. I'm thinking of a board game implementation of tower defense games.
You are going to NEED to change that typeface. It's barely readable. I get the aesthetic you're going for but always pick readability over flashiness. Do not use script typefaces for rules text. When you do, try to use some less cliche ones for titles or card names if you absolutely must.

Here's an article to help point you away from some things:

TW Cen and Ubuntu are always great. I've used those loads of times for Sans Serif. If I can't read your text, I can't play your game.
There's a few examples available, take a look at Castle Panic I think was one of them.
Thanks for the tip! I only design games, I don't have an artistic molecule in my body, but I've forwarded your post to the artist I'm working with.
If you need any design tips, just ask away.

Well correction I want a Tower Defense implementation that's closer to the Starcraft/Warcraft UMS maps of the day.

I know about Ghost Stories, Castle Panic, XenoShyft but I wanted to know about prior art in managing high hp/resource values on moving pieces.

Thanks anyway man!
Will do. How do you feel about the Reagent Card designs in this post: >>44709757

The only text information present on the card is the name of the Reagent. Given this, and the fact that the association is going to very swiftly become the overall color of the card, is the script text acceptable here?
File: 071-Starmon.png (440 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
440 KB, 450x627
I see where you're going with this and the icons are certainly charming. The colors are reminiscent of a less-detailed Catan resource cards. What you could try is to pick some slightly more vibrant colors (not full on FF0000 or anything) and nix the weird cloth texture. That is definitely not working for them. The script font is almost useless here at conveying any information. Especially if the font gets changed for the rest of the works, you'd want verisimilitude between them.

You could remove all the words and it would convey all the meaning you need. For example, on my Digimon cards, I simply have a color (for a quick glance) and an icon (both for reaffirmation and colorblind folk). But nothing on this card tells you its faction at all.

Opposite this are the little symbols for Metal and Nightmare present in the abilities. These are not the same as being part of the design. They are internal language for the card rules text itself in order to expedite the reading and grokking process players must go through. So try to keep those two concepts separate.

In short, using a few symbols (I only use 2 sets in text) can be useful for internal language. Using symbols exclusively without text is great for conveying a more primal understanding. See: Kemet, Catan, etc.
Set a name just to distinguish myself as I hope to post more of this in the future.

I've been working on the bare bones set up for my own module to run, so I lack numbers and what have you. That'll come in due time but I wanted to run by the "magic" system with some opinionated people.
The "magic" in this setting is actually a form of chemistry, called chymistry for original idea sake, and is basically adding a few compounds on the fly to create various spells. When someone casts a spell it will follow a formula of [Form] + [Element] + [Modifier] (where there can be any number of modifiers) = [Spell]. This can be done with a device/glove that this class would wear, or prepared in vials before hand where exposure would bring about the desired affect.
For a quick summary: Form = the shape of the spell, can be a beam, a ball, or really whats up to the imagination.
Element = Quite literally the element, ie fire, earth, water, arcane.
Modifier = I was thinking as simple as Damage up to increase damage, larger AOE, Barrage could be a multi-hit ordeal.
What I want really is: Does this sound like a worthwhile "magic" system? And then maybe just some creative input as I hope to spread this game out during its development. I also wouldn't mind getting together with someone who can put this in a PHB sort of format as I lack those capabilities at the moment.
File: 145-Wargreymon.png (419 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
419 KB, 450x627
Regarding the actual design of your game, it looks like the potionmaking is a bit too symmetrical. Elaborate if I'm missing anything but it seems this boils down to getting a blue plus either red/green/indigo. Yellow is wild. I could see this becoming something interesting but for such a light card game, the board layout is a bit much. To match the level of complexity I can see you wanted, maybe perhaps make potions require different amounts of ingredients or so on.

Merchants coming around every 5 weeks/rounds seems to imply that the game is quite long for its depth.

Having cards that do literally nothing and just exist to take up space in a deck and change probabilities doesn't end well for most games. Business as Usual needs to do something. If I bought the game, that card (especially having 10 copies) would make it feel cheap and underproduced.

Now, I'm usually one for super complex games with tons of chits. But I can step back and appreciate a light game for what it is. Just try not to make essentially Skip-Bo with colors and really stand out with some either super tight design or asymmetry.
File: 126-Phantomon.png (406 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
406 KB, 450x627
Sorry for the triple post but I wanted to just have you check out Alchemists for reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gZD1Q88JX4

It's really similar with the potionmaking but has maybe more meat than you're going for.

There's also:

Alchemist (singular) which is similar but more simplistic and got a worse BGG rating.
I like the art style, but going to agree with >>44729082 on the typeface. Leave the flashiness for things like headers and such, that's not entirely necessary for play, but keep key things like the rules text as clear as you can.
File: 1452406906188.jpg (64 KB, 600x597) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
64 KB, 600x597

Without delving too much into psychology/sociology, what are some good "mechanical" ideas for conversation games?

I'm trying to come up with a simple game where players would just need themselves, maybe dice or cards, but focused around stressing their imagination and vocabulary. It may even work into a drinking game.

Just looking for ideas mainly. Has anyone had any experience playing unorthodox, but fun, word/conversation games?

>Elaborate if I'm missing anything but it seems this boils down to getting a blue plus either red/green/indigo. Yellow is wild.

Almost - Blue + 2 Red, or 2 Indigo, or 2 Green makes a potion. Yellow is wild, but some Merchants will only buy potions that include a Yellow (Essence-Infused). An additional layer of complexity is that you can create a potion that is 1 Blue + 2 Yellows, which allows you to choose what it is at the time you want to turn it in, whether as part of a Commission, or sold to a Merchant.

>Merchants coming around every 5 weeks/rounds seems to imply that the game is quite long for its depth.

Sort of, but the weeks play quick. A week is basically --

>Reveal any missing Commissions - Turn a new Event - Take turns in order

Of all the playtests so far, the average length of a (2 player) game is 30 minutes (but more players don't add as much time as you'd think), and include 8-10 Merchants

>Just try not to make essentially Skip-Bo with colors and really stand out with some either super tight design or asymmetry.

I'm still working on this. There is some inherent depth that genuinely can't be appreciated until played, but I'm slowly coming up with ideas that build upon the depth.

(I'm going to reply again shortly, as my artist has changed the designs a bit following advice given here)
Going to post some examples of some changes to the art that he made today.

For the Reagents, he removed the name, and softened the texture. We talked about removing the texture entirely, but I honestly really like it.
NPCs don't do this normally.
Its not a "rule", that's in the mechanics. Since we're a small group (3), its not an issue because none of us are assholes.
NPCs only use the ability in extremely urgent situations.
Not sure how it can be implemented in the rules. Since banning an ability from npcs and making it PC only, is just weird.
I'll gladly take suggestions.
Its the center of what makes a witch, a witch. Yet NPC witches avoid it. It isn't the best feature of our game.
For Merchants, he softened the texture again, and changed the font for the rules text. The script font is still used for the title, but it is set in the body instead of inside the border.
Finally, he templated an Event (no illustration yet obviously) - pretty much the same design as Merchant
Much better. This conveys exactly the information required and doesn't add anything extra.

Actually readable text now and Medicine is highlighted which it seems was the case in your rules doc as well. I completely skipped over the name the first time down as my brain ignores complicated script but it should be a simple fix for the future.

Try to have events and other cards have a different frame. Ideally a completely different frame design plus color but I understand that some designers are novices and can't manage a ton of changes and permutations.

>Try to have events and other cards have a different frame. Ideally a completely different frame design plus color

Good point, thanks!
File: 102-Waspmon.png (434 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
434 KB, 450x627
One other thing. If you're not afraid of genuine criticism, take the designs to Graphic Design here on 4chan. Just post what your game is and the theme. Guaranteed you will be ready to cry as your pride is stripped away but will also get a ton of useful information.
I will definitely relay that to him, but I wouldn't expect him to do that... He is not a 4chan user... Your suggestions have been incredibly helpful though, I honestly appreciate it.
For ingredients, yeah, I'd go with the textless version. Its like fullart lands in MtG, you don't really need the textbox and the identifiers, since its recognizable from the start.

I'd still keep the title in a border. It'd look nicer. The script on the title is fine, since the rules text is legible.

I'd change the borders to another color, so you can identify it as an event from a merchant.
File: Attack_Triangle.png (296 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
296 KB, 450x627
Realized I never showed one of the three attack cards. There's one for each symbol, selected in secret every round.
Hey just got back on here, any update on a release of this?
File: Incubus_Map_Old.jpg (918 KB, 1024x768) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
918 KB, 1024x768
Anyone know what the name of the website that makes this kind of map?
Inkarnate(.com? Not sure about the extension)
u fukn shit me m8?

Its inkarnate.com

It's a shitty map from roughly 6 months back and I wanted to remake it cause it's shit
I had, late at night, an idea for an ore-like dicepool mechanic, but trying to figure out the probabilities is a bitch.

And it's probably a bit too clunky. But it's an interesting thought exercise, so your opinion:

Roll your dice-pool, there's the typical trying to get as many matches as you can, but then there are other valid patterns. 3-6-9, 2-4-6-8, 1-2-3-4, 1-1-2-3-5, etc. Intersection is allowed, such as multiples of three using the same 6 as the even count, this might have a side effect on the roll.

Such patterns would be associated with a higher bonus/success per difficulty of getting the pattern.

Given this sort of technique any clash could actually be several skills entwined, instead of a single skill.

You cross swords with your foe! How well are you bracing your feet? How much strength are you putting into blow? Make sure you keep a good grip so he can't disarm you! Have some extra patterns/pairs? Use them to wage psychological warfare, or strengthen your other rolls.
I don't have anything to ask or add, I just want to point out that the name change has worked wonders
Without the context of where and how you get your dice pool from and how you are gonna use the dice your rolled it's hard to say anything.

Say with increasing levels/skills your players get more dice, so in theory could roll more combinations at once making them better. Do they get to pick which bonus they get if they can arrange multiple patterns at once? Do you roll once for everything or what? Can you use dice for multiple combinations? Can you expect your player to know every possible patter? etc pp.
Aside from that is also means you have to throw a shitton of dice for everything you do.

That said the idea is interesting, but at least on paper it sounds pretty clunky for an rpg. There are probably different ways to implement something similar in a simpler manner that would have the same mechanical effects.

The idea is interesting though.
It's an interesting idea, but
File: Starquest 2088.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Starquest 2088.pdf
1 B, 486x500
Started working on Starquest: 2088 again and need help coming up with abilities, especially for the Scoundrel.
Kind of a vague question, but what do you do to stay motivated, /tg/?

I have a concrete idea of what I want to make, and I want to see it through to the end, but whenever I try to work on it I get this voice in my head going
>It's a horrible pile of shit, you can't release something like that.
>The math needs another pass, just to be sure.
>The fluff is so poorly formatted.
>No one is going to play it anyway, why bother?
How do I shut the voice up, /tg/?
>Kind of a vague question, but what do you do to stay motivated, /tg/?
Psycho therapy.
Okay. What's the option for people without a lot of money or easy transportation?
I've been working on my game, bit by bit, for two years. Just keep chipping away at your problems. For quality issues, remember that worse games have been published, and making your game fun to play and commerically viable is more important than making it good.

Also remember that you're not beholden to anyone for a deadline, so don't worry if you're working slowly.
I'm thinking I might need some advice. I'm trying to create a very powerful polearm for my campaign, now I do want it to be a very powerful weapon but I also don't want to break my game with it, so I want to know what you think about my idea. Oh, and we're currently playing Pathfinder.

The Lance of Lanafir, 2+ Vorpal Ranseur with Phantom Range. Phantom range being a unique enchantment I came up with that is an illusory spell that the target has to make a check against each round to disbelieve, that tricks the target into thinking the spear is longer than it is, suffering damage even though the target might be more than a single square away.
You'll probably have better luck in a pathfinder specific thread.

Oh, one other thing; when I commissioned art for my game, I had a lot more motivation now that I knew what things would look like.
Well in general I use prescription anti-depressants. However, in regards to something like this I go back to my first drafts, and see how far I have come. The people who play tested or saw what I have they write emails to me, and whether the content is high praise or harsh feedback they cared enough to send it. The only motivation I really have is not letting other people down, and it is great that now that motivation is now being harvested for my hobby. There is also this
The way to self destruction is wanting to be the best, try to find joy in being good, or okay, work your way up to being great but start at being okay.
What are the real names for the different 'tiers' of armor?
I'm taking about padded/leather/hide/chain/plate/splint and all that kind of shit.
I want to have different types of armor, but I don't want to you lame wording like "light/medium/heavy armor"
What era are we talking?

Weight of armor is important to how protective that armor is, so light/medium/heavy is an important factor.
Fantasy era, the usual armor.
What I'm designing right now has ( or at least I'm trying ) a Dark/Demons Souls aesthetic. So armor names appropriate for the kinds of armor worn in that kind of setting would help.
You could go for metallic and nonmetallic armor, make them mechanically different.
>It's an interesting idea, but

Yeah, that's basically my thought on it.

Patterns would be simple. matching, pairs, evens, odds, multiplication. Or keep it simple with matches and ascending orders.

The idea came from me remembering a friend in a homeless shelter, they wanted to play rpgs but they weren't allowed dice (gambling) so they used a deck of cards. So why not use dice as cards? Add poker, and voila.

To keep the dice pools down, the dice would come from straight skills. Your stats determine how easy it is to learn the skills, and for rolling would only be for things you don't have a skill for.

You roll everything at once per turn, I suppose. They get to pick which bonus and which patter goes where, say you you're in a fight and you know you're weak, so you'd use your strongest to buff your strength. You can use your dice in multiple combinations, but it would have limits (stat based?) and possible side effect.s Patterns would be simple, simpler than poker at least.

I'm conceptualizing it as a sort of whole body roll. When you're fighting you're not just swinging your sword, it's how's my footing, watch his hands so you can block him, am I strong enough, don't forget about that other guy so I can't get flanked.

A character has a limited amount of focus (the dice pool/successes), and it's the player's choice where to put it.

Thinking of it that way, there'd be bonuses/successes rolling from 1 turn to the next?
Would social deduction games like Two Rooms and A Boom, or Resistance count? If not, then I guess there's stuff like Funemployed or the Metagame. Looking through the examples in the wiki though, it's pretty hard to think of new games other than those. I guess there's the Japanese specific games like following up a spoken word with another word that starts with last syllable of the previous word, or changing, adding or removing a single syllable of a word to change it into an entirely new word.

I wonder if it's the 'week' word that make it seem like a round takes too long. Pretty interesting if so. Maybe you could use 'day' instead, like every fifth day of the week a merchant comes. The alchemists have Saturday and Sunday of so it's still 5 rounds. Alternatively, go for every fifth hour and make it seem like the alchemist's day is super hectic, and have 10 hour work days.
I remember a game I would play with my friends.
You would start with a word and then make rhyming puns out of it, the easiest one to do was Onii-chan.
>If Onii-chan was an imposer he would be a phony-chan.
>If Onii-chan was a skeleton he would be a boney-chan.
>If Onii-chan was ice-cream he would be Spumoni-chan
We went in circles and if you repeated an earlier pun or if you couldn't think of one you were eliminated.
try starting with a word based system like harry potter and work from there. magic systems are tricky good luck.
Hi, first time to /tg/, not sure if this is the right place to ask.

Shadowrun 5th ed. has a random run generator, where you roll dice to get a job type (destruction, protection, delivery, etc), a location (underused site, moving vehicle, etc), twists, etc.

Does anyone know of anything similar? A generator of generic quests with as many significant variations as possible.
File: Untitled.png (798 KB, 1341x640) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
798 KB, 1341x640
I was trying to make a game with humans fighting against aliens in somewhat a spaceship or similar. Inspired by this cyoa i do something like betrayal on the house without the betrayal.
You start in one section of the spaceship/facility and draw cards to search new locations and get resources( meds, ammo, food and energy).

Is pretty basic right now but what do you think of it?
I'd give it a go
File: battle academy rps.png (962 KB, 549x798) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
battle academy rps.png
962 KB, 549x798
I am going to make a Fate hack for the games in the "battle/magical academy harem shonen" genre, is someone interested to help or playtest once I'm at least halfway done?
A main thing that people don't like about Betrayal is that you can't plan ahead that well. Maybe the item you're holding is important, maybe it's utterly useless. Avoid that and you'll probably be fine. Stuff like room of category A always connects to category B, you'll always need these items to do this, the overall goal is always this when using a particular starting point, etc.
That is a good idea. I may use two location a decks, one to draw and aonther to connect the locations of the draw
Any suggestions for OSR compatible Super Robots? The scant few mecha and robot homebrew I found gets most of their inspiration from Western mechs.

I want to make a mecha creation system that feels pretty goddamn anime and flashy yet I can still drop it and crossover it with any kind of OSR product.

I'm currently toying with converting Battle Century G into something I can use with old school d&d, but I've got no idea how to balance the point build system.

Pic related, I just want to use Mazinkaiser to fight dragons and fuck with established d&d settings.
I think I have mechanical ADHD, because I keep thinking and tweaking and scrapping and reviving and making new mechanics from scratch.

For instance: The Takedown Gauge
Basically, every character has a Takedown value, and a Bulid Up value (probably a dice roll of some sort). In combat, you can either work to Build Up an attack, or reduce your Build Up, typically by falling back, going on the defense or getting help. Once you reach that Takedown Value, you can elect to make a strike, or keep building up to try and bring even more pain. So say someone has a Takedown of 10, if you reach 10 you can keep pushing to try and get more of an effect out of your attack, or attempt a takedown, which would be like an endurance check or something. Bigger enemies can Build-Up faster, and may have multiple stages of Takedowns required to put them down, say you have to Takedown their armor, then You can Take them Down for good. Or more, each one unlocking a different "phase" to the fight. Players would need to focus on managing their Takedown, while trying to Build Up their opponents. The desired outcome would be quick clashes punctuated by both parties either stepping away to drop Buildup or one trying to fall back as the other pushes for the Takedown.
I'll dump a WIP game. Basically fantasy apocalypse. See what you think.

If you add me to the google doc as "tenduril" and describe my game as "Fantasy apocalypse where characters defend and build their settlement" that would be quite nice.

Let me know what you think of the damage system.
Someone know Formula D? If you like to feel like the characters may become superpower, then you may use some kind of system in witch for limited time/turns the character may use more powerful attacks, represented by other dice (d4 to d8, d6 -to d12, d10 to d20) or similar.

This also may be useful for the Dragon Ball game that someone has design and the characters transform in powerful versions of themselves.
While I don't have time to run playtests, I'm interested in seeing various Fate hacks so I can offer commentary on your implementations. Just drop a pdf in one of these /gdg/ threads when you've got something ready.
So, I like Step-dice (d4>d6>d8>etc) but I find once you hit 12 there's nowhere to go but 20 and that's a HUGE step up, that's leaves a range of 5 for potential skill, what is a good way to combat this/expand the range without going Dicepool? In theory "weird" dice would work, but not so much in real life.
I'm in a bind with ballistic damage.
It's just so complicated, I can't figure out a nice way to simplify it down, while retaining a little bit of crunch.
Do you know a system that does this nicely?
d12+2, d12+4, etc.?
What exactly is your issue? What do you want out of it in general? Difference in caliber? Leathality? Knowing that would make a big difference.
One solution is not to go beyond d12. That's what Marvel Heroic does (of course, it is also a dice pool system).
That expands the max value, but not that actual number range, which unfortunately doesn't help much. You can still only roll from 1-12, you just now have a shifted minimum and maximum range
I don't know if difference in caliber is a big thing.
Mostly penetration (hollow point, armor piercing, mystery-goo-packed, etc.) differences.
Tacking on a penetration modifier on ammo is one thing, but relating energy to penetration and damage (what with overpenetration) seems rather difficult.
Also how the ammo/weapon combo should determine energy.
I don't know of any math that lets you do this neatly.
Either cap at 12 like >>44753397 suggested, or go dicepool.
How do you feel about borrowing terms used by a single source to accomodate to your game?

Because things like "magus" or "dwarf" or "elf" have become so used throughout the years that it feels accepted to be used without even questioning it, but certain terms like "mechromancer" (borderlands 2 class) or "automail" (full metal alchemist augment type) sometimes end up being the best way to name certain elements and i feel wrong using them because people will instantly tell i'm stealing from that source
Steal anything that is not bolted down with copyright and trademarks.
Seriously though, if you're borrowing the words but building your own concepts there is no problem.
And if it fits that well it would probably blend in with all of the fluff anyways.
Does anyone know of any tabletop rpg's designed for children? In gameplay or aesthetic
I'm working on a wargame and I need some help with hitting rules. Right now, a unit must roll under their accuracy score and over the target's evasion, should the evasion and accuracy be switched?
I think switching them would be more intuitive, just because, if you're using D10s for example, your players would be able to get "Oh, I have to roll over my accuracy, and my accuracy is 4, so I have a 60% chance to miss, and this guy has Evasion 9, so if I roll a 9 or 10 I miss too."

Alternately, you could just make Evasion a penalty to accuracy, so instead of having to roll over a 4, I suddenly have to roll over a 6. That would make things easier to remember on the fly.
Sounds similar to Infinity's system, but less swingy.

What dice are you using? As for the position of the stats, I think keep evasion the floor; you want to beat your opponent's evasive skills, but you don't want to beat your own aiming abilities.
Changed up my rules a bit for my mecha game. Any weapon that fires a Shell(Cannons, rockets, and artillery) rolls a 40k-style Scatter Die and a d12, scattering that many inches. Cannons and rockets reduce their scatter distance by a number of inches equal to the mech's stability.

This has made direct hits on mechs a lot more common, so now, instead of doing double damage, direct hits simply destroy one point of the enemy's armor before damage is calculated.
I'm trying to decide between 2d6 or 1d10.

How many models are too many and how is that determined?
The faster your system plays, the more models you can have on the field. More intricate systems need less models.
Personally, I like using 2d6 in my projects. Decent bell curve.
Are org charts like 40k's feasible for play, or just a nuisance ?
Depends on how involved the actions per model are. The more you can do in one action, the more models you can field. Generally, though, you want to aim at no more than 12 units per side. A unit isn't just a model, its something that acts as a whole. For example, look at the games Infinity, Warmachine, 40k, and Warhammer Fantasy before AoS.

Infinity has highly involved mechanics. The system is designed that every time a model acts, everyone that sees them reacts. This means resolving one action can take a long time, so the game doesn't scale high. The average game is less than 10 models, as each model is a unit.

While in Warhammer Fantasy, each block of troops acts as a whole; you make one action for several models at a time. To do this, you need very simple mechanics; single die rolls for each action, mass movement rules, etc. It makes it less about the models as parts but as a whole. While you can field 100 models in some armies in Fantasy, you're usually still using only a few units, and these units act like one.

40k and Warmachine are examples I'd use that show problems with their model scale. 40k is similar to Fantasy in that you look at units, not individual models. But because 40k is much more skirmish focused, it tends to skew that distinctions at times. The more free movement means that movement and combat breaks units into smaller units to handle, you have to move each model individually, or take into account placement when fighting in combat. Warmachine does this also, but I feel is a worst offender. Warmachine acts like a skirmish game pretending to be a mass wargame. Each model moves and activates individually, and the resolution mechanic prevents from mass execution, like Warhammer and 40k, but its still uses unit formations and such on the field, pushing the model limit higher than it should.

So the first thing to decide it what you want a unit on the field to represent; a single model or a selection of models.
They're a good way to keep your players from stacking up on too much of a powerful unit type.
Generally, force organization of some kind is good for balance. Points are difficult to balance alone, so some limits help with that. Its also helps prevent game-breaking by spamming mechanics designed for limited use. A model that can heal others would have to be extremely expensive if points was the only factor, to prevent spamming nothing but them and creating a skew that hurts the game.

Just don't fall into some of the traps GW does, where they make the core unit tax in armies. Make the unlimited, weaker choices still useful, not a hindrance. Good example of what not to do, 7th edition's High Elves in Fantasy. Fantasy used to use an org chart similar to 40k in 6th and 7th, where you had to take so many core units per point level. High Elves had some of the worst core units compared to the rest of the army, so those core you had to take were a bother. 7th had many people taking 2 minimum units of archers for core to meet the requirements, and that was it from the core section.

I had a similar problem with the basic Knight in Hellsgate, where it was just there as a filler choice; cheaper and unlimited compare to other choices. So I took it and redefined its role. Its still relatively cheap, but not that much more than "elite" choices, but now it has a special rule that allows it to work in tandem with other models, to act as support. It has a role, which works whether you try to spam cheap units or focus on the more powerful stuff and take it to fill points, so its never seen as just dead weight.
I suppose that's an option, but then there isn't much room for advancement, as I can see it. That could work for some systems/settings though, particularly "sideways growth" rather than "upward growth".

If I did go with combining dice, would I be better served with 1d12+1d2>1d12+1d4>1d12+1d6>1d20, scrap the d10 and just keep adding to the 12, or try to find a pair of closer matched dice for each interval like d12>d8+d6>2d8>2d8+1d10?

I want to keep the curve as minimal as possible for each individual "dice", as the individual value is what I want. (My systems works on reading straight of the dice to minimize modifier bookkeeping)
So quick question, which Stat line do you guys like better

Yeah if it is the singe dice number your system is concerned with you may need upward growth.

The Marvel Heroic dice system that I mentioned works like a pool instead.

A simple example: You roll up to seven dice under normal circumstances, each coming from a specific source. Select any two dice above 1 and add together for your total. Select one of the remaining as your effect dice.

Advanced options: Spend plot points to add more than two dice together, and to add more than one die as effect dice.

Any 1 you rolled is an opportunity the enemies may exploit (meaning the smaller your dice are the greater the chance to create opportunities).
Well, my reply is a rather unhelpful "whichever statline better serves the system" as these days I think that a system has certain functional and mechanical goals and stats amongst others need to serve that purpose. Which is a pretty big change to maybe five or so years back when I was still thinking in terms of universal statlines and proceeded to design mechanics that served no great purpose or need.

If that makes any sense.
Have you compiled everything you've discussed here yet? Try combining everything into a single document or section first before making any more changes.

One way you could do it is any weapon that should be stronger than a d12 then use additional dice after rolling the d12 to enforce extra effects. Eg. This weapon does d12 of damage and stuns. Roll a d6. At a 4+, the enemy is stunned.

You can check anydice for probability results on those dice combinations.

If it's something well known like automail you'd probably be looked at funny when trying to explain it. Try mulling about the terms a bit longer, you'll find a combination of words you like soon enough. Like for automails, since they're 'prosthetic metal appendages', you could go ProMA or something.
/gdg/ hey /gdg/, in case you didn't know yet WotC has put out 5E SRD under OGL so you can now legally make and publish your own things using 5E.


You know, when you said five-tier, I was kinda hoping for something on the lines of:

1. Heavy -> Medium -> Light -> Heavy
2. Close -> Loose -> Open -> Close (Ranks, that is)
3. Infantry -> Cavalry -> Missiles -> Infantry
4. Gittem! -> Counter-attack! -> Outflank! -> Geddem!
5. ??? (nothing comes to mind just now, but you get what I mean...)

So, Light, Open Order Cavalry Outflanking Heavy Close Order Infantry Hitting'em would have 3-to-1 advantage & suffer appropriate (i.e. 3 times lower) casualties ... sort of a thing ...
He did ask for it to be fast enough to get through in five minutes or so. Resolving five separate instances of rock paper scissors each fight would be a pain for a grand strategy game.

I don't know ... Five sets of three cards?
With 'cheat sheet' on each card? (Like: beats X & is beaten by Y)
that might go fast enough.
I've posted drafts and bits and pieces. A lot of my work is on paper, but I'm thinking about consolidating all my theoretical systems and let /gdg/ pick through them and see if they can help me consolidate and trim ideas into a useable, neat system. A big issue is that I'll come up with a system, try it for a while, realize It doesn't QUITE cover everything I want elegently and get dragged down to a halt, and I'll randomly be struck with an idea for another similar/entirely different system and work on that until it grinds to a halt and on and on and on.
Color code it! Blue beats red beats yellow beats blue
I say atleast combine everything into a section or two, then post it here or the google doc. That way readers and you yourself can see how everything works. Because while some of the systems you think up can be pretty neat, it can be easy to forget that it's actually attached to an entirely different system as well, like the Takedown Gauge is to the combat system of limiters and scopes, etc. Once you see how the gears grind with each other, you can decide whether or not more mechanics are actually necessary.

That said, if you already have something that's easy to refer to, then it's fine to not make a doc I would think, as long as you're focusing on the big picture and not just the little things.
>trying to make lightweight hex based wargame rules that allow for tactical depth without needing spreadsheets.

>keep adding complexity to make it more deep, realize its too heavy, strip it back down, feels to shallow.

I'll figure it out sometime. A way for lite complexity.
This would work, would save time from having to work with keywords.

To give enough development space, how about 5 colors instead of just three. Set it up so two colors trump one color, while the color trumps 2 itself.

Really terrible paint example to show what I mean.

While its not that different than the standard RPS system, it does open up for things like, if you want cavalry to beat infantry, but you also want a heavy gun emplacement to beat cavalry and infantry. If you make the gun emplacement red, cavalry green, and the infantry blue, you can have that, while the standard 3 system wouldn't be able to.
Oh I know there's a lot of system-grind. I probably have 3-4 complete systems all laid out. I finally have a day off coming up so I'll take that time to try and get together as many loose strands as I can and lay them out as individual, independent systems and then see what can be done to trim and connect and smooth them.

Some systems would work better for tactics games, some are simulationist some are cinimatic, hell some are narritivist. i think it would be honestly easier to slap down each bit by itself and go from there than to try and fit everything in one section, or it would look even more skitzophrenic than it already is, with one bit dice pool, one roll under w/limiter, one step-dice, this bit only uses d10's, this one is 2d10, is one is a bunch of d8's.
File: Simple Card Game.png (632 KB, 1757x1545) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Simple Card Game.png
632 KB, 1757x1545
Here is my story. I try to design most unbalanced and ridiculous card game ever but try to keep text and game rules as simple as possible. For years, I designed ~750 cards. I need 250 more and I am out of the creative ideas. Can someone come up with one card or two for me? It can be borderline auto win or practically useless, straightforward or crazy as fuck. This doesn't matter. But it should be described by a short phrase and be interesting one way or another.
Time for a new card type known as physical actions.

"All other players must play the next 3 rounds with a finger up their nose. If any player removes their finger, they receive X damage."

>Please stand up
Target a player. That player must remain standing up until a stranger not playing the game tells them to sit down

Stuff like that
I Agree with the first anon, take what you can from other sources. people will recognize the terms and grok your concepts that much faster.
it also helps set a tone and feel of the game.
If your going for grim dark check out names for things in grim dark settings and take the ones that fit. like wise for any other setting or tone of the game.

it makes a huge difference in the tone for instance if the setting has limb replacing prosthetics that act beyond that of regular limbs calling them Automail invokes a much diffrent feel than calling them Cybernetic Appendages. they do the same thing but one is more magic sounding whale the other is Scifi.

As long as what your taking fits the tone go for it.
File: 118-Cyberdramon.png (455 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
455 KB, 450x627
Love the 2.78% chance to fail or succeed instead of a flat 5% as in d20. The use of 2d6 pushes actions to be more mundane more often instead of wacky flailing diceland. Doubles are 16.67% (1/6) so try to keep that in mind when making stats. Try to think of doubles in your system as rolling a 6 on 1d6 when you populate special abilities.

One issue seems the target number. With a TN=9 on 2d6, your probability to make that or higher is 27.77%, or practically non-existent. Usually slightly more than 1/4 and less than 1/3. In a dice pool system, this is fine as players will start extremely weak and grow better at certain things as time goes on (adding dice to pools, etc). However, this system uses a flat d6. It's cool if you go modifying that later but one weakness of d6 you need to be aware of over d10 is that target numbers can't actually be that different from the average or you're going to constantly fail. With a TN=8 instead, you have 41.66% which is just high enough to make actions worth it and just low enough that actions are risky. In addition, double sixes are already accounted for in this so having them as auto-successes just makes them overlap redundantly.

The fighting system works better. The scalability and risk is better as someone with +1 defense over you can throw a wrench into your plans. Plus, here is where the boxcars make sense to auto-succeed at least a little (someone has ridiculous +16 def while you have 3 fight, you roll 12 and wouldn't normally make it). Though it's a bit of a stretch still. Obviously the critical damage isn't the issue with boxcars, just the fact that the to-hit overlaps anyway most of the time.

From what I can see, a master fighter has to roll to hit (I'm a Messer fencer and it's more common to be parried and countered but okay) BUT a novice mage doesn't roll to fail spellcasting? wat

System and setting look great, just check those few details.

Posting more digimanz
File: 093-Whamon.png (406 KB, 450x627) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
406 KB, 450x627
Also why the hell is your Longsword weaker than your "Broadsword"? You do realize a longsword is huge right?
How many weapons do games have in average? At least an approximate number per category. I don't know when I should stop.
Your armor and damage system are a little harsh. Basically a character wearing any armor at all, at lowest has a 50% chance to take 0 damage per die rolled against them. That means with a vitality of 4 in only leather armor you would need 8 or more dice to kill, and that's not even a guaranteed kill. This is just the lightest armor and not considering the to-hit roll.

I'm going to take the Zombie (8 defense 4 armor 2 vitality) as an example of combat. Let's start with no bonuses and 1 damage die and then check what it takes to reliably kill Zombies. With no bonuses to attack it is a 41.61% chance to hit and then an additional 50% chance to damage. These are multiplied together for the final probability (to-damage). So assuming a dagger weapon, the chance to damage would be 20.8%. This means that with no bonuses and just a dagger it will take a minimum of 10 attacks to kill the Zombie. I get 1 attack per turn so that means I'll be in combat for 10 rounds with 1 zombie. Always balance your weakest weapon against your weakest monster to start.

The dagger is obviously useless without adjusting my fight score. Longsword next. Now it will take me 5 rounds to kill one zombie on average. the highest starting fight is 2 so that gives a 72.22% chance to hit with a longsword. Two attacks to kill on average, or 2 turns.

In order to kill it in one turn I need a 3 damage weapon AND "Strong" and I still have a 30% chance to miss and do nothing.

The damage roll acts as a second to-hit roll, which is ultimately boring. This means that something with an armor of 6 is un-killable in any reasonable time and 5 is stupidly high as well. Ultimately that leads to an inability to even play a character who can't combat on top of making almost all weapons useless.

With all the d6 rolling in this system it feels like a less thought-out and more boring GURPS.

Your armor, vitality and damage system needs an overhaul.
Depends on if you want autistic riddle of steel tier or dungeon world tier
I think he's trying to take them "Longsword=Bastardsword but different focus" route, but mixed up broadswords and bastard swords. Or confused a long sword for an arming sword. Still, it's very D&D-esque logic.
I'm doing a kind of "build-your-own" system, but I have like, 7 categories (axes, blades, blunt, etc) with 30 options per. So there's that.

My most recent idea is down to like 10-12 options but that's considerably rules-lighter
It's almost always the "Longsword=Arming Sword" mixup.
I blame D&D, they go straight from Shortsword (which it like a slightly bigger dagger) to Longsword, and treat it like some weird hybrid thing where it's kind of a one handed weapon you CAN use in two hands rather than a two-handed weapon you CAN use in one. And then the way they usually stat it makes it so you can even house rule in an Arming Sword without it feeling pointless.


In any case, yes >>44752724 you should probably fix this.
>tfw I keep thinking about the long sword from Monster Hunter while reading the recent topic
Out of curiosity, what would that sword be categorized as in common RPG terms?
Greatsword/Full Blade?
Odachi. It's a Japanese style field sword.
Why do a d100 roll under system when you can do a d20 roll under system? Most d100's I see use 5% modifier increments, anyway, why bother with 5% everywhere when it's the same as a +1? Do people really just want to differentiate from DnD that bad?
It's the granularity. They may both operate on a scale of 5%, but the actual number range is much larger. In situations where multiple's of say 10 are needed, that granularity can come in handy. Plus, with d100 you can fine tune things like crit ranges and ability score modifiers a lot easier.

It's a granularity thing and I totally understand why some people like it and some don't.
multiples of 10 is a +2. I understand the granularity, what I'm saying is most systems that use a d100 do not put that granularity to use. They're using it for no good reason.
You should consider the difference between what's needed and what's rolled, in a system where one character has 54 in a stat and another has 57, that can make all the difference in the world. Plus it allows crit ranges of 1-4%, which makes them feel special and/or allows them to be based on Ability scores. Plus it's a lot easier to derive a Ability Score Modifier from 54 than it it is from 11, if only by a bit. Plus, some people really like knowing exact percentages. If you have a 32% chance to hit, that's a lot easier to grok than a 6 in your ability score. Plus I have seen plenty of systems that use this to their advantage. More numbers mean you can do things like Tiered Crit ranges or adding Ability modifiers to rolls, or that thing Unkown Armies does with rolling doubles (11, 22, 33, etc). There is a LOT you can do with that's kind of granularity.
Firstly, d100s are poor polyhedral shapes because unless they're GameScience they're going to roll like garbage and skew results significantly. It gets worse the more spherical a die gets and compounds with the percent probability change from one face to another (1% on a d100 vs 5% on a d20) so the oblong shape of the thing actually makes much more of a difference. I said all that to mention you should just roll d% instead.

As for why d100: Ever seen crits in games? For example, "rolling to confirm" a crit is a common practice. This effectively reduces the chance from 5% to the crit-range * confirm-range (much much smaller). It's essentially just a workaround for when you don't have d%. With d%, I can do something sensible like have 2% crit range at the start, then have players directly increasing that chance by +1 at a time. This allows crit to become its own play style, though I don't really recommend this design path.

In addition, d% are supposed to be rolled more often. A d20 system is sort of a "master roll" which is rarer and then followed up by other polyhedral dice to compensate for the ranges it lacks. In d%, not only can you represent all ranges that matter, you can roll the dice far more frequently (In place of d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20) with targets and stats compensating for each proper range. It's an elegant solution to the same old problem every game must solve: math out a thing that lets players do things or stops them.
Oh and one more thing. d% is aesthetically pleasing because it lifts-the-hood on probabilities, giving players exactly knowledge of their chances to succeed. Unless you're really practiced or want to calculate everything on your phone at the table, it's hard to tell what your chance to get 2 successes on 4d10 target=7 are. And the whole crit-confirming thing I mentioned before. Even if you know your range is 19-20, that's a 10% starting but you multiply that by the to-hit chance, which might be say TN=12 which you may not be able to do in your head. When I look at my sheet and my Medicine skill is 17%, it's trivial to work out how likely I am to succeed.
File: 1391399005907.gif (760 KB, 259x214) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
760 KB, 259x214
You're still just giving me the advantages of a d100 system when what I'm complaining of is people not using those advantages.

as to your crit argument, and to my point (the point that people could just use d20 because they aren't using the advantages d100 offers), In Inquisitor, a roll of 1-5 is always a success and 96-100 is always a failure. So why the fuck not just use d20 if you're gonna pull shit like that.
Just because everyone doesn't use d100 to its fullest doesn't mean everything should switch to d20. As stated by >>44773763 and me in >>44773630 it's a lot easier to know and work off of that knowledge when it's displayed in absolutes.

Additionally, with more modern or scifi settings d% LOOKS like it fits better. It's like the Feet vs Meters argument in role playing, it's whichever feels right for they system, and "rustic" dice like d20/6/8/12 are like feet, naturally lend themselves to a certain feeling or aesthetic, where as "absolute" dice like d% are like meters, and have a very different feeling or aesthetic.

So it's not an issue of "why not just use d20" it's an issue of "why does it matter if they use d100". The most important determinator for what dice or dice system to use is always "what fits the system the best".
They aren't saying that everything switch to d20, just that it's stupid if a system is going to be very blatantly structured around a d20 roll-under, and changed to d% roll-under, WITHOUT integration of mechanics or granularity that excel in a d% system.
I suppose that's more an issue of d% roll under is fairly common, where as hardly any systems use d20 roll under. It's typically associated with d20+Mod vs target number.
Why are you fucking complaining to me that people don't use d% systems correctly? Sounds like a personal problem with that system. The only things we can talk about really are the merits and flaws of the systems independently of games people make with them.

Like, why the hell are you bringing up Inquisitor as an example of shitty d100 execution? There's really no point in doing this as you could bring up any number of examples of any games. You're not accomplishing anything unless you talk to Inquisitor's creator. All you can do is use the system better yourself.

It doesn't even make sense to come in and generically proclaim that some d100 systems do 5-point increments and should just reduce the fractions (into d20) because that contributes jack shit to game design.
Sure it contributes. When you decide on, I dunno, your core mechanic, maybe you should question why you're using what you're using and how it lends itself to what you're doing.

I'd love to talk to Gav Thorpe, but his answer to anything is normally "up to the GM."

I bring up Inquisitor because it is a good example. There's no point in bringing a specific example because there are many examples?
Does anyone here know good non-HP based health systems ? If they are relatively deadly, even better.
If the systems work well in modern (20th/21st century tech) settings, even better, but they don't need to.
I'd say Inquisitor is one of the worst possible examples as it's A. Made by Games Workshop and B. Apparently a dead product and not featured on their site.
If you think you learn the most from the most solid systems, I think you ought to reevaluate.
File: Prototypes.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1 B, 486x500
I threw everything into a pdf. Cant say its pretty, but it's something.
Oh, shit. I left the enemy tactics in without ANY context. I mean it's not much better than anything else in there in terms of cohesiveness or understandability, but those are much closer to personal notes than the rest.

Going for the D&D spin on it. But yeah I know it's not very accurate.


Well, it's meant to be d6-only. You make a good point though. I should probably buff the damage up a bit. That said, a dagger should almost never be a primary weapon, although I plan to add traits to buff it in other ways to make it viable.

Honestly? I agree with everything you say, and damage is probably going to need a buff, but I think I'm going to need to playtest it before I can draw any real conclusions about it. That said the Armor values on alot of these monsters should be lower. I wanted it to be a bit like Savage Worlds where low-level stuff with 2 Vitality didn't require any hit point tracking, but you could still have stuff with more health. Hence the "dice pool" damage system.

I'll give it a playtest tonight, maybe run through some short encounters and see how it goes. Thanks for the feedback though because I honestly hadn't even noted that yet.


Dungeon World actually does have a few different weapons but the damage just doesn't change much.
>One issue seems the target number. With a TN=9 on 2d6, your probability to make that or higher is 27.77%, or practically non-existent. Usually slightly more than 1/4 and less than 1/3. In a dice pool system, this is fine as players will start extremely weak and grow better at certain things as time goes on (adding dice to pools, etc). However, this system uses a flat d6. It's cool if you go modifying that later but one weakness of d6 you need to be aware of over d10 is that target numbers can't actually be that different from the average or you're going to constantly fail. With a TN=8 instead, you have 41.66% which is just high enough to make actions worth it and just low enough that actions are risky. In addition, double sixes are already accounted for in this so having them as auto-successes just makes them overlap redundantly.

A few things: You are meant to be unlikely to succeed / hit if you have no skill in something, the probability jumps to 41% for 1 point, 58% for 2 points, etc.. I feel that characters should be unlikely to succeed when unskilled so I actually chose TN 9 very carefully. But I can see why you'd bring that up.

I also completely agree with the issues of d6s, I am starting to like them less and less and I think for my other RPG I am writing I am going to use d10s instead. The bellcurve idea is nice but in practice it just feels like you need to be phobic of modifiers to get anywhere.

As for Boxcars auto-succeeding that is meant as a safehold in case of penalties making it impossible to succeed.

Thanks for the help.
Does anyone ITT have any advice for making powers and abilities for a homebrew? Coming up with lists of class powers or spells is generally the area I struggle with the most on this sort of thing.
>In any case, yes >>44752724 (You) you should probably fix this.

Alright, I'll look into renaming them. What should I call longsword / broadsword instead? They are basically just one hand and two handed swords. I admit I am mostly ignorant of realistic medieval terminology.

m8 if this is your RPG that I was talking to you about like 2 months ago please email it to [email protected] so I can give you some more critique, I can't remember if you ever emailed me but now that you've got a PDF I'd lke to check it out and if I download it I'll forget to do it.

I can promise a good read-through and well thought out feedback.
>Does anyone ITT have any advice for making powers and abilities for a homebrew?

Come up with a template for how they are formatted.

Then go through a D&D manual and check off the basics (strength buff, defense buff, light, invisibility, flight, etc)

Then balance that stuff so it isn't OP. Give drawbacks, limits, etc.

Then come up with your own ideas and pepper them on as salt and pepper. Remember good ideas are made not only by powers that do bad-ass things but also stuff that makes you make choices. Check out the magic card Unstable Mutation. I made a spell out of that in an RPG and it was very fun, people used it but only when they were sure they wouldn't be in another fight for a while because it drained your Strength after the buff ran out.
You! I was looking for your email a couple threads ago but couldn't find it. I'll send it.

It is and it isn't, it's basically all the systems I've been working On in hopes of making something that works.

And you can totally steal that idea, if you like it.
File: leave.png (23 KB, 260x214) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
23 KB, 260x214
Similar problem here, I'm trying to make a music-themed system in which powers are built by using a system similar to Keys and Manifestations from Geist. You have your Elements, which are basically Keys, and your Techniques, which are like Manifestations and linked to the instrument you normally play. I've divided Instruments into categories of Vocals, Percussion, Wind, Strings, Keyed and Electronic. (For the purpose of the game, brass instruments would be classified under . For example, a heavy metal guitarist PC might combine the technique of Solo from the Strings Instrument Category with the element of Electricity to have lightning shoot out of his guitar at an enemy, or use the technique Riff with the element Machinery to gain control of all automatic devices in a certain radius. The issue I'm having is trying to think of techniques for each of the categories of instruments I'm using in the system. That and not making shit ridiculously broken. Any advice?

Alright here's my proposed solution....

I am going to have armor be 3, or 4 in the case of studded leather. I am going to reduce defenses quite a bit: a zombie will have 6 defense and the rest of the defenses will be reduced as well. Armor will also be cut down; a zombie will have armor 3 instead of 4 and I will reduce a lot of the rest of the armor as well.

Question: should I reduce zombies and similar "mooks" to only have 1 Vitality? So that they are basically one-hit kills, instead of being "wounded" then dead?

I am also going to make a penalty for wearing breastplate and full plate to reduce defense by 1 and 2 or maybe even 2 and 3 respectively. So you can have a 6 Armor but you will be much easier to hit.

Curious what you think of this idea, thanks for bringing up the issues, I ran some short combat and it definitely felt like more a slog, but I think that's because I set the numbers too high.
>Always balance your weakest weapon against your weakest monster to start.

Very good point, by the way.
Thread replies: 316
Thread images: 61
Thread DB ID: 413558

[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.