"How's that system coming along, /tg/?" Editi

File: HardSuit Rules WIP 1.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49654627
Reposting WIP from last thread

At the moment, the critical issue i'm having is the crunch/fluff balance.

People seem to like mech games to be more granular than others but i'm concerned that in order to cater to this, a bloated character sheet of +/- additions will result in redundant bonuses, overly specific traits and generally a slow and arduous game particularly in combat.

I'm considering that a player could acquire a bonus to the core skills (the table in the Skill Check & Rolling Dice section) that give either a +1, +2 or +3 at most to a roll (+3 for advanced veteran characters).

This is because these core skills are what are used in combat. They wouldn't stack with each other so at most +3 could be granted from character traits alone. Cover, Range and other situational modifiers could add negatives so at most I'd like +5 to be the highest available positive modifier and -5 as the highest negative.

Separately, a fluff/character trait could be a more geared towards non-combat or specifics in combat such as 'when reduced to 0 wounds' or 'allows the pilot to bounce his shots off a hard surface' *which would be used in conjunction with a 'trick shot' skill check. Others might be 'as the situation entails' and not offer direct numerical bonuses to rolls but instead offer a fluffier, situational thing that has a direct ability.

Would this lead to inconsistency and if so, how might I alleviate this?
What is the best number of bonuses or situational modifiers that someone can handle in a game without getting bogged down?

So I want to autistically talk about a generic homebrew system I have been designing for years and it's framework.

PiPs (Points in Pools):

First of all I'll talk about the core resolution mechanic:
>PiPs uses an all contested d6 based dicepool system
>You have a number of d6s based on your talents, items, and a general pool
>At any point when you wish to perform an action, either contested by another player or a situation you roll a number of d6 against "opposition"
>Opposition when done by an NPC or player is a number of d6s chosen from their pools
>Opposition from a situation is a static number of dice the situation has to roll
>After rolling them against one another you compare the numbers, how different the numbers are determines the result (it is not complicated math fortunately, it is simply if one is more than 50% larger than the other it is a greater effect)
>What can oppose what in what situation is decided upon by the GM, you simply say what skill you wish to use to oppose and how. Your GM has the call on whether it is applicable.
>Once dice have been rolled they are removed from your pool until that pool refreshes
>If all dice are used before any refresh you are stuck using a single d6 as your "minimum effort"

Character advancement:
>Skills/qualities are purchases & upgraded by spending generic character advancement points
>Spending a point requires your character to take some amount of down time and have access to resources that can teach him this skill/trait/etc. (the amount of time is based on campaign speed, the system has 3 recommended speeds, the speed determines both how long it takes to spend points and how many points you get per session)
>The system also has resources, which represent a number of things including character wealth/authority/reputation

>>49655292
Skills:
>Each derived system has six categories of six skills, each can be on a level from 1 to 6 (I can provide examples of a skill set up).
>the number you have determines how many d6s you have in that skill pool
>skills refresh after each "opposed encounter"

Qualities:
>qualities are things that modify your pools, they can do a number of things such as effect dice outcomes (you reroll 1s), minimum dice in a pool (you always have 1 dice in firearms), stealing dice (you can take one 6 from an opponent's roll), rerolls, forced opponent rerolls, and more. These often require you to choose a particular skill they work with.

Resources:
>This varies from system to system, but is often a business, position, or organization
>You describe what sort of thing you want and proposed stats to the GM
>Each resources has both positive and negative stats, positive being Wealth/Reputation/Authority, and negative being Upkeep/Exposure/Responsibility.
>When creating a resource you assign each of these a number between one and six, which represents it's dice in that stat.
>After adding up the costs for positive and the draw back for negative you come up with a resources you can choose to spend time creating
>Resources have a minimum buy in (where you have to make an initial check against the negatives), if you fail a portion of the points spend may end up wasted.

Items:
>Items of particular quality may have their own dice, which refresh every time you use it up until a certain condition (three 1s at once can break a gun)

File: stats.png (133KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 500x500px

>Actions in DUNGEONHEARTS are accomplished by rolling a number of six-sided dice (referred to as a dice pool), counting the number of fives and sixes ("successes") rolled, and comparing this result against the roll's difficulty -- the number of successes the GM determines a given action requires to accomplish, which they may tell the player or opt to keep secret depending on the circumstances of the roll. If the number of successes equals or exceeds the difficulty, the character successfully accomplishes the desired action. Additional successes beyond those required by the difficulty may equate to the ease, skill, or flourish with which the action is performed.

>When you declare a nontrivial action you wish for your character to undertake, the GM will tell you whether it requires a roll, and what ATTRIBUTE SCORE to use as the dice pool for the roll. Attributes -- numerical values describing different features of your character -- determine that character's effectiveness at various parts of gameplay by serving as the number of dice in the pool for nearly every roll your character will make. These are called ATTRIBUTE ROLLS.

>There are eight attributes total, categorized according to whether they can be described as Physical or Mental, External or Internal, and Active or Reactive facets of your character. Each attribute falls somewhere within these categories -- Strength, for example, is the Physical/External/Active attribute.

>>49655317
Others:
>This depends on the system but often is a spell creator, which is done in much the same way as resources
>Other resources I have proposed and written up partial rules for are magic, alchemical creations, mecha parts, slaves, flesh warped beings, and romances

Wounds:
>wounds exist as social, spiritual, and physical
>wounds are gained under certain failure conditions, known as ticks
>in a single encounter one can sustain four sticks before a wound occurs
>the severity of the wound depends both on how badly you lose and what implement they used (a shotgun inflicts a more deadly wound than a rock)
>you roll on the d100 chart to determine the wound
>even a minor wound has a 1% chance of simply killing you on a 100
>over time wounds can be treated, but until they are they exist as negatives (a broken shoulder makes you a terrible shot)

Vices/Sins/Parasites:
>They vary from setting to setting, but in each a character will have something that haunts them.
>This thing can cause them to act when they wish not to, through a temptation mechanic (rolling against the vice/sin/etc.
>These worsen over time if left unchecked and can cause character lost

General thoughts? I could not describe specific system & skill sets from games I have partially designed using this framework.

How do you get your games reviewed? Mine is Fate based, I posted it in the community and I haven't gotten any reviews so far.

>>49655328
>PHYSICAL STATS
>EXTERNAL
>STRENGTH - ACTIVE
Strength is representative of a character's ability to exert physical force, typically used to inflict damage on foes, lift heavy objects, or perform other tasks demanding muscle. Characters with high Strength are heavy hitters, usually those who keep themselves in good physical condition.

>AGILITY - REACTIVE
Agility represents how nimble your character is, particularly their fine motor control, reflexes, and ability to perform delicate, intricate work -- like running silently and stealthily over rooftops, performing a knife-juggling act, or landing a careful long-ranged shot on a moving target.

>INTERNAL
>ENERGY - ACTIVE
While it accomplishes little on its own, Energy is a vital part of your character if they wish to excel in physical tasks, measuring their ability to push themselves beyond their limits and perform feats of physical prowess in focused, deliberate bursts. Characters with high Energy can achieve the superhuman, like a mother suddenly finding the strength to lift a fallen oak off of her injured child.

Before making any Physical attribute roll, you may declare to the GM that you are "spending Energy" on the roll and add one die to your dice pool. You may spend Energy in this way -- even multiple times on one roll, if you wish to add multiple dice -- up to a maximum number of times per day equal to your Energy attribute score.

Energy may also be spent to buy rerolls of individual dice in a pool after a Physical attribute roll has been made, but such rerolls "cost" two points of Energy per die, as opposed to pre-emptive additions to the pool costing one point.

>STAMINA - REACTIVE
Stamina is a measure of your character's endurance and ability to physically hold up under duress or injury. The number of Wounds your character may take before running the risk of death is determined using Stamina, as is their resistance to toxins and other negative factors affecting the character's physical body.

>>49655352
>MENTAL STATS
>EXTERNAL
>CHARISMA - ACTIVE
Charisma is a character's personal magnetism, not necessarily tied to physical appearance, which has no bearing on gameplay mechanics; rather, it represents their force of personality, persuasiveness, and ability to influence others. When characters with high Charisma speak, others listen and give them due attention.

>UNDERSTANDING - REACTIVE
Understanding measures a character's ability to establish rapport and "read" others, usually in the context of seeing through lies, discerning motives,gauging the atmosphere of a room or crowd, picking up subtleties in another's speech or writing, and so on. Those with high Understanding often have a greater capacity for compassion and awareness of others' emotional states and desires, allowing them to better navigate social situations, though it is important to distinguish this capability from that of empathy. A calculating sociopath may possess high Understanding, for example, but lack the ability to empathize.

>INTERNAL
>LOGIC - ACTIVE
Logic represents a character's mental acumen, or their ability to puzzle through intellectual challenges: academia, research, spellcraft, and all manner of other cognitive esoterica. High Logic does not necessarily represent the extent of a character's formal education, but rather elucidates their capacity to posit and postulate based on available information.

>INSTINCT - REACTIVE
>It's Energy but for Mental rolls.

>>49655372
>FOCI
Characters also begin play with one of their attributes designated as a FOCUS ATTRIBUTE. When spending Energy or Instinct on rolls made with your character's focus attribute, you may choose to have the roll CHAIN. To chain a roll, instead of buying extra dice with expended Energy or Instinct, note the number of successes you rolled and make a second roll using that number as your dice pool. Add any resulting successes from this additional roll to your original total, then repeat ("chain") this process as long as you continue to roll successes to use as new dice pools, up to a maximum number of extra rolls equal to your Energy or Instinct attribute -- whichever you expended a point of to chain the roll.

----

I've got a couple of other things figured out, but these are the basics. Aping Shadowrun dice pools and focusing on symmetry. How playable it is, I have no idea.

>>49655390
>>49655372
>>49655352
>>49655336
>>49655328
>>49655317
>>49655292

ever heard of a pdf

>>49655496
I'm not posting actual rules, I'm posting broad mechanic concepts.

File: wow.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49655509
what different does it make?

>>49655292
>>49655317
>>49655336

> d6 dice pool
> d100 chart for wounds
> le ebin "social spiritual and physical" wounds
> gotta love dem social wounds system that make no fucking sense and no one uses them
> trying to write rules for everything in a generic system because that worked so well for GURPS
> downtime mechanics that are probably retarded
> opposed rolls for fucking everything

Jesus motherfucking Christ.

>>49655755
>> le ebin "social spiritual and physical" wounds
I am not even sure what you mean by this.

>> downtime mechanics that are probably retarded
Possibly, the entire system is designed around having large amounts of downtime to manage resources.

>>49655755
All together that's a lot.

Though, a few of those are fine without the rest.

>>49655755
>>49655818
To expand on this the physical spiritual social thing does have reasoning behind it. The purpose behind social wounds is to damage/destroy resources. For instance if I have a resource of councilman or business some can damage my ability to use these and thus make it so I can fail upkeep roles and lose them. An example could be as simply as sowing a rumor against you to make the upkeep on your councilman position more costly and thus forcing you to either spend more time on it or risk losing that resource.

Spiritual has to do with magic, fucking up magic is spiritually damaging and will effect your vices.

>>49655755
Not that guy, but negativity is only going to drive people out of /gdg/ and we'll be back to the thread constantly on page 10.

>>49655990
not the guy you're replying to but criticism is kinda one of the core pillars of the thread, specially if there are glaring issues with something

we'd never progress in our own shit if the threads were a public circlejerk

plus, this is one of the only shows of negativity in quite a while, and a pretty spot-on one at that

>>49656037
Criticism need not be negative.

>>49656037
Criticism and shit flinging are different things. Criticism should at least generally have some reasoning.

>>49656108
and suggestions on how to correct them.

>>49655818

Social wounds are fucking retarded.

> "oh look i pwned him with that sick counterargument, he takes 3d6 social damage!"
> "oh look I said some dumb shit about him in my newspaper so he takes 3d6 reputatino damage"
> "oh look I used scary assassins to sabotage his orphanage so now he looks retarded! 3d6 social damage!"

Attaching mechanics instead of normal, in-fiction results to these things is just fucking stupid. Ask yourself, what the fuck do these mechanics actually accomplish? Do I actually NEED rules for this shit or am I just trying to create a board game that the GM will have to retroactively fit the fiction to, instead of helping the story and game flow like good mechanics are SUPPOSED to.

>>49655990

I'm bumping your thread. Quit getting pissy. Negativity is what this guy needs unless he can explain why these mechanics have merit worth existing for.

>>49655838

Not really. I'll explain why in a separate post.

>>49656059
>>49656108

kill yourselves. I'm not even joking. Go back to Roddit and fellate every shitty d20 rip-off Kockstarter if that's what you want.

/gdg/, I'm making a TRPG system based on Lord of the Rings for a university project. I'm thinking of doing a rules-light to rules-medium dice pool system. I'm going to have 5 attributes: Might (melee damage and HP), Skill (accuracy and avoiding attacks), Intelligence (non-combat utility), Willpower (resisting magical effects, utilizing the "destiny points" system - you can burn a point to reroll a dice pool or stave off death), and Charisma (bog-standard charisma stat). Characters will have aspects, à la Fate, which grant a certain bonus to dice rolls. Broader aspects (e.g. "tough", "cool under pressure") could be invoked by the player to give them a small bonus to a variety of situations, whereas more specific aspects (e.g. "expert at tracking orcs", "dwarven politician") could be invoked to give a larger bonus to a smaller amount of situations. I'd appreciate any criticism of the early stages of my development, but I do have one question for you guys: how should I go about capturing the "feel" of Tolkien's works and translating it into game form?

>/gdg/ hitting post limit
Thought I'd never see the day.

>>49656174
Nigga did you read his other post:
>>49655971

The social wounds make a lot of sense in this context.

>>49656174
>Negativity is what this guy needs unless he can explain why these mechanics have merit worth existing for.
he does do that though in another post

>>49656174
See, if you had made this post first, no one would have protested it. Explaining why the mechanics are stupid is actual criticism. Just calling them stupid benefits nobody.

Kindly unknot your panties.

>>49656155

> suggestions how to correct them

Am I the one designing anon's game? No. And there is no point to correcting something when the entire idea is shit to the point where he needs to go back to square one and THINK about his goals and design according to them. Not just grabbing willy-nilly from different RPG systems he downloaded in the PDF share thread to create a clunky autistic mess no one will play.

My friend made his own RPG a couple years ago. It had a fucking retarded "d6 dice pool minimum pool of 1" mechanic similar to anon, and you rolled 1d6 for how many skills you got. I understand anon is not THAT retarded but it's part of the story. We were forced to sit through 2 sessions before someone got the balls to tell him it sucked, because the guy had spent 10 hours at least on this game. And that's the problem -- autistics trapped in their houses writing 50 page PDFs that no one wants to play because the games honestly suck. I'm trying to head off anon BEFORE he does alll that and ends up committed to what he created. That way he might have a shot at making a decent game.

>>49656257

Well, sorry. I figured everyone knew that "social combat" rules were retarded, kinda like how everyone knows using d20 as a core mechanic is stupid.

>>49655337
An answer for this, please? Where do you get your help people?

>>49656320
>>49656296
But do they make sense based on the reasoning of social combat is designed to destroy/hinder character resources. If the resources are started with upkeep/required rolls it no longer is an abstraction and thus mechanics to both help and hurt them make sense.

>>49656296
so all d6 pools are inherently bad because you don't like them?

Also suggestions doesn't mean do everything for him, have someone never suggested you something?

>>49656250
>>49656231
>>49655971

I don't see how any of this isn't exactly like what I outlined in the other post. Also this is fucking moronic. If you treat someone's businessmen like shit, they will lose them. You don't need to track this with "social wounds", it can take place entirely in character with Intimidation and Persuasion rolls. Explain exactly how the existence of this mechanic enhances the game, where handling it by roleplaying would not work.

> Spiritual has to do with magic, fucking up magic is spiritually damaging and will effect your vices.

So a sanity mechanic? I can get behind that.

>>49656376

d6 pools are retarded because they are a crutch for shitty devs who can't be arsed to think of another dice system and don't think it through at all. They are rarely familiar with the probability and due to the fact that a dice pool produces 0-4 or so successes rather than a number within a range they usually require larger pools to have any effect. Also the core mechanics are clunky: is one success a pass? Two? I want a default target number to beat here. Apocalypse World does it. Savage World does it. i don't want to have to set some arbitrary TN every fucking time. d6 dice pool is a shitty crutch secondary only to d20.

I have suggested things, but I don't want to because if I do anon owes me credit for the mechanics I create for him. It is no longer his game. and honestly most homebrewers ITT are making games so they can say they did it. If I make the game for him, there is no point to the exercise.

>>49656352

And how does this create a more interesting experience than simply, for example, just roleplaying that your character has fucking rumors started about him and you should do smoething to quash them.

>>49656381
>I don't see how any of this isn't exactly like what I outlined in the other post. Also this is fucking moronic. If you treat someone's businessmen like shit, they will lose them. You don't need to track this with "social wounds", it can take place entirely in character with Intimidation and Persuasion rolls. Explain exactly how the existence of this mechanic enhances the game, where handling it by roleplaying would not work.
I'll talk about a situation not covered by simply persuasion and intimidate.

First of all one does not run a business with just persuasion and intimidate. One one creates a resource it gains two aligned skills (more if payed for). A resource of "Ship Captain" could have sailing, a business will likely have a trade skill. Simply "Persuasion & Intimidate" does not cover it.

Also, let us have a situation, let us say I own a canning business designed by the resource system. I want to exercise my wealth (something the resource has a stat for), and make a large purchase. The system works on abstracted wealth based on resources, and thus anything larger than personal purchases are done through exercising resources.

In this case let us say I am purchasing explosives for some mission. Someone else wants to hinder this.

Thus social combat begins. If they do well enough I am hindered and can not make this purchase, or if they do even better I could gain a wound.

"3d6 reputation damage" isn't really a thing, it is all done through wounds as there is no abstracted "HP" stat. Everything is done through wounds.

Now during this venture I lose dramatically and my business loses a lot of money, I gain the "Financial Problems" wound.

Now next time my resource needs to be used my opposition will be higher, and thus I either need to spend more or have a higher risk of loss. This means I now have risk of losing my business, and am hindered to attack others using my resources until I fix the wound.


Just "persuasion" by no means covers this.

File: image.png (3MB, 1921x1280px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1921x1280px

>used to love working on my own systems and world building
>even made an alright attempt at a game that my friends and I enjoyed
>have it and all of my other ideas stores on my laptop
>move far away from my family and friends
>continue to write up new lore and systems but it feels different now since I have no one to share it with
>stop writing all together
>sometimes open up the folder and look at the ideas that I gave up on
>go back to drinking

What's the point without anyone to actually play this shit with?

>>49656174
You don't NEED rules for any, shit-for-brains. Rules help to focus and facilitate gameplay. If a game had a heavy focus on social or mental aspects, why not have rules for them? A great example is Legends of the Wulin with its hyperactivity/weakness system.

>>49656427
>is one success a pass? Two? I want a default target number to beat here.
So you just hate opposed rolls? That's just personal taste.

Also there is no "1-2 is a failure, 5-6 is a success, count them up". It is actually comparing rolled totals.

>I have suggested things, but I don't want to because if I do anon owes me credit for the mechanics I create for him.
Christ this is an asinine opinion. So all games, in your opinion, should be made in a vacuum and anyone looking at it should never make a suggestion or it "spoils the purity".

>>49656457
>And how does this create a more interesting experience than simply, for example, just roleplaying that your character has fucking rumors started about him and you should do smoething to quash them.
It's a crunchy system vs. a more abstract system. I enjoy resource management as part of the game, which is why I put it in. Just roleplaying it does not allow me to actually own a business is a mechanical sense.

Leaving things up to roleplay isn't always a good thing.

>>49655990
I would much rather get a hard no on my shit than silence. If shit's bad and someone can actually articulate why, that can potentially save me so much time and effort. I kind of wish someone had been harsher about my first darling sooner.

>mechanics for social situations in RPGs beyond the ones I have accepted are retarded!
>everyone knows that my opinions about dice mechanics are facts!
>if I make suggestions it becomes my own precious OC donut steel IP!

Jesus Christ anon, consider suicide.

>>49656736
He can't articulate why beyond "I don't like thing".

>>49646545
The name I'm going with for the special card type is "crown". Crowns have power and can be attacked by creatures, but they cannot attack, block, or dodge unless they are also creatures(crown creatures). The point is that doing it this way means that crown creatures do not have to act differently than normal creatures. It's so creatures are always attackable, but they aren't too vulnerable. The alternative of making it so only crown creatures are attackable just feels too weird.

>>49656760
I mean... he's needlessly defensive going forward, but it's still more effort than I would have put in on that crap. It's just really clear that it's a freshman effort with little worth salvaging. The original poster is probably much better off hearing that he needs to start over rather than being given point by point advice on his turd polishing.

Friends want me to help fix their d100 Fallout system they've been using. I got offered 70 bucks to do it so I wanna do a halfway decent job, especially because I need the money. It's pretty much just them trying to take the entire SPECIAL system as is in F3/NV so that means point buy system for skill advancement. They don't want me to change it because They're attached to the idea of 'muh SPECIAL'

Problem is, in the current rules, you can get skills up to 100 or even 115 easily at like level 5, meaning auto win at everything unless the GM throws maluses at them for days.

What'd the best way to fix this shitty Percentile System without making it too alien to the SPECIAL system

>>49656851
I still can't see what's wrong with what the original poster is doing.

The reasoning behind the wound system makes sense.

It just seems like a crunchy game, the fact that it is generic just seems to be an agnostic core resolution mechanic. Honestly that's the only really bad part about the system.

Long down time + resource management based system sounds good, I can't think of one that does that.

>>49656871
Give skills a per level cap, per SPECIAL cap, or both.

>>49656941
The point by point is counterproductive when my advice is kill don't revise, but I might come back to it if this is still up tomorrow and no one else gives it a shot. If I go for it, it'll be a short PDF.

>>49656519
>First of all one does not run a business with just persuasion and intimidate.

No shit, faggot. Create a business skill. Or barter skill. Or whatever the fuck.

> I want to exercise my wealth (something the resource has a stat for), and make a large purchase.

Then you spend your dollars and gold pieces tied up in your business like players have since the beginning of time.

> The system works on abstracted wealth based on resources, and thus anything larger than personal purchases are done through exercising resources.

Well that's fucking retarded.

> In this case let us say I am purchasing explosives for some mission. Someone else wants to hinder this.

Cool! Roleplay it with some exciting narrative.

> Thus social combat begins. If they do well enough I am hindered and can not make this purchase, or if they do even better I could gain a wound.

And what the fuck does a social wound mean? You feel a bit bad about yourself? This is just a glorified skill check system.

> Now during this venture I lose dramatically and my business loses a lot of money, I gain the "Financial Problems" wound.

Holy shit, this is like a board game except even worse. This isn't a "wound", it's a fucking aspect or downside or setback. At least come up with names that don't sound out-of-place as fuck.

> Now next time my resource needs to be used my opposition will be higher, and thus I either need to spend more or have a higher risk of loss. This means I now have risk of losing my business, and am hindered to attack others using my resources until I fix the wound.

So how is this any better than losing a business deal organically? What do the mechanics actually ADD to the experience, besides codifying what you want?

> Just "persuasion" by no means covers this.

Nah, but a fucking business skill and some actual roleplay would cover it just fine, without a bunch of shitty rules that constrict the narrative.

That's okay, though, I'm sure your game will be a bestseller.

>>49656743

>mechanics for social situations in RPGs beyond the ones I have accepted are retarded!

Anon is yet to provide a compelling case for why they aren't. Unless minimalism is dead and we should be adding new mechanics just because, and before long all these games will be like FATAL and even fewer people will play them (though 0 - 1 is still 0 in this case, so checkmate me I guess).

>everyone knows that my opinions about dice mechanics are facts!

They aren't. A d6 pool game can be competently made (see: Shadowrun. Oh wait....)

But a good d20 game can exist as well. That doesn't mean d20 homebrews correlate with shit homebrews because most designers blindly use them without fully understanding every facet of their properties.

>if I make suggestions it becomes my own precious OC donut steel IP!

Technically true, hence why I refuse to give suggestions. Am I getting a cut of the pie? No. And no one is critiquing my game. That said I might offer suggestions when the solution is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even be considered an idea.

>>49656550
after that post I gave up on that anon, anon, you should to.

>>49656941
>It just seems like a crunchy game, the fact that it is generic just seems to be an agnostic core resolution mechanic. Honestly that's the only really bad part about the system.

It's not generic, though. It is suited to exactly one kind of game: the kind that is heavily based on non-combat and running businesses / political scheming.

Even GURPS didn't go this overboard with a shitton of subsystems. Partly because it understood that if you reduce something like running a business to a fucking combat system with literal wounds and such, it loses all point of existence because it has no mechanical diversity and you might as well be 3rd level fighters duking it out with longswords. It's also clear as fuck that anon has never run a business.

>>49657060
Again, consider suicide. Think of all those people you could potentially interact with in the future. You'd be doing them a service.

>>49656520
go get someone to do it then.

>>49656550
>So you just hate opposed rolls? That's just personal taste.

No, it's a simple fact of quality you imbecile. Rolling one handful of d6s is bad enough, but two? Just for some basic action resolution? Yeah that's fast. Here's an idea, let's add a mini-game for every minor skill check so that we can be special instead of using a normal resolution mechanic that fucking works.

> Also there is no "1-2 is a failure, 5-6 is a success, count them up". It is actually comparing rolled totals.

Great, so I have to add up six goddamn dice just to figure out whether I succeeded? Get fucked, I'd rather slit my throat than play your game. The worst I deal with is GURPS and that's just adding three numbers.

> Christ this is an asinine opinion. So all games, in your opinion, should be made in a vacuum and anyone looking at it should never make a suggestion or it "spoils the purity".

Pretty much. Actually I will give suggestions but your game is so fucking broken I would have to redesign it myself to make anything worth playing.

>>49656541
>A great example is Legends of the Wulin with its hyperactivity/weakness system.

Another literal-who of a game. I wonder why? Maybe because it's bogged down in shitty mechanics that aren't any good.

>>49656174
My question to you is, why are combat rules more valid than social conflict rules? They are both conflicts with stakes and different outcomes for winning or losing - why does it matter if it's with a sword or an argument?

> "oh look i pwned him with that sick counterattack, he takes 3d6 damage!"
> "oh look I tripped him with my staff so he takes 3d6 damage"
> "oh look I used scary knives to sabotage his face so now he looks retarded! 3d6 damage!"

It's the same shit.

>>49657101

> I have no argument so I will encourage you to commit suicide

I guess that's the best I'll get. Anon I am sure you will go far with your game when you encourage the people willing to give you feedback to hang themselves. That will do yourself a real favor I'm sure.

>>49657011
>No shit, faggot. Create a business skill. Or barter skill. Or whatever the fuck.
There already is, but not every resource is a business. That's the point. Resources are large category.

>Then you spend your dollars and gold pieces tied up in your business like players have since the beginning of time.
As I said below it uses abstract wealth, with the reasoning being of different assumptions of who the characters are. In the setting these mechanics were designed for a party of PCs are essentially a secret society. You need to function in your culture then do other hidden things.

>Well that's fucking retarded.
The reasoning behind this is there is no "murder hobo, sell off the loot to get dosh" assumption in the system. PCs do not make large amounts of wealth through being murder hobos and the like and instead

>Cool! Roleplay it with some exciting narrative.
Sometimes you are, sometimes you're not. To see if you have the funs/authority/etc. available you first exercise resources THEN you roleplay the corresponding situation. They decide context and advantages/disadvantages going forward.

>Holy shit, this is like a board game except even worse. This isn't a "wound", it's a fucking aspect or downside or setback. At least come up with names that don't sound out-of-place as fuck.
As I said wounds are penalties, it's just a general term for anything that imparts a penalty of skills/roll that can be gotten rid of over time.

>So how is this any better than losing a business deal organically? What do the mechanics actually ADD to the experience, besides codifying what you want?
Because your decisions can have far reaching ramifications it effects how you move forward. A business deal can have a penalty possibly for in game years if it was a bad enough wound. The idea of wounds is you do not always incur them on a loss in a social encounter (in fact you often don't), but they exist as a possibility to encourage caution.

(1/2)

>>49657152
I'm not the person with the game. I just want you to stop shitposting. Killing yourself would do the trick.

File: 5c1f369c71a237d963621b632c92bd6e.jpg (97KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1280x720px

>>49657134
>Pretty much.
Fucking christ man.

File: Thisisgonnabegood.jpg (115KB, 433x635px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 433x635px

>>49657134
>games are only good if they are popular
Literally retarded.

>>49657134
>Great, so I have to add up six goddamn dice just to figure out whether I succeeded? Get fucked, I'd rather slit my throat than play your game. The worst I deal with is GURPS and that's just adding three numbers.
You have to be trolling. Did you fail out of elementary school or something? Is that why adding 6 numbers scares you so much?

>Another literal-who of a game. I wonder why? Maybe because it's bogged down in shitty mechanics that aren't any good.
Eclipse Phase, Burning Wheel, L5R are all complex games with followings.

>No, it's a simple fact of quality you imbecile. Rolling one handful of d6s is bad enough, but two? Just for some basic action resolution? Yeah that's fast. Here's an idea, let's add a mini-game for every minor skill check so that we can be special instead of using a normal resolution mechanic that fucking works.
Can you not add 6 numbers?

>>49657141

Because combat's abstraction (1) cannot be played out with simple talking like social interaction can, (2) has clear mechanical relation between one action and its result.

Can you see the "wound" caused by someone's argument? No. And that "wound" can mean completely different things based on the circumstances. Whereas getting shot by a bullet is a pure function of your character's durability.

> It's the same shit

It really isn't. But go ahead and make your game, I'm sure people will want to use your overcomplicated bullshit mechanics.

>>49657011
>>49657155
>Nah, but a fucking business skill and some actual roleplay would cover it just fine, without a bunch of shitty rules that constrict the narrative.
Already got a business skill buddy.

>That's okay, though, I'm sure your game will be a bestseller.
I tried to give you a situation to explain my reasoning. No reason to start acting like an asshat.

(2/2)

Honestly it just seems like you overly value minimalism. Minimalism for its own sake is just as bad as complexity for its own sake.

I'd like some input on a mechanic I came up with. I'm modifying cypher system and I'm adding a rule that successfully defending against a melee attack gives you an offensive bonus: might defense can stun, speed defense gives a bonus to attack the attacker on your next turn and intellect defense lets you move five feet immediately. I want this to make melee combat more deadly and give more weight to every exchange, but I'm worried it will just snowball and make fights one sided. I'm in the process of testing it out now, but I'd appreciate any insight.

>>49657241

This right here is what keeps yo going? The whole "forgtten genius" shtick? Guess what? It doesn't apply. Drop the bullshit. You are not some hidden genius waiting to be discovered. No, "the man" is not keeping you down. You are not successful, because your games are not good. That is it. That is all.

>>49657242

Why should I have to add six numbers where I could add 2 or 3? If I get into a combat that has a lot of rolling do I want to be doing this constantly?

Please continue with the math-phobic angle, though. By that logic, let's use a 20d6 resolution mechanic! That's surely the fastest and best way to resolve things!

>>49657086
>Partly because it understood that if you reduce something like running a business to a fucking combat system with literal wounds and such, it loses all point of existence because it has no mechanical diversity and you might as well be 3rd level fighters duking it out with longswords. It's also clear as fuck that anon has never run a business.
If you're going to govern a business with mechanics it needs to be resolved somehow. How would you do it?

>It's not generic, though. It is suited to exactly one kind of game: the kind that is heavily based on non-combat and running businesses / political scheming.
I agree, I shouldn't have described it as generic.

>>49657328
What system can you get away with never accounting for six or more dice?

>>49657294
>Minimalism for its own sake is just as bad as complexity for its own sake.

It would be, except there is no point to you adding these mechanics. They literally do not add value to the game. Tell me exactly why I would want to use these mechanics instead of roleplaying it out normally? Combat at least has straightforward tension and stakes and the mechanics (such as taking cover or aiming) relate to tangible real world decisions. You're using a combat abstraction for shit like running a business and the result is completely fucking retarded.

>>49657314

> I'm modifying Cypher system

Why not just play Cypher system then? Or don't, because it's a garbage system.

>>49657328
>[literal vomit in text form]
Holy shit you cock-gobbling fuckwit you literally dismissed an example of social combat because you hadn't heard of the system before. You dismissed it because it wasn't popular. That is a retarded excuse of an argument to make. You are retarded.

>>49657354
>the result is completely fucking retarded.
You keep saying this but don't have any reasoning beyond "I want it to be only with roleplay".

Exercising a resource is something that effects roleplay. It means going into the next encounter (be it combat or social situation) we are in a different context. Perhaps I was unable to procure something. Perhaps my mercenary company (a resource) fell apart due to meddling by an opposing NPC. Perhaps my reputation has been damaged to the point that leaving the city will likely mean I lose my councilman position.

All of these effect roleplay and how you play the game.

They could simply be roleplayed and have no mechanics to govern them, but I do not see any more merit in that than having them. Having mechanics to govern them allows you to by rules work these situations to your advantage.

Not every form of conflict is "combat abstraction". You can have non-combat opposition in almost every system (often taking the form of lying vs intuition).

>sees /gdg/ get a new thread
Yes, long live game design generals!

>see it immediately get dominated by one anons autistic tantrum
God damn it...

>>49657134
>Another literal-who of a game. I wonder why? Maybe because it's bogged down in shitty mechanics that aren't any good.
Going by that criteria, all the popular systems are either d20 or d6.
But you said those are shittty dice systems. If d20 and d6 are so terrible why are all the well known systems use those dice? I haven't heard of a popular system that uses d10 resolution.
Make up your mind shitposter-kun.

>>49657415
I could post my WIP but it not only have no playtest, half of it is in spanish.

>>49657354
I mean we will be mostly playing cypher, I'm just adding some changes to... Uh, wait did you have any input or did you just want to be obstructive?

>>49657341
>I agree, I shouldn't have described it as generic.

Then why the hell do I want to play it? That was the only reason I was remotely interested.

>>49657353

Please rewrite that sentence in English.

>>49657354
Nigga all you've been doing is shouting how everything you don't like it shit and snubbing your nose at everything while being a condescending little shit. Why the fuck should anyone take you seriously. Your entire argument has been "i dont like thing".

>>49657525
>Then why the hell do I want to play it?
I mean you obviously don't. You don't want to play d20 system, d6 systems, anything with dice pools, anything with stats for social combat, abstract wealth, anything more than minimalist crunch, or anything not popular.

>>49657494

Explain where I said that shitty games and popular games are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Also d20 and d6 are not inherently terrible but most homebrewers (in my experience at least) do them fucking retardedly (like Anon above who wants me to roll two different dice pools and add up the totals to compare just to resolve one action).

>>49657531

That's because OP has six different resolution mechanics that seem like direct rips from four different games. He has a "social combat" system that doesn't seem to add anything interesting and just seems to be formalizing what is already present in the fiction. Resource expenditure I understand, but he is yet to explain how any of it enhances the game play.

What can your rules do, that my narration cannot?

>>49657576
>That's because OP has six different resolution mechanics
He has one resolution mechanic, literally "roll a number of d6s, compare the number". Where the fuck are you getting six from?

>that seem like direct rips from four different games.
What systems?

>He has a "social combat" system that doesn't seem to add anything interesting and just seems to be formalizing what is already present in the fiction.
How is formalizing it a bad thing? This seems like entirely a difference in taste.

>What can your rules do, that my narration cannot?
Why have mechanics at all? Why not do everything by narration?

>>49657292
I'm not the guy who posted the mechanics. If you're just going to talk it out, what's stopping the GM from saying, "No, he can't be intimidated/convinced/charmed"?

It would be like saying, "You can slash him all you want you're going to lose."

>>49657576
>Resource expenditure I understand, but he is yet to explain how any of it enhances the game play.
It gives you concrete deadlines for when something will decay and something that actually allows you to tell when/if you lose your resource beyond roleplaying. It does formalize the interaction, but I do not see how this is a bad thing.

I'll go through the three aspects wealth/authority/reputation:
>I can narrate simply purchasing things, but wealth allows me to determine if/when/what I can purchase
>I can simply narrate use of my authority, but in this case the stat allows me to perform actions with a clear resolution/difficulty (like skill checks).
>Reputation actually is tied to authority as they are offensive/defensive version of the same thing, one can oppose authority with reputation and vise versa. However reputation used alone allows you to influence people rather than organizations.

It's like skill checks. What does a skill check provide that narration does not beyond clear resolution?

>>49657562

You got that right except for the minimalist crunch part. I don't mind crunch. I do mind pointless crunch. Also I don't mind d20 systems, I just think that most of them (especially those created by homebrewers) are terribly-designed.

>>49657654
What systems DO you play?

>>49657600

I'm getting six from the fact that if my character has a good stat he might very well be rolling six dice, and anon has yet to dispel this theory seeing as it is apparently a dice pool system. Unless you call the WEG Star Wars system a "dice pool system" (I guess technically it could be called that) then if there is any range to the stats I could very well be rolling 6 dice if I have a good stat.

Also, interesting: the better my character's stat is, the more adding I have to do. So I get punished for having a higher stat?

And by the way, the fucking D&D books even had suggestions for adding up large pools of d6s quicker, it takes time and is annoying as fuck to do that constantly. Explain what adding 4d6 or 6d6 does tha a normal resolution mechanic doesn't do better. Also the sheer range of difference in roll results is going to mean that a 2d6 stat is going to be almost always better than a 1d6 stat so there is no fucking competition. Same with 2d6 versus 4d6. By that point why even bother rolling?

>>49657712
>I'm getting six from the fact that if my character has a good stat he might very well be rolling six dice
Rolling six dice does not make it six resolution mechanics, are you retarded? That's like saying L5R has 10 resolution mechanics because I'm a competent courtier.

>Also, interesting: the better my character's stat is, the more adding I have to do. So I get punished for having a higher stat?
Why the fuck do you considering adding punishment? Holy shit.

>>49657600

>How is formalizing it a bad thing? This seems like entirely a difference in taste.

Because it adds basically nothing. What CONCRETE results does a social wound have? Why is he even calling it a wound? In Apocalypse World there are social events with concrete results but that is not what I am seeing here. What I am seeing is a poorly slapped-together mess of a subsystem that feeds it's own mouth out of its ass and is entirely extraneous. It is trying to replace narrative weight with mechanical weight and failing because the consequences are boring and self-referential. In short, we can figure out what's going to happen without Anon's rules. Same goes for combat, true. Except the question is "who is better at fighting" and this can be answered by a combat system that has direct results to direct in-narrative actions. OP's system is generalizing shit like "I'm going to smear his good name" with a dice roll that makes it barely different from swinging a sword.

>>49657607

Or you could use an intimidate check. Like I originally suggested above.

>>49657712
If it was adding 12-15 dice, sure.

But when the biggest number you'll ever have to add is 6 it seriously isn't an issue. If adding 6 dice fucking intimidates you then there is something wrong with your cognitive function.

>>49657651
>What does a skill check provide that narration does not beyond clear resolution?

The question of whether or not something happens.

>I can narrate simply purchasing things, but wealth allows me to determine if/when/what I can purchase

Yes except your abstract wealth system is meaningless. At best it could be a guideline like GURPS tech levels / wealth levels, but those are shitty too.

> >I can simply narrate use of my authority, but in this case the stat allows me to perform actions with a clear resolution/difficulty (like skill checks).

So just have an Influence skill? Or just a simple "Influence" point system you can spend and recover over time. That'd be fine, too. But a social "wound" makes zero sense half the time.

>>49657678

None of your business, cunt.

>>49657760

It doesn't intimidate me, moron, I just don't want to do it every time I roll the goddamn dice. There are also other problems of logarithmic scaling with it, as with all dice pool systems, but magnified by teh fact that OP wants to fucking ADD them.

When your only argument in support of your core mechanic is some kind of intellectual muscle flexing about third grade math, I think you need to reconsider.

>>49657746
>What CONCRETE results does a social wound have?
So let us say I have my business.

I had a business deal go badly, and thus I received the "financial problems" wound (penalty/setback, what ever). The end of the turn comes around and I need to upkeep my business. However now the opposition is higher.

I have a limited number of time and energy (in the form of what dice I put where) to spread around. Because the opposition is higher I need to go put more of my limited resources (my dice) to that particular buisness.

This means I can't try and start a new one/train/etc. because my character's downtime is spent doing that instead.

If I don't devote more there is a higher chance of failing upkeep and sustaining another penalty. The more penalties I have the more likely the business simply goes under.

The same is true for any resource, not just business.

>>49657738
>Rolling six dice does not make it six resolution mechanics, are you retarded? That's like saying L5R has 10 resolution mechanics because I'm a competent courtier.

When did I imply it did? Where the fuck did that come from?

And yes, adding six or seven dice I don't need to add together, is basically punishment. I'm taking two or three times as long as I need to, proportionally speaking. Oh and don't forget the DM needs to add up six or seven dice as well. For each task resolution in the game. I can see the GM just discarding the task resolution entirely becuase it is pointlessly overcomplicated and annoying. I want to roll my check, look at my dice, and say "oh yeah i got it."

> roll d20 + 8
> okay I rolled 10 + 8 is 18

> roll OP's dumb shit system
> okay I got 4, 3, 5, 2, 1
> okay I got 15
> okay I got 3, 2, 4, 6
> okay I got 15

OP didn't even explain what happens on a tie but that's not the point, it's still four times as many steps as I need to do task resolution.

>>49657804

You just spent 147 words explaining the concept of "My business doesn't have enough money to start new projects right now, so I shouldn't do that."

>>49657782
>The question of whether or not something happens.
Yes, the whether or not something happens is whether you lose that resource, or are forced to spend more keeping that resource afloat.

Losing time has obvious ramification (because I had to spend more of it keeping a "wounded" resource afloat), I can no longer try and create new resources, exercise my resources to go back of the offensive against who ever wounded it, and more.

Losing wealth has obvious ramifications (if I lose that resource).

Losing authority means I no longer have as much sway over organizations (which have bracketed guidelines for what you can make them do, essentially there is inherent opposition dependent on the size and influence of an organization, and difficulty based on what you're asking them to do).

Same with reputation, but for individuals.

The "What happens" is whether or not my resource could just go under and be a loss, both meaning I have a loss of power, time, and even character points (since I spent them to get the resource started).

>>49657825
>When did I imply it did? Where the fuck did that come from?
See >>49657576
>That's because OP has six different resolution mechanics

Literally you said it right there.

>>49657837
Yes, and there are mechanics to govern when they occurs.

>>49656952
What would that entail?

>>49657825
Are you not acquainted with any system that uses d6s? I'm expecting you to say at any moment "and that's why I play pathfinder".

L5R & Shadowrun for example need adding.
>inb4 "literally who" system

>>49657746
>Or you could use an intimidate check. Like I originally suggested above.
Then why not use a fighting check for combat?

>>49657874

There is also, y'know, the whole "this happens in the story because X guy did this and you lose some money thus you have less for if you want to do something else."

>>49657861

Ahhh I see. Sorry, I guess I just fixate on the number six. I meant dice mechanics, seeing as he has a d100 wounds system thing then a d6 dice pool system, as well as some other shit for resource management. But yeah I mistyped, my apologies.

>>49657907

Yeah dice pool systems in general are shit. Although most of them are better because you can at least just count up the 5s and 6s, that's still slightly faster than totalling the rolls on 8 dice.

File: what the actual fuck.png (93KB, 387x222px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 387x222px

>more than half the thread is just giving attention to a retard who doesn't know how to use PDF, pastebin or google docs and another retard who can't tell the difference between opinions and criticism

you quintuple niggers

on the other hand, i appreciate how alive this thread is right now, despite being on fire

>>49657974

You could, but that'd be boring as shit for most people. Also an attack roll represents an actual thing, as does the damage. You are abstracting something that already exists in numeric terms (money) in order to further complicate it. And while being hurt in combat can be pretty well tracked with hit points, social "wounds" only apply in certain contexts and for certain reasons. Having 2 social hp left has no bearing on reality. Having 2 meat hp left means you are battered and bruised and about to die. Get it now?

>>49658029
>There is also, y'know, the whole "this happens in the story because X guy did this and you lose some money thus you have less for if you want to do something else."
And this actually has rules for that rather than just narration?

>>49658063
See, I'm gonna ignore this thread until it calms down. If the shitstorm ever ends, that is...

>>49658063
>more than half the thread is just giving attention to a retard who doesn't know how to use PDF, pastebin or google docs
I resent that. I mostly didn't use it because hardly anyone reads PDFs/pastebin/googledocs and not using it actually gets people to read the posts, albeit angrily

File: 1460230131820.png (40KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 256x256px

>>49658131
>and not using it actually gets people to read the posts, albeit angrily

first day on /gdg/ huh

>>49655094
I am currently using the 6 base attributes from the D20 system despite the fact the rest of the system is entirely different and I don't know how to stop...

>>49658146
>first day on /gdg/ huh
In quite a long time, yes.

I'll be honest, the more no-PDFkun talks about the system the more I think I'd actually like to play. Resource management is fun.

>>49658109

But no one wants rules for that. Because we can do it just fine on our own. The real world has a system for resource management. It's called money. Why are you creating another system on top of them?

File: Screenshot 2016-10-05 16.16.58.png (27KB, 444x191px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 444x191px

I feel the need to distinguish myself from this guy because holy shit

But yes, new to the threads, other stuff in the future will be PDF'd.

>>49658349
>But no one wants rules for that.
I do.

>>49658349
>No one wants rules for that
No one wants to argue about it either, yet that's still happening

>>49658404

And who else? I'd make a strawpoll but you'd all vote yes just to spite me. When in reality you'd probably never touch anon's game.

>>49658443

> wahhh how dare you argue about the merit of my system! I am an unrecognized GENIUS and I demand to be treated as such!

>>49656326
I've only gotten a full game reviewed over in a thread on eightchan once.
/tg/ is the biggest help when you're still in conceptual stage ime. When you know what you want to do but are trying to figure out how to represent it. I usually just post an explanation of what I want to do rather than a pdf. If your system is fairly complex, then it's a lot easier to get feedback on a part of it rather than the whole thing as well.

>>49658623
>polls don't matter, only my opinions do

What is the ideal number of bonuses or situational modifiers that someone can handle in a game without getting bogged down? 3? 5? more?

>>49658892
for me its 1.

>>49658691
Agree with this. /tg/ is an ideas place, not the nitty gritty place. I do think part of the problem is how "temporary" the place is, everything moves too fast for really development to happen. I think the biggest thing people need in these threads is proofreading help, though. Its too fast and unorganized for playtesting, but reading the rules and helping with clarity is also an important part and can really help.

Parts is really good, rather than the whole, as long as enough context is given. I keep falling into that one. Its hard to talk about the math for a system unless some idea of all the numbers involved is given.

>>49658892
3 at most, I think. It depends on how the bonuses come into play. Very similar sources, easy to track and remember, but the more disjointed they are from each other, the hard to remember them, even if its simple like a +1.

>>49658082
>Get it now?
No. 2 meat HP doesn't necessarily mean you are about to lose consciousness; it could merely mean you lose the stakes of the engagement. 2 social HP is similar: just as a person has only so much stamina before they lose consciousness, they only have so much patience before they decide to either give up the stakes or escalate the conflict.

>>49658892
My game has no numerical modifiers - instead you adjust the target number up or down, and even then it never goes beyond three steps one way or the other. This keeps the math rare, and fast when it does happen. It also means you know whether you succeed or fail as soon as you see the dice.

>>49659143
>they only have so much patience before they decide to either give up the stakes or escalate the conflict.

So you are raping player agency to straight-up rip combat systems into social interaction where the rules are different, so you can masturbate to your ivory-tower game that falls apart in real play even though "logically" it makes perfect sense.

Except when you theorycraft a piece of shit no one wants to play, it doesn't matter how "good" it is when no one wants to play it because no one wants these kinds of autistic restrictions on their game that make zero fucking sense.

>>49658696

I'd post a poll somewhere else then post the results here after taking a screenshot / closing the poll or setting it to expire, but the thread would be dead by then. And admit it, no one in here is going to give an honest answer. But fuck it, I'll try it anyway.

http://www.strawpoll.me/11372053

>>49658892

Like 2 or 3. Seriously you should not need to ask this question. You don't need a fucking +1 to hit in daylight. At least don't do what 5e did and eliminate all restrictions so that you can't take cover behind a wall to get a benefit because any bonus that isn't advantage / disadvantage is evil.

Make your game just be aware of extreme cricumstances.

>>49659175
>My game has no numerical modifiers - instead you adjust the target number up or down, and even then it never goes beyond three steps one way or the other.

That's the exact same thing, faggot, except with an abitrary cap. Try designing your game to not have 200 autistic modifiers that break the core mechanic and maybe you would not need these kinds of kludgy rules that make your game look like a poorly-thrown-together mess.

>>49659219
I need a +1 to hit in daylight in my game.

>>49659197
>player agency
Why should players be allowed to say, "My character always has the patience of a saint, never gets frustrated or embarrassed and always gets his way in the end"?

File: combatreference.png (237KB, 1700x1348px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1700x1348px

You guys ever make handouts for your games? I got a playtest coming soon so I figured I'd make a quick reference for a few things. I got this one for combat and I'm going to make one for exploration.

>>49659219
>That's the exact same thing, faggot, except with an abitrary cap.
I think you'll find in play it feels pretty different. The cap isn't set in stone - it's impossible to determine every possible circumstance the players will create, but in most cases they simply won't come near 3 either way.

The vast majority of scenarios warranting adjustment can be covered by the umbrella of "circumstance"; whether positive or negative, you only adjust by one step; multiple circumstances don't stack. It's the same concept as advantage/disadvantage in 5E: you either have it or you don't.

The next most likely possibility is that the players use a move that reduces difficulty (ie "You slash your sword extra good, reduce the attack roll's difficulty by one step." or "You're real mad, do +1 damage on this attack but increase the difficulty of your next defense by one step."). Again, the game is designed so that these moves only ever adjust the difficulty by one step and because you only use one at once, you can't get +/- 2.

Finally, there are moves that buff/debuff other characters. The gambler class grants everyone in the party -1 difficulty on their next roll if he gets boxcars, for example. Even less likely, only one step, still don't stack (you're either bolstered, neutral or undermined).

Putting these three together is pretty unlikely (at least until high level play), but adding even more is less likely. There aren't a lot of possible modifiers, but for the sake of speed and simplicity it's best to roll them into overarching categories. And honestly, I'm thinking of rolling buff/debuff into circumstance too.

Hoo boy. I guess I'll jump into the discussion since I took the time to read all of it.

>>49655971
So Social Combat is all about resource management? Perfect. There's plenty of ways to make it different than Physical Combat.

However, >>49656519 soured it on me. At this point I'm more in agreement with Angry Anon's opinion. The mechanics are unnecessary and the terminology is particularly jarring. "Wounds" especially has to be changed to something more appropriate if its going to be the "health" mechanic for the whole game (Penalty, Malus, etc).

In the spirit of constructive criticism, I'll give some advice according to how I could see this concept working.

Lets assume there's Physical (Strength, HP, normal combat rules etc) and Spiritual (Magic, supernatural, Sanity, etc.). Those are both pretty established and there isn't much to complain about. Now we get to Social where all the problems are. Social is defined as resource management, so needs to change either how much resource (money, fame, w/e) is gained and/or how much is spent. This idea already seems somewhat established, but it needs to be unique and separate from how Physical and Spiritual work.

The key is creating an interaction between those three aspects. Dig into DnD 4e. It had 3 defenses built around Strength/Constitution (Fortitude), Dexterity/Intelligence (Reflex), and Wisdom/Charisma (Will). This would be perfect to incorporate. A Physical-based character needs ways to combat and damage both Social and Spiritual characters without delving into Physical combat where he is strong. A Business Tycoon should never fight a Warrior, so he'll spend his resource [Money] to fight the Warrior either with hired men or by another appropriate means. The Warrior cannot compete with the Business Tycoon on a Social level, so the Warrior will find ways where he can weaken the Tycoon using his strengths (physicality).

cont.

>>49655094
>"How's that system coming along, /tg/?"
Terribly. I was prettying up a pdf of a rules light system for you all to critique and then my hard drive fried everything.

I had written it with the 4 humors as both your core stats and your resource pool for different abilities. So your stats would adjust as you played, with sicknesses coming on as you temporarily unbalanced your health drawing on your supernatural powers.

I'm probably just gonna drop the idea for a while now.

>>49659676
This could be accomplished by defeating the mercenaries in gladiatorial combat to weaken the Tycoon's reputation and/or funds (can the Tycoon not afford the best fighters?). Or, perhaps the Warrior decides to actually attack the Tycoons business itself causing significant financial and/or reputational damage (can the Tycoon not protect his own people?). Likewise, the Tycoon will try to look for ways where he can use his strengths to both attack weaknesses and reduce the enemy's strengths. Perhaps the Tycoon knows the Warrior isn't very Spiritual, and so he can pay someone to take advantage of a vice the Warrior can't ignore, leaving him ill prepared for the fighting ring. The dynamic between those three systems (Damage vs Health, Virtue vs Vice, and Income vs Expense) is where the draw for such a system will be. That's what would get me to play and share it with others.

Specifically about the d6 pools, I wouldn't add them up myself, especially with upwards of 6 dice. Some people just cannot into math which has the potential to slow down the game significantly, especially if you have two who both cannot into. Addition is fast and preferable to most other forms of math, but comparisons are even faster. I'd consider using a Risk/War style and just determine which are higher of the two. Figure out what specifically runs the fastest and easiest.

That's mostly all I wanted to say. I'll stick around to answer/comment on anything else I can. I especially like questions about "Why?" people choose certain mechanics over others.

My game has social combat. You use the same rules as physical combat, including the same HP pool. You're just browbeating instead of backbreaking.

The difference is that at the beginning of any confrontation scene ("when time is of the essence and every second counts"), the players and GM agree on the stakes: "If we win, he'll let us into the building, no problem; if we lose, he isn't convinced we're the cleaning crew." Of course, escalating to violence is an option, just as talking someone down is.

Losing all your HP doesn't necessarily represent unconsciousness or death; it just means you can't participate in the scene any longer. If the stakes are a battle to the death, NPCs are likely to deescalate the conflict when their HP gets low.

>>49659821
that sucks, but thanks for reminding me to upload my updates.

>>49659884
you'll need to post the rules as it is somewhat hard to understand with just that.

>>49660136
I would, but I don't think they're in a state to post right now. It works pretty much like PbtA: each turn the player selects a move and it effects the target in some way.

The difference is that characters have a set of approaches (force, guile, passion and logic) and passive traits that, when combined with a move, have different effects.

So a Guile Attack in a fight might be something like a sneak attack, but in an argument could be an outright lie; either way, you're rolling to succeed in either sneaking up and stabbing or convincing the target of the lie, same roll. But you might have a trait along the lines of, "When you try to convince someone a lie is true, get a bonus die" or whatever.

I realize that is pretty hard to understand without reading the rules and having the rest of the system as context; I'll probably post in a couple weeks.

File: card.png (17KB, 427x408px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 427x408px

Each number represents a kind of value. While most cards won't have all of these values, this is the maximum possible amount and it won't be especially rare. My question is, is it too cluttered?

5 and 6 are values that a card grants to your leader thing. While I could just write that in rules text, it's a pretty fundamental thing and something you might want to be easily glanceable.

8 isn't written numerically, and is instead shown via number of symbols(here: 3). So the number of numerals on this is actually 7.

>>49659497
It's time to download InDesign. At least use an 8.5x11 canvas and try to organize things.

>>49660782
It's time to download Inkscape or Illustrator.

>>49658691
>>49658976
Thanks for the feedback guys, I will keep that in mind!

Need some feedback. I want to make something generic in the vein of GURPS but much less rules-y. I want to use a 2d6 mechanic because I've played a lot of Savage Worlds and I am sick to death of exploding dice. I mean I love the system but I need a break.

So I'm not trying to do anything *too* new and fantastical here. I'm planning to use this for a zombie campaign so things are going to be pretty lethal.

But anyway, my idea is, 10 character points, skills cost 1/3/6 for 1/2/3 points, the system is 2d6 + skill versus 8 for a basic check. Each range bracket has a TN to hit (6/8/10) and there will be some other ranged combat stuff. Hit points are 8 + Fortitude skill, Defense is 8 + Agility skill, Movement is 8 base I think. Maybe 5. I don't know how long rounds should be. I almost feel like 3 seconds is better than 6. Or 1 seconds like GURPS but that's almost too long.

Anyway, my skill list is:

> Fighting
> Shooting
> Throwing
> Strength
> Agility
> Piloting
> Stealth
> Perception
> Persuasion
> Survival

etc etc.

Traits are going to be stuff like Sharpshooter specialization that give you an extra bonus when you spend a round to aim (aiming will be a default action anyway), or Heavy Hitter that lets you reroll 1s on your melee damage dice.

For damage I'm figuring 1d6 for small melee, 1d6+1 for medium melee, 1d6+2 for 2-handed melee. A pistol will deal 2d6, a rifle or shotgun 2d6+2, and shotguns will give a +1 to hit because muh buckshot, but also get -2 / -4 damage at longer ranges.

Autofire I'm not sure what to do. I'm thinking iterative attacks: you can spend 5 bullets to shoot once normally, another 5 to shoot another attack at -2, another 5 to shoot another attack at -4, etc., thus escalating recoil. I mean with 2d6 you're going to have to roll these attacks one at a time anyway. So you could empty a mag in one round if you wanted to but by the end you'd be shooting at like -8.

Oh and boxcars / snake eyes are autohit/automiss in combat.

>>49661188

So yeah that might be pretty gay but I'm just going to be using it for myself. So some starting character can have like Fighting 2, Shooting 1, Agility 1, Stealth 1, Cooking 1 (i dunno) and that would be a total of 3+1+1+1+1 points spent, so he could spend 2 points on the heavy hitter trait for example and then 1 point on another skill. He'd have Defense 9, Vitality 8 and he could wear armor for DR. So 1 or 2 shots or a couple swings would put someone down.

I kinda want to recreate the Savage Worlds toughness system but with bounded accuracy. Almost like M&M but less swingy. Dunno what to really do. I don't want to have to use exploding dice but I don't want the whole "lol you literally can't do damage to this guy cause you deal 2d6 and his toughness is 13" issue.

So I know we're supposed to submit .pdf's for review instead of chucking ideas at each other without context, but I literally had this idea on a train today and haven't had a chance to make it cohesive yet, so bear with me.
Basically, the players take control of massively powerful beings (name to be determined- tempted to call them Sovereigns), which are giant mechs/warriors/monsters/sorcerers/manifestations of the divine, depending on your class. Whereas in a traditional system a level one enemy might be a kobold, here it would be a kobold pack; instead of a bandit, you face an ambush of twenty or more, etcetera. Interspersed in these mobs of enemies you get more difficult enemies that are on scale with the players- ancient golems, enemy Sovereigns, powerful spirits, small deities, naval vessels and the like.
Does this seem like an engaging idea? What issues do you think it could have?

>>49661299
Might want to look at Exalted, Godbound, Scion or Tenra Bansho Zero; they all deal with higher power levels.

So I have a system I have been working on for a few years, slowly refining it bit by bit. Currently is a bit like this.

Point buy character creation. 6 attributes same ones from D20 but handled differently. All rolls are handled by 2d10. Additive for most skill checks, percentile for certain table results. Skills level up individually with use or with allocating time to training.

With how wildly different most of the system is from D20 it feels wrong to have the 6 attributes from D20. But how can I change it? It feels too right as it is. But I also kind of hate D20 for all the rest of what D20 is. Should I just keep the 6 attributes, and proudly declare I am salvaging the only good thing from the OGL? Or is there a better way I am missing?

>>49660849
I don't see how the aesthetic is important for a reference I'm only going to use with my home group for a handful of sessions. As long as the pertinent info fits on a single sheet of paper, that's all that's actually needed. Time is a commodity I'd rather use for rules documents, adventures or things I'd actually release rather than caring about the line weight of a reference sheet.

Do you have any reference sheets or whatnot that you've made for your players? Or anything relevant for that matter?
>>49661299
I'd recommend godbound as something to look into. A major issue would be how "a group being treated as a single unit" and "a single individual" interfaces in the system when they're not interacting directly with players.
It could be a neat idea. Honestly, putting snippets of things rather than your entire system online, tends to get more feedback in these threads.

>>49661299
This is a gimmick idea.

Most bored, dumb people love gimmicks more than real innovation.

So i think you should see it through.

>>49655094
>How's that system coming along, /tg/?
Well, since everytime I play a new system with my group I think "wow, this is good, I want something like that" I decided to read all the books of good rpg I know and mark down the mechanics or design choice I like and then tweak it my way. I still have twenty books to read, so...It will take some time.

>>49662278
Different games have different attributes and honestly I think this has little impact on a game on its own. Rather the number of attributes is a signal about how complex the game is generally going to be, and even then it isn't always accurate. But the general rule is that more attributes gives you more room for granularity.

The number of attributes should be determined by how many your game actually needs and how it actually uses them. Some games, like d20, have separate STR and DEX scores; this lets characters specialize in either strong attacks or fast attacks (as an example). There is a similar dichotomy between WIS and INT. Other games, meanwhile, combine these into a single Body or Mind stat; this reduces book keeping but also means players can't be as specialized in one specific thing - because the purview of the stat has expanded, they will be good at more things.

It all depends on what you want for your game, not on what dice you roll or whether they're roll over or percentile or anything like that.

Question for the thread:

If you use a skill system, how does it work? Is it the main resolution system or does it share space with others (I.e. combat and magic)?

If you don't use a skill system, why did you decide not to?

File: elf and barbarian.jpg (155KB, 1258x629px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1258x629px

>>49664132
Skills solve everything in my game.

>>49664132
At the moment i'm trialing the idea that instead of skills with a specific '+1 to dodging bullets' format instead having one that grants bonuses in general areas. Along with that i'm trying to write suggestions as to where certain skills might be used and where they would not be applicable

For example.

Hardy - Through a harsh lifestyle or natural robustness, your pilot is tougher than others

Uses -
>Resisting the effects of stun, enduring very high or very low temperatures, shrugging off minor bumps and scrapes
Cannot be used for (probably a better term to use here)
>Ignoring direct wounds or fire damage, ignoring stun tests, long term starvation/dehydration, Mental trauma

Thoughts?

>>49665511
could work if you have few effects with keywords.

I've been working on a dogfighter game (like planes, and starfox) for a while. I think I basically stole combat from the star wars X-Wing game, where you pick directions and actions, flip them all at once, and see what happens as far as collisions and whatnot go. The ground game is all worked out, but I'm not sure the flying combat is fast enough for a group coop game.

>>49664132
Casting spells and attacking are skills checks. So skills are used for almost everything.

Fortunately, skill checks are easy and quick. I won't know for certain until the first live play test, but I'm pretty sure the games pace won't be effected.

So my card game's resource system has two factors: level and energy cost. But now I'm not too sure level is necessary.

You have three AP to spend per turn, and it costs one AP to play a card or create a medium. Each medium reduces energy costs by 1, causing you to gain energy if it goes negative. Level is a minimum number of mediums you need before you can play the card, so e.g. it's impossible to play a level 3 card on turn 1.

My original idea is that cards that grant incremental advantage would be restricted more by level than energy cost, but I switched to a combat system that allows nearly everything to be removed through combat, so it's harder to get reliable advantage out of something that provides it incrementally.

>>49659676
>>49659830
I have actually put some thought into this, how the three sections interact. Because of the general consensus from the thread I have decided to rename each of them to be more clear. I need some opinions on the new naming scheme.

Before you take a wound you have a certain amount of leeway. These are called:
Physical -> Strain
Spiritual -> Stress
Social -> Complication

When one takes a semi-permanent penalty to one of these they are called a different thing:
Physical -> Strain -> Wound
Spiritual -> Stress -> Temptation
Social -> Complication -> Crisis

These three can be reversed, but each have a chance (if left unattended to) of progressing into a loss.
Physical -> Strain -> Wound -> Loss of Life
Spiritual -> Stress -> Temptation -> Loss of Control
Social -> Complication -> Crisis -> Loss of Means

Each of these losses are possibly recoverable, but at different levels. Loss of Means is the easiest to recover, as it is when you simply lose that resource. This could cause a downward spiral to throw you into poverty, but one can simply spend points again to recover it. Loss of Control is more different, essentially any time you encounter your vice you lose control of your character for days/weeks (an vice for alcohol becomes both easy to trigger and devastating when done). Extreme loss of control can also lead to your magic taking over your body entirely, which is where a lot of the theme’s of body horror for the main game come from. Loss of Life is the hardest and only is really recoverable with powerful magic and require the body to be intact (which is often not the case).

>>49670171
You might be better off just letting each have "stress" and "breaks" or something similar.

Also your three things don't have the same specificity in their outcomes.

In any case I'd still strongly advise you to reconsider even continuing this project. Or to at least put it on the back burner, work on something else, and come back to it with fresh eyes.

>>49670208
>You might be better off just letting each have "stress" and "breaks" or something similar.
Homogenizing the terms may be better, yes. I was doing that before, but in the wrong way.

>Also your three things don't have the same specificity in their outcomes.
I am not sure what you mean by this.

>In any case I'd still strongly advise you to reconsider even continuing this project. Or to at least put it on the back burner, work on something else, and come back to it with fresh eyes.
This is don't really agree with, I think I'm going to continue it for the time beings.

>>49670171

Now I have thought of how the three tracks should influence one another. Some of them are easy. Physical actions can influence social by destroying resources, or spiritual by putting someone in a situation where they are tempted. Social influencing the other two are also easy, using ones political/financial power to purchase mercenaries to attack someone, or to force someone to where their vice is catered to. Spiritual to the others would simply be done through magic.

I have also been thinking about dice. Comparison is faster, and people seem to able to handle counting successes more easily than adding numbers. Now, I looked at fudge dice for this, but made the average higher (and checked this against the game’s math). 5&6 being success, 1 being failures, so any dice will average above 0. It makes it easier for a 1d6 to beat a 2d6 but still makes larger differences obvious. Adding and Subtracting 1s are easy to handle, and even more so if you use dice specifically for it (though I hate proprietary dice).

Now this brings up how one goes along the tracks above. Whenever you make a roll (since all rolls are contested) there are 5 possible outcomes. Big Loss, Loss, Tie, Win, Big Win, these are defined by the following: Have more than 2 less success, having less success, having the same number of successes, having more success, having more than 2 more successes. In win and loss are actually the same when it comes to the tracks, simply for who gains Stress/Strain/Complications. For losses the attacker gains them, for wins the defender does. On a tie the action occurs but no stress/strain/complication was obtained on either side. Now if Stress/Strain/Complications go over a threshold they spill over into the next level, which is where the d100 chart comes in.

I still don’t know about the d100 chart. I am considering simplifying it to another d6 based rolling to determine what it is effecting and the severity (which would differ between realms).

>>49670171
The names are better. Its the lesser of all other issues though.

I would make the end penalties the same severity for Physical, Spiritual, and Social with Loss of Life being the 4th, ultimate progression that all three paths lead into. As you mentioned, a Loss of Means is easily recoverable. Physically you might instead suffer a serious injury, but you can recover from that. Spiritually you might lose control as mentioned, or you lose the desire to act, etc. Physically death is self-explanatory. Spiritually they could let the warp take them. Socially their reputation and funds could be so shattered that only in a rare case could they make a comeback (akin to physically or spiritually coming back from death/npc-hood).

Summarized, it could progress from Penalty -> Wound -> Injury -> Death. Each stage would have equivalent requirement for recovery, and ultimately end in the same place, with life or livelihood gone.

I can't remember if its mentioned (and I'm not going to go back and read 100+ posts to check), but what is your source material anyway?

>>49670262
This is sounding a lot better. I'd also look into changing the d100 wounds chart. It feels more intuitive to have a wound stem from the action that caused it, and I'm not sure a random roll chart will suffice.

>>49670524
I have been thinking of it acting in a manner similar to this for physical combat:
>separate wounds into one of six "areas" (these being head, arms, legs, upper torso, lower torso
>person says what they want to injure a particular area
>how much they have gone over the stress limit determines how severe the penalty is (opposition dice going from 1 to 6 again)

For spiritual it is similar except it impairs mental abilities, which are determines by sections of the brain (there will be a chart).

For social it instead only targets 3, and always hurts the resource that was being used to attack/defend instead of bleeding over, and simply hurts what they were using to attack or what they were using to defend, rather than rolling.

>>49670457
>I can't remember if its mentioned (and I'm not going to go back and read 100+ posts to check), but what is your source material anyway?
I have an outdated 40 page PDF that reflect the rules as they were 3 versions ago.

>Summarized, it could progress from Penalty -> Wound -> Injury -> Death. Each stage would have equivalent requirement for recovery, and ultimately end in the same place, with life or livelihood gone.
Actually something to speak towards this. I have ideas for how this would work.

In the main rule book all magic is done through deals made with metaphysical parasites. If one gives them too much (falls to their vices) the parasite can take over and wrestle control from the indivudal. Effectively loosing the character, and be where the body horror comes from as it remodels the body.

That is spiritual death vs the loss of control which is spiritual injury.

Creating permanent wounds in the form of injuries as a halfway point to death would solve it for physical.

Now the issue is, how does losing one's business kill you? Killing the business is a thing, however how should it result in character loss? In the setting you as a PC are part of a secret society trying to effect the world from behind a veil, so loss of one's resources to a degree (having 0 resources) would essentially mean you can no longer effect the world on a scale any larger than personal. This would be effective social death.

Another way it could work is that most resources, as they are now, are positive. Being able to incur a negative resource (one that is purely a drain). Perhaps having no resources and having a negative resource forces one to simply be unable to effect the world on a scale larger than personal.


>>49670699
For this in spiritual. An individual spell would be tied to a different part of the brain, same with a vice.

>>49670722
>>49670699
Also instead of impairing body parts it could instead only impair one skill at a time with wounds. Though that feels really odd at times (with something that injures my ability to shoot also not injuring my ability to swing a blade).

>>49670722
>
Now the issue is, how does losing one's business kill you? Killing the business is a thing, however how should it result in character loss? In the setting you as a PC are part of a secret society trying to effect the world from behind a veil, so loss of one's resources to a degree (having 0 resources) would essentially mean you can no longer effect the world on a scale any larger than personal. This would be effective social death.

This is along the lines of what I was thinking. Without money you might become homeless. Without reputation or authority you might not ever be able to make money again. Perhaps all your secrets were revealed and so now you rot in jail. However it happens, its assumed to be as difficult to come back from as a Physical or Spiritual death.

>>49670833
Spiritual death ends with your body walking around, but what ever you made a deal with being the owner.

I suppose a way to do it with social death, because the game is focused on secret societies fighting one another, is simply a secret society against you absorbs your territory/resources and you no longer can break back into it.

This however would add a layer of complexity in territory wars between secret societies.

File: shitposting.jpg (86KB, 1427x187px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1427x187px

>half way on translating my game to english
>I'm bored as hell

I wish I had friends I could speak to right now.

>>49670247
>I am not sure what you mean by this.
A "loss of means" is drastically less clear on its own than a "loss of life" is.

One the reader will understand immediately. The other is going to need a lot of qualification and context. The latter is prone to being ignored or abused in play.

>This is don't really agree with, I think I'm going to continue it for the time beings.

I don't have a clear idea of what anyone is going to do with these rules. I don't mean in a vague "play with them" sense, but in the sense that I don't get the vibe that you're putting any kind of game structure front and center. Say what you will about D&D, but there's a reason that the core actions (combat and physical exploration of a limited space) spawned a huge genre fucking everywhere.

There's other similarly specific stuff you can build a game around. Mystery. Kingdom management. Overland exploration. Trade. I don't have a clear idea of what I'd really be doing if I was playing this game.

And before you say something about GURPS, a huge factor in GURPS's popularity was its comprehensive supplements. Which went a long way towards answering the "what are we doing?" question.

It further seems like you're starting with mechanics and seeing what you can do with them, rather than building mechanics around specific goals. There are a lot of solutions in search of problems. The long bit about tracks influencing each other, for example. Or needing five possible outcomes for every check. Or the "attacker/defender" getting "stress" out of failing even though not-technically-opposed checks are still treated as opposed (for some reason). So now I'm just left with questions about why the wall I'm trying to climb can be stressed by the attempt.

>>49671698
>It further seems like you're starting with mechanics and seeing what you can do with them, rather than building mechanics around specific goals.
My end goal is players being secret magic illuminati essentially.

>>49671769
This should really be what you lead with, then. Both in pitching your game and in deciding on what makes a good or bad mechanical decision.

>>49671698
>So now I'm just left with questions about why the wall I'm trying to climb can be stressed by the attempt.
Oh actually I need to talk about this, I didn't state it above. "Inherent opposition" (which is just theoretically difficulty of a situation, like climbing a wall) can't gain stress. Or jumping a chasm. Or smithing a rifle. Spells can't receive stress.

How bad is it to have no-brainer choices in a games system?

I've tried to condense as much as possible of my prospective system into skills, but that does mean that skills that grant a direct combat benefit are going to be must-haves for all player characters. For balance reasons, and to keep the system and character sheet simple, I would rather keep things the way they are - but how do people feel about that sort of thing?

Mm, I'm working on a space opera system about transhumanism. I meant it to be serious, but looking at it I realize the system is just all kinds of wacky, which is fine. I lack the means to playtest it easily, though.

>>49671838
Using unnecessarily complicated solutions for broadly applicable procedures creates edge cases like this. Being able to address them on a case by case basis doesn't really do anything but demonstrate that this game is going to progressively bloat when the rubber hits the road and you need a new qualifier for each instance.

There's a reason the core resolution is usually the part of the game with the fewest steps and moving parts.

>>49671946
I mean the only distinction is:
>actions/spells can't take stress
>people/objects (if doing something that can damage them)/resources can

>>49671841
No brainer choices are usually not great if you don't want players behaving very consistently and ignoring a lot of the options you're putting effort into writing.

If you agree with that line of thought, you still have many options. You could divide combat and non combat skills into separate pools, lump shit together into classlike or professionlike units balanced against each other, build out or tweak additional game structures (spot can be crazy important to combat if you get like a turn and a half for surprise in a two-turn-combat game), or use less traditional means of buying skills (like auctions or lifepaths). You could even accept it, nix combat skill purchasing and just assume everyone's good in a fight. The wildly distinct niche thing isn't mandatory in RPGs. You could all be soldiers or whatever.

>>49671983
It's like watching someone write the rules for skill challenges all over again.

>>49672020
You've got some good points there, although each of those options would add more math on both sides of the GM screen. I'll take them into consideration.

I do believe I've already gotten around the issue of consistent behaviour, however, and it makes perfect sense for every character to buy the must-haves. Obviously I can't explain the entire system to you here, but what I'm really wondering is whether you'd meaningfully disapprove of the existence of no-brainers on general principle.

Or more simply put, perhaps, would you be willing to deal with additional math in order to be free of no-brainer choices, when removing them makes no actual mechanical difference, except to make your combat power advancement less gradual?

>>49672545
I mean overvalued combat isn't a deal breaker, it's just less than ideal.

>>49672063
Quite possibly.

>>49671888
Serious is overrated.

I'm hashing out shit for a crunchy mecha/jet fighting system.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V9UWzc0jFSZjHSH91EHbECV14MjNSeTsaEMXc5wDpac/edit?usp=sharing Here's what I fucking got so far. All that probability shit is going to get cut out eventually, but I have it there so I can wrap my head around how the numbers behave.

>>49657502

If half of your WIP is in Spanish and the other half is in an untranslated conlang, it would still be better than most of the thread so far. Go for it, man.

>>49655094
Just finished my dungeon crawler inspired system.
It mostly features a realistic view of the world of Etrian Odyssey (so no lolis for instance), with mechanics heavily taken from D&D 5e (classes and combats) and Call of Cthulhu (madness/danger and character progression).

Going to playtest it tonight with my group. The game's main focus are the mysteries of the world and its violent beasts.

I won't share my adventurer's guide yet since it's in french, but if anyone's interested I can post more.

Do you guys have a purpose behind your systems? Do they bring something to the table no one else does? Are you doing it just for the mental exercise? To prove that you can?

>>49678422
I started my projects for the exercise, but if I can get the exercise, prove to myself that I can, and bringing something relatively new to the table, then why not all three?

>>49678422

Started off as an attempt to fix a bunch of problems I had with the source system, but over time has diverged so thoroughly from the source that its parentage is now largely unidentifiable.

Setting idea: ten years ago, the world was a generic fantasy setting, then an adventuring party screwed up their final quest, unleashed hell, and now medieval Europe has gone apocalyptic.

bad/good/been done?

>>49678422
Personally, I did it because all the systems we've tried so far have had big flaws, and I thought that if I spent enough time mathing, I could get rid of them all.

Going pretty good so far.

>>49678422
All of the above, it usually begins as a "what if?" and shower thoughts because its a hobby of mine, then it becomes a test to prove that it can be interesting and offer new things, usually with a unique setting/mechanic or by mashing different ideas together.

>>49678136
Thanks anon, I almost finished translating it, Right now I'm finishing the bestiary and then its just the GMs aid.

>>49678422
Tried to fix a small problem in Shadowrun.
It lead to new problems which I fixed too.
Now I have a new setting with new rules.

Working on a boardgame.
It's coming along slowly, very slowly.
I will finish it one day.

Thanks for reading my blog.

>>49678422
It was a thought exercise. I sometimes just think about game mechanics.

I decided to write it down, add to it, build upon it. Now I want to play it.

Not sure if it fixes problems or brings something new.

>>49678821
I think it would be nice for a campaign but i'm not sure if it can feed an entire system

At least not in this stage, being pretty vague and all

What makes your post-apoc medieval europe with magic unique/enjoyable?

Been crunching and playtesting a large variety of dice systems lately, and have come across one that's been pretty fun and has a very satisfying feel to it. I'm calling it the XdYkZ dice system, where;

X (number of dice rolled. 2 by default) is skill, raising precision/reliability.

Y (type of die, either coin,d4,d6,d8,d10, or d12. D6 by default) represents attribute, raising your maximum possible roll, and significantly boosting your mean.

Z (number of dice "kept", or counted for result. 2 by default.) is expenditure of a narrative/magic resource. Z always equals 2 unless you have specifically paid (in a metacurrency like fatepoints) to raise it. This gives some narrative control and decision making to thee players and allows dramatic exceptions to normal maximums.

Any thoughts on the system itself?

The main problem I have with it right now is that attribute steps overshadow skill rank far too much. A max skill (5) d6 has a lower mean than a barely trained (1) d8 character, and is regularly beaten by even a total novice (0) d10 character. Attribute steps, for the record, are separately measured for Physique, Finesse, Intelligence, and Charisma. Does such difference in power between tiers of physical size and athleticism seem appropriate? And if not, any ideas how I could tweak the system to balance things out?

File: Yampes Rules.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49678136
here is the translation, I believe a couple of things in there are still in Spanish but I need to go now.

>>49678422
I made this ruleset because my friends never bothered to learn the games we played, always canceled or had other things to do and we spent always one day just making characters. But when we finally managed to play we all had a lot of fun.

Now I don't have anyone to play with, but with this I make characters in less than 10 mins, can play on any setting, can play from superheroes to lousy soldiers and is crunchy enough for my taste and free enough to make rules on the fly.

So in conclusion, this is my perfect game. Right now its still on beta and there is more that is not right now on the pdf.

>>49682144
My system is quite similar and has a similar problem.

My solution, thus far, has been to make raising stats a very costly endeavour, penalize untrained skill tests (result is divided by two, that 0d10 roll has an outcome of 1-5) and provide bonuses on specific rolls through the Mastery system.

Long story short, a character with d10 STR is significantly stronger than one with d6, but if the d6 guy is rolling 5 die he's going to consistently do well. Skill counts for a lot, but ability is still quite important.

>>49682144
Consider just swapping the two and letting attributes matter less than skill?

>>49682282
The goal is for skill and attributes to contribute in different, flavorful ways. By increasing the number of dice rolled (while keeping the kept dice constant) you are dramatically decreasing the standard deviation of the bell curve, stepping up the die increases your mean by a lot, but actually increases your deviation too.

Like >>49682281 said;
What this means is that a master might not average as high a number as an unskilled goliath/genius, but they almost always get a 10, 11, or 12, and can any task that requires less than 12 successes with extreme confidence that they wont fail. Unskilled genius, meanwhile, averages a higher number and can hit 16 on a good day, but he will sometime just roll <8 (23%), the master never does that bad (3%).

X dramatically reduces your chance of embarrassing failure, Y dramatically increases your potential, they are tied by flavor to represent practice and talent respectively.

Now that I write it out, maybe the problem isn't as bad as I thought. Master basically just has to bide his time and wait for Goliath to fuck up bad. If the mechanics naturally favor the defender this wouldn't be too hard to design.

>>49682580
Ability represents a persons potential, skill represents the odds of them achieving that potential.

>>49682580
Our systems seem to have nearly identical rolling mechanics, but yours seems to add the results. Mine has the roller choose the highest result (or results, in the case of actions like multi attack).

I've thought about switching from highest roll to additive roll, what would you say are the advantages?

Though just knowing you're using an additive system is pushing me to stick with what I've been using.

>>49683441
At a glance

Mine has a bell curve while yours has a bell slope, in other words, for your system, assuming the character rolls more than one dice, the most likely outcome is the maximum result. While in mine the most likely outcome is somewhere right of center of all possible outcomes, increasingly right with more dice, but never the actual maximum. Id say additive wins this one, players like knowing that there is a possibility for an "above average" result, and when they get that result it is very hype when they know the odds were low.

Also, because the maximum result is heavily favored in your system, the "problem" I was discussing earlier is worsened (because d10 has a higher maximum than d6). Not by a ton, but slightly.

On the other hand

Yours requires less math, making things quicker, which is always nice.

If I had to make a dichotomy I'd say its like this.

Additive is better for opposed rolls. The results are more granular, meaning a more design space robust system of bonus and malus, and there is some accuracy bounding with the bell curve.

However

Yours is better for unopposed rolls (skill checks and so on) for the simple matter that DCs are a nightmare in the additive version of this system. In yours, all possible results lay between 1-12 for each test (unless you allow d20s). While probability is different for every combination of dice number and type, you have a small, sane range of possible outcomes to account for and compare when deciding what the target number for a particular task should be. In mine, results range between 1-24, which muddies things already, but the presence of a real bell curve further complicates things, as there is no way of knowing the most probably outcome without complex math. There is no way for a GM to confidently decide the difficulty of a task without consulting some kind of advanced, prepared chart, which I guess I am going to have to make. . . A task I dread, and am not even entirely sure can be done well.

>>49655559
kek'd

Am I a shitty unworthy designer for using the basic concepts of Simple D6, remaking them, expanding outward and making a game that on day two of my designing is already at 8 pages with no fluff?

I feel like shite for having to use it as a chassis but It has such a nice simple rolling system that it's exactly what I needed for my game, I have only kept the very basics and have ripped apart and replaced all of the rest of it.

Should I kill myself for dreaming I could do this /tg/?

>>49684345
wtf are you talking about? why are you so extremely pessimistic about such a simple matter?

>>49684390
I guess I'm used to being shit on for trying to contribute on /tg/ I used to participate on drawthreads but got driven off by the great artists who thought I needed to go practice alone and not submit until I was a skilled artist.

>>49684345
I can't even decide on 3d6 vs d20, both have so many advantages and disadvantage It's ridiculous.

>>49684490
I like the building design of D6, that the more skills you have the more D6's you get

>>49684436
well, just practice and keep posting, people will always tell you you are shit, but that is just how people is, the best way to compete is to eliminate the competition, and even if its sad we live in this world that's the way it is. So just keep drawing/creating games and research about how to do it.

You just need a look at deviant art to know there are people worst than you that get praised every day.

>>49684810
that is true anon thanks for the pep talk though I'm probably gonna stick to game dev instead of drawing, I may not be a good sketch artist but I am a cook so I have that.

>>49684490
Personally, the one I'm almost done with (woo!) uses 3d6 for combat purposes for the sole fact that I use Xd6>Y, Z Successes for the skill half, and static numbers for damage. It just makes it easier on introductory players needing to learn all the different sided dice. They just need to crack open the board games they have around, or buy a bunch of d6.

>>49685055
Just do what makes you happy, and if making your own game will do the trick, then do it, just start with what you want, for example I started using d10s in my game then switched to d6 because they are more readily available and I actually found it to be harder to build around.
And cooking is pretty cool anon, I'm starting to study cooking as a career because my old one isn't giving me anything. Cooking is great and you should be proud to do it.

>>49671888
There's already a couple of serious transhuman RPGs. As far as I know, there are no silly ones. So there's a niche you could fill.

>>49685176
Yeah things have fallen apart in my home group so I want to make a new system and to try and geta few closer friends to play long story don't ask

I need to work on mine more its currently a building D6 based game that uses HP of stats to dictate maximum usable dice so people don't just infinitely buy skills to build into infinite glass cannons.

it is very rewarding Anon, I work full time as a cook while I am working on my bachelors degree.

>>49678422
I started to search other good medieval fantastic game, to stop playing D&D with my group (we love med fan but D&D... well)
I tried different game and stuck with Burning Wheel. But then I noticed things I didn't liked and I began to make modifications, etc. And then I worked so much I wondered why I couldn't make my own system directly.
So, I'm doing just that. It's pretty fun so far. I don't hope to sell it at all, I just want to make it for me and play with my friends. Selling it would be a nice bonus tho.

>>49685415
Punishing a character by being half health can be tricky, in fact a lot of RPGs actually do it the other way, giving them something more when they are dying. Are you sure the problem is about glass cannons? maybe its actually the fact that tanks need a buff. Why not instead of giving them penalties, buff tank builds?

It's nice to see the love for cooking in cooks. In fact I've yet to meet one that doesn't like his job.

>>49685497
The total HP not current so the purpose is that a persons HP is like the capacity to use kill related to the ability, there is no penalty for being low on HP (Save for when it hits 0) its to make sure people have to grow in character instead of just piling on points into the skills that allow you to hit so that a person has nothing but 100 skills on "Swing a sword" 3 hp in every stat and no defense.

Yeah it is nice, I used to cook for my group too, now it's mostly for me and my girlfriend and myself

>>49685597
So, let me see if I got this right. Your problem is that people build characters with little HP, but a lot of attack, is that right?

Well man, shit happens, I currently have no one to play with, not even my gf, i just hope things will get better.

>>49685641
Well when I brought up the basics of the system with the group I played with, the first response I got was

"I can cheese this by just listing 5 skills all on one type of attack right away and just kill all basic enemies."

So I responded to it by thinking up this rule to help make sure people have to at least have some Health as they grow instead of just piling it all into being able to do one little trick, it's to help expand how the skill system can work.

>>49685707
but that sounds like they would struggle so hard when dealing with multiple enemies. Even if they kill one or two or twice the party in enemies in the first round, a small troop of weak monsters could chew them up pretty easily if all it takes is a couple of hits.

>>49685745
Yeah that is true too but this means there is a hard limit on things, it helps to limit things I am setting it in place mostly because I am from a group of extreme powergamers. so I wanted to restrict it a bit. I'm not sure how it will work I''l'll be play testing it next week a bit.

>>49685792
Well anon, good luck with that, and if everything fails just throw some alu akbar goblins at them (or the equivalent in whatever setting you play).

>>49685828
That could work hahaha, I hope that It works well, this is going to be the first test so I know everything will be somewhat dicked the first go around but that's why we test, I just need to find the holes and patch them.

>>49678422
Tried to make shield triggers from duel masters better, ended up creating a completely new system that doesn't even use shields.

Need some ideas for traits with roleplaying based effects. The idea being that depending on if you have the skill you could gain a +/-1, +/-2 or +/-3 modifier to certain situations or places where the trait would be applicable. Ideally i'm trying to write suggested broad, uses where a skill would give you an advantage or disadvantage

So far some examples
Wired Reflexes
Through either heightened senses or mechanical interface you react quicker to percieved dangers
>React quickly to environmental hazards
>Less likely to be surprised
>Harmless projectiles may trigger a dangerous response

Machine Empath:
You feel a close bond with machines and the mechanical
>Sense the area where a machine has been damaged
>Likely to intuitively know foreign control schemes
>May experience flashback to a traumatic event in a machines history by touch

Some others still to do
-Explorer
-Analytic Mind
-Charismatic
-Grit

Any ideas for advantages/disadvantages or other skills? (ideally with an advantage and disadvantage)

>>49685364
I guess, but it's not like I'm doing this professionally. I don't even know how you'd publish such a game professionally.

File: navaltest.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

So I have some naval travel and combat rules I've been working on lately. What do you folks think of them? Any thoughts or glaring issues?
The wilderness travel rules that it interfaces with is something unique to my game but the combat rules should be easy enough to port into any system since they're an "add-on" rather than standalone subsystem.

File: 8a64f6925df470097030d52b34fc0f98.jpg (48KB, 564x731px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 564x731px

>>49655273
>What is the best number of bonuses or situational modifiers that someone can handle in a game without getting bogged down?

3. Really. That's my experience and IIRC it's backed up by neuropsychological research.

Have you considered swiping the Advantage/Disadvantage system from D&D5? I did that for my cyberpunk game and it worked really well in playtesting.

>>49687326
Ideally so the 3 factors that could accrue a modifier (in combat for example)

'pilots traits associated with the task' e.g the Sniper trait removing ranged penalties over long range
'specialist equipment' e.g stabiliser on cannon, improved targeting software
'environmental factors' e.g range to target, cover target may have, weather effects

That way a player would have maybe +2 from the sniper trait, +1 from the equipment, +/- weather effects
A different situation might have disadvantages but ideally I'd like no more than a +5/-5 modifier to any given roll.

How does the D&D5 system work and how might I best implement it if at all?

>>49687575
DnD advantage/disadvantage works better if you're aiming for one total modifier for an action.

Conceptually, I think I like your 3 source idea better. Use the highest modifier for each Pilot, Equipment, and Environment, and the total becomes the modifier used.

Both concepts could work together if, say, you rolled 1d6 for Pilot, Equip, Enviro. Advantage would then work just like it does in 5e, but you could gain advantage or disadvantage on each of those three aspects individually which could drastically affect a total roll.

File: 1399241719726.jpg (399KB, 1000x1882px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1000x1882px

>>49686933
Ok anon, I'm better with simple mechanics and couldn't really wrap my head around all those detailed rules. But from what I could gather, here is my opinion on the combat section.

I really like the idea of crew size for maximum type of weapons.

I didn't like that the crew could steer the ship and then leave all their posts and shoot. I think you should should add a rule of skeleton crew which would be a minimum personnel to always be manning the ship itself. Another thing you could do is to make the crew compromised to keep doing what they do for a whole turn. So no reactions when steering and lowering the sails.

Giving the crew the captains bonus to shoot seems like the best way to do it.

The repairing mechanic mid fight looks complicated. I would make it all around the half health milestone in the ship. I would do it like this:
Repairing a ship in the middle of the sea is impossible, you can patch the ship to hold up better until it can actually be repaired.
A ship with less than half HP cannot be patched.
To patch a ship you need to roll the difficulty check and can recover up to his maximum HP once. After that it needs to be repaired to be able to patch it again. The amount of HP recovered is X (whatever number you want) +1 for every increment of 5 you rolled over the check difficulty.
But if left to me I would even remove the half health thing, and just let it be repaired once.

I also don't really dig the "Firing unto the Ship" mechanic. I would left that to the type of weapon attacking the ship or the type of ammunition it has. For example Chained balls deal all their damage to the ship, normal balls will deal 1 to the ship and 1 to the crew (rounded up to the ships damage) and the shotgun like ammunition would dial just to the crew.

Boarding seems fine.

You should also add Ramming.

File: XCOM Archangel armour.jpg (63KB, 940x549px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 940x549px

>>49687963
I really like advantage/disadvantage. It makes getting those initial advantages over the enemy (height for example) that much more relevant and potent, and further advantage/disadvantage still helps as it makes it harder for the enemy to escape disadvantaged status.

>>49658044
>dice pool systems are shit

I always hated dice pool systems with an explainable, unrelenting zeal, seems like too much rolling to me. Is there an actual reason for this, or is it just my monkey brain going >UHHHHG MORE DICE TOO COMPLEX COMPLEX BAD!

That said I assume not all of them are like shadowrun with the fuckhueg bag of d6's.

Theres just something nice about rolling the d20, adding the +3 or whatever to it. That and the 5% accuracy steps seem perfect.

I always liked bloodbowls d6 system, where you either rolled dice 1V1 2V1 if you had more stats, or 3V1 if you had more than double their stats. That and the 6 sides had scaling power of effect. (6=best effect, 1=worst)

>>49664132
Every risky, difficult, or opposed action is an attribute check. Skills are just abilities/feats/features that say "You get X bonus when you try to do Y". So instead of having a list of abstract things like Athletic and Bluff on your character sheet, you have "You get (X bonus) when you try to jump, climb, or otherwise move with force or grace." and "You get (X bonus) when you try to lie, outwit, or double-talk someone." That way players get a better sense of what the things on their sheet actually DO.

>>49688317
Well, I have played with adding systems all my life until I decided to create a game with dice pools. The only dice pool game I've played prior was Warhammer FB. So I think you just like adding, I prefer dice pools because you get an average consistently while in a d20 is all over the place.

>>49688391
Yeah I personally prefer xcom style bullshit of true random chance rather than averaged results.

>>49688212
So I'm thinking with it, the crew should be used for an entire round when they do an action. So then, it incentivizes having "floating" crew around to do reactions and makes committing the crew to something to be a bit of a harder choice.
I'm thinking then with repairing the ship, I should probably just have the difficulty be that seaworthiness is added to the roll. Seaworthiness goes down with damage and represents broadly the same thing. So it's not something they'd suddenly have to calculate if they decide to repair the ship.
As far as repairing a ship, it also represents things like bilge pumps and other attempts to keep the ship afloat. I'm thinking one way to make it require less to keep track of would be that "anytime a dice of damage rolls maximum, that damage can't be repaired while at sea." It would make it less of something that has to be tracked anytime the ship takes damage and more of a special event. I'm thinking with it, I want naval battles to be bruising enough on both sides that they're a bit rare. As well, it adds a mechanical hook to weapons that's fairly simple. There would be more of a reason to use a 5d4 weapon over a 5d6 weapon.

Maybe with firing onto the ship, just have half the dice rolled do damage to the ship with the other half do damage to the crew. With which way it's getting rounded depending on which deck is being fired on.
For ramming, maybe have different ships do xdx multiplied by however many hexes it's traveled in a straight line, up to how many it can move in a round.

What do ya think?

File: battleship shooting.jpg (183KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 800x533px

>>49688898
You can have a group of handyman ready to take places in whatever post is most needed at the time. But I would definitely go with the committing crew on a whole turn.

I don't really get the rolls but if you make it some kind of event then make the players decide when to do it, and just roll for HP recovery, then they cannot do it again until the ship is repaired the right way. It sounds easy, simple, and gives the power to the players which is always good. Of course, doing it mid battle is another thing entirely. A number of crewmen should heal 1 hp per turn of battle up to what you would normally heal with that roll.

for ramming I think there should only be a minimum amount of hexes you need to travel for ramming, and the damage would depend on the Ice Breaker (dunno if that's the name in English) the front of the ship have. Just think of a damage you find appropriate for ramming with generic Ice Breakers and ramp it up for ships with that part designed for ramming.

>>49689961
bretty gud

File: 058-Akatorimon.png (151KB, 675x941px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 675x941px

>>49690082

I'm trying to figure out if there's any practical way to make a card game work, where the basic premise is that both players know what each other's cards and their order are at any given time. What should I go for with win conditions? How do I solve the issue of having the cards themselves being visible taking up a lot of space?

>>49690194
You need an element of bluffing or the game will be instantly solvable the moment cards are out.

>>49690268
What about if all/most cards had the ability to fuck with card order in some capacity? The most simple being draw/return/place at bottom effects, others being move to top, swap two cards, remove all cards of a certain type, reverse deck, or just draw any card? Too much?

>>49690347
So now the game is:
>Cards are out
Solved.
>Bring new cards out randomly
Solved.
>etc.

>>49690427
The reason I proposed having effects that can alter the card order were so that both players would have a number of strategic options that combine with each other in ways that aren't immediately obvious. Not really bluffing, as much as having enough options that there doesn't need be any.

>>49655818
When you say large amounts of downtime, are you talking about time outside of adventures played out at the tabletop, or something else? I apologize but I've always found this boring. But it occurred to me that you might mean something else by downtime- time away from the table customizing your array of resources- deciding which to guard, which to shore up, which to trade away, what to shop for. That kind of thing is almost a fetish for me.

>>49690427
What do you mean by 'solved'?

>>49690673
Oh basically you do a payoff matrix. Look at both players cards, put yourself in a player's shoes, figure out their best response to the opponent's best response and so on and so forth until you solve it. If there exists an end state where neither player can benefit by unilaterally deviating from it, players who are rational will gravitate toward that outcome.

Whomever happens to get the advantage in that scenario is...well ahead. Or the victor. Or whatever based on the rules. It's simple game theory. You always have to consider how known information changes the game. When something is common information like this, both players know. Both players also know that both players know about what they know. Etc.

>>49690728
Well, that all depends on the win state and exactly how deep the strategy goes.

>>49690133
no longer good, that pixel art legit looks like a mess

>>49690775
It's clearer if you just look at the thumbnail weirdly enough.

>>49690775
That pixel art is official.

>>49690795
>official automatically makes it good

besides, it's still a mess when fucktupled in size
maybe it works in a game because it fills up the right amount of space of the screen, but the standalone sprite blown up and slapped in a card where it takes 3/4ths of the space, it looks like ass

File: 070-Shellmon.png (141KB, 675x941px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 675x941px

>>49690810
I don't have any choice. I can't exactly make brand new art for all 120 cards. I've already had to pixel several myself and I did as well as I could to keep them making sense. I've had ten other people take a look at them and approve the pixel arts. For better or worse, I'm stuck with this.

>>49690829
Well, those people are fucking blind.

>>49690829
Pseudo-pixels look terrible when mixed with vector graphics

Either have consistently sized and non-rotated pixels or no pixel art at all.

File: spell-aoe-10test.jpg (1MB, 1600x1660px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1660px

Sup, 12 Towers guy again, I'd like opinions on something I'm working on.

Spell cards and art have been the bane of my existence for about 6 months now. Been going back and forth on art, no art, RP lore text, whatever.

Last night I experimented with this idea. Very very simple outlined symbols of the spell. It's quick, crappy, but it does the job. I got the idea from TES: Skyrim when the Elder Scroll is read, and it's all like woooah symbols blast off the paper.

Using a neon brush for this, pops out nicely, and I'll work on the edging so it's smoother. Am I on a good track or is this crap?

>>49690829
>I can't exactly make brand new art for all 120 cards.

not with that attitude

>>49694929
>>49690829

I'm doing brand new art for 600 cards, It sucks, but it's possible.

>>49682144

Expecting your players to have a pool of every kind of dice seems like a serious drawback.

Can't decide whether to use d6 or d10.

>>49697215
I prefer D10, but depends on how many is used in a roll.

>>49697666
2d10 standard, up to three bonus dice for a maximum of 5d10.

>>49660782
5 and 6 should be in the rules text to remove clutter if they are going to be on every card that also has 3 and 4.
You should also try and consolidate something else if possible, as well as keep your rules text short on non-rare cards because nobody will want to read Snapcaster Mage levels of text with so much info coming at them already.

>>49697801
Then go with D10's, they should be alright.

>>49697882
I forgot to mention something about 8: it will rarely show up in numbers above 3, and most instances will be 1 or 2. That was my reasoning for displaying it non-numerically. Does that sound reasonable? If not, I could make it a numeral and move it to the 5/6 corner. Also, changes in parts of the system may have eliminated the need for 1.

Most cards only have 3 or 3 and 5. 6 and 4 are a powerful stat, so it's not like power/toughness in MtG. Also, there is no damage accumulation, so I wanted the bonus values for your leader to be easily glanceable because it can only be defeated by one big attack.

>>49694929
When you smooth the edges, I'd suggest give them a little blurring, to make it look more like glowing light.

>>49656520
Show it to us, anon

>>49698392
Yeah, that makes some more sense. Eliminating 1 is a good thing for your visuals.
It seems like different stats are only going on different types of cards, in which case the card drawing you posted, while useful to you obviously, can't really be the basis for any judgments about the card visuals.

>>49699018
2 is energy cost
3 is strength(only factor in determining the outcomes of battles)
4 is speed. Each point allows an additional combat action to be taken by a creature. I guess this could be regulated to rules text.
5 and 6 are just 3 and 4 being granted to your leader.
7 is recovery penalty. Any card can be used as a resource, and can be replayed as its normal version at the cost of additional energy.
8 is anchors. If your leader takes any combat actions, you lose all permanents that grant bonuses to it(these cards have their own type). Each anchor lets you retain one permanent. The case could be made for this being rules text too.

Another possible route is keeping 5 but getting rid of 4 and 6.

For a side project, I've been thinking of a system to add traits to a core to allow custom aliens. An ideas for things that would cover major alien traits, as I'm limiting it to 3, so avoiding minor things.

What is the best way to determine initiative? What are some games with interesting initiative systems?

Do games really need initiative, given the success of PbtA? On the other hand, I've heard PbtA's loose structure allows extroverted players to dominate but I think that's kind of a faggy criticism.

How do you feel about systems where the GM narrates successes, but the players narrate their failures?

For social interactions I use 3 metrics (can't remember the inspiration).

Debt is what they owe you. Negative means you owe them.

Respect is how much they... respect you. If you're an idiot they won't take you seriously.

Opinion is how much they like/dislike you.

It's possible to have someone both hate and respect you, they're on different tracks. Likewise someone can love you but not respect you at all.

It's also subjective. If someone believes they're entitled to a favour by the PCs, helping them won't change the Debt stat.

Respect means they'll cut you in on business deals and shit

Opinion governs if they'll invite you to their birthday party.

>>49660442
How does the system handle weapons? Would something like incriminating paperwork be considered a weapon?

>>49703634
Character weapons and armor are extensions of their soul and always change to match their current job. If you're a black mage, you wear light armor and have a staff - how those look is up to you, and you can invest EXP to enhance them with keywords like burning or luxurious that have different effects.

Incriminating paperwork would just be an item used from the inventory. You can't keep using incriminating paperwork like a weapon (at least not in most dramatic circumstances). You read it once to a crowd of people who care or send it to the authorities or whatever and that's that.

Damage in a conflict is determined by a character's Rank (weapon damage is simply equal to Rank).

>>49670833
Social death could be a few things

>Bankruptcy. You're reduced to a beggar or vagabond.

>Exposure. Your secrets are revealed (or you're framed). Usually you'll be arrested.

>Faux-Pas. You've alienated yourself from your allies and friends. Nobody will work with you anymore.

Thing is, surviving a fight with a dragon only to lose the character to a loud belch at a dinner party would be damn anticlimactic.

I'd suggest making the social track longer. Make the penalties stricter near the end of track.

That way, players will take more risks (in other forms of contest) to stave off their doom. They'll be more likely to die from damage, but social penalties will spur on the ultimately fatal risk taking.

>>49702898
In my game players always start, if they get ambushed they just cannot take actions that turn.

What are some systems where character background is a series of tags? I'm having trouble describing this in my own rules.

Basically every character has two personality tags, one goal tag, one flaw tag and two skill tags. These are just simple, one-word descriptors that award XP when players roleplay accordingly.

>>49703799
Under what was assumed in the posts above, some characters just might not care about "dying" in other ways. If you're a mercenary or generic sell-sword, then yes, you might actually care about making social faux-pas. However, if you're a Barbarian, you might care more about spirits than anything in "high society". In that case, your vulnerabilities change, but so do your strengths. You'd be "immune" to certain things because they aren't a part of your life. A player might even end up playing an organization rather than an individual, which would make physical death pointless, but they'd have no ability to physically affect things (they'd send NPCs to accomplish physical goals)..

At least, that's how I would run such a system.

>>49704386
PbtA i think, and Fate.

File: weeaboofightanmagic.png (503KB, 1024x1280px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1024x1280px

I really should have just typed this, but I was in an artistic mood.
Anyways, I wanted to design a system using dice pools and d6 to replicate all those shounen battles and this is the base for it.
Kudos to anyone who can actually read my handwriting.

>>49704977
What little I can make out seems alright, but this is borderline unreadable. Solid concept.

>>49704977
Why isn't everything in text?

It seems like a 5 5 5 build (or something really close) is the best, unless you just really want to be the tank.

It seems okay, it just takes a lot of time to get through everything.

>>49704977
My eyes burn like a motherfucker so I'm not going to try and decipher it, but I'm interested in seeing more.