>>44853516 Battle Century G works well for this. The Tension mechanic makes fights get more dangerous the longer they drag on which definitely helps simulate the feeling of high speed mecha action. It's also a pretty simple system overall, making it actual high speed instead of taking forever to resolve combat.
I sadly don't think you can fully render CUHRAYZEE on P&P games, most of what makes them great to play and watch is the flashy moves and the thrill of player input. One could be arranged with narration, but for the other you'd at least need a solid combat system where a lot of techniques and manouvers are actually viable so you don't end up wasting an action doing something other than full attack.
Actually, now that it's out, Strike would probably be a good system since the combat is based on being '4e without modifiers'. Use standard rules for putzing around outside your mecha, then go into Tactical Combat mode when you're in the robots.
>>44853995 >And ignore the guy trying to sell everyone on D&D 4e. 4e is actually surprisingly good for mecha, EXCEPT >but you know something for highspeed robot action? >highspeed This is why 4e doesn't work in this case.
Same with Mekton, if you're using all the combat rules. It's too crunchy for speedy play.
>>44855345 >I've never heard of Strike before. What's it like?
Strike is a d6 based generic system. The interesting part is the (technically optional) strategic combat module it has, which is a really streamlined 4e clone with classes made up of two parts, one giving you the base mechanics of the class (summoners summon, martial artists martial art, etc.), and one part giving your role (Striker, Defender, etc.). The combinations result in quite unique playstyles in combat, and it's all easily refluffable.
There are also some cool out of combat systems, like wealth and team challenges.
>>44855345 >it's heavily reliant on grids and stuff. Eh, you could just use the area rules from 13th Age if you liked. Makes a lot of features and powers have no secondary effect, but it's also less book-keeping.
I've posted in threads like this before. I haven't made a PDF yet, but I'll get there.
I modified Mouse Guard (which is just a simplified Burning Wheel).
Using the game's skeleton and simply inserting your own skills works wonders. The bow weapon works well for any heavy guns, and the knife's throwing rule works for small guns. The Attack, Defend, Feint, and Maneuver works really well for fast, rules light combat. Skills can be mecha skills or out of combat skills, for when you want more Gundam and less Armored Core. My favorite change was changing Weather Watcher, which in MG let's your character correctly predict (read: dictiate) weather conditions, to Battle Forecast, which does the same but for things like rain, asteroids, and other potential obstacles, with difficulty based on the battles venue.
I did the conversion because, while Mekton was really cool for BUILDING mecha, it was really clunky mechanically, so fights were intense but slow.
>>44860231 >Mouseguard for mecha I am intrigued by the idea for nothing else than the idea of how MG size rules interact with a mecha system (since presumably getting in the robot changes your size) Please do post this, I would love to see your rules.
I've ran mecha stuff in Legends of the Wulin before, but it does feel more G-Gundam than anything else, giant kung-fu robots smashing the crap out of each other. It works for that, but it likely wouldn't work for more realistic or equipment focused mechs. LotW is all about special fighting techniques and shit, with fancy swords as an occasional bonus.
>>44871786 Not that guy, but IMO the tactical combat part is just "okay", with it not really doing anything better than 4e in the fun and tactics department.
I'm also personally not a real big fan of the base system at all, I don't like systems where every task has the same chance of success and failure (advantage/disadvantage and skilled/unskilled do mitigate this somewhat, but it still ultimately lacks enough granularity to be meaningful), and, while I AM a huge fan of non-binary success as a concept for GMs to use, I actually DON'T like it baked in to the system. Sometimes you just want a simple yes/no, sometimes you want a bit of failing forward even if they roll the nat 1, and sometimes success should just have a cost as a natural consequence of what they are doing. It's a lovely narrative based tool, but then you are taking that narrative concept and only applying it when the dice say so rather than when is logical in the fiction.
It really didn't help my opinion of it that people sold it as "4e but fixed" or "What 4e should have been" and so I came in expecting basically some math fixes and some streamlining in a few places. And what I got was a rather different system that also just happens to include a power-based tactical combat subsystem.
I'd love a 4.5e, with or without the D&D name, but Strike isn't it.
To be fair, I don't actually hate it like that other guy seems to, I'd probably play Strike! if I needed something a bit heavier than lasers and feelings, but still simple to run for a group of newbs/semi-newbs, but it is honestly not replacing 4e for anything I would play 4e for.
>>44873310 There are probably less options than the entirety of 4e (which is why I wouldn't mind supplements), but way more options than the 4e CRB, and class variety (again, comparing core to core) is also better imo.
Providing multiplicative options means each new class will actually mean ~4-5 new classes (or at least play styles) compared to 4e.
Add some multi-class feats/options, and you are basically set.
>>44853516 Instead of making a fight on a battlemap
Make a fight on a MOBILE BATTLEMAP.
As in, you have a 'speed' condition that raises and decreases. Everyone's moving a certain direction (give the direction an arrow). If you bleed speed for a turn-- meaning that you move backwards until you devote some effort on your turn to boost yourself faster-- in order to make lateral maneuvers.
Then again, this is good for every CUHRAYZEE FAST fight out there. I mean, it was designed for some spaceship RPG I don't remember.
And also it obviously works best with one opponent on each side.
But yeah, that means you could have a long-range artillery mecha that has a rocket booster that needs a cooldown-rate. That way, it could spend a turn to give itself a boost and keep itself on the edge of the map, while plunking cannons down the way.
Or a speedster that literally boosts forward, maneuvers itself in front of the enemy, and punches the fuck out of it at maximum speed.
>>44872575 Degrees of success/failure work so much better than overt division of success/success but/failure tables AND offer better room for interpretation for the GM.
My issue with Strike is that it just feels like a bad PbtA-clone married with a spiritless 4e-clone in a boring blender of uninteresting. It lacks the setting defining character archetypes that Apocalypse World has in spades like the Hardholder, Driver, or Skinner, and it lacks the tactical push of 4e and it has no real value outside of being a tactical Risus you can pay for.
Also, there are over 100 generic systems out there, I don't need another one. Give me even just the lightest hint of a setting or some kind of jumping off points to get my teeth sunk in. If I'm not instantly thinking of stories I'd want to play or run while reading your RPG, you aren't going to get me playing.
All it has to offer is tactical combat and 4e already does that. The reason PF succeeded wasn't because it offered 3.5 again, it succeeded because it offered more content to use 3.5 with, eventually going on to not even need 3.5 anymore.
It's like if someone made a watered-down version of Dungeon World, then someone else made a watered down 4e, then the tow thought that they should be the same game. It's not even peanut butter and chocolate, it's peanut husks and cacao leaves.
>>44873534 Finish the sentence: it succeeded because it offered more content to use 3.5 with, eventually going on to not even need 3.5 anymore.
Strike tries to resell 4e without much in the way of new content that is compatible with 4e itself. It doesn't improve 4e or build on it. It just has a power-based tactical combat that works like 4e but doesn't.
Oh and Warlords, and I guess having the Buddies is cool too. But you can't translate your level 25 Warlord/Knight Commander/Demigod without losing A LOT of what makes her her.
Because Strike isn't in anyway compatible with 4e (even in the slightest way) it won't pull in 4e players the same way PF pulled in 3.5 players.
>>44873585 >Finish the sentence: it succeeded because it offered more content to use 3.5 with, eventually going on to not even need 3.5 anymore.
In my experience it's the other way around. People migrated to it because there was less "OP splats", which supposed to make it more balanced (yes, I know, the irony is scathing).
>Strike tries to resell 4e without much in the way of new content that is compatible with 4e itself
No it doesn't. It's a 4e style game, not 4.5e.
>It doesn't improve 4e or build on it.
Separating class and role is improving and building on.
> It just has a power-based tactical combat that works like 4e but doesn't.
But doesn't what?
>But you can't translate your level 25 Warlord/Knight Commander/Demigod without losing A LOT of what makes her her.
This is actually a cool thought experiment that I wouldn't mind doing. You got a sheet somewhere?
>Because Strike isn't in anyway compatible with 4e (even in the slightest way) it won't pull in 4e players the same way PF pulled in 3.5 players.
Which is okay, because it's basically a small indie thing, that isn't even trying to pull those numbers in. I don't think "it's not going to be as popular as one of the biggest names in tabletop" is somehow a bad mark against a game.
No offense, but a lot of your complaints are based on how the game isn't 4e, which I find somewhat amusing, because a lot of complaints about 4e were how it isn't D&D.
>>44873640 >No offense, but a lot of your complaints are based on how the game isn't 4e, which I find somewhat amusing, because a lot of complaints about 4e were how it isn't D&D.
My complaints are because faggots like >>44855232 constantly use it to compare it to 4e. Hell in my original post it wasn't about not just failing to live up to 4e, it's also about sucking at the design-space that Apocalypse World uses.
When a PbtA game has more content than your game, AND you want me to pay for it, you're pissing me off.
>>44859323 I wanted to like Mekton, but it's just too crunchy. And it's mired in how shit the Interlock system was by default (REF and that stat that gives you free skill points are godstats, fuck everything else)
BCG gives way more variety, and actually feels a hell of a lot of fun. Kinda fitting how you compare it to 3.5 and 4e: I think D&D 3.x is a fucking blight and 4e was one of the first RPGs I ever played (I started it late in life, don't judge me)
>>44859323 Mekton is trivial to break and just falls apart balance wise if you allow people to make custom mechs. You'll have to introduce draconian restrictions on custom stuff to prevent it but that defeats the whole point because customization is the system main selling point. It just doesn't work.
>>44873822 I want to make my own system that allows custom mechs. Something with how every component has a different power draw. So you could turn off your afterburners so that you can use your laser sword without having to turn off your strength boost, or something like that.
Throw in buying components with money, of course. Instead of leveling up, you get money. (though characters having levels and skills would be useful too. A master repairman doing repairs mid-battle, or tweaking his ride, while another person is basically useless in his mech, but on the ground he's outmatched.)
I'd ruminate more, but it's almost 5 AM here and I should really get to bed.
>>44873950 I could see this work with a card based system. The cards you have in hand are things you can activate, cards you have "in play" are the active parts. You can have a piloting skill that dictates how many cards you can exchange in a turn.
Once you get past char gen shenanigans the rolling system for combat is pretty fast, simple, and hilariously lethal.
If you want one sided battles with mooks where they die in one hit apply the second or third power level which will multiply damage again since being large will apply another and both size and power level multiply damage by their respective damage.
It is possible to output more damage than you have HP. Which means if you apply it to enemies that matter it will become rocket tag as fuck and require you to use tactics since if you don't have loads of health you can die in one hit or two hits.
Also if you up the stat loss for wrassling to keep in check with the bigger numbers wrestling becomes lethal and very effective plus you can toss enemies at other enemies.
>>44874118 Didn't an edition of Big Eyes Small Mouth play something like this? Lots of huge, weighty hits that are just being narrowly dodged. It's Tri stat from what I can remember but fuck if I can find my old books again.
I do know the math can be fiddled in various ways and despite being a pool system the best way to gain power to get modifiers to skills or stats that lower the target number over brute forcing success as even when rolling like a 8,9,10 pool you can still fail to hit the TN of 15. Since the only thing a big pool is good for is hitting the cap to gain auto successes per point over the cap and being able to generate more successes but getting something like a -6 to the TN of a certain roll is way more desirable.
Also Eoris' combat is intentionally designed to be lethal since the author despite having fantastical elements still wanted some sort of realism tying things down or something like that. Apparently it made the people on rpg.net sad since they were expecting Exalted 2: Dogs with stand bugaloo and got GURPS levels of lethality or ironically Exalted's dumb lethality minus the magical bullshit to tank and negate damage.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.