/gdg/ - Game Design General: Watchmaker RPG edition Useful L

>>49866296
Bamp

I have yet to try a small-scale game. My group keeps looking for the next big campaign to tackle so I never really thought to go simple.

Question of my own: Are there any specific dice that are unanimously praised? I hear argument from time to time between some number of d6s and d20, but I'm wondering if there's ever a purely best dice set to use for a game or if it just comes down to the specific actions the game is featuring,

>>49867203
Its really subjective, comes down to what you think fits the math better. Some things are obvious; D6 is king for large amounts of dice per roll, while D20 should be limited to max 2 per roll. We are seeing more use out of the less common dice now, though. Fantasy Flight has started selling D10 packs for their games and regularly uses D8's, for example.

So, should character stats lower difficulty or add to the roll?

Right now I'm doing the former: the GM subtracts the relevant stat from the difficulty level. I did this so that it's faster for the player and they instantly know if the number on the die is good as soon as they see it. Also because this isn't a GM rolling system, it gives the GM a little bit more to do.

>>49868228
that's peculiar (stats as bonuses are what I tend to see and that's probably because that way you preserve the intuitive + as positive and - as negative concepts) but depending on what other precedents crop up in the system players could get used to it.

File: Playtest Copy.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Giving a bump by posting my latest playtest copy. I need to do some work on it, but that'll have to wait til tomorrow.

design question: rolling for spell failure - yes/no? i think spells should generally work (and i rarely admit D&D is on the right track) but what are your thoughts about it, guys?

>>49870209
Either have it use the same mechanic as other stuff, like attacks, or have them just auto work. Having a special failure check just for spells is really dumb

>>49870229
>Having a special failure check just for spells is really dumb
justify this please

>>49870209
Same as every other roll, the character does what they're trying to do, they're rolling to see how badly the consequences of what they're doing screw them over.

Specifically for magic stuff, see how much mana they burn/insanity they get/teamkilling their fireball does

>>49866296
>Have you ever tried making something small and simple, like a one-sheeter or a pamphlet RPG? How did it go?
Yes. Made a Numenera-based thing that was much more open ended regarding player skills, keyword based like Risus. Used it for a cephalopods-only setting we made playing Microscope. It was awesome.

>>49867203
>Are there any specific dice that are unanimously praised?
Depends, but bellcurves. So usually d6s since everyone has a lot of them.

>>49870209
I think it depends on the cost of spells in your system. If they're almost free resource wise then its probably fine to have a failure chance, but if they're too expensive players will complain that it feels bad.

Bump. Will post content in a bit.

>>49869340
Which would you say is the more understandable formula for calculating difficulty:

>CL = (Obstacle + Disadvantage) - (Approach Rating + Advantage)

OR

>CL = Obstacle - (Approach Rating + (Advantage - Disadvantage))

The top equation is simpler and reduces the likelihood of encountering negative integers, but the bottom equation feels more straightforward to me.

Are there any good magic systems focused on customization and inventing spells that I could reference?

File: Misfortune full2.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49866296
My current project (still in draft version) is a one-sheeter with a one-sheet supplement (lol) called Misfortune.

I want to ask a question about it, /gdg/. What's your opinion about the sheet and rules, in the perspective that does it seem any fun? And additionally, what do you think about the stacking combat system in Defined games (Rules in Out of Ordinary Supplement, meaning second page).

Of course, the draft version isn't ready, I would still need to fit some obvious things there, which are kind of redundant additions but must be there, such as losing problems if they are solved, or losing saving graces if they overlap with injuries, and generally about interaction of problems and saving graces, really.

Techniques also need a rule for how many you can have them, and maybe the stacking combat could use some fine-tuning.

>>49875916
Looks solid but you really need to do an editing pass. There are quite a few awkward phrases, grammatical errors, spelling mistakes and the Overcoming Weaknesses section isn't finished.

I think it would be a pretty fun, quick game but it doesn't really stand out. I don't really understand the stacking combat rules though.

The character sheet looks good, but I would either make one 8.5" x 11" sheet or four equally sized character sheets that fit on one page.

>>49876377
Oh, nice catch. While writing I kind of just forget as I zip around writing things here and there and my attention span just is what it is.

I will put some scaling versions of the sheets and organize them, but as of now they're there for reference.

About not standing out, I think I can understand what you mean, but at the same time I don't. Because even the notion that the character is filled with negative space rather than positive space is kind of unique IMO. I don't remember seeing roll-over systems that often either.

But the main thing is, as I see it, it's slick to boot. Not the slickest system, still pretty slick.

Hmm.. How would I explain stacking rules best... Well, the idea is that a single stack is structured like this: If your opponent rolled higher than you, roll. If you rolled lower than your opponent, either lose this stack or use a technique. Rinse and repeat, until either the opponent or you cannot beat the last roll (that being an high roll with an technique or nat 20) or you run out of juice and would rather take one HD than get several SD for the next stack.

I think as it's now, Techniques are way too powerful in comparison to the core combat. What would it sound like if it had scaling damage, meaning it would gain more damage the longer the stack went on.

Such as, if it's your fifth roll and you roll over the opponent's current stack, if the opponent doesn't beat your current stack, they take five HD.

>>49876607
While you're right the negative character and roll over systems are uncommon, these things don't make too much of a difference functionally. If I were you, I would look into diceless games like Undying - these are a little more unique and would make the game even more portable. Speaking of which, one page does have two sides; consider printing examples on the back.

I think for such a stripped down game, these combat rules are pretty complex. Think long and hard about not only the way you word it, but how much time each stack will take. To me it seems like these combats could drag on for quite awhile.

>>49877393
That might be true, but because the rolls are rather simplistic, each stack would be surprisingly quickly over, and if the damage scales, suddenly a single combat might only take one or two stacks.

This is made for simulating those desperate struggles from anime, the rules are not actually that complex, you can't really be tactical about it other than using the right techniques at the right moment.

You also have to consider that taking a single point of HD is pretty debilitating. Combats are usually Ordinary + Clumsy, meaning your clumsy rating might climb extremely high during a single stack.

But yeah, it needs playtesting and probably some fine tuning and tweaking to get it right, but I still do think the stacking mechanic is - at least- kind of unique, in the sense that it boils combat down to the barest minimum, just trying to roll higher than the opponent, and just stretching it and giving some choices about it. I will try to find the perfect balance to a pamphlet games.

Honestly, I've noticed that pamphlet games are kind of the thing I want to make. The problem with them though is that they are not really marketable, because they're barely even rules. Maybe I should go RISUS way and just release them freely.

But yeah, I'll look up Undying, see if I can get something out of it.

So why does /gdg/ hate complex systems? From what I've seen anything beyond "rules light" gets people's hate boners raging.

>>49879649
Complexity doesn't ensure depth, and if you are designing a game, the more breaking points a system has, the easier it is to exploit from a gameplay perspective.

Overcomplexity is very often a result in bloat, and bloat isn't good. Complex rules can be good, if they really utilize their complexity. This is why most grappling rules fail. They don't have enough interesting material, instead the rules are bloated due to the designer realizing the potential of grappling but just adding rules without considering whether the rules are interesting or fun to play with.

To me, simplistic rules are a matter of aesthetic and taste, more than breadth and utility. I also find that most everyone but Hardcore Muchkins and game designers have problems with understanding complex systems. They don't actually want all that breadth, they just want to be able to do their thing or do awesome things.

But to me, it's personal taste. I don't usually read or comment on complex games on /gdg/ due to 1) Not wanting to invest too much time and energy to understand the interconnectedness of a system. 2) I don't feel they are a thing I can help with.

>>49879649
I think in this thread specifically, it's because no one is going to pore over your 500 page tome, much less spend the extra time to think about and make sense of it.

As for me personally, I'm more into rules lite systems because I'm tired of having to pore over 500 page tomes, then spend extra time to make sense of it. I've also come to value expediency of play over fidelity of play after too many 5+ hour combats in 3.PF. I honestly don't understand what the point of having so many rules is anymore.

On top of that, I think rules should encourage the narrative rather than constrain it, and rules heavy systems always seem to focus on just the opposite.

One idea I've been toying with is getting rid of uses per day/resource costs and letting characters use their powers as they please.

Right now, characters have a shared pool of HP and (let's say) MP, called AP. When they use a power, they expend AP. When they fail to defend themselves, they lose AP. Your maximum is determined by your level, so everyone in the party generally has the same amount. When they reach 0 AP, the physical and mental stress of the adventure forces them to sit out and recuperate.

But after reading the linked article I'm starting to question this. What if I just used normal HP, and let characters use their powers whenever?

http://blog.openlegendrpg.com/beyond-limits-powerful-abilities-strengthening-characterization/

>>49875580
one way to make both of those simpler on the player is substitution, so one of your additions eg

(Obstacle + Disadvantage)
(Advantage - Disadvantage)

has it's own represenation eg
Factors = Advantage - Disadvantage
Obstacle Reduction = Approach rating - Factors
CL = obstacle - obstacle reduction

This approach would probable make the top approach more straightforward too

>>49875793
Ultima's word combination system is not a bad starting point

>>49882835
Without even looking at it yet, "word combination" sounds like a cool idea and I could probably run with that. Thanks, bud.

To be clear, you're talking about the Ultima vidya games, right?

>>49882968
yip

http://www.uoguide.com/Words_of_Power

let me just save this from dropping of page 10 real quick

>>49880850
A personal opinion about that would be a "somewhat" realistic approach, where the amount of power you have is not easily quantifiable, but something you can run out of nonetheless.

Consider this. Your character has a stat for their capacity. Every they use an ability, it gives them X points of whatever (I'll call it strain now). Every time you use it abilities, you roll against your strain, using your capacity as a modifier, and if you fail the roll, you're out of juice. This means that you can have days where you absolutely wreck everything as your powers seem neverending, and other times you may run out of juice very unexpectedly quick.

Example: A has used an ability which causes 2 strain. They already had 10 strain, making their strain total 10+2 = 12. A tries to use a new ability, and rolls for juice. It's a d20 roll over with their capacity 4 is reduced from the strain, which is the difficulty. They have to roll over 12-4 = 8. If they roll 8 or under, the character is out of juice and it doesn't work, and if they roll over, the ability works.

Sorry for the rather lengthy explanation, I hope it gives you the idea of what I mean.

If running out juice is not a problem, the problem becomes balancing it so that EVERYONE doesn't take million powers and use them to solve every problem.

>>49889679
Interesting thoughts. This is a class-based system so characters are naturally limited in how many powers they can pick. They gain five powers per class and can only ever have two active at the same time.

There is another mechanism governing power use, but it is intended to keep the powers fresh and make classes feel different: focus tokens. Each class has a different way of gaining and spending these special tokens that let them do unique things.

Dark Knight starts with five Beastblood tokens and pays a price to discard them one at a time. Each token represents part of his armor, and the flesh beneath each removed piece turns into a man-bat vampire, empowering specific abilities.

Swordmaster builds up Hissatsu tokens over the course of a conflict and unleashes them all at once to instantly defeat an enemy or group.

Holy Knight builds Verdict tokens over the course of a fight and uses them to empower healing or offensive abilities.

Time Mage gains a Tick Tock token when he rewinds, and can spend his tokens to "fast forward" and make multiple moves at once.

And so on. I'm starting to think tokens are compelling and limiting enough that having discrete costs for every use of a move is just limiting fun. This is more of a light-hearted adventure and it's very difficult for the PCs to die anyway, so why bother?

>>49875916

Your text could use some room to breathe. It looks real cramped. Do a couple of editing passes and try to cut about 10% of your text. Space your headings and paragraphs out with some breaks.

It's neat that you flip the stat formulas around by making character stats into difficulty ratings that you have to overcome.

I could use some input on fluffing mechanics.

System is based on playing combinations of cards from your hand. Cards are drawn from a standard 52-card deck plus Jokers.

Weapons calculate damage based on what kinds of cards or combinations you've played.

>Straight Blade
If your attack test is sequential, +1 damage per card played.

>Curved Blade
If your attack test is sequential, +2 damage per face-card played.

>Hammer
+1 damage per club-card played.

>Axe
+1 damage per spade-card played.

>Flail
+2 damage per wild-card played.

And thoughts on fluffing the following?

>???
+1 damage per diamond-card played.

>???
+1 damage per heart-card played.

>>49891279
Yeah, these first drafts are mostly for getting the game in though. I will probably remove some redundant aspects and change the font sizes to give more breathing space. I might even flip it upwards to make it a pamphlet instead of a one-sheeter.

My games really have a tendency to be too large for one piece of paper, but too small for an actual book. My longest system to date has been 47 pages of pure system text, but I realized it had a lot of bloat so I scrapped it. My mainstay of today is 18 pages long, and that's pretty manageable. The problem is that you can't really sell that in on itself physically, due to the flimsiness of such a thin book.

>>49890267
All right, but if you already have Focus Tokens, why would you have an additional system on top of that? Why did you originally put AP in? Was there a purpose for it? Or was it that you just felt that Focus Tokens were not enough?

>>49870209
It was shitty in Savage Worlds, it will be even shittier in your system. I wouldn't suggest it. Use other methods of balancing spells. If you do use it have interesting flaws if there is failure. Otherwise it's just a waste of fucking time.

>>49875916
>d20

Well that's gonna be shit already.

The rules are autistically, badly written.

> Secrets can be any problem, missing item
or saving grace that the character hasn’t
told to other people, and thus the player
hasn’t told about it to other players.

Did you have a stroke at the end of this sentence? I sure hope so, because the alternative is that you're retarded.

> Problems are things that make your character’s life harder.

No Child Left Behind, everyone.

The basic idea is good, combining weaknesses as default is overcomplicated and clumsy, the text is arranged autistically, and half the rules are unnecessary. The entire thing is fucking terrible but your base idea is good. Get the fuck rid of that d20 mechanic, it is objectively shit. Keep the same system you have ranging those weaknesses 0-10, you could get away with 2d6 or a d12 if you can't get over single die rolling. For shit like this you could do something inventive like 2d8. But d20 in this kind of game is stupid. It's basic shit anyway so it might as well use basic dice.

Overall I give it 5/10. Better than most of the critiques I'll be giving ITT.

>>49879649

Complexity isn't bad. But complex homebrews are always bad. These games are shitty by default. Making them complex is addition just puts the nail in the coffin.

Also most homebrewers don't have the discipline to create anything more than a 20 page tinkering homebrew about some anime they like, so the sight of a well-made full-fledged system makes them froth with autistic rage.

>>49891397
I would rather kill myself than even consider playing this.

>>49892350
>I would rather kill myself than even consider playing this.

But you have so much to live for!

>>49891397
Bow for hearts
quarterstaff for diamonds

>>49892388
If not bow then spear

File: 1476371867064.jpg (80KB, 570x700px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 570x700px

>>49892266
Actually, AP came before FT! I originally used AP for the following reasons:

>I wanted HP to more deeply inform how you play. In most games, HP is a single binary choice (Do I have enough HP to safely wager I'll survive the next turn?), but asking players to spend their health to use abilities makes the decision-making process more multidimensional (Do I have enough AP to use this ability on this turn, or should I use another from my repertoire?)
>I do not like Vancian systems, but wanted some way to limit ability usage because at the time, abilities were designed hierarchically; your fifth ability is by definition more powerful than your first, so why not use the fifth every turn? Many games have power points, MP or something similar, and I felt that was a pretty solid and equitable solution.
>On the other hand, keeping these as separate, discrete resources wasn't wholly intuitive (beyond the fact that it's what we're used to). As your body and mind suffer from stress, could you really exert yourself to your fullest? Combining them ensures that players will drive their characters a little more realistically, acting more cautious as they are injured.
>This approach also offers a built-in cost system. The TN of the challenge becomes the AP cost of the ability and this lends a more concrete definition to the TN, too: the TN is simply how much effort your character must invest to overcome the challenge.

However, this ultimately left me unfulfilled because my game has relatively simple "micro-classes", and it was difficult to make them feel different when they all drew on the same resource in the same way. I added FT as a class-specific resource to manage on top, because FT changes the dynamics of moves but does not strictly limit their use (you don't spend FT from a pool to activate any move). This lead me to redesign abilities as an expanding toolkit instead of a heightening hierarchy of power.

Now I'm questioning whether moves should be limited at all.

I thought of a game in which dice are miniatures.
People begin by rilling dice one by one
In their desired directions.
Each die type has an attack health.
D4 - sniper type. Pick one of the three directions of the triangle
d6 - no idea
d10 - shotgun. The side that the kite is facing is the shotgun spread and direction. Low range
d12 - No idea
d20 - blademaster. attacks in a small radius around him.

After all the rolling all the dice attack from the lowest to the highest roll.
However if the die rolls the highest face something special happens depending on the die.

Please give input

File: 1409466903164.png (624KB, 722x525px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 722x525px

>>49892551
Oh god so much bad wording, mistakes and format errors.
Hope its understandable

>>49892241

Pretend you are writing poetry. Like a haiku. Use elegant language.

>>49891397
>>49892388
>>49892397

Also, my game uses rules for weapon customization with each weapon having three modification slots and with each of these weapon types being a basic modification that can be slotted into one of those slots.
Damage bonuses from different modifications slots don't stack; you take the highest.

I was also thinking maybe some weapon type modifications would grant accuracy bonuses instead of damage bonuses.

>Piercing Blade
If your attack test is sequential, +1 accuracy per card played.

>>49892551
This sounds gay and autistic but a cute idea.

>>49892332
WHOAAAA. You went full-on critique right away.

>d20 automatically shit, autistically written

Well, I can't really defend myself on the second part, it's still basically a draft version, as I've said many times. Also not an english native, on that note.

You bring a good point about the d20, the idea actually bloomed from making of another game, a D&D spoof.

>Did you have a stroke at the end of this sentence? I sure hope so, because the alternative is that you're retarded.

Depends. If you mean retarded as in OBVIOUSLY you don't tell your character's secrets, or that secrets shouldn't exist in the first place.

>No Child Left Behind, everyone.

Hey, rules texts usually need to be preeeetty clear cut, but I get what you mean. Another piece of redundancy I can remove from it.

>The basic idea is good
Thanks.
>combining weaknesses as default is overcomplicated and clumsy
It is a remnant from my main system, really. I took it from Ryuutama, but I guess it doesn't work unless the system uses two dice.
>text is arranged autistically
I can attest to that, it needs shitton of editing, as said, draft.
>The entire thing is fucking terrible but your base idea is good
Thanks, that's better than what I expected. It's still pretty raw, in the first stages of development. Maybe the fact that I wrote it in Indesign gives the vibe that it's more ready than it really is. *shrugs*
>Get the fuck rid of that d20 mechanic, it is objectively shit. Keep the same system you have ranging those weaknesses 0-10, you could get away with 2d6 or a d12 if you can't get over single die rolling. For shit like this you could do something inventive like 2d8. But d20 in this kind of game is stupid. It's basic shit anyway so it might as well use basic dice.

If we started working on it from ground up, keeping the same systems except throwing d20 and double weaknesses out... 2d8 might be pushing it, rather go with 2d6. Problems etc turn to +2 and -2 rather than 4.

>>49892932
>>49892332
I gotta add though:
>The entire thing is fucking terrible but your base idea is good.
I somehow this sentence just cracks me up.

>>49867203
d8s have objectively the best shape.

>>49879649
It's more that they almost always put the complexity in stupid places where it doesn't do anything for the gameplay. Most common one is to make needlessly obtuse core rolling mechanisms.

>>49880850
There are also non-attritional methods of resource management, or crazy short intervals. Think stances (you can turtle down or run like hell, but not both simultaneously... or the choice could be between flight and invisibility if you're playing supers) or action economies. There's also context limits. Can't use a ritual in a fight, for example.

It's very unlikely you'll end up with literally unlimited use if you have even just an action economy or a turn based system.

About complexity.

Your thoughts on the following:

>Card-Based Mechanics
My game uses hands of standard cards for its core mechanic. You 'test' by playing pairs of matching cards and compare their value to a difficulty rating to determine success or failure.

>Stamina
Your maximum hand-size is determined by your Stamina stat.
You can refill your hand by using the 'Breathe' action.
Some actions have fatigue or mana costs. Pay fatigue costs by discarding that many cards from your hand of any type. Pay mana costs by discarding that many face-cards from your hand.

>Reaction
You can oppose another character's test as a reaction, playing cards from your own hand to beat theirs and counter their action.

However, you cannot react to another character's action unless your Reaction stat is greater than or equal to theirs.

>>49894337
Are NPCs handled that way? If so it might get out of hand quickly.

One deck between the table or one per character or player?

What range can reaction be in? It seems like a PC will either want a lot or not bother having any.

Seems cool, but don't underestimate how long it takes to shuffle cards. It might slow things down a lot

Sounds cool though

>>49896065

Most NPC's do 'blind tests'. PC's can choose to do blind tests too. You do a blind test by revealing and playing the top two cards of the deck.
Many enemies are able to share the same hand of cards. Only boss enemies have their own hands.

One deck between the table. The GM may shuffle two or more decks together to cut down on time spent shuffling.

Stats range between 0 and 9, and are weighted toward an average of 4 or 5.

>>49897558
Sounds way too clunky for an RPG. You could maybe make a boardgame or cardgame out of it, at which point you may as well use custom cards.

>>49879649
I'm the opposite, I can't get into a rules light system. Unless their is some key innovation behind it, the homogeneity and and simplicity is off-putting.
The worst, no offence, are rules lite DnD clones or streamlined DnD games. I'm not into a game where the extent of my ability and discernment from others is a +1 to combat and a handful of skills selected for their gaming historicity.

I am a brand new DM. I want to make a basic continent, maybe with a small minor landmass, but with a scale that makes sense. How big do you usually make your continents? Your countries? I dunno if I should start with something roughly Australia, America, or Asia-sized.

>>49898010
Start with whatever area your players will start in, make the rest only as you need to. A town and its environs is the biggest I'd suggest bothering with.

If you want to write up mythologies for the pygmies living on an island off the mainland that the PCs will never go to you want to ask here: >>49896656
It's probably as dead as this general though, as all generals are doomed to die.

Or make a new thread. "Hi \tg\ I'm new, please tell me how to X" threads are always popular as people will get into an argument in no time at all.

>>49897873
I love rules light games and I 100% agree with you.

They do the best when they have unusual mechanics for unusual content.

>>49898083
Will do. Additionally, if I start with even just one country, how big would you make a country? At the least, I'd want it to take 30 days to get from one end to the other. If I go with 24 miles of travel a day (based on 8 hours of travel a day), it'd be about 720 miles wide. Does that seem decent?

>>49898128
> 30 24 720
Why? It'll take as long as you take to describe it. Either
>You travel for 30 days blah blah exposition
That takes a few minutes or you set up scenes and adventures and it'll take sessions to cross. And those sessions will be full of dialogue, investigation and combat, not descriptions of rolling countryside.

What I'm saying is you're concentrating on the wrong details. Make locations and characters, with events and relationships. Don't make stats for an atlas or details for a history book. Concentrate on the stuff the PCs will come up against at the table.

File: Warlock 002.jpg (380KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 800x600px

>>49898194
this man is wise, heed his counsel.

Generally here's how I've been seat of my pants GMing since I started. I do very little prep work, but what prep I *do* do is in depth and I try to do it really well. The biggest thing IMO about prep is having a good "Skeleton" to build on, because you will NEVER anticipate the shit your players get up to. Here's my priority list for prep:

1. Have the location the party is CURRENTLY IN developed well enough that they could spend an entire session there. When I say well developed, it varies depending on the circumstances. If they ended last session at the doors of a dungeon, you best prep that dungeon or at least "1 session's worth" of dungeon depending on how big the dungeon is and how long your sessions are. If its a town, develop a handful of NPCs, jot down some conspiracies and interNPC politics or some quest hooks.

2. Develop some "skeleton prep" for anywhere your party can reach within 1 session. Concepts are enough if you know your setting well enough. Jot notes are always a decent idea. The meat of this route is improvised as need be.

3. ????

4. Profit

File: 1467610276799.jpg (181KB, 800x1334px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 800x1334px

>>49898919
it also helps to know that my definition of "well developed" means that you can confidently interact with your players with minimal "ohs and ums" etc and improvise smoothly because you have given yourself the tools to improvise well.

>>49897873
I've seen so many that just turn into a "heads or tails" situation for resolving things. Its really boring.

I've decided it high time I rewrite my fantasy project. My desktop has been out of commission for over a year and apparently I never backed it up to anything cloud-like. Now, if I'm going to be rewriting from memory I might as well make sure its good enough design-wise. I think what I'll do it post pieces here (Character Creation, Combat, Spell Creation, etc) and make sure they hold up to scrutiny. I might even need to make a trip for continuity.

So far, here's the idea:
- "Nature vs Nurture" as a high level concept. I like combining the ideas of things you cannot change, and things you can. Your character's archetype determines their basic strengths and weaknesses, but you'll get free points to accentuate strengths or shore up weaknesses as you wish.
- Strong theme of using tools to craft what you desire. Things are built by combining nouns/verbs & adjectives that all have mechanical connotations. Weapons, Armor, Spells, and Skills all use this idea. A "Random Dungeoncrawl Generator" mechanic might use the same as well.
- Combining seemingly opposing mechanics. This is less a theme I started with and more of one that came up in hindsight. d20 and degrees of success aren't usually put together. Character creation combines aspects of class-based and classless ideas. I use concepts of Hit Points, Wounds, and Hit Locations for the Health mechanic. I think a lot stems from the desire that the system can be modular and that I can create the necessary modules for different things as needed.

I'll start on Character Creation. I never completely finished that portion before, but certain things are compartmentalized enough that I can do the combat related stats.

>>49894337
>matching pairs
How often does a hand of a given size even have matching pairs? How long will it contain said pairs when you play them for every single "roll?"

>variable max hand size
Not a fan. The biggest you probably want a starting hand to be is 7. Past that, people get analysis paralysis and large groups will just eat the deck in no time. The lowest you probably want a starting hand to be is 5. Especially if pairs matter, a 2 or a 3 is just a stupid stat to allow anyone to have. The name "breathe" for the quick mid-combat rest is neat though.

>Reaction stat creates hard limits on who can react to what
Boo. Guy with the lowest stat and guy with the highest stat are playing a totally different game, and you basically have to either know NPC stats or ask "can I X?" when your turn comes up way too often (and if the answer is "no," when they expected "yes" they may need to re plan their turn).

I love cards and hands as a way of representing when you're putting real effort into shit vs not wasting a lot of energy on a task. So don't totally ditch it or anything. But play a test game or something. Or even just a sliver of a game like letting people draw X cards and see if they have any matches at all.

>>49902582
>How often does a hand of a given size even have matching pairs?
I have resources to find out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability

I am concerned about variable hand size. 4-6 should be a good range of variance though.

What do you think of a combat system in which PCs automatically hit?

I had the idea for a system where basic attacks would automatically do a low amount of damage. Special attacks or abilities would need some kind of roll but do more damage or have status effects.

PCs would have the ability to evade or block enemy attacks, but would use up action points or something to do so, reducing the amount of attacks they can make per round.

Are there any systems that forego the ‘to hit’ roll?

If you divvy up the damage to wounds and trivial damage, it could work.

I can't say any system that has no to-hit rolls off the top of my head though.

The most important aspect though is the balancing of the risk and reward. If the risk is too high, everyone just autoattacks until the opponent dies. If the reward is too high, no one ever utilizes the automatic attacks.

The AP system you have has promise though, you just need to make a system that takes them into account without turn order etc becoming too messy. Consider looking to Feng Shui's turn order system to see how it could be done.

What games do you think have the best luck/fate/destiny/plot points and why?

I'm interested in adding something like this to my game but I'm not sure where to draw the line.

>>49908096
Seht's Unofficial Elder Scrolls rpg has a pretty cool luck mechanic. Just started a group on it the other day.

Basically, its a d100 system and Luck is a stat like any other attribute like STR, AGI, INT, etc. You have a number of mulligans per session equal to the tens column of your Luck attribute (so usually between 3-5). Dark Heresy and such have this range of mulligans, but are obviously much more punishing.

The cool thing about the ESRPG is that after you use your session maximum of luck, you can continue to spend luck by permanently burning 1 point from your luck attribute.

Example: you have 36 Luck, You can mulligan 3 times per session without consequence. Beyond that, it costs you a permanent point of Luck. So lets say you need another reroll and you're at 0 Luck Points. You permanently reduce your total Luck attribute to 35 and it functions as if you spent a Luck. Eventually your Luck will lower and lower, but we've only done one session so I have yet to see how it plays out, but theoretically, I'm liking it.

>>49906676
>>49907350

Seems interesting. Knowledge of enemies' attacks will be vital as you'll want to keep enough AP around to dodge the big ones. Having a low initiative (or otherwise going last before refreshing AP) seems like it'd be quite advantageous as you can just blow the rest of your AP on attacks with no fear of reprisal.

PbtA games usually have the combat rolls always inflict damage, the roll is just to see if/how much you take yourself, or what bonus stuff you do.

>>49908096
Old School Hack. They're player-awarded, not too powerful, and tied into the XP system.

Studying binomial coefficients on youtube and getting comfortable with Wolfram Alpha.

>>49893292
>>49892932

Yeah dude it's fine, just redesign the game to get rid of the d20, and maybe add some sort of setting or more interesting mechanics. This one idea is going to make your game a play-and-forget one-pager like Lasers and Feelings, it's a cute gimmick but no one will give a shit. Give it enough oomph for lasting a few sessions. Make something good out of it. You have a good base, if you have to throw it away cause it's shitty over and over, that's fine, because at the center of that shit-turd is a nugget of gold. Just keep building up until the rest is silver or some shit, I don't know, fuck analogies, at least you didn't sperg out at my critique so you have a chance of making something good. Good luck.

>>49906676
That idea sounds completely cancerous. What context is this going to be in? Unless it's extremely high fantasy or deific-level shit it's going to smack of wankery. I mean, go for it, but don't expect anyone to give a fuck unless you have an actual reason instead of just shitting out a "what if" idea that has no real benefit or substance.

>>49908096
They are gay. FATE makes them too central, Savage Worlds overuses them, and in reality they just exist to avoid players having to deal with the consequences of anything. Fuck 'em. Literally the only game that did reroll points well is fucking d20 Modern, no joke. There you only got 6 per level so they were for actual dramatic instances rather then whenever you didn't like your roll, which is every time you don't get a natural 20 for most of the entitled fuckwits that play roleplaying games these days.

>>49912098
Well, the first thing I realized was that the horizontal one-sheeter idea is way too little to get everything I need in there. Changing it to vertical pamphlet form, changed dice to 2d6 (I designed the game from the get-go to be easily replaceable to almost any dice system) with single weakness per roll.

That's a start. Now I'll just make more substantial and straightforward editing for the combat rules (people seemed to have problems with it), making it clear how the sections of each stack go.

It's far from ready, I'll tell you, but it will probably be in playtest-condition rather soon. Playtest is always the final place where all the flaws shine through.

We'll see that then. I will probably do things with crazy different power levels, such as a slice of life -comedy thing and a Touhou game for one or two people.

Original setting might be a little pushing it, but I'll look to it. I'm not that good at worldbuilding, to be honest. I might have some novel ideas and vivid descriptions of certain things, but I lack in substance most of the time.

>>49912318
>>49912098
By the way. How does it sound like if the system, in addition to Overcoming weakness, also had checks for Succumbing to the weakness?

Naturally the check is then flipped, and the implications will most of the time be negative. But in some rare cases, I can see Succumbing being as important factor as Overcoming the weakness, such as skipping school or trying to blend in.

Is this dumb or does it sound sound in the context of the game?

>>49912561
Aaaaand right when I was about to go to sleep, I got a possible setting idea.

Forgive the pun, but Project name YankESP. A setting about delinquents, some of which are Espers. Skipping school, being disrespected, fighting with other hoodlums and being cracked down by the Student Council, whose president might or might not be a powerful esper. You know, the basics.

Cheesy and dumb setting, but I think it's simple enough to make a game around. Also being a good place to let murderhobos indulge into their murderhobo-er aspects without it being too out of context.

I think it works

>>49912098
>This one idea is going to make your game a play-and-forget one-pager like Lasers and Feelings
That's not necessarily a bad thing. L&F has more exposure than anything you, or anyone else on /gdg/, has ever made. Designing for a oneshot is a good idea for a one page RPG.

>>49907350
Thanks. I agree that balancing risks and rewards will be very important to making the system work.
I'll take a look at Feng Shui. I think I have the book somewhere.

>>49910433
That's a good point. Going after the enemy could be better than acting before. Might have to figure something out for that.

>>49912115
It's just an idea right now, but I agree the context would have to be something like you said. Extremely competent fighters.

I had the idea after a session in which a player's character missed multiple rounds in a row against a far inferior opponent. It made the character seem pathetic rather than the hero he was supposed to be. I don't think missing is that bad every now and then, but it got me thinking about removing that possibility.

What else do you not like about it? Or is it mainly the context?
Is missing (or the possibility of missing) part of the fun?

page 10

Page 10 revival

File: Misfortune Vertical draft.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Current draft of the Misfortune system, changed to vertical paper and stretched to 5 pages.

Changes list:
>2d6 instead of 1d20
>Only one weakness per roll
>New roll type for succumbing
>Added entire new section - YankESP
>Rewrote Stacking rules
>Added Rest-section

>>49920151
I much prefer the layout of this draft. It makes it longer, but also much easier to read.

I haven't really read through completely but one thing I noticed is the Weaknesses are ranked from 1 to 10. If I'm understanding correctly you would need to roll above that number on 2d6. Rolling above 10 on 2d6 will be quite unlikely and rolling below 2 is impossible. I noticed the rolls can be modified so maybe this is working how you want it to, but I felt like pointing it out.

>>49920526
Well, having a weakness of 10 means you are quite literally a fucking loser.

And no matter how not-bad you are, rolling snake eyes gives you Heart Damage (You might succeed, but at what cost?), which in turn raises all of your weaknesses.

What I can see is that HD might creep up and make rolls ever harder, which in turn causes HD to raise even more. Can't say without having a game with it though.

And even if that is the case, this balance issue might be possible to fix with metacurrency or some new rule

bumpan

>>49912887

>L&F has more exposure than anything you, or anyone else on /gdg/, has ever made.

Yeah, and barely anyone who has read it has actually played it. And if they did, they played it once and threw it away.

I mean, it's a cool idea and a cute game, but I wouldn't want to actually play it. FATAL has a lot of exposure but people don't play it. Y'know?

>>49912318
Good job. I would suggest not limiting yourself to one page unless you really want to. Introduce a setting, even a base scenario like Everyone is John. Give the players something to go on. Perhaps create another set of mechanics and have interesting interactions between the core mechanics and those. If it's narrative-based (and it looks like it is) you are free to have meta-narrative resources (almost like Apocalypse World). Otherwise, don't do it.

>>49912561
Yes. Do both. Do it like Lasers and Feelings. I had a game like L&F but with multiple stats (Brain vs Brawn, Hate vs. Love, a few others). It was a gay as fuck game but it was fun to play around with.

>>49920151

Not bad. Supposed to be generic? still not sure. It looks better. Some of the spacing is still fucked but that's okay, you can fix it later. Right now I would watch expanding your mechanics too much. What setting is this for?

>>49920526
Rolling above 10 to succeed is rare but not impossible. Don't worry abotu it.

Gotta skip for now, see you in the next gdg if this one dies.

>>49922823
Hmm. I gotta make a contingency system for metacurrency, and try playing both with and without it. Because hell yeah it's narrative-based. It doesn't even have rules for death, so characters are kind of expected to be in the central role of the game

I will try to do something interesting as the setup for YankESP, probably something that would enforce group / gang mentality and make the players feel the pressure of society on their backs while they try to experiment with their crazy powers.

>>49923230
I will probably do two rulesets. YankESP rules and generic. I am a huge genericfag, so I can't help myself with that.

Do you guys answer Fate questions?

I have an idea for an RPG system with a core mechanic based on opposed d6 rolls, usually made against the GM (for obvious reasons). Any action that require a roll will be made opposed to another roll, with the one who rolled higher being successful.

I have two ideas for how stats will work.
The more simple option would be to have stats be simple modifiers, +1 for skilled characters and -1 for unskilled, and so forth.
The second would be to have stats indicate how many d6s they roll for any given action. Only the highest die roll would count. If both sides roll 6s, then the one who rolls the most 6s will win.

I feel both options have merits and drawbacks, and I'm not sure which one I want to use. Option 1 would be easy to keep track of since each side rolls only a single die, but would require a severe limiting of upgrade progression since even a single +1 would make such a huge difference to any roll.
Option 2 allows for characters to get more powerful much easier, though rolling large numbers of opposed dice could potentially get unwieldy.

Does something like that sound feasible? Thoughts?

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

1B, 486x500px

What do you think of this formatting? It's pretty rough but I want to know if you think it's decent at least. Any suggestions? Do you prefer the red serif version or the beige sans serif version?

>>49922823
>I wouldn't want to actually play it
Doesn't mean other people haven't had fun with it. I think your expectation that a one page RPG should be anything more than a one shot are off base.

>>49927303
Red's nicer, serif is good but that particular serif is too much. The W's and Q's are going outside their boxes.

Don't bold and underline, one or the other. Probably bold, underlines are for titles.

>These are the pawns set against us? Hardly fair
Fuck me sideways. Is this meant to be a cheesy shonen anime rpg or what? Give the thief a "teleports behind you" ability.

You didn't take any of the advice for the Warfare card last time re indents, diamonds and stat letter refs. Also on the lefthand since the R, 1, Is aren't centred in their circles.

>>49926562
I'm afraid I don't know anything about it. Sorry, anon.

>>49927303
The green one looks like a primary school textbook from the 90s, and not in a good way.

The red one looks great. It's striking, but pleasant. The font is nicer, especially the headers. The more open design would look much better in print than the green/beige design.

>>49926562
Do we ever

>>49926821
You're doing what every motherfucking in this thread does, takes a nice simple core concept and overcomplicates it.

>>49927402
>I'm afraid I don't know anything about it. Sorry, anon.
It's okay anon. I'm wondering if anyone does.

>>49927417
>Do we ever
I don't know, you tell me.

>>49927417
How so? What in particular doesn't sound right?

I'm serious. I know there's something wrong with the idea.

>>49927447
Ask your question, chumbo

>>49927451
Actually it's not overcomplicated, you're just asking the thread to do analysis and make decisions for you.

Opposed d6 is nice and simple, as are simple modifiers. That's not enough to make a game though, since you have such simple conflict resolution you'll need more game somewhere else in the system.

Dicepool systems scale really badly, as you've noted.

Go play in anydice for awhile.

Also character progression isn't as important to an RPG as DnD has taught you it is. To appeal to another authority, Traveller had almost no stat/skill progression, instead you got more money/fame/influence.

>>49927539
My thanks, I appreciate the feedback.
>since you have such simple conflict resolution you'll need more game somewhere else in the system.
That is an excellent point. I'll hold off on posting again until I have more to present.

Again, my thanks.

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

1B, 486x500px

>>49927387
>Is this meant to be a cheesy shonen anime rpg or what?
It is, actually! More in line with Final Fantasy/Fire Emblem, but I thought it would be fun to have hyper shonen quotes. I don't know why. Is it too much? Also it's the ninja that teleports behind you, not the thief.

Don't recall any advice about indents, but I kind of can't get rid of the diamonds. The text "When you", "Success:" and "Failure:" all take up a lot of very limited space. If I write it out, I won't have space to describe the actual conditions/effects without using more complex notation. I tried reducing the font size or padding, but that made it look sloppy, crowded and more difficult to read.

Good catch on the R/I/1, I'll be sure to fix that.

>>49927402
The red is used for the rest of the book (and still isn't perfect), but I was concerned it would clash with the Command/Trait pages. For those I wanted a more sterile, sans-serif look as they are rather dry rules; I was inspired by the large page-sized tables in Ryuutama. I wanted to avoid something like Dungeon World, which I don't think is organized very well.

What do you think of this page?

File: jenny.jpg (37KB, 400x240px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x240px

>>49927539
>Ask your question, chumbo
Okay. It's about both Fate and pic related. I'm throwing a Fate based Pokémon game, and while I was making the character sheets I came up with this: trainer's eye. It's a bunch of descriptions, as you can see, and it reminded me of fate's aspects a huge ton. How feasible is it to translate these into character aspects, and what should I change in the character creation phase to reflect those changes? I should also keep in mind the whole collaborative character creation thing and to tie everything together.

>>49927680
>What do you think of this page?
Same as before. I like it. Everything is clear and well-labeled.

That being said, have you tried using a crisper, brighter red? I also feel like using a whiter background (not pure white, but less parchment-y) might help too. I'm not saying you -should- change it, but I'd like to see how it looks with slight colour tweaking.

>>49927739
Fate games I run I usually give a suggested category for each PC aspect. So instead of 1 High Concept, 1 Trouble and 3 Whatever you have 1 HC, 1 T, 1 Strategy, 1 Fav Pokemon, 1 Trainer Message. I'd keep it optional though.

Re: shared chargen I usually have one Character Aspect category be a Relationship one and another be a Perspective (which another player gives their character).

All that said I don't know if those trainer profile things would be great for character aspects. You might get a situation where a player just spams
>*fate point* it's my favourite pokemon type, so +2
But depends how creative you are at using Aspects I guess.

>>49927680
Looks good, again the serif titles are going outside their boxes though.

File: nation wars-page058.jpg (2MB, 5846x4134px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5846x4134px

>>49866296
I haven't added much that's ready to see (mostly finishing off magic) but I'm still keen for some ideas or immediate observations
Could use a few more negative speciality ideas which pop in the document I'm about to post

>>49926821
This is interesting because it's a similar base to the Talisman boardgame. Talisman mostly uses a +x to your rolls but also has multi-dice situations.
Just bear in mind, the floating point variable of roll x keep 1 get's better at a slow rate (i.e the result is capped at 6 at the more dice you add the higher your expected result 'floats' to 6. It's eclipsed quite quickly by +X results which will typically have higher expected values than most die pool results by around +3
But, it could be good to get some inspiration from that game. For instance:
Poison dagger: +1 to strength rolls. If you roll a 1 on your d6, roll an additional d6 and add it.

>>49927303
I find it pretty clear, though the subheadings on pg 1 could be a tad smaller, and if you concatenate Warrior to War for those figures/tables you could make it a little clearer with parentheses eg Warrior(War)

File: Nation building rules summary.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49927928
the specialities doc
though like a dunce I've made it unclear; the cultural style and religion doesn't count towards the 7 specialities you get. You pick them, then choose the 7.

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

1B, 486x500px

>>49927833
>>49927858
>>49927928
Peep this.

My original thinking of the decorative titles extending beyond their boundaries was that these were satin ribbons extending onto the page, and the letters had been cut out of them (like those paper snowflakes you made in grade school). I can see how that's not very clear without a shadow effect, which is difficult to do properly and doesn't look good at that size anyway.

I also tried a whiter background and more vibrant red, but I am colorblind so I don't know if it looks better. Evened out the spacing a bit and removed the underlines under key terms, but I think they're much less distinct now - because of the small size of the book, the bold doesn't stand out much.

>>49927858
>Fate games I run I usually give a suggested category for each PC aspect.
Yes that's what has been bugging me about Fate Core. I like the whole aspect generation thing but it feels too generic, especially compared to other Fate games and I've been trying to find a way to make them less generic. That's also a good way to make chargen faster because players automatically get a line of thought to follow instead of having to come up with whatever.

>All that said I don't know if those trainer profile things would be great for character aspects.
Me neither, although they do look like they possibly could become aspects if I retool them properly. But for example

>I have so many fans that it's a pain. I was even interviewed on TV!

I can immediately think of possible compels for such a character. Oh you're trying to go through a crowd hidden? How about I compel you and a fan immediately recognizes you?

The Strategy and Fav Mon parts are a bit harder if I don't retool them more properly. "No mercy!" could possibly be self compelled during a combat (I wanted to go soft but because I think No Mercy! is my strategy I actually harm that pokémon far more than what I should have). And Fav Mon? Not sure.

>>49927928
>Talisman boardgame
I will certainly check that out.

>>49928037
it's pretty much a d6 comparison for every contest

>>49928026
I'm just one person, but I do prefer the brighter colours. Side-to-side, the brighter looks almost makes the original look faded. I still say it could go either way, however. Definitely get more input before deciding one way or another.
Maybe a straw poll would help you get a wider sampling of numbers?

File: fantasy-art-digital-art-artwork-wizard-fight-1920x1080.jpg (392KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1920x1080px

>>49928026
here's a point of interest: there's a lot of information in each step. Like in step one, there are three concepts.
I can easily appreciate that, in character creation, you tend to make a lot of complementary decisions simultaneously, but as a means for organising information, even just putting three concepts under singular headings might be helpful.

>>49867203
d6s are "normal" dice. They're the kind people are most likely to have handy.

d20s have the widest range of values among dice that are easy to roll (and you really don't need more than a range of 20 values for anything ever).

The pile of mixed-sided dice has a certain nerdy mystique to it. However, that mystique is largely part of D&D's branding and you're not D&D.

Bell curve vs straight roll depends deeply on what you're trying to achieve with your system, but once you've figured that out 3d6 or 1d20 is likely to be the best choice.

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

1B, 486x500px

>>49928035
Fate Core should never be run without tweaking it to suit your game.

Yeah, gotta try to make Aspects be Compellable. My most recent take on that is tying Levelling Up to each and every PC Aspect being Compelled at least once, then everyone levels.

Strategy and Fav Mon are probably better done as Stunts. Special abilities in special circumstances.

Since there's finally another Fatefag I'll post muh homebrew.

>>49928037
Beware, the consensus on the Board Games General is that it's a fun beer and pretzels dungeon crawler, but isn't particularly well designed. So it may not be a great example to follow

>>49870209
Spell failure is basically a different name for accuracy. I think accuracy numbers tend to be too low in most RPGs, and it applies here too. If everything hits all the time (ie: no spell failure) and that actually works for you, that's a cool thing that you should hold on to.

If you're looking for something that's supposed to make magic feel "magical" then a random% chance to fuck you over isn't going to do it. Better tools are long cooldowns, weirdly circumstantial effects (if you put the effort in), or creepy delayed consequences. A random chance of being visited by strange creatures next time you sleep is much better at being foreboding than fizzling in the moment.

>>49928195
>Fate Core should never be run without tweaking it to suit your game.
I've done a lot of tweaking. I changed a skill for another, for example (mixed fight and shoot because, as far as humans go, it's not that important. I also added survival because it's far more important for the whole game), and I created a ton of mechanics based on Fate concepts themselves (fractal) to make the 'mons.

But it's the aspects part that makes me question myself the most. Both this and status conditions, because even when they are definitely compellable, I don't see how I can compel them.

Anyways, on topic. Where do I draw ideas from to replace PC aspects and make the game more customized to my needs? I'm trying to think about what could happen in a Pokémon setting but nothing comes to mind.

>Yeah, gotta try to make Aspects be Compellable. My most recent take on that is tying Levelling Up to each and every PC Aspect being Compelled at least once, then everyone levels.
So you level up after you've compelled every PC aspect once? Including self compels?

>Strategy and Fav Mon are probably better done as Stunts. Special abilities in special circumstances.
You're right on that one, they could be easily done as stunts.

>Since there's finally another Fatefag I'll post muh homebrew.
I haven't played Diaspora. What is it about and what are the differences of your homebrew with the original?

>>49928107
Good idea. I'll probably do exactly that once I have a few chapters ready to show off. Most of the book is done, actually, but I don't think it's tight enough to share.

>>49928153
This is honestly something I've struggled with, so I appreciate the outside perspective. Again, this comes down to limited space; while I would like to have a step for each, there just isn't enough room. I organized it in such a way that each step is very minimal and interrelated - most of them involve one step of math, and are mostly about learning how to play. I'll definitely experiment with it more.

>>49879649
I think of complexity like spending money. It's bad by default, but there are things you can buy that are good enough to outweigh their cost.

The more complex a system is, the more it needs to achieve with that complexity. Game balance, a specific kind of story pacing, or what? So when i see a system that's complex but where it isn't clear what I'm going to get out of it, I assume it's garbage.

Is this system actually better than Risus plus a TVTropes page? If not, why is it more complicated?

>>49928195
Talisman does what it sets out to do successfully. It plays like a roguelike, but it's easy to overstate how 'random' the game is.

>>49928313
without changing the content of each step, less info in the titles could make it seem less intimidating.

>>49928260
>skills
I find it's often good to make the skill list with the players session 0. Have a draft, but what they want to add or remove or merge tells you a lot about what THEY want out of the game.

Aspects are hard, no doubt about it. Mostly I just try to encourage as evocative a phrase as possible and leave the rest to inspiration at the table re: compels.
Pokemon Status Effects are probably best done as Boosts or Environmental aspects, just add +2 to the next attack against them for poison taking it's toll, or offer a Fate Point for them to be unable to act for paralysis.

>So you level up after you've compelled every PC aspect once? Including self compels?
Yeah, the idea is to encourage players to compel themselves and each other. Having all the compels from the GM is exhausting. My best Fate sessions have been things going crazy as players keep exchanging FPs between each other all night.

>What is it about and what are the differences of your homebrew with the original?
Diaspora was based off the previous version of Fate (3rd Edition, Core is 4th). I like to think I streamlined it a bit, added the Fate tweaks we've been discussing, changed up the Skill system quite a bit, made Stress and Consequences more debilitating and longer-lasting.

>>49928324
>Talisman does what it sets out to do successfully
No question. I'm just warning against blinding following examples unless you're sure your design goals as the same as its

>>49879649
Just speaking for myself, I'm just starting out with game design. I want to work on a rules light system largely as practice. Once I can get a basic system up and running I'll move to making more in-depth, detailed systems.

>>49879649
>>49928365
Yeah pretty much, gotta walk before you can run.

Lots of homebrews are toddlers trying to sprint, and it's a mess.

>>49928355
>I find it's often good to make the skill list with the players session 0. Have a draft, but what they want to add or remove or merge tells you a lot about what THEY want out of the game.
Yes but I don't have a group, I'm basically creating a game I want to distribute once I feel it's good enough. And I might be approaching to that point as I've distilled the game a lot after my tests.

>Aspects are hard, no doubt about it. Mostly I just try to encourage as evocative a phrase as possible and leave the rest to inspiration at the table re: compels.
Agreed, but I want to see if there is a way to replace the aspects created during chargen with ones that are more fitting to the setting, like in Diaspora and your homebrew. Or if it's necessary at all.

>Pokemon Status Effects are probably best done as Boosts or Environmental aspects, just add +2 to the next attack against them for poison taking it's toll, or offer a Fate Point for them to be unable to act for paralysis.
As easy as that? Once someone told me the best was to just leave them open ended to signify whatever.

I'm at a loss here. How do I judge what option is best? Yours seem like the easiest way to do it though.

>Yeah, the idea is to encourage players to compel themselves and each other. Having all the compels from the GM is exhausting. My best Fate sessions have been things going crazy as players keep exchanging FPs between each other all night.
I still have to go through something like that, but in my defense none of my players were experienced enough with Fate. And I gotta learn to compel better.

>Diaspora was based off the previous version of Fate (3rd Edition, Core is 4th). I like to think I streamlined it a bit, added the Fate tweaks we've been discussing, changed up the Skill system quite a bit, made Stress and Consequences more debilitating and longer-lasting.
So you basically cleaned Diaspora and updated it to 4e. Interesting, will skim through it, to see if I also have ideas!

Here's a list of increasingly complex systems. Can I get some gut reactions on where this becomes obviously too complicated?

1 - Every turn you get one action.
2 - Every turn you get a move action and an attack action. Some abilities are move actions, some are attack actions.
3 - Same as #2, plus you have a stance that offers static bonuses. You can change stance once per turn.
4 - Same as #2, plus you have a stance and grip that each offer static bonuses. You can switch each once per turn.

I can do neat things with each additional layer of complexity but that doesn't help if I go too high and people cast the book down in disgust.

>>49880850
The resource management minigame is really cool if you're playing a game of dungeon crawls and logistics, but it's vestigial in the typical modern RPG.

If you're worried about balance, you can achieve it entirely with opportunity cost. The cost of using an ability this turn is that you're not using any of your other abilities that turn.

>>49928451
>Once someone told me the best was to just leave them open ended to signify whatever
As Aspects? The big thing there is you have to spend a FP to use it then, which people are disinclined to do. People rush to use Boosts though, as they're free and will go away if unused by the end of the scene.

Of course Fate Core Create an Advantage RAW will stipulated whether it's a Boost, Enviro Aspect or Aspect with free Invokes on it depending on the results of the roll/s. Really that should be fine for inflicting status affects, if you want more out of them the answer again is Stunts.

>I don't have a group
>none of my players were experienced enough with Fate
Fate is a tricky system. I get booty blasted whenever /tg/ calls it rules light, since they obviously haven't played or even read it if they think that.

Maybe get more experienced with the system playing your Pokemon game RAW before tweaking it too much.

> will skim through it, to see if I also have ideas!
A lot of my tweaks were to make Fate more low powered and grittier, so I don't know if that's appropriate for Pokemans.

>>49928483
#3 is l5R's system
all can work so long as the 'stances' and 'grips' are lucid and the mechanics of changing them is clear (start or end of turn? When to stance effects count? Do you lose stance if tripped etc)
I've been meaning to get around to an action point system, where action types (like running and shooting) are combined to reduce action costs at the cost of the efficiency of the action. But playing with numbers every turn tends to work better in video games where values and calculations are automated and integrated into the UI

>>49928483
Depends what's going on in the rest of the system. If the players/GM have to mentally track it all it's too hard at 3, but if you have a well designed character sheet (maybe with a token you move around on it to show your stance/grip) it should be fine.

4 The fact you want to track and have modifiers from your grip though suggests you're talking about really short narrative-time combat turns, with will turn some people off.

>>49928560
>an action point system, where action types (like running and shooting) are combined to reduce action costs at the cost of the efficiency of the action

One thing I'd like to try is a push-your-luck system where you can take as many actions (or stake as many bonuses into a single action) as you want, but each one increases the chance and consequences of failure for the next action.

>>49928547
>will go away if unused by the end of the scene
Stuff as paralysis and poison are more lasting, technically they shouldn't go away until properly healed. But other things such as confusion, attraction... Those should end after a battle is over (usually after a conflict, not necessarily after a scene).

>if you want more out of them the answer again is Stunts
What do you mean? Using those status conditions as stunts?

>Fate is a tricky system. I get booty blasted whenever /tg/ calls it rules light, since they obviously haven't played or even read it if they think that.
Agreed, Fate is tricky to work with. Not complex, but tricky. And once you get past the trickiness you can play almost whatever (emphasis on almost) with minimal tweaks.

>Maybe get more experienced with the system playing your Pokemon game RAW before tweaking it too much.
I've had two groups I tested this game with, that's why I've been able to distill it further. And now I'm finishing another tweaking before GMing the oneshot I'm planning.

>A lot of my tweaks were to make Fate more low powered and grittier, so I don't know if that's appropriate for Pokemans.
Oh it's okay, I can always draw some few ideas if proper. Reading Fate implementations makes my creative juices get working.

>>49906676
I've been tempted to try it for a while and haven't had the courage to bite the bullet. You need to make sure that whatever you replace it with is actually interesting though.

> Are there any systems that forego the ‘to hit’ roll?
Most attacks in Pokemon have 100% accuracy ratings. It's not a perfectly straight example, but you can have entire matches with perfect accuracy. And competitive Pokemon is pretty damn deep.

Competitive Pokemon gets most of its interest from repeated variants on weighted rock-paper-scissors. Most matchups are heavily slanted, so the unfravored player wants to switch, so the favored player wants to use move that's better in that case, so the unfavored player might not actually switch. That requires simultaneous turns, and I don't think that's a good idea against a GM. So you need to find something else.

>>49928593
>but each one increases the chance and consequences of failure for the next action
could definitely work for a cinematic/adventurous toned game while still keeping a tactical element
reminds me vaguely of that chaos reborn game in chaos mode. You can spend a turn on a valuable spell without preparing the battlefield, which will give you a huge advantage if it succeeds, but it will have like a 60-80% chance of failing.

>>49908096
FATE's aspect system is brilliant, but it has to be the entire core of the game to work. I've tried systems with them just tacked on and it really doesn't work.

It's really all-or-nothing.

(And FATE makes the right decision to make that the entire core of the game, but made everything else as bland as cardboard in the process. Don't do that.)

>>49928629
>Stuff as paralysis and poison are more lasting
>What do you mean?
I'm just talking about using Status Conditions as Aspects placed via a Create An Advantage action in Fate Core RAW.

Playing around with narrative time-units is a good way to fiddle with Fate. Stress goes away at the end of a Scene, but what's a Scene? Up to you.
The Wealth thing and having Upkeep trigger when docking at a station is what I did with it. Maybe you could do something similar with Pokecentres.

>Using those status conditions as stunts?
No I meant giving Pokemon stunts that trigger when they're targeting another pokemon with a status effect or something like that. Again, just suggesting a way unmodified Fate can handle it.

>>49928560
>>49928593
Thanks folks.

I'm actually working on something pretty streamlined, I'm just trying to figure out what I can get away with before people's complexity alarms go off.

I realized that in #2 I can put all possible offensive abilities in attacks and defensive abilities in moves, and this makes it really easy for me to hit a specific power level despite very open-ended character creation. But some common themes for abilities are passive.

#4 lets me repeat the trick again for passives, but as you've confirmed, it makes it sound like you're in for a world of mechanical complexity.

(And "grip" makes it sound like you're going incredibly granular but it's just the best terminology I've found for two stances at once.)

>>49928900
>best terminology I've found for two stances at once
Style?

I really think RPGs could learn a lot from boardgame design in terms of using reference cards, symbology and player-boards to make complexity more palatable. Having game pieces on your character sheet so others can see your current configuration of resources/whatever instead of writing it down so only whoever is directly in front of the sheet can see it raises the palatable complexity level considerably.

>>49928979
I agree. Ammo and reloading are bookkeeping headaches that I've found greatly helped by weapon cards with an ammo counting space, using those little glass pebble things

>>49928827
>I'm just talking about using Status Conditions as Aspects placed via a Create An Advantage action in Fate Core RAW.
I already have ways to place status conditions via moves (which are stunts with a bit of extra information, namely type and category). They either happen as a success with style in case of damaging moves (i.e. Poison Fang: deals damage. On a success with style, instead of taking a boost you can make the target flinch or become poisoned with a free invoke) or, as you said, CaA rolls if that's the whole effect (i.e. Spore: Create an advantage using Dexterity opposed by Physique. On a success, the target is now asleep with a free invoke) (mind you this isn't the exact wording for both moves but you get it).

I had to introduce the concept of moves, because otherwise the game wouldn't feel like it's the setting itself!

>Playing around with narrative time-units is a good way to fiddle with Fate. Stress goes away at the end of a Scene, but what's a Scene? Up to you.
Hm? I should probably play around with narrative time-units a bit more, although the most powerful of moves, for instance, cannot be used than once or twice per conflict or scene.

>The Wealth thing and having Upkeep trigger when docking at a station is what I did with it. Maybe you could do something similar with Pokecentres.
I will read that, thank you.

>No I meant giving Pokemon stunts that trigger when they're targeting another pokemon with a status effect or something like that. Again, just suggesting a way unmodified Fate can handle it.
That comes with the setting, via Abilities (represented by stunts in the Pokémon which you cannot change because they come with the individual). For example, Guts (deal 2 extra stress to your targets if you use a physical move). There are also moves that play with those (Wake-up Slap: +2 to your roll if the target is asleep. The target wakes up afterwards.)

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

1B, 486x500px

I was wondering what you folks think of these for the skeleton of a ritual magic system. I'm doing a "cantrips+rituals" system for casting and wanting to go with a certain vibe for the rituals.

>>49928979
Could be Style. Or, in boardgame land, it could be an abstract symbol that's never actually given a name.

I agree that tabletop RPGs have an awful lot to learn from board games, but I didn't think of the connection between character sheets and player boards until you just pointed it out. That's a good point.

>>49929096
> it could be an abstract symbol that's never actually given a name

An abstract euro-type RPG is a weird idea. RPGs are usually very thematic. Having a role implies themes. I guess metacurrency is the closest thing to "resources without in-setting explanation" in RPGs, and they're usually just called Luck or Fate or whatever.

Chances are good any nameless, explainationless mechanic in an RPG will be given fluff by the players in short order.

So /gdg/ I'm designing my "perfect system" for years, but I'm at a point where i want to slap together a much more silly and fast RPG to test ideas and just have fun.

My initial point of inspiration is idea of characters having Roles, not Classes, with the roles being stereotypical literary fiction 'tropes like "Hero", "Sidekick", "Enforcer", etc. The narrative needs of the game replace any simulation, but there's still strategy because "failure" suddenly is not tied to death, but the narrative conclusion.

I'm 70% sure this is basically done already but what do you think?

>>49911674
Let us know when this pays off

>>49929074
Will, a casting time and required reagents are about as basic ritual as you get, and though I'm not a fan of the vancian style it's nice to have detailed spell components/requirements.

Rituals have always posed a challenge for me, and I look at them in two ways.
1) A storied spell, the more historic way to look at it, where behaviours and metaphor are ritualized to achieve some effect. There's an intrinsic narrative to the ritual and so the effects tend to mirror the vancian magic system I'm not totally a fan of.

2) a way to achieve powerful magical effects by increasing the complexity and focus of your 'spellcasting' activity. I like this method and I like give spells a scaling foundation of 'spellpower' (so, there's always some effect that can increase, like targets, options, duration or potence) and then the ritual rules dictate how to achieve X additional spellpower (or alternatively how much spellpower a particular spell needs to be cast at all)

>>49929210
I'm not quite certain with the rituals with how they should fit into the game world. The specific behaviors and metaphors are something, I think going too hard on that could hamper players ability to fluff their spellcasting.

One way I look at the reagents is that it gets a resource management aspect to spellcasting in a way that's less disassociated than fire and forget. A mage could theoretically cast a spell over and over without sleeping if they had reagents and time. I think as well, reagents promote exploration. Harder to find ones or easier to find ones ends up as part of the balance of them. It gives magic players a reason to go adventure. It promotes some of the gameplay assumptions (resource management and exploration gameplay) in a more direct way.

I'm thinking of restricting a players ability to learn rituals. They can research them on their own but it's much easier to find a book where it's written in. It's hardcore book vancian at that point but I like the idea of learning magic as a setting exploration element.

The idea would be that players could hear about rituals through rumors like "The casters hand can be controlled independently after it is cut off. 20 years ago; Besser, the lord of alluvias court jew, kept one of these around him at all times. It was discovered that he had been using it to pilfer hair and bodily fluids from the royal family. In the ensuing chaos, Bessers bookshelf was ransacked by soldiers."
So then players would know that the spell requires cutting off their hand but has a couple leads to it; either finding besser or the soldiers or could stumble into whatever bessers plot was during all of this.

>>49929148
> An abstract euro-type RPG is a weird idea.
I was thinking it's like... spend abstract euro-resource to use concrete thematic ability.

Though the idea of a super abstract euro-type RPG is pretty entertaining. I always wanted there to be a dedicated Dungeons & Logistics RPG that's all about rations and pitons. Maybe a game could be actually designed around that but use abstraction to shoehorn the same mechanics into working for social and combat encounters.

> Chances are good any nameless, explainationless mechanic in an RPG will be given fluff by the players in short order.
That's not entirely bad. Once players nickname part of your system they have a sense of ownership.

>>49929397
you have to go all in on the reagents thing, though, spell components are one of the most frequently handwaved things in DnD and probably other systems

>>49929478
How do you think I should go all in on reagents?
Unless it's flavorful, I'm worried about the ability to drastically increase the power of rituals since I'm concerned about having vertical advancement be too much if every ritual could be scaled. The ones that do scale are more to help support certain archetypes or help scale with things like hp.

>>49929663
I just mean that reagents, which can impose a helpful or intentional limitation on spell availability, are often ignored.
If you use them, use them in a central or emphatic enough way that people don't ignore them.

>>49928483
My initial reaction is based on dnd, which stops me at #2. However, there's different ways each of the numbers works depending on what your hands wants to focus on.

For example, #4 is cool if you're designing something very combat focused, like a wuxia game where everyone knows a bit of martial arts or something. But, if you're adding skills, spells, and a bunch of other things people need to track, then #4 is too complicated for the theoretical player. However, if there's a heavy class focus where a fighter is the only one that uses grip+ stance (the wizard is the only one that uses spells, and the rogue is the only one that uses skills), then that would be more palatable. It all depends on how much each individual person has to keep track of at once, or how many rules you expect them to have memorized.

>>49929663
>>49929718
I'd probably just abstract it to like three categories of rarity. So all you have to track is how many Common, Rare, Super Rare reagents you have.

It's pretty much glorified mana at that point though.

my quickstart PDF is largely written, /tg/. how do I do page design? or maybe better put: where do I find someone capable who does page design for me? (i want to layout the text myself)

>>49930571
download freeware desktop publishing software like scribus and watch tutorials on youtube or browse /gd/

>where do I find someone capable who does page design for me?
same way you find someone who can fix your car or printer for you

>>49930624
i dont know. ideally, it's someone familiar with rpg books. ideally, it's someone familiar with dark fantasy. ideally, it is someone can whose design complements the art already procured. ideally, it is someone i can afford.

Bump.

I've got a system I made too but the thread has to live for me to summarize it.

>>49930646

So basically someone from Poland?

>>49927303
How do i into formatting? I'm sick of my word clusterfuck.

>>49928483
4 sounds good if you include a neutral stance/grip; otherwise 3.

Ok /gdg/ I've been mulling over a new system/setting/game idea for a while and want to know what you guys thing. In essence, it would be kind of trying to replicate the feeling of claustrophobia and paranoia from 10 Cloverfield lane, with everyone stuck inside a 'bunker' and forced to deal with each other. Each person would pick an 'archtype' which would essentially be their class and would dictate special ability, as well as a dark secret the character has (something like 'I'm a heroin addict' or 'I killed my brother' or 'I'm secretly gay') and the GM just slowly turns the screws and watches as people either slowly turn on each other or band together. What does everyone think?

>>49929877
>>49932348
I think that, in practice, most characters would actually only have one stance and one grip. It's really more of a limiter on how strong a multi-classed character can be.

Like, say the barbarian gets a stance that adds knockback to all their attacks, and the wizard has a stance that boosts the range of spells. I'm okay with a multi-classed barbarian/wizard using the barbarian's stance to add knockback to spells. But the combination of +range and +knockback is a lot better than a non-multi-classed character would be able to do, so I don't want them using both at once. That's why stances instead of passive bonuses.

I guess maybe I could get away with it if I just introduced the rule as something that's mostly a concern for advanced players.

>>49933329
That sounds perfectly fine then. I would try to set up the game in such a way that everyone has access to at least two stances (same applies to grips): a neutral stance, which confers no advantages or disadvantages, and a class-specific learned stance that confers both an advantage and a disadvantage. For example, the barbarian stance might add knockback, who also decrease their movement or make them more susceptible to sneak attacks/flanking/whatever appropriate. A wizard stance may increase the range of their spells but also decrease the damage done, or the to-hit, or some such. Balance them so that stances are generally better than the neutral stance, but such that there may be situations in which the disadvantage outweighs the advantage.

>>49931535
i have polish (well, sort of - east german/polish, it seems to blur) ancestry, so i'd be comfy with that

I'm thinking about a system in which you have six total stats, grouped into two groups of three.

There are the Faculties: Physical, Social, and Mental.

Then there are the three Methods: Forceful, Adaptable, and Resilient.

Rolls would be done by combining a method with a faculty. For example, Resilient Mental, Adaptable Mental, and Resilient Physical are all potential combinations.

I'm also thinking of having skills, which would be assigned to a certain faculty or method. For example, the Physical faculty may have a "Coordination" subskill, wherein the three methods (Acrobatics under Forceful, Sleight of Hand under Adaptable, and Stealth under Resilient) would have different effects.

Thoughts?

>>49935101
What would something like Forceful Mental be?

>>49935329
Forceful Mental would encompass the memorisation of facts (i.e. your knowledge check skills) and the presentation of logical arguments, i.e. "Convince". Note that Convince would be different from Persuade in that Convince requires you to have the facts on hand, and it's more about your interpretation of the facts.

Adaptable would be more on the line of day-to-day skills, such as Tech-Use, Investigation, and on-the-fly things like Insight and Search. Skills aren't finalised here but just some ideas of what might fall under it.

Resilient would involve closing oneself off. Willpower (used to resist effects of fear and the like), Survival, Stash, Perception.

>>49892551
>I thought of a game in which dice are miniatures.

Dragon Dice tried that. Also tried to be the first and biggest "Collectible Dice Game."

age

>>49932265
My formatting is rather poor, but I accomplished the post you're replying to in four easy steps:

1. Read and look at lots of books, and not just other RPGs. Think about them; what works? What doesn't? What looks good and what looks bad? Regardless of their aesthetic principles, how well do they convey information?

2. Start reading about the basics of graphic design. This will give you a better framework to interpret your experiences in the previous step. I already had some experience with web design, so that perspective lent itself to organizing a book. Remember that the number one purpose of a book is to convey information, not to look flashy; if it isn't easy to read, try again.

3. Download Adobe Creative Cloud, specifically InDesign and Illustrator. It's only ~$20/month, I believe. Illustrator will let you easily draw shapes; I always mock up a page style in Illustrator before attempting it in InDesign.

4. When you start working in InDesign, you'll inevitably run into things you don't know how to do. Don't worry. Just Google it. There's a lot of information out there, especially on the graphic design Stack Exchange. In my experience, /gd/ isn't much help here.

BONUS: If it doesn't turn out the way you thought, or you have better ideas, don't hesitate to make changes. What you see in the PDF I posted is the fifth major style for that book, and it won't be the last. This is why it's important to understand InDesign's swatches and table, cell, paragraph and character style functionality; it will allow you to easily and quickly change the look of your entire document. Never stop iterating!

Rolling over or under, which do you prefer?

>>49939640
Over. Unless you have a mathematical reason to do roll under (like d%), it's probably better to use over. Most people are conditioned to think bigger numbers are better, so rolling a 20 feels better than a 1, for example.

>>49932651
Sounds like shitty Geiger Counter

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

1B, 486x500px

>>49930110
I'm worried that overly abstracting it into just "common, rare, super-rare" would pose two issues. For one, it takes away from the specific flavor element of spells. The other is that if there's a source of say "rare components" then those could be used for any ritual with rare components. It makes gathering components a lot easier.

One idea, I have a system for herbalism that goes like this. As far as finding ingredients, do you think it'd work to port this subsystem into reagents and alchemical ingredients for potions?

>>49939640
roll under. why? it's simpler to derive your chances of succeeding.

>>49939828
not really. it's only so with US gamers, conditioned by D&D. German gamers, conditioned by DSA, tend to go for roll under.

>>49940502
>implying anyone cares about Germans
not even Germans care about Germans

How easy should it be for a level one character to hit a level one monster? I'm thinking ~66%.

>>49944715
I like about 80%.

The thing is, on turns where you miss, you spend about as much effort on your turn as otherwise, but you don't make any progress towards the end of the encounter. So each miss stretches the combat length out more. Higher accuracy is better, from this perspective.

But people treat a 90% hit rate as "always hits" so they get seriously tilted when they miss twice in a row, which will eventually happen. 80% is about as high as you can get before you get into the no-man's-land between "always hits" and attacks that actually always hit.

(And actually always hitting is its own can of worms - you lose some tension and have to make the mechanics interesting even without that.)

>>49944715
A statistical 66% will feel like 50% to a player (there's been testing done into a person's perception of results, and it 66% feeling like 50% crops up a lot). So, if the players feel like they're hitting 50% of the time, it had better be very worth their while to actually go for it. If your game has a high death rate or quick combat, then its probably fine. Otherwise, you might want to consider upping the hit rate a bit.

>>49937510
Also, this will be your guiding light: http://practicaltypography.com/

Embrace it now, or regret it later.

>>49944715
depends on the frequency of combat and the tone of the game
High adventure and combat-heavy systems should probably start high and consistent
Systems where combat is meant to be dangerous or a last resort; maybe post-apocalyptic, zombie, or low fantasy, might consider going low and variable

File: 1473354220678.jpg (31KB, 448x640px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 448x640px

>>49944715
>having levels
>having combat
>having characters
It's like you don't even want to innovate.

File: Random En counter.jpg (52KB, 604x588px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 604x588px

>>49937510
>>49945864
Mucho Thanks Anon

saved

>>49949834
>cammo underwear
the other kind of going commando

>>49949430
Now that gives me an idea where you play as abstract concepts instead of people. And not even some vague voices like in Everyone is John, but like. Something completely abstract like art or war.

Also save bamp from page 10

So my card game's combat system works in a slightly complicated way, but because creatures cannot be "worn down" through normal combat, there is an ability called slayer that makes things even more complicated.

Normal: A creature taps on its controller's turn to declare an attack towards a creature or crown controlled by an enemy. From here, the defending player can either let it through or declare an intercept by tapping one of their creatures. A battle happens and the higher strength wins, or both are destroyed if it's a tie. Creatures(but not crowns because they have no combat actions) can tap to "dodge", which nullifies a battle they would otherwise be subject to. A creature can intercept or be intercepted and still dodge out of it if something allows them additional combat actions.

Slayer: Slayer is an ability that comes into play when the holder of the ability is the "aggressor" in a battle. This means either being the initiator of an attack or the initiator of an intercept. Because of this, it can be beneficial for a creature to intercept an attack that is already being aimed at it, because it prevents creatures with slayer from receiving the benefit of being the aggressor, or the target itself could have slayer and benefits from being the aggressor by intercepting. A battle that involves slayer still counts as a battle and can thus be dodged. Assuming a creature with slayer is the aggressor in a battle, the other participant temporarily loses strength equal to the aggressor's strength and the battle ends(0 strength=destroyed).

Is this workable?

My system does away with opposed rolls. I think substituting the opposed result with a simple consistent TN leads to faster play. Am I off base?

For context, players are also the only ones rolling dice in this system (ie they roll to attack and roll to avoid attacks). After playing some Cypher, I really prefer this style as again, it speeds up play. I also feel that in a system constrained by GM moves like PbtA, there is less need to keep the GM rolling to avoid dick behavior.

>>49958039
It can work, yes. Of course, that also means that there is more crunch to deal with (you gotta calculate those TN:s somehow) but that's minimal most of the time.

What if an in-party conflict comes up, or a friendly competition? There should be some mechanic for working those out.

Also, opposed rolls are exciting, at least most of the time. That's why I made a system where combat is literally just piles of opposed rolls, continuing the rolling until one cannot beat the last or someone rolls max number.

It took a lot of influence from those Taiwanese comics where people have fight with persistence and heart.

>>49958134
>in-party conflict comes up, or a friendly competition
In the case of one character acting upon another, the acted upon's stat becomes the TN.

When it's something more neutral, I haven't decided how to handle it.

YEAH!

is there a character builder builder?

>>49963614
microsoft excel

>>49964006
sophisticated. so it's doing it from scratch, I guess