Hello /tg/. I was wondering if anyone here knows any good turnbased

Can't think of anything. Most RPGs do genuinely try to cut back no resource management, despite what the rulebooks may try to get you to believe.

Also breaking down the various forms of actions into a point system seems a little silly when you can easily just do something like 2 minor actions or a major action.

>>48965200
Thing is - I like tactical games. Space Hulk is uberfun, and I remember making a homebrew, where we had more genestealers, and less terminators but in return those marines had "stats" and skills that allowed them to fight. It was very satisfying. Me and my friend shared terminators, while genestealers were mindless drones that just tried to assault closest marine(or one with taunt activated) and spawned around map at random.

Then it struck me - why not have a party of players control indiviual characters and make it free roleplay during non-battles.

>breaking down the various forms of actions into a point system seems a little silly when you can easily just do something like 2 minor actions or a major action
Well, the benefit of this system would that players might feel like they have more control over character and you can reliably predict how exactly your character moves around the battlefield.

>>48965303

Well you already have a lot of control w/ your character in most RPGs that use a grid. You have a set speed and actions to spend.

That being said, you could easily take any action point system and just use any system you want for the non-combat stuff.

That being said I get a sense that you are trying to get people to encourage you to do a thing that you want to do. In response to that I say fuck you you piece of shit. Stop looking for validation in others like a sack of garbage and make the thing that you want to make.

And I swear to fucking god if you say "I'm worried that it's already been made before" then you are the stupidest motherfucker ever. Just do it and stop being a coward.

>>48965303
The reason most RPGs don't use action points is that they make whichever stat grants them the most important one in the game. Nothing will ever be as useful as being able to do more in a turn.

>>48965372

I can see this. The solution would be to find a way to spread out the points across stats and get into weird equation shit to make sure it scales nicely.

>>48965391
Give everyone the same amount, or have it tied to level. That way high level characters more dangerous without just giving them a huge pile of HP.

>>48965415

I'd rather just give everyone the same amount. I'm not a big fan of having higher level characters be purely STRONKER than other characters. Though this would depend on what kind of style of game you are going for.

>>48965341
Chill, anon and don't act like an ass. Why do I need to reinvent a bicycle if it has been made already? (probably)

>>48965372
Good point. I remember how in Fallout2 agility was the most OP stat ever because it determined your AP. Beeing able to fire 2 shots from pistol or 1 shot and have leftover wasted AP was a huge difference.

I'd say that ammount of AP should never, ever change and is set for all characters from the beginning. AP is determined by race and physique from the start of the game. Characters become stronger, since they start requiring less AP for actions/weapons they are skilled with.

>>48965548

If you want to talk about a system you want to create then ask about that.

And you wouldn't be inventing shit if the game was already out. A better analogy would be "why would I want to make a bicycle if they are already in the store." If you want to make something (especially something as 0 resource as making a roleplaying system) then you just make it.

>>48965590
>especially something as 0 resource as making a roleplaying system
>implying that time and effort that needs to be put into creating rules, stats, classes, weapons, then testing it out for rebalancing and fixing holes in rules are not recources
>when I could just take an existing system and modify it or leave it as it is

If you are going to shitpost like that anon, then I suggest you take a break and go elsewhere.

File: 1429580815452.gif (325KB, 245x138px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 245x138px

>>48965172
Sounds like you want 4e

You basically just described a campaign of 4e run properly

Good man.

>>48965688

>time and effort into doing something you want to do is a bad thing

If you want to do it then you want to do it. Time and effort mean nothing if you enjoy what you are doing.

Stop looking for excuses. Fuck, you already have existing systems, you even mentioned Fallout and Space Hulk.

>>48965706

4e doesn't have action points, though at its heart I agree with you.

File: fish_squint.jpg (13KB, 264x249px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 264x249px

>>48965711
It should be obvious since I'm making homebrews of space hulk I'm trying to expand upon the idea already, and I might as well try creating RPG I want myself. However I'll do that only if absolutely I'm sure that there is no already existing system that does exactly that.

>>48965706
>>48965737
Great, I'll check it out. Although I'm concerned that it does not have action points. Does it have very specific rules set to minor+main actions then? Also is it tilebased?

>>48965856
It's a miniatures skirmish game masquerading as an RPG.

>>48965866
Oh, I see. Well, that might be fitting, is it any good?

>>48965856
>>48965737
It does actually have an economy called action points, though they are not the same thing that "action points" are in Space Hulk: they are a consumable resource that can be used somewhat rarely to gain an extra action.

> Does it have very specific rules set to minor+main actions then?
Yes.

>Also is it tilebased?
Double yes

>>48965885
>is it any good?
Triple yes. Many people don't like it, mostly because it isn't similar enough to a specific edition that was most players' first, and therefore what they define "true D&D." In all fairness, the market wanted something specific, and 4e delivered something different, and many were understandably mad. However, since you are not looking for "true D&D as defined by a specific edition" and you ARE looking for a good tactical skirmish game that can be played faster than warmhordes with room between fights for role-play and skill checks, then 4e is literally exactly what you are looking for. What you are looking for is what 4e delivers.... it just wasn't what the market was looking for in 2009

>>48965885
Nope. Ignore >>48965969, 4E was an attempt to salvage the game after the black hole that was 3.5 by basing the design on MMOs. The result was an unmitigated disaster.

The previous poster is cute. Not cute enough for a (You) tho.

>>48965969
Strike! is a simplified, streamlined version of 4e; might be worth a look if you want the same feel for combat. Going to be using it for tactical mecha game this Friday.

>>48965172
Use GURPS

>all these autists recommending their favorite D&D editions

Cancer

>>48966006
OP was specifically asking for something grid/tile-based, and strike might technically be able to use grid/tiles, but it underutilized them to the point that they may as well not be there.

>>48965969
Fuck yes, finally a lead, I'll check it out. Thanks a lot!
>>48966006
Is "Strike!" specifically made for gunplay? Thing is, my setting considers an inferior, last resort kind of option while guns are fairly common and considered superior.

>>48965992
Look mang, you might hate 4e, but try to look at what OP is specifically asking for. It's not your cup of tea, but he is clearly looking for that exact cup of tea.

>>48966073
>>48966006
my setting considers *melee* an inferior option

>>48966077
No, it isn't.

>Action points
The 'action points' in 4E are more like Fate Points or Bennies, which grant occasional bonuses, while the action points in Space Hulk are the core of the game's action economy. They're similar in nothing but name.

>Grid movement
4E uses a grid, but so does every other D&D edition. Hell, any RPG can use a grid if you just decide how many yards/meters each space on the grid represents and convert the numbers in the book from there.

>>48965172
You want Runequest 6E. It uses action points and has deep, varied, tactical combat that presents the players with meaningful choices while still allowing them to improvise.

File: 4502_genestealer.tyranids.jpg (308KB, 656x450px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 656x450px

>>48966124
>my setting considers *melee* an inferior option
Ah. The "Space Hulk" analogy did not immediately make me go in that direction (pic related.) 4e is very fluff versatile, but generally melee and ranged are both tactically viable options, and that can't be changed.

>>48966128
>You want Runequest 6E. It uses action points and has deep, varied, tactical combat that presents the players with meaningful choices while still allowing them to improvise.

So D&D 4E then.

I think >>48965969 pretty much nailed it. I think OP >>48966073 would really enjoy 4E

File: Puppetry of The Penis.jpg (164KB, 1000x612px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1000x612px

>>48966128
>4E uses a grid, but so does every other D&D edition.
That's like saying "sure the penis puppeteers use their penis, but so does every other man." There is a big difference in how effectively the grid is utilized.

>>48966128
>so does every other D&D edition.
Most of them use either inches with an inch-feet conversion, or feet directly.

>>48966163
>So D&D 4E then.

No, Runequest has the distinction of being competently designed

>>48966145
Oh well, I guess some setting changes are in order then)
>>48966128
This anon already >>48965969 mentioned that AP in 4e work differently. I'm cool with that. Thanks for giving me another lead though, I'll make sure to try and check Runequest 6E as well!

>>48966069
>OP was specifically asking for something grid/tile-based, and strike might technically be able to use grid/tiles, but it underutilized them to the point that they may as well not be there.

That's patently false. If anything, it has MORE movement than 4e.

>>48966073
>>48966124
There are range focused classes (Archer being the prime one; it also gets covering fire and can pin down stuff, so it would be ideal for an XCOM style game) and there's an alternate rule that makes ranged combat really brutal if you catch an enemy without any cover.

File: Implied Facepalm.jpg (104KB, 600x463px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 600x463px

>>48966181
They also, for the record, tend to give you a feet - grid square conversion. Which is, oddly enough, 1 1 inch square(cube) = 5ft (cubed). And, only enough, the distance measurements for range and reach for monsters, weapons, movement and spells are all either divisible by 5 or are in 5ft. increments.

It's almost as if they give you the tools to be able to reliably use either grid, imagination or gaming table a la Warmahordes so you can play it however you like.

>>48966214
OD&D only mentions square grid with reference to aerial combat, and even then it's staggered square, not proper square.
AD&D 1e uses 1"=3 1/3' for miniatures, and doesn't particularly care whether you use square or hex grid. Movement-wise, it's 1"=10'/min. in dungeon, 10'/minute in cities, and 1 mi./half-day in the wilderness.
AD&D 2e doesn't mention square grid at all, and stripped the inches off movement rates.
Holmes Basic doesn't use square grid.
Moldvay Basic uses 1"=5' for minis grids right at the very end.
Mentzer Companion Set mentions grids in the mass combat 'War Machine' rules, with the scale of 'whatever is most appropriate'.
Rules Cyclopedia only gives grid-feet conversions for hex grid, otherwise 1"=10'. The War Machine rules from Companion appear here too.

So, prior to 3e, the only things that use 1"=5' are Moldvay Basic and the optional Combat and Tactics system for 2e, which also uses 5 yd. (15') squares.

What about GURPS?

File: Ref Chart.gif (147KB, 3100x2380px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 3100x2380px

>>48965172

Classic Traveller, with the Snapshot or Azhanti High Lightning combat rules.

>>48965834

Yeah, I gathered as much. And I'm saying that

>>However I'll do that only if absolutely I'm sure that there is no already existing system that does exactly that.

Makes no sense

>>48966020

>shitting on D&D for no reason
>autists
>Cancer

/v/ plz leave

>>48971111

It makes perfect sense. Why spend a great deal of time and effort reinventing the wheel? I mean, sure, if you have fun that means the time wasn't wasted, but building your own homebrewed RPG isn't all fun and games, there's a lot of hard work too.
(Especially if you want to tighten up those graphics on level 3, bro)

>>48971219
> reinventing the wheel

I already told you that you wouldn't be reinventing the wheel. You would just be making another wheel.

>a lot of hard work too

Yeah and hard work is the best part of doing something if you enjoy the thing you are doing. You think people play basketball because its easy or something?

>>48971255

I'm not OP, and you're pretty cavalier with other people's free time.
People play basketball because they love doing it. OP doesn't want to build a game because he loves building games, he wants to build a game to serve a purpose, which means he is better off using something preexisting that will accomplish the task than building a whole new system to do the same thing.

>>48971293
>you're pretty cavalier with other people's free time.

wut

>>48971437

You're quite eager to convince him to expend large amounts of his free time on projects you'd like to see.
If doing this is such great fun and worthwhile, why don't you do it then?

>>48971467
>projects you'd like to see.

wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut

>>48971554

So you don't even have any interest, why are you pushing him so hard to do it, when he just wants to play a game, not build one?
Building your own game is a long and difficult process no matter how you dress it up. It can be rewarding, but you're still being pretty damn flippant about how tough it can be.

>>48971644

>when he just wants to play a game, not build one

Then he can just ignore my comments about him being a piece of shit for wanting other people to encourage him to do something instead of wanting him to do it himself.

>you're still being pretty damn flippant about how tough it can be

Not at all.

File: whaaat.gif (2MB, 320x190px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x190px

>>48971762
>Then he can just ignore my comments about him being a piece of shit for wanting other people to encourage him to do something instead of wanting him to do it himself.

Jesus christ, dude.

>>48971798

Nah, I've seen too many lazy shitters in my life who do that shit.