A thread dedicated to discussion and feedback of games and homebrews made by /tg/ regarding anything from minor elements to entire systems, as well as inviting people to playtest your games online. While the thread's main focus is mechanics, you're always welcome to share tidbits about your setting.
Try to keep discussion as civilized as possible, avoid non-constructive criticism, and try not to drop your entire PDF unless you're asking for specifics, it's near completion or you're asked to.
Old Thread: >>44646874
What do you consider to be the most important aspect of a new game? Originality? Accessibility? Flexibility?
>/tg/ and /gdg/ specific
>Tools and Resources:
>Design and Layout
Linking this from last thread, it's a complication of my notes for the system(s) I've been working on. Feel free to pick apart/critique/ask questions about any part. I'm goin to try and salvage as much as possible.
By the way, I think we should actually slap the links on a pastebin with names for the links for new threads, this is starting to get clunky and ridiculous- there's about 200 characters left for the thread topic and any new links we might need to add
And speaking of new OP links, if anyone has any resources for the people making wargames and card games, please do share them
By the way, here's my other notes for this system if anyone's interested, it's been worked on by me and some other fa/tg/uys on Skype: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQZzAgP8P08Pa7A2EVQfWIxVTEG1uIfeyv2yWwWQ8uA/edit?usp=sharing
Holy fucking shit Hardsuit is a convoluted mess and i'm considering a complete overhaul of everything but retaining the damage system.
I just want a quick and simple dice system I can rip out and change because at the moment its floundering in book-keeping. I really don't want to just recreate AdEva again but fuck ;_;
I'm pleased to say that Fallout: Wastelands v2.0 is ready to enter its first rounds of playtesting. There's still a lot of work left to complete, but right now we're all excited to see how combat works and if the numbers we've decided on will work properly or need retooling.
If it's well-received by the players (not all of whom were part of the initial designing) and by /tg/, I'll start posting development notes in these threads as we go through the various aspects of the game.
Combat is, of course, the first thing we'll be working on since it's the meat of most RPGs.
So, it keeps referring to "specialized skill", I'm confused by what that means, and I don't know if I'm an idiot and just can't find it or not.
The combat seems good, if simple, much like the rest of the system really. It's nothing thrillingly deep, but it seems like it does the job of acting like you're fighting in a mech, so yeah.
I do agree that a much more expansive hardsuid building system would be super cool. I love getting weirdly detailed with mech.
'specialized skill' is more of a catchall term for "any skills or abilities a character might have associated with performing this task e.g a specialised hacking program adding +1 to a hacking attempt.
Is there a good source for potential mecha upgrades/systems I could pinch from?
What could be used in the system to make it more...I dunno, spontaneous?
This is going to sound odd, but have you looked at Warmachines? It has some near rules for pushing and knocking around mechs that could be used to good effect, things that make you shift tactics work very well like area denial abilities to force movement or smoke weapons to give cover and even try adding weird environmental things like natural magnets or weird shit like that.
As far as things to pinch parts and mods and stuff from? Sadly I am at a bit of a loss, I'm not a mecha expert unfortunately. Maybe the Mech Warriors stuff? I played the games and those had a lot of fun customization options, same with Chrome Hounds and that one by Fromsoft. Unfortunately no Tabletop stuff tho
So, I want to do a thing with Step Dice and roll under numbers, something like your attribute gives you dice size, skill gives you number. But the issue I'm having is that increasing your dice size is actually a bad thing if your skill is a set number.
Say you have a 5 in basket weaving and a d6 in dexterity, if you increase dexterity to a d8, you end up with a higher failure range, and worse odds overall.
Are there any resources out there to help you figure out what you want out of your game and how to keep track of it? I've got a vague idea for a game but I'm having a hard time pinning down the sacrifices of realism I need to make in order to make it playable.
A Word document is all you really need to get started. Create a design document with general but clear idea of what you want to accomplish.
"X should work like Y."
"When Z happen, it should happen like this." etc.
You figure out what, in the simplest terms, what the core engagement of your game is. Start with the absolute minimum that you could test. My RPG literally started by giving some weapons arbitrary stats, and moving around some push-pins on a cork board, then tweaking things until it felt right.
It is never too early to playtest, and it's amazing how many bugs and edge cases you can find with some early testing.
It would probably be something like d4>d12, presumably, giving you a higher possible range to your associated skills, the target number, or ease of success, is dictated by your actual skill level tho
What's thought about using dice level determining your skill? You always have to pass a roll on a 4 or above, but what you roll depends on your level. Untrained would be a 1d4, trained 1d6, and up towards mastery at like 1d12 or 1d20?
I'm thinking that if there's any adjustments to rolls, just a +3 makes it a guaranteed pass. You'll want a variable difficulty number. Look into how other systems implement step-dice rolling.
Oh hey, so that superiority gauge thing wasn't for All Around the Fire after all, I thought it was. I wonder if you can combine a few of these, though I guess the resulting system could end up pretty bloated.
I've written up a few summaries of the first few links if you want them. As for links, here's a nice one I found in my labyrinth of bookmarks.
Also I think it was either you or Aegeos that posted a pretty good wargaming blog too.
No, it was initially for the much lighter tactics game I was working on. I was considering adapting it over however, though in practice it would probably have gotten far to bloated.
Some of these systems could be combined, at least in theory. For instance the Takedown system would work with Prototype V as a damage system with a little tweaking. But that's just a thought.
Is there any need to have a downside for racial bonuses, like a stat penalty?
I have this one race that has 4 arms so the obvious basic ability is that they can do double the things you could do with two arms (like being able to equip double the maximum amount of weapons) but if i pull off something like "hurr hburr they have fragile tissue in their arms " then it kinda kills the point of having two pairs of arms
/agdg/ doesn't appreciate how RPG development goes
They think that designing an RPG is just programming shit in without actually designing it before, and call it being an "Idea Guy" like it's now how RPGs are made
Rant aside, what would you guys think about having a homebrew CRPG that you can play coop online with your friends? Everything that isn't combat or a dungeon would be described through text, and combat would be an isometric grid not unlike Roll20 or Fallout
Well, it depends.
Do you want to be balanced ?
If you use a point system, your species may just cost more points.
If you use a level system, you may say that a player has to spend levels in his species. This would mean, that he starts level 2 for instance (1 level in his class and 1 level in his species) and that he would thus have one level less than his team mates.
How many keywords is too many keywords?
I've been making more and more things standardized mechanics, and I've got a specific appendix of the mechanics in one place, all written pretty plainly and as easy to understand as I can get them. I want similar things to work the same so everyone is on the same page and knows what's going on, rather than having a situation where for example two abilities that "trip" someone both do very different things when you get down to crunch. At the same time, I don't want the list of keywords to get so big that players have a constant reference document open they're looking at.
I like the way you two think
I'm trying to find/make a system to run my homebrew setting and I'd like to run some stuff by the thread:
Fluffwise, humans (and human + something else hybrids) are the only ones with access to arcane-type magic because they are the only non-native race in the setting. Every other species, from elves on down, use a type of magic similar to Polynesian mana. They have a natural reserve of "magic" they can use in different ways, all of which is done by instinct.
My plan for implementing the mana-magic is as follows: characters have a reserve of mana points they can use to (for lack of a better word) cast mana abilities. Each species/race will have a set of mana abilities and costs (with some obvious overlap). As long as a character has enough mana to cast the power, they can use it. Better powers cost more points. As characters level, they get a larger pool of mana points and can take skills to specialize in certain powers, making them cost fewer points.
Mana abilities will vary and include things like adding range to ranged weapons, increasing armour penetration, and allowing bonuses to hit (at lower costs) or even rerolls (at higher costs) -- representing natural affinity for magic. Other abilities, ones more like regular fireball throwing magic, will also be available, but will cost more and require specialization to use on a regular basis.
Essentially, species that use mana will be classes unto themselves, sort of like D&D 1e. There would be no such thing as a wood elf ranger, for example. It would be a wood elf who's specialized in woodcraft.
I'm not sure what type of casting I'll use with humans and human subraces, but it'll probably be vancian or something along those lines.
For goblinoid and other monster races I'm not too sure about. I've actually toyed with their being less good at everything, but having players run a group of them. So instead of playing a single goblin, a person would have half a dozen or more. As they level, they'd get more minions.
I think it would be easier to balance the system if only one of these is true:
You gain experience and can make abilities cost less mana
You gain experience and gain bigger mana pool.
Both and it starts to get... I don't know what the mathematical function for that is. You got two variables that both change instead of only one changing and they affect each other?
I have this little 4 player fighting/brawling game that takes place on a 5x5 grid. The theme is a drunken bar fight.
My design includes a small number of hit points (right now I'm testing with 10hp), and when you're knocked out you're just kind of done.
This feels bad
Any suggestions of what kinds of things a knocked out player could be doing so that they're not just sitting around waiting for the game to end?
That still means that in the end levels you still have two variables that both change and affect each other.
My suggestion is to choose only one and build it, then introduce the other if it still needs it.
In example, fluff wise everyone has about the same amount of mana because that's how powerful the soul/spirit/spunk that lives in them is, and you can't train that kind of thing. You can only train on your finesse and how well you can use mana.
Or everyones souls/etc grow with them, but there's universal rule of exchange in this world that states how much mana one must sacrifice from their mojo.
In the first example, someone might be born with more powerful soul, but that is an exception which you can gloss over when balancing the system. In the second there might be someone whose soul is an excellent merchant in the mana exchange business and thus can get lower prices for abilities than others. Again, an exception that you can ignore when balancing the system.
Having both means a lot of work for a far more complex system. Not saying you can't do it, just trying to point out it's gonna be a lot harder.
It's answers like this that making me glad I come to threads like these. Thank you very much for the help
Since mana is supposed to increase with a person's authority and general badassness, I'm probably going with the increase in mana points option.
Here's a few more points in favor of the mana pool option. Firstly, it means you are tweaking only one number, the pool size, instead of touching the prices of various powers. This simplifies the entire process and makes it easier. Secondly, it gives you more precise control over the character's power level. When your mana pool is X points, powers costing X+1 and over are outside your reach, period. When a power costs X/4 points, you can use it four times before your pool is empty.
So I have a few ideas for a large mass scale wargame, more to the size of Warhammer Fantasy, Kings of War, etc.
The first is about using the semi-IGOUGO system that LOTRSBG uses. For those not familiar, it uses the similar IGOUGO set-up that Warhammer and 40k uses, but it combines both players' turns into one, so each phase consists of one players going, followed by the other player; IE. player one moves all his models, then player two moves his, then you move on to the next phase.
My idea is similar, but to add some commanding to it. The idea is at the start of the turn, players roll the command for any commanding model they have. When a phase is being completed, you activate and complete commanding models and a selection of units with them in order, before completing everyone else. So the breakdown would be; start of turn, roll for initiative and then the command of each commander, each commander would have a value of something like 1-4, you roll a die for each point of command value and choose one for your command value for the turn, then each phase, you go from highest to lowest, each commander activating and activating a unit for each point of command value with them, and after all commanders have gone, the players with initiative completes the rest of theirs and the other player after that.
The idea is that a stronger commander has a greater chance of choosing when to act and react, and can order more units.
To be continued.
The other idea is mass unit resolution. Taking more from Kings of War, the defunct War of the Rings game by GW, and larger scale games, the idea is instead of separate models, units would be composed of stands of miniatures, that share a combined profile. A stand would have an attack value, a strength value, an armor value, a number of hit points, and I'm thinking a defense value for balance sake. The general idea is that you roll a number of D6 for the stands attack value, and add the hitpoints of the stand to the roll to determine hits. The defending player then rolls a D6 for each hit, adding their armor value, and each one that rolls higher than the strength of the attack negates it, a '6' always succeeds, and '1' always missed. So a stand with an attack of '1', 6 hitpoints, and a strength of '3' attacks a stand with an armor of +2. The attacker would roll D6+6, and the defender would roll a number of D6 equal to what the attacker rolled, discarding any hits on a 2+.
This is where the defense idea comes in, to cut the bloat of hits. Defense would be something that straight up absorbs a number of hits. I'm thinking the average stand profile for infantry would be attack '1', defense '4', strength '3', armor '+1', hitpoints '6'.
The hitpoints would be renamed, since the idea behind them is less health, and more the number of guys on the stand.
I am trying to make a weapon based around use in ambushes instead of face to face fights, and I feel that I am missing something but I don't know what.
>Detonating charges takes an action
What I am doing right now is make it so firing, detonating, and reloading would take one and a half turns, but setting an explosive and reloading only takes one, giving trap setting a more natural rhythm. Is there more I could be doing?
Looking at it written out, this one seems a little too much. Dug up some old notes, and found a similar resolution system, but was a lot smoother. You still rolled and added the hitpoints for the stand, but the enemy had a defense value and a resilience stat. You rolled against the defense, and each hit over it was counted against the unit. Resilience was there, so that each hit was counted against it, for each full set, you removed a hit point. So something that a resilience of '2', you'd have to do 2 hits to remove a hitpoint.
It was for things like Ogres, which would take multiple wounds to take a single one out. The idea was that they made up for the more swingey attack, since they had less "Bodies", as I called it, to add to their attack roll by being harder to move; Ogres were set-up to have 3 resilience but only 2 bodies, so their attacks only got +2, but you would need to do 3 damage before dipping into that bonus, while a normal unit starts losing it as soon as they start taking hits. Monsters had a different system, where they used their resilience instead of bodies, since most monsters had a resilience of 5-6 and only one body. The thing is its not each individual attack, it the culmination of all the attack. So say, 3 stands are attacking the monster at the same time, you'd count up all the hits the 3 stands did and compare it to the resilience, not each attack individually. The system heavily favors infantry, actually, since they have greater control over their damage output, while other things are more swingey.
All I know from some CompSci friends of mine is that online is a bitch and a half to implement, and making it good is harder. I'm not saying don't do it, I love the infinity engine games, but the online would be an obstacle.
So /gdg/, to drum up some conversation: What's the quirkiest or out there idea you've had? Could be for a rule, setting idea, game premise, whatever.
I threw together the idea for a Cats vs. Dogs wars board game. It was a territory game, move pieces, try to claim board space. The objective was trying to control the right spots to find the winning objective. Barely put much thought into it, just that players would build buildings to control territory, having to build them at least 3 spaces from another one. Cats would build scratching outposts, more expensive than the dogs', but they controlled a 4 space radius, while dogs' dogbunkers only controlled 2, but the dogs got the ability to temporarily mark territories. The cats would have less, more elite units, while dogs get more and weaker, but they work in groups.
That's about as far as I got, was a funny idea and a fun thought exercise, though.
something about all characters being skeletons/undead and being able to switch bones for bonuses and being able to construct yourself bone golems as you leveled up but i blew it out of proportion and got grimdark way too quick so i had to drop it
might revisit it in the future though
I'd like to talk about comeback mechanics.
I'm currently drawing up a Mouse Trap-like board game, where players take the role of Mad Scientists and build their own Monsters to complete challenges on the board so that one of them can become the master of Transylvania. They can also just have their monsters fight and try to take out each other's monsters, though I'm trying to make it so that that is a high risk strategy where fighting is as risky to you and your monster as it is to the person you're trying to knock out of the game.
But I wanted to put in a comeback mechanic if you lose your monster through fighting. I want the players to become Van Helsing-like avengers who inspire the serfs of Transylvania to start fighting back against the mad scientists who rule them. Then the game becomes a race to complete challenges while staying ahead of the mob.
The problem is, that just sounds like a completely separate game to me and I'm considering just cutting it.
What do you think?
nah it was something along the lines of a post-heroic event
generic heroes defeated a generic necromancer
but the necromancer's tower remained, and its power scarred the land around it beyond repair and keeps consistently growing
thus, everything around it kept dying and being reborn as undead, societies would've started to send away their dead in a giant ship (fittingly named Charon) and the undead would've made their own skeletal society with different implications and religions and factions
some would embrace their death, others would praise the slain necromancer as a deity for giving them a second chance in the world, others would spit in his name for dooming them to their wretched existence
it was actually a pretty cool concept and I might revisit it later on because i honestly like it, but there are probably far too many paralells to things like dark souls for it to be taken seriously
In the topic of fantasy races, do you guys think each race should have unique traits that changes their playstyle wildly so every time you play new characters with different races it feels unique, or should races be mostly cosmetic with slight stat changes to avoid overcomplicating the rules?
No, you should just fix the entire combat system. My GF ripped it apart pretty hard last time you posted it. What you've got is a to-hit and then essentially another to-hit right after. She mathed out that you need buckets of dice just to kill one thing.
Posting more Digimon Battles
The biggest problem with your combat system isn't the to hit roll it is the Armor roll. there is no way for a character to over come 6 armor in your system it grants a flat 5/6 chance of missing to each of your damage dice on top of the to hit roll. this means that even with no defense at all something with 6 armor cant be hurt on average and there is nothing a player can do about it except roll more dice at it.
if a creature has 6 armor you have to roll 6 times its vitality in damage dice to maybe kill it.
that's not even considering defense rolls, even with a Vitality of 1 and armor of 6 it will take 2 successful attacks with the biggest weapons in the game to kill. this reduces what you can do in combat to one thing, carry the biggest weapon and have the highest combat skill.
You're actually talking about something very different - you're talking about avoiding player elimination in case their monster is eliminated.
This is very different from a comeback mechanic, which is something meant to allow a player who is behind to catch up to the rest of the competition. That's why your proposed solution doesn't feel right - it's not a comeback mechanic, but a way to avoid player elimination (which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing).
A proper comeback mechanic usually accelerates player recovery from a setback. An example in your game would be to allow players to recover their monster in some way or with some penalty, or perhaps monsters that are severely outmatched get some sort of underdog bonus.
Again though, this assumes that keeping players in the running for winner is an important objective. Some games take the philosophy that elimination and/or death spirals are fine and players should be rewarded/punished for good play. For example, euro board-games tend to feature lots of comeback mechanics but this tends to make predicting the winner very opaque and difficult.
to make the monster fights more risky you could have damage effect the abilities of a monster. then you could also have it so that when a monster is reduced to 0 hp they are not actually destroyed and only need to be stitched back up in the lab. Like a "go to jail"/ lose a turn mechanic. That way fighting has draw backs, but losing a fight is not the end of the game for you.
You basically need to learn to see The Matrix.
If you can get past the guy's voice and the very, very, VERY sparse references to SJW-isms (honestly there's like one episode, and one tiny thing in another), I'd wholeheartedly recommend Extra Credits to any aspiring game designer, tabletop or otherwise.
Rolled 66, 112, 42 = 220 (3d500)
I have only this, I know there's another in pdf format but I dont's seem to have that saved.
Not a /tg/ game, but weirdest was a game about mowing the lawn, came about during a bragging attempt. Didn't go too far other than avoiding rocks and dog poop.
I guess a legitimate idea would be my Tales of the Arabian Nights-style idol producing game, though it didn't go anywhere beyond concept. Basic idea is going around doing odd jobs and help your idol gain character and experiences. After a few turns (days/weeks), a major live or event happens, and those gained characteristics and experiences are put to use if possible. After that you can add in two more idols for a 3 member unit, and after a second major live you can add in two more for a 5 member unit. It then ends after the third live.
One day I'll get the guts to ask /@/ about it, since I was mostly thinking about the Idolmaster series while conceiving it.
For a fraction of my system in development, I don't really like to use races and limit what people can be.
So instead of races, I use Body Sizes to determine starting stats, and allow 8 additional points to be used for either additional attributes or certain skills and techniques.
Drunken jeers and taunts that distract or a penalize one of the remaining players.
Probably a way to hide the location of the charge from the opponent, as well as the timing for detonation. If it's for an RPG then forcing a awareness roll might be enough.
Basically size is just a form of "race", where certain sizes have stat boosts as well as deductions. For instance, a character with the "Slender" size would get +3 to agility, but -2 to Resistance. It means she's harder to get hit, but when she is hit, she takes a real beating.
On the other hand a character with a "Large" size would have +2 for Strength and +1 to Endurance and a -1 agility. So while they would hit harder and get hit harder, they're a bit slower because of it.
I think Call of Cthulhu has Size as an attribute, though it effected how easy it was to hit you but also how hard it was to be thrown around.
In what Im working on, it's just another form of race, wjth it's own benefits but also weaknesses.
Hey /tg/. Figured I'd lurked in these threads enough that I'd actually, y'know, post my thing.
It's called Blackmarked, it's a fantasy RPG where there's a massive Black Plague analog that has been set upon the world by a god of chaos, which kills most people, but turns a small fraction of them into wizards.
Mostly, I'm interested to see if what I wrote makes sense to anyone other than me, and also as to the Turn and Wound systems. I kinda wanted the game to play like a Souls game, so instead of a normal initiative system, actions occur in order of speed. Also, I tried to eschew normal HP for a different sort of thing, but I dunno if it came out cumbersome.
Hope you like it!
of course, but i feel as though in every social situation you may have NPCs react differently and branch out different stuff depending on characters' race, but when you see it mechanically they all feel the same, to the point that races are almost character reskins in order to obtain some flavor dialogue with your GM and maybe an ability like night or thermal vision that aren't nearly as useful as things like different attack/perception/casting/equipment mechanics
I'm in the minority, but I prefer more unique experiences than the trend of race being a cosmetic choice. Its a pain to balance, but makes for more interesting gameplay, in my opinion.
Depends on what kind of game you're making? Tacticool modern would be 3 (long arm, side arm, knife) high power fantasy could be ALL THE THINGS (3 swords, hand axe, great ax, javelin, halberd, longbow, hand crossbow and shield)
It's all about theme and power level at that point. Me personally I like 3-4 (Primary, defensive, ranged, backup/concealed)
I once drafted up a dice system that was two d16s multiplied by each other just to see how it would turn out. I also experimented with a system that limited the time players had to decide on actions. I took the second idea more seriously, and I might return to it someday.
>Bows & Arrows
>a big house
TWANGING & TRIALS
Elven Barristers defending Dwarves from the dindu mountains who've been falsely charged with murders, and who must be defended in THE BIG HOUSE aka the Courts of Summer.
Could also do a system where the party is playing two periods simultaneously, the 30s was when they were all in the police force together, and the second 30 years later when they're dealing with the ramifications of the first investigation - have it so events in the 30s open up things in the 60s.
So on the first chart: Swords, Nothingess and Forensic Evidence, or Environmentalism to replace one choice.
On second chart: Men, Heroes and Your Favourite Comis, or The 1980s to replace one choice. I'm afraid BESM already exists though. And so do superhero rpgs.
>1960's police transported to the 1830's
Between running around telling people,"You can't do that!" and being tasked with sorting out a major disturbance in Southampton County, Virginia, you begin thinking hippies weren't all that bad.
Playing two periods simultaneously.
I'm going to give thought to this.
60 year old cop with a 30-30!
I mean, does it have to be 'historical' time periods?
An RPG version of that one movie where the guys is able to talk to his dead father back in time before he die with a radio. I don't remember the name, all I remember besides the plot is the dad in the past is fighting a guy that tracks down and attacks the son in the prrsent, and the father shoots off his hand. Cuts to the present and the guy's hand disappears.
Pasting the extra bits from the other thread since it might interest someone.
>Could you adapt it to a map where you have locations to be at but can get to them in any way? For example a hex map with no fixed route between points and you can take any path you like. Or a system where you can hop from any point to any other point within a certain distance, something like that?
For a hexmap hidden movement game, EFTAIOS is one, have a look at it. As you move you draw cards, and the cards determine whether you call out a coordinate, or stay silent. You can move however you want, but sometimes you draw cards which force you to reveal the coordinates of your current position, but even then the other players won't know if it's true, or just a bluff.
I think what's important in any of the hidden movement games is that a specific route can be planned and/or predicted. For example in Fury of Dracula the Dracula player has a buffer of 5 - 6 cards before they can go to the same location again, since they use up cards from their location deck. This helps the Hunters predict where he might be, especially if they stumble onto his trail. Then there's the railroad tracks which help move the Hunters abnormally, but at the cost of spending train tickets. While in EFTAIOS it's the cards which reveal your trail.
Round 27 starting again
Size Categories are fine right? I end up having the fudge the doubling/halving, but whatever it kinds works out nicely anyways
that's not a bad start, and yes unarmored should grant almost no protection at all 2 is fine but i would go down to 1 and let the feat give the shirtless warriors their survivability.
Also you might want to have your weapons good good against specific kinds of armors, it is historically why different forms of armor and weapons exist, and could easily fix the problem without having to scrap everything.
So, what's your favourite way to go with action economies in games?
I'm looking to mod another kind of action/turn economy in, since my players are unsatisfied with what and how much they can do during a turn. "1 Move 1 Action" usually results in next to no creative space, since you have to give up an attack to do any cool shit, which probably bites you in the ass more often than not.
I'm using two combat actions and a free action, kinda like shadowrun i think?
attacking and moving count as 1 action each so you don't have to choose one or the other, and also things like reloading, focusing, casting, but you can also hold your ground and use abilities that cost two combat actions per use
you can also spend your next turn's combat actions (can be one or either) during reaction rolls to counterattack or block (but not dodge)
free actions are anything that don't directly change your position or damage enemies but can affect the course of the battle indirectly, such as shouting WATCH OUT to an ally who's about to get struck by an enemy or picking up/using things from the environment and things like that
I like the Command and Colors method of giving out actions to units. Basically the field is divided into three sections, and playing a card lets you move units in one section, usually in variances of 1, 2 or 3, with the stronger cards letting you move more, and maybe in multiple sections. That's without going into special cards that have their own gimmicks and stuff.
If for an RPG you could probably convert it into a dice pool thing, like divide results into 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6 (maybe something simple like move/dodge/defend, short range, long range, or even one action for every number), roll 7 to 9 dice, then choosing one action and spend dice that have the corresponding face to perform an equivalent number of actions, before rerolling spent dice. You can even simulate fatigue or health by removing dice from the pool.
>Saw all the terrible shit that gets funded alongside the good stuff on kickstarter
>Realize that there is nothing holding me back from making and publishing my own boardgame
>Realize that my idea isn't any worse than some of the stuff I see on KS
Progress is slow, but I am making progress. Expecting to kickstart right before summer
Wish me luck.
Thanks for reading my blog
So, I'm starting (as of today) on a mech game that's hopefully more tailored to my group's interests than Mekton Zeta or Battletech/Mechwarrior is. Mekton Zeta is far too anime-inspired for our players, and Battletech/Mechwarrior is just... outdated, I guess? I've played around with the system some, but I really don't like the way combat plays out.
Anyway, I got a little off track there. Is there any reason why I shouldn't use percentile dice as the base of my system? It's liked by most or all of my players, but since I haven't actually tried to make a proper game before, I don't know how hard it is to work out all the balance around it (I assume it'd be the same or easier than d20-based, though, given how the game industry seems to like 5% intervals so much).
Tabletop RPG; none of us are wargamers, though I've been looking at a couple wargames for inspiration. Right now, I'm looking at hammering out mech stats and mechanics first and making sure everything works acceptably before worrying too much about pilot-specific stats; it may not be the best approach, but with my group in particular, I know we'll just bolt on something rules-light for outside of the mechs until the pilots have a working system.
If it helps, I'm looking at something fairly near-future (with appropriate justification for mechs), instead of the well-into-science-fiction territory of a lot of other mech games.
Here's an idea for a dice system, kind of a variant on the wargame I'm working on. It'd be a dicepool system, but one where you want to roll low.
Basic idea is this; each mech has stats, and each pilot has a corresponding set of stats. Perhaps the mech has Stability, which represents how stable a firing platform is and how well mounted its guns are; each pilot has the corresponding stat of Warfare(Ranged)/Ballistics Skill/Whatever you want to call it.
The mech's stat is how many dice you roll; the pilot's stat is the number you want to roll under. So, if you're firing an autocannon, your mech's Stability of 5 means you can roll 5 dice, and your pilot's Ballistics Skill of 7 means you want to roll a 7 or under, and each die you do roll generates a hit(probably up to the autocannon's rate of fire, which would be the max number of hits it can get each turn).
You can use whatever dice you like with this system and tweak the numbers however you like, but it would emphasize a mix of quality mecha and skilled pilots in a way that most systems just can't, because they're designed to focus on either the machine or the man, not the man and machine working in harmony.
...shit, yeah, that's actually *really* good. I've looked at your system from the perspective of its factions/tech/aesthetic, but I never dug into your mechanics. That'd actually work pretty well. Coming from Shadowrun where hits are completely independent of your skill, I never would have even considered that.
Only point where I might run into problems is with customization of mechs (I know the players love it, and so do I) where figuring out balanced, well, figures might be troublesome. But yeah, that's pretty great. Thanks, man.
Have fun. The pilot/mech dicepool idea is one I had a while back, but couldn't make it work in my wargame, and my fluff doesn't work for a mecha RPG, so I've just been sitting on it and not doing anything. Go ahead and have fun with it.
Could work, but I kinda like having things established if you really need something to work with.
Although I think I can get away with killing off the "huge" part of it no problem, it was made on a really early version.
I think this could definitely work for a mech game, but how would this work for other rolls, like defending or doing cool maneuvers and all that?
One way to customize it would probably be just how much damage the guns do. Different stats on the guns themselves after rolling to see what guns hit like in the "Stability" system.
Overall figuring out the stats and how the FIGHTING THINGS aspect works first will make figuring out the fluff like customization and making all the robots and characters speshul far easier, I think.
Cool maneuver's could be the Mech's Agility and the pilot's Piloting characteristic, off the top of my head.
Just throwing these out: Mech stats are Gearing, Agility, Stability, Armor, and Communications, while pilot stats are Prowess, Piloting, Shooting, Vigilance, and Presence.
Melee Attack: Gearing(ability of mech to put power into its limbs*) against Prowess(Pilot's overall skill in melee combat)
Dodge: Agility against Piloting
Absorb and mitigate damage: Armor against Vigilance(Pilot's ability to not panic and to account for damage to his mech)
Ordering party to hold fast against overwhelming odds: Communications / Presence(general charisma stat)
Note that the stats don't always have to be used with their closest equivalent. For example, Gearing, since it basically represents the mech's drive train, would be used for movement speed, so running a mech through unstable terrain could be Gearing/Piloting.
*Gearing is an important stat, because you should generally tie movement speed and melee damage to the same value; if your enemies can just outrun you wile backpedaling, you'll never be useful in melee.
Sounds a bit what i'm making.
A Front Mission / Venus Wars / Firefly inspired game where players take the role of mercenary pilots in a conflict over a lynch-pin planet caught between two major powers.
The system i'm using is a modified Freeform/Universal RPG with most rolls as a combination of mech and pilot stats with results ranging from "Yes and, Yes, No but, No, No And" depending on the total result against a general table . This allows the GM to give all kinds of interesting additives to failed or successful roles dependent on the situation
Justification of mechs is that they naturally evolved from environmental suits used in space and harsh environments. Strong enough to wield heavy weapons but retaining the advantages of infantrymen. That and they're relatively cost effective compared to the tanks of the world.
that and they're cool and I prefer real robot over giant robot
If you keep things to low-gravity planets with thin or no atmospheres like Mars, helicopters, jets, and other fixed-wing aircraft become almost impossible because most designs need air to work, while rockets(The only type that doesn't need air) are expensive, possibly too expensive to risk in combat.
Then you only need to justify why tanks aren't used instead.
Actually, mecha wargames aren't really a distinct type of wargame; they don't have any defining features. Look at how little Battletech has in common with Warmachine and you see the issue.
The features I'm focusing on for my game are lightning pace, a damage system where you actually get worse at fighting as you take damage, simultaneous turns, and cool dieselpunk-esque aesthetics for the setting. Plus the fact that you don't know what your opponent is bringing against you until he actually uses it in the battle.
I wouldn't consider Warmachine a mech game. Its more a skirmish game that includes mechs.
For me, mechs mean momentum and locational damage in the rules. Its the idea of big 100-ton war machines taking heavy incoming damage and shrugging it off as the blast the enemy away. But I grew up on Battletech, not super-robo, so my view is influenced.
Revised it, cleaned it up a bit
The reason Large is how it is due to people who want to play Large sized player characters, it also provides a challenge in combat without going overboard from Huge which would take either an elite group of people, or a platoon to take down.
At least that's how I hope it works out
In my one the focus is on simple combat with location based damage so as to invoke the image of a badly damaged but functioning mech still stomping around battlefields.
Pilots can take damage separate from their mech too and some weapons are tailored to wound pilots over direct damage to the mech (moreso that the victors can sell the leftover parts)
Yeah i'm struggling since i'd like the planet to be near-earth in habitat.
Justification-wise i'm going for the versatility route suggested by an anon from /m/.
"No other vehicle had the versatility stemming from the arms of the mechs that, from its repair-hand ancestry, could grab pretty much anything and operate any weapon that they can grab with sufficient pre-programming for the hands and the control cables that can be deployed for it."
Then again I grew up on Mechwarrior and Armored Core and fell in love with the customizability of mechs, tweaking their Arsenal and mobility options and look and all those good things.
I'm currently designing a mtg like game where instead of mana cost, balance is achieved by a set of deck construction rules based on playing card suits. it focuses more on the player rather than creatures
>each players deck must contain exactly 4 suits.
>a deck can't contain more than 4 cards of the same rank (2-A)
currently I only have 8 different suits planned
curious if it sounds interesting to anyone or if anyone has tips on things to avoid
I don't aim for making a "mtg killer" just something different.
>complexity of the rules.
I have a strict rule with anything I design, explaining it to a new player should take minimal effort and rulings or effect interactions shouldn't require more than a couple sentences to explain.
you could say this is the core of the game, your deck and your opponents deck could play very differently. and lets say theme wise building a deck would be like building a character in a rpg, your not just a wizard sending nameless mooks off to battle for you, you can be right there in the fight.
has anyone ever tried marketing their (war)game to local games shops?
there's an independent in the region. I was thinking it might be fun to print off a few sets cheaply and offering to let them stock for free with a share in profits if it sells.
my question is: Would 50:50 be an alright deal, or would it be better off offering them 3/4ths just to get my foot in the door. Keep in mind I'm more interested in getting people playing my designs than making bank or being particularly flashy
legal advice would also be helpful
i have a friend who works at a gameshop and while my game is still under heavy development we agreed that i'd be able to sell the thing in his shop because it would get me out there and a new game you can get exclusively in their gamestore is pretty good for sales and publicity so we're going 50/50 when i'm able to print and sell it
if you have no attachment with the gamestore in question, grab whatever you can to get your name out there, even if they might seem slightly unfair at first
little money is better than no money at all
The initiative system of my game, simple enough right? Covers enough bases?
Initiative is the turn order in combat. Each unit gets a single turn in a Round, and gets 4 actions on that turn.
Player Characters and Elite NPC units roll 1D10 and add it to 10.
Standard enemies roll 2D10(Not a D100), and the number is assigned to a group of them, you'll want to group enemy units by type and probably want to include no more than 4-6 of them in a single “squad”. Each unit in a “Squad” gets their normal actions and can go in any order.
The numbers are then ordered from highest to lowest, in the event of a tie between the player characters and enemies, the player characters go first as the odds are generally going to be against them. Tied allied enemies can go in any order within that block. If you have three or more factions taking place in a battle, simply roll 1D10 each until one gets a higher number than another(s), this is not added onto their original initiative.
So players have a good chance of acting before standard enemies then, correct?
How does your system handle surprise? Any initiative penalties to either side? As-is, even if surprised, the players still have a good chance of acting before those who surprise them.
If you're grouping by type, a limit on either the amount of enemies per type or available actions would be necessary to avoid stuff like 12-20 enemies moving first before the players. Alternatively, rather than type, assign initiative to squads instead.
The multiple factions roll seem unnecessary. Maybe either use solely the former initiative rolls for groups/squads, or have a certain faction always move before another faction?
To be honest, I'm not sure if I should start here, but, well, yolo.
After lurking around the Japanese game generals recently and hearing the Etrian Odyssey tabletop is kinda shit, I've been doing some research into making my own. Well, trying to, anyway. You see, what I'd be aiming for is a system where it's easy to pick up and play, but Game Masters can just quickly grab a monster from the game's bestiary and be able to use that with minimal tweaking.
First things first, I need to figure out the mechanics behind the scenes. As of now, I'm thinking of trying to cover the bases of 3 and 4, as well as the
currentlytwo Untold games, as they're the most recent. I'm shooting for something that feels similar to the games, to the point where it feels like you're playing tabletop Etrian, but without the convoluted formulas and math.
Seriously, the math is pretty decent for running in the background on the handhelds, but to translate that 1:1 is pretty fucked. For example, to grab a part of the accuracy formula from EO3:
>Base Accuracy's Calculations:
>If B is less than or equal to -139, then Base Accuracy = A - 30
>If B is greater than -139, but less than 140, then Base Accuracy = A + 30 * sin(B / 100)
>If B is greater than or equal to 140, then Base Accuracy = A + 30
Like fuck, I don't want to have anyone, whether players or GMs, fucking calculate the sine of fucking ANYTHING because that shit is time-consuming and obnoxious.
Long story short, I want to take the math and formulas behind the game and condense it into something workable that still feels like the base game. Thing is, I'm pretty terrible at that, and wouldn't mind some help. I don't know if anyone's already done something like this, or knows of someone somewhere who has, but I'm all ears.
I forgot about surprise actually, probably just 2 free actions before combat or something
I did put a limit, that's the 4-6 suggestion
and I could just have the player characters all act together, but like if they all go first a good number of the minion enemies as it were would probably get wrecked.
The multiple faction rule is only going to come into play very rarely, and only needs to resolve ties between them
Well I don't know what those B and A stand for there, but what the formula does, it lets B affect A in a nice sinoid pattern modifying it by -30 to +30. A straight line would be: A + (B / 4) where you constrain the B/4 between -30 and +30... but that ultimately doesn't help much as running even a single division for a simple accuracy calculation on tabletop is way too much. And I'd say even printing a predefined table where you look up the result is also too much. You'll probably need to trash the entire thing and come up with a simplified approximation.
1) the shop dabbles primarily in fantasy games and this would be a fairly generic operational/tactical wargame hybrid
2)quality is not going to be flashy and I don't anticipate production costs to be high for a prototype run- $15 at most for paper and tokens and chits with a rulebook shrinkwrapped and assembled manually in advance
3) there isn't a massive market in town
I can't see myself convincing an owner I'm on no terms with to pay me for a game niche the store doesn't even stock. prototype production doesn't have to be more than 6 units to get things started, anyways
a hex operational/tactical hybrid wargame with modular terrain for a handful of scenarios. I can see it being enjoyable but not standout in the same way fantasy or historical campaigns with nice token art would be
For prices, I would prefer to keep the sale value low (no more than $20) so gawkers would at least be able to try it. Of course this is probably in the hands of the store, as you've said...
How would modifiers work with this system? Affecting the number of dice? Basically, the issue I see here is the same as other roll-under games, where you either have to implement a cap on how high skills can go or an "autofail" number + modifiers. Otherwise you get 100% success rates, which obviously doesn't work so well. But modifiers could cause trouble anyway.
Been thinkin' of magic system. Using 4dF+mod as resolution method.
Essentially, casting increases magical contamination. Even succesful casts do so, although large degree of success can completely eliminate it. For example >=4 degrees ensures no contamination.
Contamination gives malus to further castings, and miscast can "ignite" the contamination, inflicting horrible backlashes.
Even when recovering, sufficiently high contamination might spontaneously ignite.
Spells are ranked by their DC, from 1 to 10.
Magical contamination degenerates over time, or when it is ignited.
With sufficient preparation ( long rituals ) characters can make theor spell safer.
Basic gist of it. Not sure of numbers yet ( players probably won't gain mod higher than 6 on spellcasting. )
Sorry, ditched for a bit, the central premise behind crowfall is that you're a spectral crow that possesses bodies he finds lying around, he can even carry them in his inventory and trade them for different stat ranges. Think fantasy eclipse phase as the setting, fantasy EVE Online as the gameplay.
As >>44852890 said, the main idea is to basically have Base Accurate be gradually better or worse as B travels towards a positive number to a max effective value of 140, or to the negative to a max effective value of -139, and numbers beyond that don't change the modifier anymore. You won't have the neat sinoid pattern of modifier growth anymore, but it shouldn't be impossible to keep that core intent behind the pattern, even if a straight conversion seems impossible.
Remember that 4dF is a pretty steep curve. If you are rolling for example 5+4dF, six out of ten rolls will give 4-6, and the chance of getting a 9 (5+4) is about 1%.
In other words, if your spell DC runs from 1 to 10, and you want casting a DC10 spell have even just a 1% chance of escaping contamination, the modifier for the roll must be 10 (10+4 = 14 which is the minimum result for no contamination).
How sub-divided should characters be in creation?
I'm thinking of having 3 base 'ORIGINS' being either Core World, Periphery or Spacer with players adding character background as traits e.g Affluent (easier to get better quality items) Hacker (better computer software, bonuses to cyber attack) etc
Is there a particular character creation system you like or favour?
(I'm thinking I could also adapt a similar one to the Hardsuit creation)
Your post doesn't seem very clear.
Do you mean something like (Mod+4)dF or (4dF) + Mod ? Or what do you mean ?
Anyway, it seams like something fun.
Not being able to escape contamination for certain spells without appropriate preparation is, imho, a good decision, if you want to make (high-level) magic not too common.
That's pretty neat.
That does seem like a good choice, since things like affluent and hacker aren't really limited to those kinds of origins, unless you make it so in the setting.
>You lived on a Core dedicated region, be it a teeming megalopolis or one of the packed satellite colonies. You are used to crowded environments and packed urban situations
>You grew up on one of the exotic and dangerous border worlds of the Periphery. You are at home in difficult environments and unlikely to baulk at survival in harsh lands.
>You were born and raised in space.
Gonna post the first draft of the first chapter of my RPG once I get it back from our editor some time soon.
The game's written, but most is still being edited.
One question. When I post a PDF, should I remove the names of myself and my team member for anonymity, or is this a trustworthy /tg/?
A buddy of mine is going to playtest this adventure at his game shop.
I though I'd get /tg/'s opinion. Planning on publishing.
>You were born and raised in the vast expanse of space and have spent most of your life maintaining space-going systems. You are at home in lonely, confined spaces and can repair most machines with ease.
I think one good way to do it would be letting you switch which stat you use. For example, the modifier for having a shield wouldn't increase your defense, but it would let you deflect damage with your Gearing rather than your Armor.
Making them more used to social interaction than the others would also be good.
I see a few pdfs that wrote their contacts and names in, though removing them wouldn't be a bad idea, just in case.
Looking for any and all feedback
Also, I have 100+ pages of original, hand-drawn art for the setting. Once I get my scanner fixed, I hope to include 25%-30% of the artwork in the finished project.
My friends and I have worked on a tabletop role-playing game over the past 6 years. Our game system, included mechanics and setting are original and we want to publish it but this has brought up some legal issues. Namely, we really want to protect our IPs especially when going around beta-testing it.
So far we've tested it with at least 2 different groups over the past 2 years; people that we were introduced through friends of friends and have an interest in tabletop RPGs. We've gotten some pretty positive feedback overall and we'd like to start taking it to conventions and look for funding but first we want to cover our bases. DrivethruRPG looks like a decent place to go to for publishing but first, as I mentioned earlier, we want to make sure the game is protected during any further beta-testing.
Patents, copyrighting, trademarking, and any other licensing matters have become major concerns and if anyone here is familiar with these process in regards to a tabletop RPG I would really appreciate any pointers you could offer. We know this stuff can start to run us some serious cash but at least it'll give us an idea as to how to budget the legal fees as well as any advertising we feel might be necessary to promote the game (which theoretically would include any spaces we purchase in conventions and the travel that is required to make it there.)
Again any help would be appreciated and I'd like to apologize if this is the wrong thread to be asking about this kind of stuff. This is my first time posting here (or anywhere really) about this project of ours.
Working on a Final Fantasy heartbreaker, and I've finally beaten out a core mechanic that I'm happy with. Posting the abridged version here for criticism and/or appropriation.
All checks are 3d6 + attribute, against a difficulty based on the task. Attributes range from 0-6 (0-3 innate, 0-3 class) plus a level bonus (up to 14 at L15). Difficulties are as follows:
Trivial (6). Virtually impossible to fail without some sort of disability.
Easy (10). Everyday tasks.
Medium (13). Moderately challenging tasks.
Hard (16). Very challenging tasks.
eXtreme (20). The top of real-world human accomplishment.
Fantastic (23). Glorious weab bullshit begins here.
Ludicrous (26), Impossible (30), Beyond Impossible (33), Beyond Beyond Impossible (36), etc. There are also "opposed" checks, which add an opponent's attribute to the difficulty and come in three grades: simple (6+), even (10+), and tough (13+).
>Edges & Faults
Difficulties are usually consistent for a given task, and generally don't reflect external circumstances or modifiers. Those are instead represented by edges (training, assistance, taking your time, helpful conditions) or faults (injuries, distractions, rushing, hindering conditions). Each edge cancels one fault, so that only one or the other (or neither) will apply on a given check. Each edge/fault has you roll an extra die on the check, to a maximum of five extra dice (eight total). Your check result (including any breaks or complications) is based on the highest (for edges) or lowest (for faults) three dice.
>Breaks & Complications
Triple-6 on a check triggers a break, which either allows you to roll an extra die (minus 1) and add it to your check, or results in a fortunate circumstance or side effect. Breaks on an attack check enable use of a limit break, hence the name.
Triple-1 triggers a complication, which is an automatic failure and also introduces a negative circumstance or a new problem.
>Assistance & Teamwork
Characters can assist another by making the same check, but at a difficulty one step lower. If it's plausible for another check to assist, that can instead be substituted at its usual difficulty. Success adds an edge to the recipient's check; failure does nothing unless it's a complication, which adds a fault in addition to its usual effects. "Teamwork" checks have multiple characters assist a single leading character, and are used in "montage" scenarios (such as a collaborative negotation or execution of a heist), or where iterative probability would make for near-certain (but unwarranted) success or failure (the classic case is a party sneaking past a guard patrol).
The upshot of all this is that, between the raw bonus and edges/faults from backgrounds and job abilities, the entire range of human possibility (Trivial to Extreme) is contained within the range of 1st-level characters, who proceed to become more fantastic from there and eventually leave mundane tasks behind entirely. Access to jobs/abilities, spells, and equipment is gated behind three-level Tiers, which also corresponds to a difficulty bump. Thoughts?
You might want to stagger your DC increases evenly, they jump between 3 and 4-point increases right now which is just kinda grating. Consider 2-point increases in DC, like the Dragon Age / Fantasy Age system, which also uses a 3d6 + Attribute system.
You might want to go with a flat bonus or penalty for edges and faults, just because rolling multiple dice and taking the highest and lowest gets complicated when you're adding multiple dice together, plus multiple modifiers.
Triple-6 is going to come up 1 in 216 times unless you've got multiple Edges, and even then the odds aren't much better. Consider having it come up more often, like (again) the Stunt system from Dragon Age which just requires rolling doubles. Maybe double 4s, 5s, or 6s for a Break and double 1s, 2s, or 3s for a complication?
I think you've got some decent ideas here, check the AGE system and see what you can take away from that. It's not perfect but it's pretty good. Also look up the FFd6 system, I think it's on the Giant in the Playground forums.
Right, after some opinions damage rolls damage rolls.
Do people have objections to looking at a table for damage?
Basically I'm trying to cut down the amount of rolls in a game, so I was thinking that at the same time as a skill roll is made the players would roll their effect die and then look at the result on a table to determine the damage. Naturally being a table you would not get all the same values as dice rolls, is this a problem? This would be like the system used in Advanced Fighting Fantasy 1 & 2 where you roll a d6 for the weapons damage.
So, for a 9mm handgun the results might be 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3 on a d6, for a 120mm tank gun, the results might be 20, 24, 28, 32, 36 and 40 on a d6. As you can see, using a single die means that not all values are available.
Ideally I'm trying to create an optimal system and cutting down the amount of die rolls involved, so one roll of a small amount of dice would do initiative, skill rolls, damage/armour and the like. I won't say any other details yet as they are very sketchy and this might all fall over and be rubbish. It's different from ORE though! ;-)
That's actually not a bad idea if you're going for balance and consistency
As long as you keep them simple and you avoid making players/gms go through pages and pages to get a certain chart you'll be fine - keep all the references in a single page or something
Thanks, and yes, it would be about balance and consistency. I'm planning on having all weapons have a damage value and it would be the damage values that be looked up on the table. So a 9mm handgun would be damage value 2, a 120mm tank gun might be 20. So only the one table to look at, this isn't going to be Rolemaster!
Not an expert, but there are somethings that I am more or less sure to get right. However, I am from Europe, so maybe there are some legal differences.
First of all, copyright exists once you write it. No specific procedure is necessary. If you want to be extra certain that most things are ok in front of a judge, print a (short) copyright notice in your book (open a book, there will be one either at the beginning or at the end) and before publishing (or anything actually), send yourself a copy (physical or digital doesn't matter) by snail mail in a way that may certify the sending and reception (I think it is called registered mail in the US).
Patents are not what you should use for books.
Trademarks are usually used to protect your games name and stuff, but I never have to deal with them, so I can't tell you what their advantages are.
However, IANAL and if you don't live in a third world country, you should be able to contact a lawyer and he should be able to help you. In my country, a lawyer is supposed to give basic legal informations for free and counselling in such matters wouldn't be very expensive (less than 200$). Also, if you've got an editor, you could ask him.
One of my main concepts while making my game is the definition of Body, Mind and Soul and how they interact in the world with the characters and creatures
Based on this, I'm considering making 3 damage/condition tracks: Physical, Mental and Spiritual - Physical being used as the basic for combat and armor tracking, Mental as a sanity meter as well as a means of social "combat" and possibly used as a stun track like shadowrun (but i doubt it) and the Spiritual one that doubles as a magic damage track and a spellcasting resource (I won't go into details on the reason why)
But I'm not sure, specially since I was considering to implement locational damage and having three different sets of rules for what is ultimately status bookkeeping might end up being a slow chore for players
It's a game where the PCs fill real, diverse roles, instead of archetypal heroes, in a fantastic galaxy.
It uses a D100 roll-under system and is primarily inspired by 70's and 80's SciFi like Star Wars and Blade Runner.
Saturn is hell, demonic forces take over a space station orbiting Saturn and cut the communications. Since earth doesn't know it is demons they send astronauts instead of space marines. The players are at the mercy of their fragile space suit, their friends, satanic forces, and themselves.
Urban fantasy with tolkein races and things ripped from mythology cooperating with humans. PC's start off as a pest control company for things like Kobolds, Salamanders, and feral Goblins, but eventually become slayers of various large nasties that players must dutifully research in game and prepare for in order to make an impossible job difficult. Monster Hunter meets Mythology meets Ghostbusters.
Ramshackle bands of mech piloting mercenaries fight on a planet torn between two major powers. Front Mission meets Firefly meets Venus Wars
8 x 8 Board game based on movement and effect where different teams have home territories that enhance/debuff opposing team piece effects.
Not straight up warfare type game. Think more like sociology. Soccer Mom mentality vs. Internet Trolls vs. Marxist Socialist etc... Five potential home team areas to a board and movements are card based based.
can i get the link of the blog, I'm making a wargamish type of game and I have some basic rules but i'm pretty stuck with how the hp should works since it uses 1 unit each player (hero style) with respawn when dead, kind of a shooter
Sorry, missed the reply.
I'm pretty partial to increments of 3 because it matches up with the variance of the RNG and my level range/ability access. Switching to increments of 2 would either force me to make task difficulties more granular and lose that correlation, or compress my level range and accept an increase in swinginess. Admittedly, I'm not too happy with the 3-3-4 step, either, but the only other alternative results in odd difficulties (10-13-19-22-etc).
Though increments of 2 would jive better with my attack math, which adds half the exceess on your accuracy check to damage. Hmm...
Actually, the idea is that there are no modifiers at all - every task is 3d6 + Attribute vs. a standard difficulty. There's a few checks that are exceptions and have you add two or three things (accuracy checks, damage resistance checks, initiative checks), but all of those are also pre-calculated, nothing on the fly. Having edges/faults be a roll-and-keep setup instead of a modifier helps to keep the math minimal, and characters on the RNG. Right now, the biggest possible divergence between two characters at any level is +-6, two st.devs/difficulties; I don't want to widen that.
Edges are generally not that hard to acquire. Characters can start with up to three backgrounds (and acquire more during play), which generally give an edge on one or two tasks, and many of the non-mage job abilities grant an edge as a side benefit. You can expect to have one or two permanent edges in a up to a half-dozen tasks out the gate. Assistance (as noted) and "taking X"/aiming also work by granting edges, so breaks are generally more common than you would strictly expect. I'm okay with the corresponding decrease in complications; they aren't supposed to be critical fumbles.
Funnily enough, this project started off as a patch for FFd6, though it's drastically departed from that. I'll give Dargon Arge and AGE a looksee. Thanks!
Sup /gdg/ looking for a bit of feedback on a design element.
I'm working on a role playing card game and for combat the players and monsters make a formation each with people in front line or back line. I am trying to figure out how to display what attacks can hit what targets from what positions. Ideally it would be something you could understand at a glance at help keep the game moving smoothly.
Pic related is the latest iteration, with the attacks possible targets as little dots, the target ring(s) showing how many targets with attack will hit, and the stars showing the possible positions to attack from, with the filled in star showing the in each scenario.
I need some fresh eyes to look at it and tell me how it reads, or anything they might find confusing or counter intuitive.
Might as well use standardized keywords? Less space, and no ambiguity when rulebook explains them clearly enough.
POSITION: ANY FRONT
TARGET: FRONT SWEEP
DAMAGE: 1 + (Str VS Str) SLASHING
That's pretty much the backup plan, but I am hoping to come up with a visual representation, especially to help new and forgetful players so they don't have to keep looking at a rule book all the time.
Tanks can't adjust their posture to suit mountains, have difficulty climbing steep cliffs. Boulders can be climbed over with a mech, arms allow the user to swivel and aim with freedom without bonking rocks/cliffs etc.
Heck, if the mech is sufficiently advanced, it might even be *easier* to pilot one than a tank.
I have a resolution mechanic I'd like to bounce off of you guys, if I may.
>If the result is higher than your stat, it's a whiff.
>If result is lower than your stat, it's a hit.
>If result is equal to your stat, it's an exploding hit.
>If result is a hit or exploding hit, add the number indicated on the die to your hit total.
>If result is an exploding hit, also roll the die again. If the next roll is a hit, add the number indicated on the die to your hit total. If the next roll is also a an exploding hit, repeat this step.
>Subtract the tasks' Obstacle Rating from your Hit Total. It the result is less than 1, it's 1 instead. Your final hit total is your degree of success. On attack rolls, this (+weapon rating) determines how much damage you deal.
I think the target ring is misleading since it looks like you can only hit the middle target from that position. Maybe have number of attacks as a number or icon somewhere?
One way you could do it is have a 5x3(maybe 7x3) grid, then color in the spaces where the players and monsters could go, and grey out the rest. Then, choose position as a reference point, typically this would be a position where you can attack all of the target dots. Now you only have to show the shape that the attack can do. State in the rules that the shape is fixed and moves around according to the position of the user, and if a target dot belonging to the shape enters any grey spaces or leaves the grid, you cannot attack that position.
>Work on homebrew
>Get bummed out, see areas where the rules fall apart (giant-sized monsters, vehicles, etc)
>Whole system is ruined for me
>Decide to change stuff
>Playtesters become fractured, some wanting to just go with whatever I say, some liking things how they are
>latter talks to me
>points out how I planned around those problems a year ago
>back to feeling enthusiastic
>gonna be running it for a femanon friend's youtube channel.
Feels damn good, tg.
I just self e-mail for data time stamps, how the hell do you expect anyone here to be able to afford to trademark and copyright stuff, let alone hire the lawyers nessisary to enforce it all
I've only posted once, and I left such huge gaping holes it'd take a team of people about about 3 days of extensive playtesting to figure it out, if they could even convince themselves it works in the first place. I do wish some of my favorites here, like Skyresh Guy (okay, only Skyresh guy, but still) had a twitter to put a face to the name, but we wouldn't post here if we didn't like our anonymity.
MtG players rely on memorizing keywords all the time. Say, for example, "deathtouch" to any of them and they know how the mechanicsm will work. You have just a 2x3 grid to work on so you don't even have that many potential keywords to create. The attacker position for example needs just three, front / rear / any, unless you want to enforce pointless complexity with specialized positioning.
Copyright exists for all written published works without author needing to do anything. But if you meant rules, they are not subject to copyright. Or how did you think OSR clones exist?
I'll post it when I know what it is, this honestly was a feelz post and not a plug post. She's got a gaming channel and wants to get in on the critical role/yogsrpg bidness. Don't expect much when I do post it here, though, I think they're operating on a budget of only atlantean dollars and monopoly money
How much of an attraction would it be for a wargame to automatically adjust its balance for whatever size of game you play?
Like, anything in this game that buffs your entire army costs a percentage of your army rather than a fixed value, so you don't end up with the issue some games have where units that grant army wide buffs aren't very good in small games but are way too good in huge games.
Does that sound like something that appeals to you, as a possible person looking to play this game?
Unfortunately in a "realistic" setting, there is no reason for mechs. Tanks are cheaper to build, less mechanical complex, can mount bigger and better armour and weapons, are smaller targets and proven technology.
With a mech, you have to build joints, (need armour, mechanically complex), need balance, large targets (high, can't go hull down). If you need a mech to climb cliffs, you're better off with infantry and heavy weapons.
Tanks don't need to adjust their posture for mountains, they have turrets with 360 degree weapons, with elevation. A well designed tank (not usually ones from comics) are not massively high.
The only advantage in reality a mecha might have is mobility, but again, debatable.
But, in a sci-fi setting they can be anything you like.
Personally I like Heavy Gears/VOTOMS to replace the IFV and not the main tank.
The choice of mechs over tanks in my world is pretty simple. There are exotic power crystals on this world, which can be harvested from the bottom of the ocean. In roughly the equivalent of the Victorian era, diving suits were invented to retrieve them from the bottom of said ocean. As it became desireable to harvest bigger and bigger crystals, over time, motorized versions of these suits were designed, with a demand for crystals driven by the collapse of the coal mines. By thirty years later, the motorized suits had become the standard, and the pilot's limbs no longer extended into the suit's limbs. In an emergency when needing to lead a beach assault, someone had the bright idea to fit these diving suits to carry cannons and simply have them walk out of the surf. These were the first mechs, and all subsequent models have been evolutions on this basic design. The caterpillar track that made tanks possible, meanwhile, simply hasn't been invented.
Admittedly, physics are slightly different in this world than from our own, and the gravity is somewhat lighter.
I'm working on a classless now, and it has caused a great deal of suffering and doubt. I'm finally approaching something serviceable, but I feel it's not broadly applicable (mostly additional rolls on specific char gen tables, bundled with spare equipment). What I'm saying is, after a year of work, I realised I was squarely on my own unless I went point-buy or 'do whatever, I don't care' like Fate Core.
Grimdark fantasy where things went to shit so thoroughly, slowly and quietly that it is only technically not post- apocalyptic fantasy. You don't get levels of classes, you scrounge for gear, knowledge and contacts you use to make your job easier, and every mission you have to decide if you're going to keep an artifact engine and see what the consequences are or if you're going to break/abandon it and throw your efforts that week out the window.
Sounds cool, I've been following Trenchbreaker on several threads wherever I can and I like it. To be honest, it's one of the few settings where you can get away with mecha realistically because we haven't got all the other tech yet and the sample artwork you've posted I've liked. Keep it up Trenchbreaker Anon.
I like action point systems with reactions having given point values as well. Individual turns usual go relatively quickly as players want to save their reactions for enemy turns and it forces players to consider their moves several steps ahead.
It kinda breaks down when there are one or two enemies left though, because the players usual focus fire and turn it into a slaughter.
Yeah, I'm making the mechs in my sci-fi setting game to fill the middleground between infantry and tanks after being adapted from space survival gear.
That and the two major powers fighting for control over the planet are a bit iffy with escalating the conflict with the best of their tech so are content to fund partisan and mercenary parties to fight for them in relatively cheap and expendable equipment hence why most of the weapons are still ballistic.
Fast paced trench warfare with mecha, with non-mech units printed on cards and distributed like a TCG
Nope, Tracks just haven't been invented at all, not because they can't, but because no one's thought of the concept.
The game's actually coming together nicely, and in the last month or so it's really started coming together nicely. I've actually been thinking about bringing in some other people to work on the project, since the stone wall I've hit now is just needing to make more cards.
>The game's actually coming together nicely, and in the last month or so it's really started coming together nicely
I need to not jump to other topics when half finished with a sentence.
So, here's the latest WIP from my artist, the first Shoshkepali mech to get art, the M79A Herald of Oblivion, equipped with Arc Khopesh, Overcharger Lightning Cannon, and Teleforce Beam.
Obviously this is just the drawing step, no lighting or rendering done yet, but it gets the concept down.
Should be noted, the skeletal face in the fake coffin on the front isn't an actual skeleton, just an artistic/religious bit of gilding, since the mechs have heavy religious connotation in Shoshkepal's culture.
Bits and pieces. Start with the core, and one or two mechanics you want to work on. It makes interactions easier to spot as you progress, and allows you to really work out the kinks. Trying to tackle it all head-on means a lot will be missed.
Never expect artists to work for free.
Art is an incredibly difficult and specialized skillset which requires a huge amount of investment to get good at. You should pay at least $10/hour.
I guess I'll start with a brief overview and the main "unique" mechanic then, while I work on getting a formal ruleset up on Google docs for review later.
It's somewhat similar to MtG (as most of the custom card games I see on /tg/ are, I guess) but I'm not aiming to make a Magic killer either and I'm ultimately going to make it digital for a variety of reasons. You can essentially turn any card in your hand into "lands" similar to how Duel Masters and Kaijudo did it, if you ever played those, but you can also use cards on your field as well if you want to. You've also got your colour analogues, but instead of 5, I'm using the six standard vidya game elements of Fire, Water, Earth, Wind, Light and Dark plus non-elemental Neutral cards. Again, nothing really new or groundbreaking.
All of that preamble is somewhat necessary, though, to understand the core mechanic I'm currently working with which is, for now, called "loyalty". Each card has elemental loyalty that is ENTIRELY independent of its cost. Unlike Duel Masters or Kaijudo, it doesn't matter WHAT you tap to play a card so you don't need to tap a red card in order to play a red card, for example. If you have a card with Cost X, you just need to tap X "lands". What you need, however, is the appropriate loyalty. Loyalty is calculated by looking at WHAT elements you have as mana and HOW MANY of them you have. A card cannot be put onto the field in any way if this requirement isn't met and it can't be cheated around or circumvented. A cards loyalty may be higher than its actual play cost, so you could have a card that costs 1 but has 3 loyalty of any given element (or even combination of elements)
It's... kinda confusing to try to explain in words, but from the little amount of IRL playtesting I've done with my gaming group, it's a lot easier to understand in practice.
Jumping off this, artists rarely get "exposure". Their deviant art or portfolio is exposure plenty. No one cares if the art they show is for something or done on their own initiative. They gain nothing by doing art for free.
I understand this, but I'm working on a game on a 0$ budget, initial publishing costs are going to come out of pocket, unless we drum up enough buzz to launch a kickstarter/indiegogo/gofundme . Would it be reasonable to offer an artist a percentage or whatever profit the book makes? Or is it a better idea to look for a friend of a friend who'll work for free like me and the rest of the dev/editing team?
Look, I'm a graphic designer. I made pic related for my own project. This takes as long as art. I can't make stuff like this for free because it takes too much time. Even if it's not much, you need to be prepared to pay some amount to artists. There are some even on deviant art who will not charge much per piece especially if they're getting multiple commissions.
You need something more tangible than future promises. For example, this is something I did 3 years ago (card template, art obviously not mine) for a person who actually had startup money and an artist he paid. I charged him very little since he was a friend but he paid me. He is still working on this game and has now run out of money to pay the artist.
You can't sell someone the future because it doesn't have one yet. You might be able to convince one or two rare people to help at least partially once you're established but take note that games usually require several art assets and eventually their faith or charity will run out.
If you're not already an artist or designer like me, it's hard. You might even make fun of me because there's not much to this template. How can this be worth money? Clearly there are some design issues with it, yadda yadda. But that's the thing. When you as the artist or designer have to tailor the product to meet the commissioner, you aren't getting to do what *you* want. You have to do what that person wants, even if you urge them otherwise. In this case, a full art sleek design is what they wanted but they also wanted some gimmicky stuff and an appearance that might make people think of yugioh. When you have to compromise your vision, you're not doing the work for yourself and you need to be compensated.
What he says.
You don't have a future to sell. You do not have stocks to sell. There's no stock market index that you can show to them how much money your future is worth.
Cold hard cash is what artists need. No exposure, no deals where they need to keep track of what you are doing, no promises, just currency in exchange for their services, written in ink and signed by both parties.
That way it can't go too wrong as long as both the client and artist are trustworthy.
If one isn't trustworthy, then the ink will save it.
You got two 3 variables with one sub,
And you need to have positive outcome in order to place a card on the table.
(Land-Cost)+(Element-Loyalty) must be over 0
How many lands can you place per round?
Potential problems if you can place multiple lands:
All weaker cards just became glorified land
Bumrushing by just placing lots of land until you can place your most powerful cards into play, effectively turning the game into roll of dice which one gets the better cards
Perhaps I should ask a question.
I notice that a lot of games with roll under systems using d10or d100 tend to have very long lists of skills. Is this needed?
I know 3:16 uses d10 roll under with only two stats.
Would my d10 roll under mechanic work alright if I only had three stats (Spine, Brain, and Heart)?
Glad to hear it. Hopefully the rest of the game will be more exciting. :)
It's really more about the setting than the mechanics anyway. I just want solid, simple mechanics that will support the kind of game I want to make.
New guy in the conversation, where would you guys recommend I start in the process of learning card design? It's something I've been interested in and playtesting other people's has gotten me really interested
I'm working on a quick and dirty strategic spaceship battle system that emphasizes the fact that you don't have perfect control over your subordinates. For example if you send one of your admirals off to bomb the aliens of Beetlejuice IV, he may decide to negotiate concessions instead. Or if you send a fleet under an aggressive admiral out, he may decide to attack a superior enemy force regardless of what you want.
What do you think would be the best way to make this engaging for the player, and allow some decision-making while not having it totally controllable?
Card decks for general interactions, like dealing with enemy forces, or negotiating with neutral parties, that have other interactions. The commander sent needs to pass a test to follow through with their orders instead of the new one from the card drawn, with affinities and weakness of the commander affecting the test.
Example, you send an aggressive commander to negotiate a trade pact, and you draw a card that says the other party's representative insulted him, pass a test so you don't attack in retaliation, with the aggressive commander gets a negative for tests like that.
Use a lot of keywords so the system is quick to resolve.
Work on explaining your game without mentioning other games. They alienate readers who have never played those games, and if they have might just dismiss your game entirely.
That said, it sort of reminds me of how the Pokemon TCG used to play, though that had you spend energy cards to use attacks. It could be an interesting puzzle, but it doesn't seem that... exciting? It could definitely use some sort of hook to draw people to it. Take a look at the currently popular LCGs like Netrunner (one of you is an evil corporation and the other is a hacker trying to expose the other's secret agendas) or Game of Thrones (you play exactly the way you expect the houses would). The fantasy knights and monsters theme is oversaturated in my opinion, maybe you can find something new for it where tapping played cards to play new cards is a logical extension to the theme.
I think an answer I saw a while back was "have only as many skills/stats as you think is necessary". There's nothing stopping you from having only 5 skills and 2 stats or something, as long as those skills and stats are usable/necessary in order to play through a campaign.
So an idea I had for an initiative system was that everyone rolls initiative, and that's how many "action points" you have, it goes most points to least, and when you take an action it lowers your value and thus shifts you down the initiative track.
So say Adam, Bob and Carl are playing, Adam gets 10, Bob 6 and Carl 3
Adam does 2 attacks for 3 points each, putting him at 7, then 4.
Since Bob is now the highest score, he goes, he charges for 4 points, leaving him at 2.
Now Adam has the most points at 4, he attacks again for 3.
Finally Carl gets a turn, he uses it to Full Attack for 6 points, which means he has 3 less points next round and is functionally at 0 points for this round.
Finally Bob goes, then Adam, then everyone rerolls
The key thing would be that things like Special Effects like damage over time or falling unconscious or the like would only activate/reset at the start of each round. Meaning if you know you got KO'd early in the round, you could dump as much AP into a final attack as possible, since you won't have to worry about turn order next round.
Ties would probably be whoever hasn't gone most recently, falling back to initiative modifier and then a roll off.
It seems like a LOT of bookkeeping. It's definitely a different way of doing things, and something I'd give a shot... but you *need* to test it with people who aren't familiar with the system and make sure you can make it intuitive enough, because from your description of it, it's not going to be intuitive in play as-is.
Rerolling initiative after every turn has also always rubbed me the wrong way. Plus, you had Carl Full Attack and take points out of his next turn; if he hasn't even rolled for his next turn, how does he know he'll HAVE 3 points?
tl;dr I like it but MAKE SURE it works in practice for people besides you. And ditch the "reroll every turn".
That's the big kicker yeah. I was just curious if the idea was sound. I love the initiative system from Final Fantasy Tactics, and this was the best way I could jimmy together.
And assuming Carl DOESN'T have 3 points next turn? He's basically a sitting duck, making doing overdrawing VERY dangerous. I may slap an additional -1 on top just to further discourage it as anything but a last resort/desperation move. In practice the numbers would probably look more like 1d5+(2-7)
Might as well toss a trip on here. >>44840265 Anon from here, finally getting around to working on my system after real life interrupted. Currently debating whether I should roll Perception checks into Electronic Warfare (which already covers most of the non-visual spotting, stealth, and the like) or have it as its own skill. Wasn't able to stick to five Rig attributes and five pilot skills like I planned on, sadly.
Thoughts on tying perception and stealth to the same skill? It's not TRUE stealth, granted, since this is a walking tank-style mech game, but ECM is still stealth.
As long as you know the limitations of the idea (and it seems you do), I'm sure you can get it to work. It's a good idea, it just has to be in a workable way. And having overdraw as a desperation move only is probably the best idea, yeah.
Right. Radar, sensors in general, all that fun.
Next step: figure out how to actually justify mechs in Vietnam. My "muh realism" autist sense tingles like a maniac whenever I try and write anything.
oh god help
I keep trying to work d20 into a deckbuilding game that revolves around an action-reaction system played out over an initiative-governed timeline
>enter battle, roll initiative, draw new hand
>cards include things like attacks, spells, parries, counters
>everyone plays their cards simultaneously and they fire in order of initiative
>Chad the Manwitch opens with an initiative roll of 18 and casts Fireball at the Knobgoblin (initiative 12)
>Chad rolls a 17 and would hit the Knobgoblin if it hadn't played Improved Counter (initiative +6) and rolled successfully
>Having used its one action for the turn on countering Fireball, the Knobgoblin gets clobbered by the other players
You would have to rest to shuffle your discard pile back into your deck. Basic attacks wouldn't use cards, holding action would let you draw one, the number and type of cards you have access to varies by class and level, other cards would let you focus to draw more cards, etc.
I hate myself for this idea, but I hate the 3.5e counterspell rules more.
Throw out a few ideas you have to start. Also, on a scale of real world physics and everything is magic, how "realistic" would you want it to be?
Why not restrict actions to playable cards instead? Let players act or react using however many of their available cards, but they can only refill at the end of a turn. That way they'd have to choose their battles in order to not run out and get clobbered.
Well, what I already have written up basically boils down to "military research projects that were attempted IRL actually worked well instead of being abject failures"; we had walkers in the late 60s/early 70s that worked, they were just impractical and incredibly hard to use. But given that what existed was a hydraulically powered "walking truck" that tired the user out in 15 minutes and required all four limbs in use just to move... It's a hell of a jump to give ~5 years worth of timeline to get that to "sitting in a cockpit and controlling it". I'm aiming for as realistic as possible, but I'm quickly realizing this concept may not actually be possible at all. Pretty sure the only way that I can have anything approaching a working mech earlier than "well into sci-fi" is through handwavium.
I'd write more but it's 4 AM and I need to sleep. Sorry.
Well, I mostly wanted a facsimile of D&D 3.5e combat actions. A lot of actions (most free actions, basic attacks, move actions) wouldn't even need cards and could be performed normally. The more I look at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm the more I realize how little sense it makes to mash the d20 combat system into a card game, especially within the context of a larger RPG.
I want a system that tastes like D&D, but with faster, more streamlined combat that is satisfyingly technical but not baroque in the way 3.5e so often is.
War can make technology advance pretty quick I say, though probably not to the extent of getting a Zaku from a truck in 5 years. You can probably advance forward multiple ways from this, such as solving the fatigue issue by having manned by having multiple pilots, improving mobility by taking hints from tank design, going fly-by-wire for some of the movements, etc. Take notes from how other military weapons advance forward, and put them on the mechs.
Most important in deciding how the mechs are developed however is their purpose. It helps design how they work, and serves as a reason as to why they made mechs and focused on advancing them instead of other weapons. This is very setting reliant though, so I can't suggest much at the moment.
As a side though, since you're mentioning Vietnam and 60s/70s and thus implying the setting is during the Cold War, it might be pretty interesting for the mechs to still be a walking truck but they are utilized specifically because only they can house a perfect stealth system (the only working stealth system needs a large space, so tanks are out, plus the noise cancellation system can only cancel the noise from a mech's inner workings and not a tank's), thus letting them infiltrate areas without being found out, helping out in the sidelines instead of being the main attraction, at the cost of being a huge target if the stealth system fails.
Allright it generally did make sense, but theere are a few things.
Right at the beginning it mentions Innates, not explaining what those are. Of course in the next part it explains, but in instances like this you might want to add "(see further below)" or "(See Chapter\Page X)" so readers wouldn't read the sentences again searching for something they might have missed.
It says "Blackmarked has x skills" that sounds like something left over from WIP.
I think I get the "Wounds and Tresholds" part, but right then and there you don't want to overwhelm your readers. They only have to understand what that thing is, either put the way of calculating it (Tolerance = Healthiness *2) separately after the text, or mention it during Character Creation
The Combat system is allright, mine is very similar. You might want to increase the size of the action names and bolden them, so anyone can easily skim it trough and find the one they are looking for. You might even want to make a table that incorporates the action names, speed, and tests.
Good job so far.
I wrote out a whole thing and changed my mind because I like this so much better. Every unit has an Obediance score from 1-6, and when giving instructions you roll and try to land below their obediance. Rolling below makes them behave As Instructed, above has them Going Rogue, each guy has a Nature, a keyword specific to them which tells you what he'll do in a given Going Rogue situation; "The Only Good Bug Is a Dead Bug" for your hostile commander, or "Peace is Always an Option" for the inverse, "Live to Fight Another Day" for someone who withdraws, "We Just Need More Time!" for the commander who relies on defensive actions, "Do You Want to Live Forever!?!" for one that holds offense over his own ship's safety, "A Tight Ship" will have a character refuse an expense towards his ship, like an upgrade or repairs, preventing you from spending money on it, etc.
...If you don't do this, I totally will.
What do you think is the best way for an indie designer to publish their books?
PDFs only? Print-on-demand? Set up a Kickstarter and do a full print run or two?
Let's say they've make a good product and it has a small following (a few hundred people will buy it, at least).
What do you mean by that? They will invest in initiative bonuses or what? I don't plan on having TOO many ways to increase it, and the ones that would wouldn't be by much, 1 point MAYBE 2.
Not sure how I'll balance it yet, I know I never want the modifier to get higher than a couple action's worth. Alternately i could have a higher modifier and lower dice roll, and tweak action costs to match. I want something where fast enemies are rewarded, for things like bosses and the like and reward a fast player for focusing on speed, without letting players get to the "steamroll it before it gets a turn" phase.
Hey guys, I did the thing again. Trying to smooth together all the ideas I have into something cohesive and workable. This is what I have thus far. Any comments or critiques would go a LONG way towards this systems viability.
* Calculate your chance to succeed, called Scope, by adding together your pertinent Attribute and any Modifiers
* Using two 10-sided dice added together, referred to as 2d10, attempt to roll under your Scope. This is called Testing an Attribute.
* In situations where success is black and white, rolling equal to or less than your Scope is a success while rolling greater than your Scope is a failure.
* In situations where the degree of success or failure is more fluid, count every 2 points lower than your scope as an Advantage, and ever 4 points higher as a Disadvantage.
* Sometimes two people are actively opposing each other and are called to roll against one another. This is called a Contest. In these situations, every Disadvantage rolled counts as an Advantage for the opposing Contestant.
* Advantages may be "spent" to perform additional actions, called Effects, but typically can not be held past the end of your turn. Disadvantages may be "spent" by either the GM, your Opponent or yourself depending on the circumstances. When you are called on to spend Disadvantage on yourself, you must spend all of it, however when another player or the GM is called on to spend it on you, they may use as little or as much of it as they like.
One Major and One minor action, unlimited Free
* Withdraw Item
* Total Defense
* Ready item
* Press Advantage
And as previously stated, please feel free to pick it apart. Thank you.
I've explained it without referring to other games to my playtesters fine enough, but given that we're on /tg/, I thought it would be easier to make the parallels instead of going through the whole thing only for someone to turn around and go "Oh, like Duel Masters, right?"
Well, the theme isn't solidified yet as I'd rather have solid crunch down before working hard on the fluff.
Well, another mechanic is that you often have to flip your cards you've turned into mana face-down to activate abilities. This means that, since they're face-down and no longer have an element, they no longer contribute to the amount of loyalty you have either meaning you have to balance your mana resources quite well.
Interesting. Might look into it
Has it's games
Interesting, but how would you even do this historically? How many possible units could you actually have?
attacker rolls to hit (d100, roll-under)
If the attack hits, attacker rolls for hit-location (D100 chart) and damage (weapon-dependent)
Defender rolls to save (d100, roll under)
If the attack misses, the weapon does damage equal to the attacker's level, unless the defender saves against it.
1) attacker asks for defender's relevant defense stat
2) attack applies it to their fighting skill and attempts to roll 2d10 underneath it
3) if attacker hits, roll 1d10 + weapon/attack as Stamina damage
4) if the natural roll is 10, the die explodes to a maximum of two extra dice
5) for every X amount of stamina damage taken, 1 Health damage is dealt
6) Every 1 Health lost is a -1 penalty to all skills and damage rolls
7) 0 Health = Dying
>Attacker declares Major action and supporting Minor action
>Rolls 2d10, aiming for under their Skill +Mods
>Defender may spend a Reaction to force a Contest, in which DoS's are compared.
>Every 2 under is a DoS, every 4 over is a DoF
>Success deals (Weapon Skill) Build-Up
>DoS's and DoF can be spent to do additional things
>Once Build-Up = Threshold, Attack may use the Takedown action to finish for off
>each character has different attacks AKA Maneuvers
>The attack's damage, speed, and the distance the character can travel while using it, depends on the characteristics of both the character and the maneuver.
1)fighters choose the maneuver they use that turn
2)the one with the lowest speed starts the turn
3)moves up to the maximum amount he can move, or he can even stay stationary
4)the target's defense gets substracted from the attacker's damage. The attacker rolls with that much d10-s.
5) every roll 6 or above is a success, every 1
takes away a success.
6) for every success, the opponent looses a health level.
Here is the trick:
Any fighter who's maneuver's speed is higher than the one currently acting, can interrupt him, at any time, and start playing his turn from #2).
>Choose target in line of sight
>Attack rolls a number of D12's equal to his attack
>Defender rolls a number of D12's equal to his defense
>Players choose the highest
>Subtract modifiers and the defender's roll from the attacker's
>1+ its a hit
>Damage is determined by how much difference is left; 1 or 2 is low damage, 3 to 6 if medium, and 7+ is high
>Models reduced to under half health become supressed, reduced to 0 dies
Guys, I asked in te last thread but it died before I managed to come and check replies.
Does anyone has an image (bes if vector) of human silhouette? Just standing human silgouette.
Thanks in advance everybody
Classes or Classless?
I'm torn between having a kind of 'build a character' method where players choose a base start point and chooses a specific class such as "technician" or "specialist"
players pick a number of positive and negative characteristics from a point limit (firefly rpg method) e.g tough, wily, spaceborn, grudgebearer etc with no definitive classes
1) Attacker spends an action, rolls d6 to hit, referring to his skill with used weapon for the result needed
2) If a 6 is rolled, the attack is a solid hit (+2 damage dice), attacker rolls d6 again, and if another 6 is rolled, the attack is critical hit (+4 damage dice, roll on critical table) and is unavoidable.
3) If a 1 is rolled, the attack automatically fails, attacker rolls d6 again, and if another 1 is rolled, attacker rolls on the fumble table immediately
4) Defender can spend a reaction to roll d6 for either dodge, parry (weapon) or block (shield), comparing the attacker's skill to his used skill for the result needed
5) If the attack hits the target, attacker rolls d6 to determine hit location
6) Attacker rolls d6 equal to the damage dice of his weapon (+2/4 from hit), with indefinitely exploding dice (6=5+d6). STR modifier is added to the damage if a melee or thrown weapon or bow is used.
7) Defender rolls to see if armor reduces damage, reducing attacker's armor piercing from the armor rating
8) Defender takes 1 wound to the hit location, and 2 pain points for each full 5 damage taken
9) Defender has to roll above his pain points in order to stay up and fighting - 3d6+pain threshold, exploding dice
10) Characters lose actions at thresholds of total wounds (7/14/21+END) ,10+ wounds total to a hit location = out of action, 10+ wounds at once to a hit location = limb loss / death
Have you brought this up before? I swear I saw the exact same post a couple months back on hbg, someone compared it to some tick system from another game, and then the poster got discouraged
Check against target's defense rating
Apply Defense Rating Mods
Apply Size Mods
Still not sure how I'm going to handle damage this version, considering just having people roll D5s and just having weapons be unique or have set damage when they're ranged weapons.
Shitposting aside, on further meditation I think a caveman (or at least extremely primitive tribal) wargame could kick ass. Maybe not historically accurate; I could also see it done as a prehistoric fantasy game.
Each player has 3 actions which can be used to perform or react against an opponents action. Only one attack may be made per combat turn.
>Attacker making a ranged attack expends 1 action and takes: 1d10 + SENSOR + RANGED SKILL +/- situation and skill modifiers = Ranged Attack Value
>Defender dodging this attack expends 1 action and takes: 1d10 + REACTION + ENGINES +/- situation and skill modifiers = Dodge value
>If attack value exceeds defence value attack hits and inflicts damage.
>Attacker making a melee attack expends 1 action and takes 1d10 + MELEE SKILL + REACTION +/- situation and skill modifiers = Melee Attack Value
>Defender may choose to dodge or parry melee attacks. For an additional action, the melee weapon equipped defenders may also declare that they will counter attack a successful parry.
>Dodging melee attacks is identical to dodging ranged attacks
>Parrying a melee attack is 1d10 + MELEE SKILL + REACTION +/- situation and skill modifiers = Parry Value
>If Melee Attack Value exceeds Parry/Dodge value the melee attack hits and inflicts.
>If Parry Value exceeds Melee Attack Value the attack misses.
>Defenders that declared a counter attack inflict damage on a successful parry
Is this too clunky a system and if so how could it be smoothed out?