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: >>44778894
How do you deal with designer's block? Focus on something else? Secondary projects?
>/tg/ and /gdg/ specific
>Tools and Resources:
>Design and Layout
Repostin combat sequence for feedback
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?
As an rpg players take the role of pilots in a hardsuit.
An average combat encounter might range from a party of 3 player mechs vs 3-5 enemy hardsuits or vehicles but i'm not concrete on that number.
Melee damage has the Hardsuits BULK value added in damage making it a whole bunch more dangerous.
That and after moving into close combat, since you've not taken a move action and still have 3 points, you could spend a point to target a specific body part or attempt to disarm your opponent.
I've been working on my setting and I just want to show anybody since my group is on hiatus until summer.
It's based on the Age of Colonization and the rise of Nationalism. There are border conflicts everywhere and no one is heeding the warning of the ancient evil being restored.
Can I play as a Squire of Gothos?
I was starting to flesh out a skill check system
It is supposed to work like this
>No attributes, only skills
>Each skill has a certain dice associated (d4, d6, d8, d12)
>To succeed a test, you need to roll over a target number
>elements could give modifiers (for example -1 per wound or +2 for good tools)
>d6 is supposed to be the average/untrained-level
>character improvement might either be increasing your dice or adding a new dice (starts at d4, may be improved later; no more than 3 die in total)
Any comments ?
It's an attractive enough map, but there's very little there to show us the character of each nation.
Maybe you could add little flags?
I've been getting ideas for a card-based cooperative dungeon crawler.
The game features a 'dungeon deck' divided randomly into four piles corresponding to cardinal directions, with the top card of each pile being face up; there's a Forward pile, a Back pile, a Left pile, and a Right pile.
The players take turns moving the party in different directions.
When you move forward, put the top card of the Forward deck on top of the Back deck (and resolve it's effect.)
When you move backward, put the top card of the Back deck on top of the Forward deck (and resolve it's effect.)
When you move Left, put the top card of the Left deck on top of the Right deck (and resolve it's effect.)
When you move Right, put the top card of the Right deck on top of the Left deck (and resolve its effect.)
Each of these cards has a time cost that must be paid in order to move through it. Encounters trigger when you run out of time (time refreshes after encounters.)
Any suggestions for how I might resolve going up and down levels via stairs?
Actually all four pcs started as conscripts in the Gothic army.
But designed levels 1 - 3 as a way to get them off as an elite scouting party and they leveled out of military service to become mercs.
>tfw trying to come up with names for stuff when everything is already taken
Combat encounters work using a monster deck.
Monster cards have four suits: Fangs, Gauntlet, Tentacle, Eye. There are also a number of dual-suit and double suit cards. The cards are numbered.
You begin encounters by drawing a card, then consulting the corresponding page in the game's monster book to see the monster's stats, how many are present, and how they are arranged.
Each monster has one or two types corresponding to the suits. Fang types are bestial, Gauntlet types are monstrous humanoids or constructs, Eye types are magic users, Tentacle types are slimes and aberrations.
When a monster attacks, reveal a number of cards from the monster deck equal to the monster's attack rating. The monster deals damage for each revealed card corresponding to it's type.
When you attack a monster, reveal cards from the monster deck equal to your attack rating, and deal damage for each revealed card corresponding to the monster's type.
What are some good games I might look at with similar mechanics, or some other examples of games with card-based monster AI combat? (I want to play Kingdom Death: Monster, but the price is keeping me away.)
What style of map do you prefer A or B?
I prefer A.
I've seen that picture before and used that general idea to make this kind of a map.
I like the washed out colors but it lends itself to a "peaceful" air.
Is this sufficient actions to potentially have in combat?
The number is how many action points it costs, where '-' is shown it means additional action points can be spent to improve it.
>1-2 Improves attack accuracy
>1 Make a melee or ranged attack against an opponent
>2 Attack a specific body part
>2 Move and attack an enemy in close combat
> 2 Fire in the general direction of an enemy to prevent movement
> 1 Avoid damage from a melee or ranged attack
> 1 Avoid damage from a melee attack
> 2 Retreat from close combat and move away
>1-2 Attempt to knock an opponent prone
>1-2 Manoeuvre over a short distance
>1 Use the environment to avoid damage
> 2 Hide from an opponent
>1 Restore a weapons ammo count to full
>1 Perform a small complex action requiring fine manipulator movement
Quickly sketching out an initiative system, any thoughts appreciated.
>Everyone rolls 3d6 + Quickness attribute at the start of a contested round. Quickness ranges 0-6, plus a level bonus of 0-14 (levels 1 to 15).
>Characters take turns in order of initiative result - they perform an action, and can move before and after up to their movement limit.
>After everyone's had a turn, subtract 20 from everyone's initiative.
>Everyone whose initiative is still positive can take another turn. Movement is round-limited, not turn-limited.
>Repeat until no one has positive initiative, then reroll initiative for next round.
>One of your potential actions is to Delay, which drops your initiative by 10 and lets you act when your new count comes up.
>If Delay drops your initiative into the negatives, you get +10 initiative next round.
I realize rerolling initiative every round is usually a no-go, but I think it works okay here because there's something at stake (an extra action) instead of just rearranging people's seats. I like this setup because initiative matters beyond the first round, higher level characters act faster/more often without any weird breakpoints, and it handles ambushes without need of any surprise round or partial turn shenanigans. Am I full of shit, and/or does this break in strange ways?
This is more of a business question than a game design question, but what with you think if a game publisher offered free downloads of their cyberpunk-themed game only through an onion site, and sold hard copies of that same game at a discount through Silk Road? The game in question would contain any illegal materials; it's just a marketing stunt intended to increase interest.
I think we might've attracted the wrong crowd when changing the name - i've seen a trend on people asking for feedback but never giving feedback back, maybe the shitposter saying we're "ideas harvesting general" is actually right
Using dice only may actually be too limiting. Not sure, I think all games I've played have been at least a dice + modifier setup. Also, why multiple dice? running from d4 to 3d12 sounds unnecessarily wide. I don't think character advanceme alone is good enough a justification. A single d12 can already roll three times higher than a d4.
Just got the example card layout from a graphic designer(one I ran into last thread actually) and I'm loving it so far.
Numbers and art are all examples; yes, I know the placeholder is from Battletech. Just looking for opinions on the layout.
Here's a sample of the art we'll have in these cards.
Overall I'm really loving how the game looks.
Eh. I've been giving a little feedback (I drop my trip when I do, but >>44927712 was me, as were a fair number of posts in the last general). My problem is that I don't know enough about game design myself (and haven't had enough experience with games in action) to know what advice to give, and I'm at a point on my own project where I don't know what to do with it. So I don't have a ton to contribute here OR feedback to look for.
I really, really like it. Is there any chance that different factions are going to have different color schemes/background designs? It'd be a nice way for an at-a-glance distinction to work, but I don't know how your feelings on the matter are.
Also, I've been struggling with the dice system you showed me, mostly because I don't know if I want melee combat or not. I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that I'm too grounded in real-world science to make a mech game.
I'll post more of my stuff because whatever.
I hate the font on these. I just have to get it out of the way; all the other design flaws (and there are several) that these have are inconsequential, but the font just kills me.
How do you guys feel about coop games where you play against the game? Was thinking about a game about the Vietnam war where you would play the allies and you have to fight against the NVA. Was thinking about using some sort of valor/fame element that would pit people against each other even though they are supposed to be working together (to simulate the dysfunction in the actual US military at the time).
There's... I count 5 different fonts at LEAST on the Fanbeemon card (and the fonts that are shared are stretched or distorted). The others are less offensive, though the colors on D-Link are garish as all hell. The cards look like someone put a *lot* of effort into them, with the sole condition that "you have to go to the effort of making these cards ugly". Blue and white gradient text on pink patterned field on gold framing. Metallic shading with obvious cutoffs in a card where it decidedly doesn't belong. Mixture of low-quality 3D models (which I assume are taken from games?) with higher-quality-but-weirdly-textured ones (this one is easily forgivable if you're not an artist yourself). The "ACE" pill-box on the Miracle Ruby is just ugly texturing with visibly rough edges. D-link's digivices (fuck it's been like 14 years, did I even get THAT right?) and background effects overlap the frame, which is a huge no-no in my book.
The card number font you have going is nice, though.
Please don't take this as me insulting your work too heavily, there's just... a lot of things that need to be done to make them visually pleasing.
Hey guys, so I'm working on a system. That has stats with levels derrived from attribute levels.
Attributes work where once you're at a certain number, it will determine wat dice you use for it. For example, A character has a Strength of 6, so their dice is a D6. If they were to roll a strength check, then the result is 4, they add their base strength stat to their roll, making a good 'ol 10.
Stats on the other hand, factors like HP, Carry weight, and the like are determined by certain attribute numbers.
For example, HP (Health Points, for the rare fag who's never heard of it) is determined by Endurance × 10.
For a better example, the stat Attunement is how many spells your character knows. One attunement point is equal to one spell.
Attunement = Focus/3.
With an extremely complicated game like digimon, iunno there really should be lots of different fonts to distinguish them at a glance. It could get really crowded looking without it. If you look at it, they did all the numbers in one font, the names in another and the effects in a third. Seems right to me.
Also it seems more than just effects pop out. Popout is really good and used in a lot of modern games especially full art cards.
The earliest draft of my infantry rules were based on HG Wells' Little Wars, while my early mecha rules were based on a version of a dicepool fantasy RPG my brother occasionally worked on. My turn system has a lot in common with X-Wing, but I actually developed it before learning how X-Wing worked. I was just looking for an aversion to IGOUGO and came up with nearly the same answer.
I couldn't really see anyone caring at all.
Really sweet, can't wait to see them with their proper art.
This stuff is why this board never gets feedback. Not every criticism is an attack, nor should it be treated like one.
And, while we're at it, the source material (which failed) being bad does not exonerate derivatives from the burden of quality.
THERE YOU ARE!
Came on here looking for this, any update on a release of these? Really want these..
I don't like "stolen", I prefer "unilateral creative brainstorming".
And a lot of systems. A LOT. From Runequest to 4e to nameless pdf-share games to vidya games to narrative systems to Dark Heresy to historic war games.
At this point it can't be called stealing simply because they wouldn't be able to pinpoint a single source.
Characters of the same level will have at most a 6-point difference, so it'll range from 0 (0%) to 6 (16.2%) at 1st level and 14 (95.4%) to 20 (100%) at 15th. Of course the RNG is curved, so the biggest variance comes in at 7th level, 6 (16.2%) to 12 (83.80%). That's a difference in action effectiveness of 2/3, which I /think/ I'm okay with, but admittedly this system is better suited to a d20.
Mitigating this is the fact that, instead of modifiers, permanent and conditional bonuses/penalties hand out extra dice and have you take the highest/lowest. This has lower-attribute characters benefit more from bonuses, and higher-attribute characters hurt more from penalties, without just pushing the problem somewhere else on the curve.
Maybe I wasn't quite clear. It isn't supposed to be "roll 1d8+1d4 and get more than 5", but "roll 1d8 and 1d4, if at least one is 5 or more, it is a success".
And: Just because it is technically feasible doesn't mean that most characters might be able to get to 3d12. Ideally, given that XP is a limited ressource, players should either have to choose to have a "safer" skill (for instance d6/d6/d6) or having a better potential at succeeding harder tasks (d12/d6). All numbers here aren't checked or anything.
Definitely more than enough. I'd also like to suggest categorizing them in order to make easier to see what action to use. Maybe a simple Offensive, Defensive, Other.
I agree with >>44933719, I don't think it would work as a marketing stunt. You'd gain more publicity by trying to improve your material (book quality, include figures, etc.) via kickstarter or something.
I can't think of any coop wargames, so go for it.
Love it, though it looks a bit too clean for a wargame card. Maybe add texture further down the process if it fits?
I'm usually up for reviewing stuff but I've been so insanely busy as of late that I've barely had time to work on my own stuff. Hopefully things will settle down after this month and I'll be able to offer feedback.
Besides nobody's harvesting ideas. That's stupid.
A. The gridsquares are awesome, the country/regional borders are awesome.
B. just seems too vague for the modern/ hard sci-fi thing you're going for.
While B makes for a neat graphic, A is definitely more realistic and IMO lends verisimilitude to the setting.
>D-link's digivices (fuck it's been like 14 years, did I even get THAT right?) and background effects overlap the frame, which is a huge no-no in my book.
You'd hate Ashes rise of the Phoenixborn.
>There's... I count 5 different fonts at LEAST on the Fanbeemon card
I don't think having a lot of fonts has to be a bad thing.
Well considering that the players are intended to be inside 10 to 12ft tall mecha, I don't think many people would want a mechanical arm tending to their wounds.
That being said, I think moving a crippled Hardsuit into cover wasn't something I had considered. Maybe a test to shift the large bulk in one direction being the same as lifting a mass so:
1d10 + SERVO + ENGINE = X.
If X exceeds the BULK + SERVO value of the immobile hardsuit it is successfully moved in the desired direction.
Great feedback. All in all it seems pretty much tied so what if I combined the clean design of B with the nice frame and flags of A?
Attached is my current Map design scaled down for web viewing.
I know there's a caveman skirmish game where players play hunters and the beasts they hunt have a AI system in the rules. I think it was a flowchart style system for the beasts' actions. The only co-op wargame I've ever seen.
I've had the opposite problem really. I come up with a mechanic that I think is cool and unique and original and donut steel, then find out it's already been done. Which, honestly is relieving. Considering how hard it is to get feedback on these threads with anything over a 5 page document let alone a 50+ page document, it's nice to see that someone had used and sold these mechanics before.
If you're just now noticing this "trend", you must be new.
>I come up with a mechanic that I think is cool and unique and original and donut steel, then find out it's already been done.
I know that feel. A while back, I spent over two weeks thinking of a good way to implement CoC sanity meter in Fate Core. I thought I made a system that worked pretty well, then I heard of a Fate version of Achtung! Cthulhu that also ports over sanity mechanic. Curious, I read about how it works... and it basically has the same general implementation as mine.
Well, I decided to take that as a "great minds think alike" moment instead.
If you have a melee weapon, why would you ever dodge instead of parry? Are action points scarce enough that a counter attack means sacrifickng your turn? When are action points refreshed?
Fate Core has Mental Stress and its causing long-term conditions as a highest-level core mechanic, trying to implement a sanity track in Fate is like trying to implement a hit point system for D&D, or trying to implement card-based resolution in MtG.
That's a very restrictive set of dice, so progression and differences between similar skilled people won't be seen well. How do you scale up? What other ways can you manipulate your roll?
I started Heraldic Symbols adding the major ones.
The ones not included yet are
Lychonia: Knight Battling Wolf
Basilica: Mailed fist with Dove
Illandry: Crossed Keys
Bolska: Uncrowned Single Eagle with 1 sword
Schwartzlund: Crossed Pikes
Orlese: Sailing Ship with wheel
Yes you could implement sanity that way and I initially did, too. However, if you want to imitate the slow crawl towards insanity from CoC - your SAN going down across the lifetime of your character - vanilla Fate stress has one big difference; it always gets cleared at the end of conflict (mental stress too). It takes some departures from the common mechanics to create similar sanity system. (Google around if you want to know how A!C Fate ver did it.)
I give 5 feedbacks for every feedback one of my posts gets (which is honestly, usually none).
There are exceptions where something really awesome jumps out and I have to talk to the creator about it.
Fuck this "stacking multipliers only apply to original damage" crap.
This is just a semantic change I hope takes off in other 3.X derivatives, I'm sick of seeing it.
Give all characters a default damage multiplier of 1.
x2 = +1 multiplier
x3 = +2 multiplier
x4 = +3 multiplier
x2 = +1 multiplier
>Feats that double damage
x2 = +1 multiplier
x4, x2, x2 becomes x6, right?
1 (default) + 3 + 1 + 1 = 6
THE RULE BOOK PRACTICALLY WRITES ITSELF WITHOUT NEED FOR ERRATA
God damn. Stacking multiplication turned into addition is easier than stacking multiplication multiple multiplications with specific conditions.
It's 2016. Decades and no one has figured it out.
What would you want to see in your dream generic system?
What dice mechanic? What strengths in the rules? What level of crunch? Narrativist? Gamist? Simulationist? A mix?
> inb4 generic systems suck
> inb4 there are too many
No defeatist attitudes allowed.
Seriously though I'd like to know what you would look for in one. Rules modularity is a huge part for me.
I think you just said how 3.5 actually does it.... doubling a double becomes a triple....
Personally we just stacked the multipliers so a "double crit" from a longsword did x4 damage. Or x9 from a longbow. Which meant that when our archer rolled three 20s in a row he dealt something like 200 damage to the enemy.
We didn't multiply the extra dice though. That woulda been too much.
The dice mechanic has to be fast and responsive.
Honestly, I'd like the dream system to come with a Sorry-style roller, where trigger the roll by hitting something.
It would make melee attacks more juicy when you land them because you're physically involved with the strike.
Player competition should be resolved with roshambos. Players have a Leadership score, it's the number of wins a competing player needs to beat them at the competition.
Player 1 has 3 leadership
Player 2 has 5 leadership
To win the competition, Player 1 needs 5 wins and Player 2 needs 3.
This can be supplemented with a game of War and a Roshambo deck (20 Rock cards, 20 Scissor cards, 20 Paper cards) for competitions that are less important.
3.5 SUCKED at explaining how they want it done. This is just a semantic change. It's EXACTLY how 3.5 wanted it done, but it's explained so that people don't make the same mistake* you're making and stacking the multipliers directly.
*mistakes are just house rules sometimes, and vice versa
Good question. I'm kind of torn at the moment with proper implementation without falling into the Dark Heresy trap of being a bloody mess of ambiguous terms and semantics.
I'm struggling to justify a dodge in melee combat other than having a higher ENGINE value that MELEE SKILL
Is there a simple system anyone has that accommodates for both dodging and parrying melee attacks?
Disarm makes more sense.
Dodge requires you not be flanked.
Parry requires you be holding a weapon.
Dodging risks you being flatfooted to future attacks before your turn.
Parrying risks you dropping your weapon.
Dodging is higher risk than Parrying and failing to Parry leaves you with Dodging as your only option.
Taking the hit and letting damage mitigation sort things out bears no added risk.
Toothpicks aren't weapons and bullets grazing flesh is a thing. Also, I should specify that different weapons would get different modifiers: a gun might be 1d10+5 whereas your dagger could be 1d10+1 or something.
Admittedly, though, you do raise a good point: different weapons using different dice might make it a bit more sensible from a believability standpoint.
3d6 is close enough to a truncated normal distribution over 3-18, but I put it into practice a while back, as a direct replacement for d20 in Pathfinder. Crits fails and successes on <5 and >16 (same probability as d20). Dear GOD it was bad. Every round, people were failing at things they normally had 75% chances at.
d20 progression doesn't suit the needs of a 3d6 system. Skill points and Attribute bonuses become WAY more valuable than they were before and you're not getting them as often, and they were already very valuable and scarcely given out before.
How does one provide a character with the means to accomplish difficult tasks with normal proficiency? Obviously, they won't succeed outright the first time, but repeated failures on Try Agains is a time waster.
You'd dodge for the same reason people dodge instead of parry in real life, you're about to get hit by something you can't parry. You can have a certain level of weapon weight class give negative to parries.
But then you need an incentive to parry instead of dodge.
You need incentives for both over the other in common situations or a waterfall situation where the highest incentivized maneuver has high requirements, and everything below it has fewer and fewer requirements.
That's almost exactly the same as a homebrew I posted a while back, so naturally I like it. Big difference is that we use opposed skill rolls instead of just against a target number. It works very well and we've had a nice campaign on this for a while. It's not that restrictive and the small amount of dice makes for a quick resolution.
And I love skills only, I never seem to get a lot of love for it when I suggest it, so glad someone else thinks its a good idea too. Again, we've been using this and it just works.
10/10 will play!
Welp, you kinda just stopped posting on that other site. Although, I'm not one to talk, though I was only semi-regular there. But I gave up when it was clear that MC wasn't getting the good stuff any time soon and LJ was the hot new shit. Fucking Bushiroad, man.
hey guys, just a conceptual question nagging me right now that I feel like asking
does anyone else feel that, at a fundamental level, most (hex or otherwise) strategy games involve very little deep strategic thinking? most engagements can be predicted well in advance once the composition of forces is known. going by a straight point buy-in system, the actual game is resolved in a manner akin to rock paper scissors. turn limit defenses feel like a very artificial way of bolstering a side intentionally made to lose, and most of the time actual combat is highly dependent on random rather than superior strategic thinking
any advice or thoughts on this?
I gave up Vanguard when the game just kept being exactly the same. It's so boring. I actually had a granblue video shot and edited that I never uploaded because I was that done with it. I mostly play Epic and board games nowadays.
Ah. Wondered why the site hadn't been updated in a while. Good to hear that 3XXXDDD is still working on that game of his.
Also, I'd love to maybe hit you up to get some card templates for the game I'm working on, too. That is, once I've got my ruleset down pat.
Hey guys, would it make sense for character's Initiative (their turn in a battle / how often do they get to act) to be a Mental stat (like "Witt", or "Reaction" or something like that) rather than a physical one, usually represented as characters speed and agility?
Specifically in a setting with guns
Also, what could be a in battle uses of Knowledge stat? So far I figured -
Operating machinery on field
I agree about the random thing, finally played xcom not long ago and was quite disappointed with how rng that game is. I guess it gives it dat Skinner Box quality, but I would really rather have something like Banner Saga.
>hey guys, just a conceptual question naggi
totally agree. In fact, most of my games are designed to have minimal random chance. I am looking to publish a tile based strategy board game here that has little random chance for resolution and focus on a wide variety of tactics.
Sounds good, after playing a bunch of squad strategy vidya I've been thinking through a home brew game myself - so far the only rng occurs during specific shooting situation.
The thing about rng is that it's a pretty good way of adding some spice to the game. I think as long as it happens only in specific situations and the player is always aware that those situations are "risky" ones, it should be fine.
Let's put it this way: why does Knowledge need to have uses in combat? Does it need to have them to be relevant in your game? If so, you may have a stat that's unnecessary to your system.
The uses of knowledge would be on skills that are based on Knowledge stat. They may or may not be useful in combat, depending on the scene.
Did you read my reply (>>44936930) ?
You can either spread horizontally (more dice, better chances at succeeding average tests) or vertically (being able to succeed hard tests). Also, circumstances/tools/conditions would give flat modifiers.
I mostly get sick when you obviously see that many systems just don't work. The decisive moment was in Shadowrun when I saw a player with his character which had 9/10 in many skills even though he barely opened them. The core book states that his character has only the most basic knowledge but he was in fact as competent as most of the best doctors. That's just horrible. (And language skills in Shadowrun just don't work/mak sense).
Hitting a target number is "the basic". When there is no opposition or such, it is easier to make a simple request à la "roll your die, if one is higher or equal to 5, you climb this wall", than "roll you die, I am going to roll something too and after having both lost so much time, we will try to determine if you succeeded or not". I didn't run any serious math, so I didn't develop more than that.
I plan to have quite homogeneous mechanics. I consider health to be used in a similar way. At the moment however, I'm trying to look at non-HP-based systems to see how they work and try to understand what different people did for what reasons and maybe understand the limitations they encountered.
But thanks !
I will try to update soon !
1) Opponent's weapon is designed for catching or breaking weapon (like a jitte, or something).
2) Opponent is using a much bigger and heavier weapon than I am.
3) Tempo loss.
As an aside Lamentations of the Flame Princess has a Sneak Attack skill where the number of points you invest in the skill determines your multiplier.
d10 roll under.
Number on the die is damage.
With that out of the way, I need HALP!
Let's say vehicles, robots, and beasts have a size rating of -3 to +3 with 0 being roughly the mass of an adult human.
If size +3 is a tank, jet, or dragon...
...and size +2 is a typical ground car..
...and size +1 is a motorcycle...
...Then what would be some other good Size +1 vehicles?
After some deliberating over core rules i've created a dirty Quick Rules sheet that summaries some the basic rules along with some other ideas that may or may not work in Hard:Suit.
I'd really appreciate it if someone could give it a go over and make sure that there's no underlining faults before I go ahead and start building on it with other rules.
I have a feeling that the action point system will trip the entire thing up somehow and might be better off removed completely in favour of a more simple Anyone feel like shit when they've wasted their time on a mechanic or ruling that just isn't going to work when viewed later?
I think controlled RNG is good. Like you said it adds spice.
Example of bad RNG: most versions of Orc Animosity in Warhammer. A one in six chance of doing nothing each turn is just distracting and turns any form of strategy when playing into gambling.
Example of good RNG: any system that uses a form of curve or pool system. It still adds the randomness, but controls it a bit, so you're not solely reliant on luck. Unless you have to complete a lot of actions at once, a system that requires roll so many dice, and either add the results, choose one, or count the successes adds a lot more control for the player than a flat result, especially if the player can influence the outcome in some way, such as bonuses or stat choices they make as they play.
The idea is that right now Knowledge is primarily stat for Magic and some non combat Crafting.
What I want to do is give non-magic Gun and Sword characters some incentive and reason to invest into Knowledge
>Lich's Labratory explodes
>suddenly you and an bunch of other guys wake in your coffins in varying states of decay
Gives you a bunch of instant plot hooks
>find out what happend to revive you
>find out who you are and how you died
>find out what happened to your family/loved ones
>take revenge on those who killed you
>defend the dungeon against pesky adventurer
The cool thing about being undead is that you can just be revived and lose nothing.
You could introduce something like save points or some such and it would be totally in character. Also encourages uninhibited murderhobo behaviour. Which might or might not be what you want.
I've been kicking around an idea for a simple deck of cards game for awhile:
>each card has one of three symbols (rear, mid-line or front) and a number from 1-5
>each player starts with a hand of five
>every round you lay down up to three cards, one of each "row", then draw to have a hand of five
>win the round by placing a higher number than your opponent on more rows without your cumulative total being higher
What do you think? Haven't playtested or anything yet, just thought it might be fun.
Recent rules changes
>Definition of Line of Sight in Trenchbreaker; Trenchbreaker now uses false line of sight, with obstructions such as smoke and foliage increasing the difficulty of to-hit rolls
>Hidden Tesla Coils added as a type of mine for Shoshkepal
Preparing for first playtest this coming Friday.
Rules say that attacks automatically hit if the defender has used up their dodge for the round. Does that mean the attacker doesn't have to roll?
>win the round by placing a higher number than your opponent on more rows without your cumulative total being higher
Can you clarify this part?
Have fun! :)
So, I'm brainstorming character creation for a game.
>You select two forms, such as 'dragon' and 'motorcycle'
>You have the power to switch between them
>Each form has its own powers and stats
>Dice mechanic is 2d6. You have a Fumble Threshold and a Critical Threshold
Now, which of these two ideas sounds more appealing to you?
Fumble Threshold starts at 2 and maxes out at 6, Critical Threshold starts at 12 and mins out at 8.
You can reduce stats in either or both of your forms down to a minimum equal to the same base stat in your other form in order to subtract that many points from either your Fumble Threshold or your Critical Threshold.
You can also raise stats in either or both of your forms up to a maximum equal to the same base stat in the your other form, but if you do you must add that many points to your Fumble Threshold or Critical Threshold.
TMNT and Other Strangeness homage;
You get a pool of customization points determined by each form's size rating (bigger forms give you fewer points) with which to buy stuff for your forms.
Calculate the size disparity between your forms to determine your Fumble Threshold.
I'm going to hesitantly say yes (unless this is a huge problem)
I have the feeling though that I could just remove the dodge function completely as the current method means that two people deciding to shoot at one suit means the second person hits all the time which is silly.
Maybe instead, treat every shot and attack as an opposed roll and have things like range variations and shot difficulty added in as a "+/- situation modifier"
Finalised new map opinions?
You could change the dodge function into a counterattack action. That would accomplish the following:
>Force attackers to consider their actions wisely, and think carefully before attacking someone, thus adding an an extra layer of tactical depth
>Speed up play; if you require players to hold back actions to defend themselves, you are going to end up with fairly static combat. Reactive attacks can help to smooth things along.
I can try to remember to write down everything they ask, but feedback is scarce. Usually, it's things like "I like this part" or "this thing is broken", stuff that's easy to fix. I encourage them to ask questions and make suggestions, but the game has a more casual atmosphere so they don't treat it like a serious testing process.
I'm getting close to finishing a major story arc in the playtest, so I figured now was a good time to get some serious feedback. However, I'm not sure what to even ask.
So if we replace 'parry' with 'counterattack' and the defenders CounterAttackValue exceeds the attackers opposed MeleeAttackValue the attack effectively misses and the defender makes a free attack against their opponent.
"Here I go i'm gonna attack this hardsuit with my kinetic hammer"
"Oh fuck I missed and he's punched a 5ft white-hot iron rod through the pilot cockpit setting everything on fire"
Got my card frame delivered from the artist, first two cards have been rigged up.
I now realize that a trapezoidal frame will mean I need to have art specifically designed to fit the frame, but I do love the looks of it.
The game is really starting to exist.
Which font is better?
If neither is good, what would be a good font to use?
I think I've settled on this font for my effect texts, and I think I'll stick with white rather than blue. Easier to read quickly, and more distinct from all the other blue text.
If you look closely, the card is a little asymmetrical. Comparing the right to the left, the name box is a little longer, the bounding box outside the art is shifted inwards, and the rays are shifted outwards. The corners of the frame (particularly the top) seem weird to me falling where they do, though that's probably due to (and the most noticeable effect of) the asymmetry; the top left corner looks better than the top right. Aside from that I really like the layout, aesthetic, and color scheme.
Whichever one you're using in the second card of your previous post, which I assume is same as the first card of this one. Serifs feel out of place here, especially since nothing else has them.
2/2, a Katyusha style rocket barrage.
One, and only maybe.
I've been thinking about actions per turn, and I decided to go with something I'm calling "paired actions", basically you have one action, but it's made up of a Leading action and a Supporting action, or a major/minor whatever you want to call it.
Basically there are Attack, Move, Defend, draw and Aim. You can combine them any way you want but the one you Lead with will be more effective than if it Supported. So if you Lead with Attack and Support with Movement, you are stepping in and hitting hard, if you Lead with Movement and Support with Attacking, you are charging in but hitting lightly. If you lead and support with the same action, it has a greater effect than if you Lead with it, but less of a total effect than just combing the two versions, encouraging mixing up your actions in a turn and not just Full Attack every turn.
I have finalized a V2 of my fast and easy RPG, meant to be played in cars, while waiting on food, in chat at work, etc. It's very beer and pretzel ish and is basically a tabletop roguelike. I'll be posting the PDF here once it is ready for public consumption!