Anyone interested in playtesting this?

File: Joyous Character Sheet.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Here's the character sheet as well.

File: 1470414180213.gif (2MB, 324x267px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 324x267px

Was also in the middle of creating another game, but I was curious if anyone with a bit of background in statistics could help me here.

If I were to assume that player characters have exploding d2s that always explode on 2, and enemies tend to have exploding d10s that always explode on 10, then doesn't the math work on in this fashion:

>d2 has a 50% chance of exploding, meaning 2+ a new roll.

>d10 has a 10% chance of exploding, meaning 10 + a new roll.

>d10s average out to 5ish damage, while d2s average out to 1.5ish.

>Thusly, a d2's odds of exploding go 50, 25, 12.5, 6.75, ect. with a dice increase of +2. +4. +6, +8, ect.

>A d10's odds of exploding go thusly: 10, 1, .1, .01, ect. with his increases going +10, +20,+30, +40.

I'm asking, because I want, on a one to one basis, the player's characters to be outmatched, but not to the absurd degree of where, even as a group, they can't handle that bullshit.

Basically, I want to hide, with dice and statistics, that they aren't actually as fucked as they might immediately think for a lay-player.

File: 1467763669298.jpg (27KB, 305x525px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 305x525px

First and only desperation Bump.

>>48665565
sorry OP. try tomorrow when americas awake

>>48665596
Alrighty, thanks.

>>48663519
Explain to me the gist of your game in 50 words or less and i'll playtest it

File: 1467018093804.jpg (74KB, 600x745px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x745px

>>48666022
The fluff that has yet to be integrated?

Human population gets stuck in a mindscape and has to fight abominations and the collective insanity of the human race to survive.

The crunch?

Classless system, Pricey magic anyone can use, Synergies that allow improved odds against above mentioned abominations, and relatively high lethality.

>>48666273
Not OR, but sounds interesting.

>>48666273
Yeah alright sounds cool

Bump for tomorrow.

gonna give it a read through now, will probs run some stuff myself or with my group.

>>48666273

The idea sounds awesome. The rules document is currently a mess. At 100-ish pages you need to a document that does a much better job of orienting the reader than just a table of contents and a writing style that's a little bit less word-salad with a bit more focus on "this is how the game is played" instead of a huge list of isolated rules.

The setting has promise and I like a lot of your ideas. But right now I don't feel like it's actually putting forth a playable system to test.

>>48663798
I´d suggest putting in some other mechanics, rather than messing too much with dice.

I´ve got a similar case. I´m preparing a system for a campaign with one player because I´ve got very clear ideas about the powerlevel and amount of crunch we need, but I can´t find any system that gets it just right.

A couple rolls could end everything, because there´s no one else to step in if she gets a crit to the face, and she´ll often be outnumbered.

My solution was to pick a 3d6 system (64% of the time it´ll roll between 9 and 13, extremes are very unlikely to happen [0.4% chance of 3 and 18, 1.4% chance of 4 and 17]) to keep it tight and average and avoid wild swings.

The combat system itself is lethal as hell. A human has 2-3 wounds (normal bandits have 2), heroic humans would have up to 5, but that´s very rare. Player characters are unlikely to go above 5 too, maybe 6-7 if they specificaly build themselves to have extra HP (which would mean sacrificing skills - not such a good idea).

On hit, a short sword rolls 1d6. On 1-2 you don´t do damage, but the opponent will have a penalization to his attack roll next turn. On 3-4, you deal one wound. 5-6, two wounds. Light armor blocks one wound but does nothing if you get two or more in a single hit, medium armor always blocks one wound, heavy armor blocks two wounds. Of course, some weapons have special rules (weapons that are good against armor can ignore it partly or fully. A warhammer only suffers -1 against heavy armor and ignores light/medium, and also ignores heavy if it rolls the maximum score). So a single good hit with the right weapon can take out pretty much anyone, but in general chances are a knight in armor will survive much, much longer than a lightly armored rogue with a knife.

This means fights will be fast and bloody, but having roughly 1/3 of the rolls do "nothing" will also help making them last a little more than one or two hits.

>>48669099
Cont.

Now, players would also go down very damn fast, so they´ve got two life systems.

First they get HP points, derived from how they build their character. It´s pretty much guaranteed to be between 8 and 16. For each 5 HP they get a wound, so players start with 2-3 wounds.

Now, I expect my player to make a certain character that will likely have 12 HP, so 2 wounds. When she gets hurt, first she´ll suffer damage to her HP (DnD fashion: short sword does 1d6, longsword does 1d8, etc. Minus armor against woundsx2+1 [so heavy armor, which protects against two wounds, protects against 5HP]). After all the HP goes down, the wounds start going down, and then there´s death.

Wounds are that, wounds. HP is a mix of luck, energy, and such. Losing HP is just bruises and scratches, tops. Getting tired. As HP is also energy, the players can spend it to re-roll the smallest die in a roll, though they must decide to do so before making the roll itself.

So fights go fast but aren´t really one hit kill. One bandit isn´t a big threat, but it can be dangerous if you´re unlucky or he´s got some circumstances helping him. And still, a single character could fight off two or more opponents.

So it´s always tense and dangerous, but it looks more lethal than it actually is.


To finish, players roll to attack (a bandit? You got -2) and to defend (against a bandit? You got -1). I only roll for damage once the enemies hit. Less rolls against the players = less chances of swinginess and things getting out of hand.

My system is very geared towards this one player and many mechanics don´t make much sense otherwise, but look at it in general. She gets to fight a bandit, a gang, or a dragon, and it´s always tense but possible. Just by keeping swinginess to a minimum and adding in mechanics that let the players decide how they tackle things (and overall be a little more resilient).

Putting in too many dice and such will only confuse everyone.

>>48668305
So, I should probably rearrange and rewrite portions to be more direct.

I'm also, from what you seem to be saying, needing to make it more coherent, and more of logical connection between the rules rather than what it is now.
Gotcha, and thanks.

>>48669099
>>48669261
Interesting. While mechanics are certainly going to be added, I didn't really ponder on that aspect of the dice; generally speaking, I suppose relying upon dice and statistics alone to carry the situation is a great way to have a dead character: randomness tends to fuck over players moreso than GMs, in other words?

A question, to everyone who has read even part of the documentation thus far.

I'm REALLY tempted to flat out remove the Conversational Tactics portion, as I can't help but feel it 'gamifies' human interaction far too much.
On the other hand, I like to think it'd help new GMs from allowing diplomatic options from being gamebreaking, as it'd force players to actually place effort in establishing relationships and having interactions with NPCs, rather than the borderline 'Mind-slave' thing some systems have.

Any thoughts?

>>48670912
>randomness tends to fuck over players moreso than GMs, in other words?

It fucks everyone over, but yes. There´s more enemies than PJs, so chances are they´ll eat more critics than they can dish out.

And the GM is the one who determines what happens (and ultimately can always fudge rolls to prevent an anticlimatic end), while the player has to hope the result doesn´t get him killed.