/gdg/ - Game Design General

>>50757732
>>50758065
>>50758078

Anchoring in case "The Under" fella comes, there were some further ideas of elaborations, especially on the Rock-Paper-Scissors Weapon/Armor system.

>>50793219
You already said it, numbness is quite good, you could also use weariness, they may escape a bit on the the connotation you want, but they are the best I can offer...

>>50793673
Kind of removes a lot of nuances, doesn't it? I'm not opposed to it though; I love gordian knot solutions.

>>50795364
There could be another solution. Let the Experience you give be the only way the players can get anything new.

Don't give the players loot as a part of the story or dungeon. At least, of any dreamy measure. But that doesn't mean mean loot doesn't exist. No no no. You just gotta spend some exp dimes and tell GM your wishes, and that good loot will come to your hands.

Just make a failsafe against assholes, such as automatically failing the first roll they do with the loot, possibly losing some fingers.

Similarly, give political power with experience, resources. EVERYTHING works with experience points.

And because the players have to spend the experience points to get things, there will be no conflict about it.

Of course, if a character's situation changes, if they find it unfavorable, maybe they can use some EXP to get out of that situation easier? Probably not gonna be a "get out of jail free" -card, but something to the extent of finding a file to work on those bars.

But hey, even if you drop exp on some epic loot, it doesn't mean that the loot is gonna just drop on their lap. They still gotta go acquire it from somewhere.

>>50795477
By assholes I mean thieving dicks.

Also, of course, the loot the player "buys" can be a part of the next dungeon they go to. It just must be integrated in a smart way. And unlike with regular loot that you might just let be and forget if the group doesn't find it, this loot is persistent. They missed it in that cavern? It can be found from the town they're going to. Missed it in the town? It can be found in the fortress they're going to etc.

>>50795530
There's something about the player choosing the reward stimulus in that specific of a degree that rubs me the wrong way. EXP as a resource is neat though ,I just can't imagine a situation where you wouldn't use it to advance your character's abilities in some way. Or rather- I can't imagine a scenario where not advancing your character's abilities is optimal.

>>50795364
Unknown Armies 3ed has a system for objectives, however it's not your mean of character progression but of story progression, they usually are about things that are going to change your character or the world around him...The player and the GM together set the objective, and to accomplish it you have to fill a "objective meter" to 100% which you do by getting stuff done....its a bit extensive so I would recommend picking up on the book to take a proper look

>>50795477
>>50795701
People should be careful when designing free point-buy systems, both for character creation and for character progressions...it's a bit of a trap and you will have players falling to both sides, some will pursue stuff that is not all that good for them while other will be able to "min-max" like gods...

Opinions on this blog's version of spell learning for magic users?

http://www.lastgaspgrimoire.com/hogwarts-cant-save-you-now/

To break it down; Wizards get to throw down dice the first (and only) time they attempt to learn a spell. Certain bonuses let them roll higher or lower, reroll, get bonus dice, etc.

Basically the better this 'learning' roll is the better that spell is for them permanently. Anywhere from forcing them to use a spellbook and requiring a component to being able to cast the spell as part of their being without any motion or even verbal commands. This last one is also cool because it gives them a minor physical trait or manifestation related to the spell.

Any thoughts on this? I was thinking about using something like it for my OSR campaign but I'm not sure if it would be fun.

>>50795862
That actually sounds like what I had in mind- I'll be sure to check it out.

>second point
That's a good point. What I was thinking of, and this is really only related to character abilities, was a system where the abilities/augments to those abilities also granted stat bumps.
So say the Crusader can pick "Heal Shit" or "Smite Shit" this level (extremely limited example for the sake of convenience). If they pick "Heal Shit", they get a small bonus to the stat that's used when determining amount healed. If they choose "Smite Shit", they get a bump to the damaging stat.
The idea being that, even if you choose abilities that aren't that good, you're still getting something universally good out of the pick.
Thoughts?

>>50795946
It could be fun, but the word permanent kind of ticks me off.

Didn't read the blogpost (yet), but if a spellcaster uses a spell a lot, if they've learned it "badly"... I would more likely see the spell mutate rather than stay bad forever.

>>50795979
Of course, as long as in the long run the choices don't come bite in the ass.

If they take points willy-nilly to every direction, versatility will be their advantage.

But that requires a system where versatility can be advantageous. And naturally also a player who can handle that.

I threw the idea originally due to my own biases, as my games tend to run on so heavy fiction logic rather than real logic that what the character has becomes meaningless, rather, what the character is is all that matters. Sounds like a shitty storygame, I know.

Like, the latest addition to my system was something to make failing fun. Nothing about making failing possibly useful, just fun. That tells you something.

>>50796071
Once I get the rules into a form where they can be played out, feedback and fine tuning should take care of any of those types of problems. I'm ok with their being "optimal" growth, as long as it's not making all other routes invalid.

You're gonna have to reword those last couple of lines- it sounds pretty Krishna though.

File: tumblr_o1mikqKAVo1qcsc7lo1_1280.png (641KB, 1000x1066px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 1000x1066px

>>50795072
Thanks for this! I'll give them a proper read later tonight, I've liked all of your input so far!

>>50795227
Thanks.


Reposting from mear the end of the last thread.


Here is my mechanic so far.

XdYk2 format. X is 2 + ranks in expertise (skill level, 0-5). Y is the type of dice rolled and is based primarily on attributes. K2 meaning keep and add two of the results for the rolls result, discarding the rest.

Attributes range 1-12. 1 means you roll 2 d1s by default (automatic 2). 2 means you roll 2 d2s (coins). past this point things are pretty straightforward (and really, attributes should never get that low. 5 is default). On even numbers you roll 2 dice of sides equal to your attribute (attribute 6 = 2d6), on odd numbers you roll one of each dice you fall between (attribute 7 = 1d6, 1d8)

Gear determines kind of dice are used for dice beyond the default 2. By default, all bonus die are your lowest default die. However, equipment increases your effective attribute when rolling bonus die.

So if you have 6 Physique, 3 Expertise (sword), and a +2 sword, you roll: 2d6, 3d8, keep 2.

If you have an odd number of bonus dice and the bonus die score falls on a odd number, round in favor of the smaller dice.

So 6 Charisma, 3 Expertise (etiquette), and +1 finery, equals: 3d6, 2d8 (the bonus was 3d7, so +1d6 and 2d8)

Some equipment, weapons in particular, give other bonuses like a flat increase to damage dealt.

So really I guess 2dA, XdE, k2 is a better way to describe it.

What do you think, too much?

File: 1457462845388.jpg (149KB, 882x960px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 882x960px

>>50797866
I think it is very intriguing.

But the final notation (the X) makes me stumble;
is it 2d[Attribute], [Expertise]d[Gear] k2?

Going down to d2/coin size always feels like a little blemish to me. It's not a problem but it always bugs me.

>>50798790
Thats exactly right, yes.

Yeah I'm not happy about the d2 either, but there shouldnt be many situations where it is called for, and feeling silly for flipping a coin does drive home how pitifully bleak the character's odds are. Honestly, the bigger problem is what happens when you get bigger than 12. Obviously jumping all the way to a d20 is absurd, so Ill probably just have to give some token addative bonus for ranks that high and do my best to make it unlikely to happen too.

>>50795017
Gotta source on that original image?

How can I add an element of tactics to a combat card game similar to MTG?

I was thinking of making the order of the cards placed matter, but that just sounds like a lot of useless mental gymnastics during the damage phase.

>>50799763
Placing cards into frontline and backline zones is always a good mechanic to explore.

File: 1317027505855.jpg (479KB, 1240x1240px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 1240x1240px

>Placement on a field matters.
and/or
>Adjacency matters.

3x1 center+ flanks
3x2 center, flanks + reserve
3x3 castle: 4 towers, 4 walls, donjon
5x3 detailed battlefield
5x5 the realm

>>50799965
>>50799763

Can anyone think of a good way to have players manage a Battlefleet Gothic style naval detachment? Right now I'm toying with each player having their own group of ships, with the number of ships you can control going up every level. It just seems too... to simple. Being able to captain another frigate should be easier than commanding an extra battleship, shouldn't it?

Thinking of something relatively simple:
The governing attributes (strength, mental, agility, whatever you'd like to call them) are represented as different sizes of die. The more skilled you are in a particular area, the bigger die you roll.
So while a Warrior might have a d10 in strength and a d6 in agility, a Wizard might have a d4 in strength but a d10 in willpower

Dragonstrike did something to that effect, but I haven't actually played a system that works like that (I suppose Shadowrun and Werewolf are along that vein, just with a number of d6s)
Think the reduced scale of results would negatively impact the design?

>>50799965
Really wish that diagram of tone was more fleshed out, because I think it has merit but it's missing a lot of information and misses the mark here and there.

>>50800031
Make sure you're not confusing complexity and depth. Sometimes simple is better, but you don't want to complicate the system with finnicky edge casings and rulings.

>>50800031
What do you mean? In tabletop BFG you just commanded fleet formations and squadrons, and raised the point level as you succeeded in the campaigns.

File: 25dafe51f6fbb4d63491792ce4c92468.jpg (78KB, 567x816px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 567x816px

>>50800068
Ironclaw is quite good and works like that.

>>50800031
You could give point values to ships.

>>50796200
Well, sounding like Krishna was not my intent, unsurprisingly. Like, if you read my posts by the end of the last thread, it's just trying to make mechanics anti-frustration, in a sense.

Like, there is always a choice to autosucceed in a roll, it just will cost you your health and wellbeing. Similarly, failure is singled out in my system as the time the player can influence what happens to the character most.

Like...
Success = What you described succeeds
Autosuccess = ... But at what cost?
Failure = Why did you fail?
Crit fail = What did you fuck up?

By singling out negatives, the game kind of asks you whether you really want to succeed. Of course you do, because the status quo otherwise never changes... But failure is always an option...

And if you're going to fail, better make it as entertaining as possible.

Maybe I should have used entertaining rather than fun in the post, but whatever.

>>50801468
I more meant in the sense that you use direct contradictions to make a profound point.
"How does one not fall into despair, Krishna?"
"By abandoning hope, Arjuna."
Similarly, the impetus for entertainment comes from the consideration of failure, as opposed to considering and expecting victory (as is the case with many TRPGS)

In any case, I think it's a worthy endeavor. RPGs are too focused on victory conditions and conquest- Zero Sum. It fosters a mindset ill suited for compromise. But if you can make failure fun, I think you've done something really special.

>>50801599
It's not like my game isn't already breaking the mold in several ways - even though they are mostly subversions and simply reversals of what already is. But I found an interesting way to explain my game: It's very literal.

When you're on the table, playing, there are way more literal representations of things than normal.

Like, think about attribute modifiers, something we're used to seeing, especially in OSR and D&D. It is an abstraction of the fictional space, in every sense of the word.

Whereas, my attributes, while abstractions (No real person has an innate clumsiness rating), on the table, the number given to it is literal. For the character to be able to achieve anything, that number becomes in the way, and it must be overcome (hence why the roll is called overcoming). Similarly, each numeric value on a character sheet can be tested against. And now that I've said that, I realize that I've reduced the crunch in the game to nigh zero.

There are no more calculations (other than +2, +4 or -2 while calculating difficulty), simply rolling the dice and applying that number directly to the character sheet.

Want to use your magic? You roll against 3 different numbers (and always passively against Despair) on the sheet, each of them telling you a different thing:
>The difficulty usually built on character's Dullness, it is to see whether whatever the character is trying to do succeeds (this part gains +4 if the magic works)
>If the roll is doesn't exceed ordinariness, the magic is resilient and focusing requires straining (Causing one strain)
>If the roll is same or under as Strain (only gonna happen when you start overusing magic), the magic refuses to come, or goes awry

And finally
>if the roll is below despair, some fucked up shit happens that makes you incapable of continuing

It might sound like an unfair system, but if the ball hasn't started rolling, it's just rolling against 1s or 2s (on 2d6). Especially because each check is individual.

File: Aegeos Shattered v0.01.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Full rewrite, work in progress. Still missing some of the frills and the army lists, but the core rules are there. Biggest thing I'm having issues with is just writing, feel some parts are clunky and awkward.

So I'm implementing single-roll accuracy and damage rolled together.

I'm developing a stuck-in-an-mmo game.

Attributes are Tier, HP, Damage, and Soak right now. Damage and Soak will be derived from character statistics later.

Tier represents character level. It is equal to 0-9. T0 equals in game levels 1-9, T1 equals in game levels 10-19, etc. T9 includes the 100th level.

HP is only 100. This represents the percentage of the character's health bar.

Soak is subtracted from all incoming damage before anything else is done. It is a value that maxes out at 20, but should rarely reach that.

I haven't pinned down exactly how characters determine what they roll for damage, but I know I want it to be one through three dice and a single static bonus (all of which may be derived from other statistics)

Damage works as follows:

The attacker rolls their damage (only once per round, as their total damage represents their damage for the round) which they can then apply to any target within range.

Defenders may commit an action which they would have taken later in the round to decrease their damage with any active defenses they may have. If they have none, or the final product does not include active defenses, they reduce the incoming damage by their soak.

If the defender is of a lower or higher tier than the attacker, the incoming damage will increase or decrease by 10% for each step difference.

If a T9 character attacks a T0 character, they deal 190% damage (after soak applies.)

If a T0 character attacks a T9 character, they deal 10% of the committed damage (after soak applies.)

There are four steps towards determining a successful attack and damage. Roll dice, add bonus, subtract soak, multiply by percentage (if hitting a lower or higher tiered enemy)

Determining bonuses to soak and damage are two additional steps to the whole process.

Comparatively, D&D's process is to determine to hit, roll, add, determine damage, roll, add, determine AC and subtract that.

File: tocalcs1.png (137KB, 1551x489px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1551x489px

>>50804694
The attached screenshot shows the average damage and accuracy against most possible enemies. The x-axis is equal to the target's soak. The y-axis is equal to the tier-difference.

The damage dice here are 1d10+1d8+1d6. No static bonuses are shown.

The left-most graph shows the percentage chance that the damage roll chosen will deal at least 1 damage to a target with the applicable soak and tier difference.

The graph on the right shows how many HP damage that target will suffer.

File: tocalcs2.png (80KB, 1516x490px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1516x490px

>>50804751

This graph shows minimum and maximum damage values.

Larger dice have higher variance, but lower accuracy. It looks like it could potentially model critical hits.

I still need to fiddle with the numbers, but it's really not looking bad to me.

Equipment will be able to modify soak and damage, and possibly grant additional HP. Until I determine how long fights should last, it's impossible to determine how many HP a point of soak is worth: however it's easy to say that one point of soak is worth as many HP as the amount of instances of damage you would suffer in a conflict.

Rerolling would be highly valuable for characters with larger dice, and less valuable for characters with large static bonus. A static bonus is worth about 2/3rds of an increase in die size equal to two points, and this will factor in the character creation/modification.

I need to determine exactly how long a fight should last. I intend to have several categories of enemies such as someone might find in an MMO. Mooks, Elites, Sub-bosses, bosses, and raid-bosses, I suppose.

I intend to give either mooks a low HP pool, cause them to suffer multiplied damage, or just die after they've been hit once.

Elites will take 2-3 hits, I think.

Bosses should be about on par with characters, and they might take 5-6 hits from someone with moderate optimization in dealing damage.

Raid bosses will be more like a set of challenges which must be accomplished rather than a large pool of HP. They may have a set of goals to achieve before they're defeated.

All this said... I might be autistic. I don't even PLAY mmos.

Looking for opinions/feedback. Trying to come up with a simple RPG system to run a one-shot shopping trip adventure for my wife. Theme fits the kind of thing she likes, want to get her involved with rolling dice for discounts and stuff. Here's what I have so far:

>Numbered floorplan of an IRL shopping centre, with a number on each shop
>She's been giving a shopping list as her objective
>Each numbered store has 3-4 items she can buy
>Each item has a cost, and some point value
>She has x hours to complete her list, and Y starting balance.
>Browsing a store takes 10 mins, trying on clothes in a shop takes additional 10 minutes
>Player has limited use abilities that either give a discount, or appraise items
>Bought items are worth more/less points depending on who she buys them for. Player does not know the point value whilst buying

It's that last part I'm finding trickiest. There are about 100 shops in the centre, but since she won't have time to visit them all, I can reuse some of the item lists. I want something a little more nuanced than "more expensive item = more points". Thoughts?

>>50806425
how cute.

>>50797866
It's a bit complex but not all that much...just one question that isn't all clear you roll [2+Skill+Gear]d[Attribute] keep 2? If that's the case which dice should I add on odd attributes?

>>50800068
Actually that's better for more deterministic results, aka there is "little interference" from dices (compare it to a everyone rolls 1d20, where even some with poor skills can beat an "expert" with some luck)

>>50804858
It looks like you know your math well enough...do you have any question?

>>50808841
A fair point, but if we're talking on a scale of:
d4<d6<d8<d10<d12, the question becomes "are the marginal differences between die sizes THAT impactful?"

Take a d4 versus a d6: out of the 24 possible results, 6 results end with definitive victories for the d4 roll (25%) assuming ties are ties. Using the d4 and going up the scale, that ends up with the d4 beating a d8 on 18.6% of rolls, a d10 on 15%, and a d12 on 14.3% of rolls- all of which are not insignificant odds. So a complete amateur versus a master has a 14.3% chance of beating them.

>>50809082
You didn't get your math right...
http://anydice.com/program/a2ac
But on overall, with a 1d6,1d8,1d10,1d12 you are going to be rolling 1, 2, 3, 4 above the 1d4 player on average.

On that scale it may not look all that relevant, but your ranges for a roll change a lot, and that may be VERY significant, on that note you could instead add more dices instead of only changing it....just be sure to make it so that your mechanics support your game properly

>>50809512
made a mistake when reading the results...your calculations were pretty on spot (except for the last one)

File: ConceptBattlefield.png (2MB, 4200x5319px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4200x5319px

>>50799965
That seems really complicated. I don't really want to divide the card area up too much; right now I have spaces for two different "types" of cards that would fight: capital ships and strike craft. I didn't want to divide those up into sub-regions because I was kind of hoping to keep it freeform enough for players to decide how they wanted to arrange their "formations" and dictate their attack/defense.

>>50799925
I might look into frontline/backline to balance "production" and actual cards that engage in battle. That could work, simplify things. It'd either come down to absolute attack/defense values on the cards, or I could make it sort of Risk-like and have those numbers indicate how many dice to roll, I guess.

>>50809512
>>50809553

All I really did was do a table of possible results between a d4 and a d6, found out that only six results could beat a die that ranges 1-whatever when you roll a d4 and then just did multiplication for finding the potential number of results.

I considered more dice but I didn't want to tread on Shadowrun's design (and all the problems that come with it). That said, it might be prudent to add very small modifiers to the rolls a la the d20 system.
Say a class starts off with 1d6 agility and then the character picks up an ability that gives them a passive +1 to agility, thus making their agility stat "1d6+1". At such low value rolls, a flat bonus is never anything to sneeze at.

>>50808841
I'm not sure which attributes I ought to use, since it's a stuck-in-an-mmo game, most in-game attributes would only affect combat, and I really only have Defense and Damage statistics, since HP is equal to 100. Healing can be thrown in there as its own distinction.

Critical hits don't exist, not as such, as it would add another step to combat.

>>50809512
>>50809553
>>50809668

A possible way to get the difference down easier, is to always roll 2dX and take the higher one.

http://anydice.com/program/a2ad

It needs some super magic to beat d12 with d4, but it IS possible.

File: tumblr_nd35735tVF1s7xduro1_1280.jpg (195KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 683x1024px

>>50806425
Then have other stats on clothes than price.
for example
>Label
>Sexiness
>Trendy
>Quality
>Uniqueness
>that-bitch-from-office-already-wears-that-malus

>>50809691
This way, the chance of beating the lower die is 60-70%, and the difference decreases from 70% with d6 vs d4 to 60% with d12 vs d10.

With 1dX, the fight against the "one tier higher" is always only very slightly advantageous to the stronger one. Like, 5-8% more advantageous, where as 2dX is 10-20% more advantageous.

>>50809945
Of course, the dice.

http://anydice.com/program/a2af

Okay, apparently it's 8-19% with these, to be exact. The numbers eluded me before.

>>50810075
That could work, although now that I've thought of the flat modifiers I'm beginning to see how that might connect with other design elements.
That said, maybe the bumps to stats could instead be another die to roll and you just take the highest of the group rolled. The problem there being that it limits the upper levels of "mastery" if die sizes are assigned according to class.

>>50808841
Its more like
2d[Attribute] and [Skill]d[Gear+Attribute], keep 2

On odd Attributes, you use one of each adjacent even number die (7= 1d6, 1d8)

On add skill ranks, you break in favor of one extra of the larger die. (skill 3, gear 2, att7 = 1d8, 2d10: this is in addition to the 1d6 and 1d8 provided by att7 by default, for a total of 1d6, 2d8, 2d10, keep 2)

I like it because:

Attributes increase what you are capable of by a lot, but don't guarantee you will be able to hit those highs constantly. They still provide steady and significant gains in mean result, and more importantly, make every other kind of bonus (besides additives) multiplicatively more powerful.

Skills increase precision, giving you more dice to roll and drop so you can skew your average towards your potential, and don't have to worry about embarrassing failure when you really need to pull through. Skill by itself wont actually increase your potential though, and doesn't provide as great an increase in mean as Attributes, but Skill synergizes amazingly with

Gear, which lets skilled characters use their skill with the equipment or accessory to reach beyond their normal limits. Gear provides little to no bonus to the unskilled however. Interestingly, increases in the bonus provided by your gear are extremely non-linear, ie, a +1 is immensely more valuable to a att6 skill1 character than to a att7, skill1 character. This means finding the right gear for your character is more a process of finding the right stuff that they uniquely get the most use out of, rather than just quickly buying everything they can afford and use with the biggest numbers.

On the downside, it makes relative probabilities nearly impossible to calculate, with 4 different variables and irregular formatting. I know how to calculate it on a case by case basis, but doing so for every possible combination of variables would be beyond tedious.

>>50810535
Maybe make some customization, such as possibility for 1-tier jumps within the class: such as a wizard could reduce their charisma die (d8-->d6) to buff their strength die (d4-->d6).

And upper levels of mastery, in my head, are more about ability to reproduce the best possible result than being able to go beyond the best possible result. Thus the dual-dice system makes sense. You just gotta buff what that flat 12 means.

>>50811560
That's an interesting way to think about mastery and it's one I should definitely consider because, at least form one perspective, you're right.

>>50811977
Thanks! I don't remember where that thought came up from (I vaguely remember someone mentioning it in /gdg/), but that kind of line of thought has influenced a lot of how I design my games.

So, how about starting some meta discussion, because that is always fun:

>What defines how a number should be treated on a character sheet?

I mean, stuff like, should number progression always be toward higher numbers? Why would that be?
What is too much numbers on a sheet, what is too little?

>Depends on the game

Yes, but this is not about absolute values, it's about the idea.

Also:

>Which is better, changing the difficulty of the roll or adding modifiers to the dice? When you're calculating your positive numbers on top of the dice, are you really just subtracting them from the difficulty?

Bit of a weird question, but is cardgame design also allowed here? I'm not sure.

>>50813653
Yes.

>>50799366
Oh, shite, didn't notice this.
http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=34849197

There you go. Noba is an amazing artist.

>>50813684
Okay so I'm working on my physical card game. Do you know where I could find guys to work with me on the game? It's a scifi themed cardgame and seriously I think it's impossible to work alone on this thing.

>>50814055
Depends entirely what kind of help you're seeking.

Are you looking for mechanics? The thread is usually a treasure trove because you can get opinions from multitude of people.

Need art? You're better off trying to find some drawfriend from drawthreads than find one here, I reckon.

Need fluff for the world the cards inhabit? /wbg/ is there for a reason.

Need someone to grunt out more cards etc.? You gotta sell us your game first, we won't do shit if we don't care.

So, let's start with this:

What's your killer idea for the game? Is it an interesting setting? An unique mechanic? Or is it still so undeveloped that you can't say yet?

>>50814455
Shit, I feel like I'm sounding like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftFAbPnNYrg&ab_channel=jedi420

Or something.

Shiitt. Was not my intent.

>>50814455
Well of course I'd need help in all departments but I'd say that for now everything needs serious work except artwork. The idea is making the base game, letting anons here playtest it and give their opinion then maybe consider hiring drawfags to make the art.

Basically my game is a scifi game where the universe has been figured out. Factions started taking places and are all direct competitors towards each other but still try to maintain diplomacy as no faction has the power to annihilate the others, so they're basically " holding fire ".

My game has 5 factions and cards called " Mercenaries ", which belong to no faction. The ideas right now are extremely primitive so this is why I really need people to help me figure out a whole setting and historic events, how the politics are held, etc...

- PBC ( Post-Bio Corp ) -> Technology based tribes, trying to use technology as a way to make people better and eventually making the whole universe robotic.

- VKC ( Vassal-Knight Corp ) -> As the name says this is a corporation solely based on a vassal-knight system. Basically, these are overlords that enslaved entire species and use them as sheer power to establish dominance in the universe.

MGC ( Matter-Gate Corp ) -> In the universe there is an area called the Matter-Gate, which seems to lead to an alternate universe, leading to what people believe " an alternate universe where deep-space horrors reside and where time, space and physics don't make any sense. Opening the Matter-Gate is the whole priority of these tribes as they seek enormous power out of it. The way of trying to open the matter gate is by letting the deep-space horrors have sacrifices and summonings going on.

NEC ( Natural Evo Corp ) -> As the name says, this is a corporation that was born solely as a response to all these other corporations as they believed one of them would completly destroy the whole ecosystem of the universe. They're kind of the guardians of the universe, sorta speak.

>>50814859
ARC ( Antiquary Research Corp ) -> As the name suggests, these individuals are highly intelligent species that seeks to know everything about every specie. They continuously try to search knowledge about all the other specie so they would find a way to instore complete harmony within the whole universe using a power source known as " The Antiquary ", which, with enough power, would essentially connect everyone to the same brainsource, hence making everyone's will the same within the universe.

And then we have the mercenaries. These are just people that work outside of corporations and work for their own profits. Whether they're good or evil ( we have space pirates in there, how cool is that?! :D), they're just the outcasts of society that will do anything just to make sure nobody wins.

And then there's you. In the end who the fuck are you in this universe? Well, you're just another one of these mercenaries, except that you're trying to muster up an army of some sort, either by recruiting people from factions or other mercenaries like you. The aim? Overthrowing other dipshits that had the same idea as you, and trying to gain the most power possible, essentially making you the winner of this whole faction prison that has seem to have plagued the universe.

( Next post developping the game itself )

>>50814878
The core of the game resides, of course, by using cards from the faction at your advantage. The unique aspect you might ask? My game has no bullshit ressource system.

That's right. Contrarly to other games like MTG where you would need to play " ressource cards " or Heartstone where this ressource is given to you automatically and the restrictions are class-based, my game has none of that. The whole system of my game resides in the fact you can play any card you want, from any faction!

The only problem though is that you have to collect the factions' trust to let them use their little toys or military systems. I mean, what kind of dumb fuck would let their military ressources by some kind of BBEG wannabee that would inevitably cause intergalactic wars with the other faction?

So the game works this way: You have cards. These cards fill you up, uses or destroys what I call " Faction Trust ". Whenever you play a card, it generates 1 Trust of the faction this card belongs in. For example I could play a card that would belong to the ARC, that would look at the top card of my deck, and this card would generate one ARC trust. The more trust you have, the more cards from that faction you can play.

But it's not that easy. Whenever you are getting to a certain threshold, other factions are seeing you're doing nasty business so they will start not liking you at all, so you will lose one trust point for every point over that threshold. For example imagine I have a trust of seven with VKC, then I would get a permanent -2 trust with all other factions. If you go to negative trust, then your opponent gets " trust reduction " for these factions, so that essentially makes the game what it's supposed to be: a political game.

The only cards that do not work this way are the mercenaries. Basically, mercenaries USE the trust you've gathered to do something. For example a typical mercenary card would destroy a creature and would use 3 trust from your " best " faction.

>>50815040
Now the other parts of the game are essentially the same: Both players start at X life, the first one to be at 0 loses, you play cards, you can attack your opponent's cards, play spells, etc. The whole design space comes from the trust design and how it makes you feel like you're an actor of this political stalemate that has taken place in this universe. Hell, I count on making cute cards like " Total Diplomacy ", where it would require you to have 5 trust exactly for every faction to be used at all.

So yeah, I'd need more people to work with me on the whole lore of the universe, some " overlords " of the factions, and also work on the card design with me. This game is supposed to be a physical card game because I believe that's how a cardgame feels best.

Don't hesitate to tell me how you find the idea and if anyone is willing to work with me, because without lying this is a collossal task.

>>50809604
>I could make it sort of Risk-like and have those numbers indicate how many dice to roll, I guess.
Is this a bad idea or a terrible idea?

>>50814859
>>50814878
>>50815040
>>50815136
Well, I can tell you, that personally, I have no time to be messing with a big project like that, I can only give pointers.

Hmm... Where to start...

How would trust be measured? With several spindowns?

The objective of the game as a political warfare kind of brings the old Illuminati-boardgame to mind.

It kind of brings into mind some weird political YGO, because in YGO your only real resource is your card hand. All the others are just conditionals.

I am unsure how the trust system will work, because it seems like it either requires some fiddling with multiple dice, cards are going to be pretty much all over the table (if cards that gather trust don't go anywhere) or keeping track of the amount will be confusing.

Anyhow, the game is still very early in development, so I can't tell you precise factors that will come into play.

But, if Mercenaries USE trust, does it USE UP trust, or is it Mercenaries' effects are akin to X-mana effects in MTG; the more mana you put in it, the harder it will hit.

How will you limit the amount of carnage wrecked in a single turn, btw? Can you play only a single card, or more if they're of the same faction? Will the card hand play an important part in the game?

I gotta sleep, I have an exam in eight hours. Think about those questions.

>>50813280
I think the trend towards higher numbers is purely for psychological purposes.
Having a 3 in strength compared to someone else's 10 immediately brings to mind "10 is better", but if you've got something like "illiteracy", you'll want that to be as low as possible. Really it's just a common sense kind of thing, but it's entirely defined by the context of the statistic in question.

Also, I think whatever you do as far as "meet DC or fail" rolls go: whatever you do you should be consistent. 3.PF fails a lot in that regard- you've gotta keep track of modifiers left and right and it's just a mess. Good DMs will typically defer to flubbing the roll entirely and go "yeah, that's about right" instead of strictly counting up all of the miscellaneous modifiers.

Also consider: perhaps there are no modifiers and instead the roll itself contextualizes the nature of success/failure. Say you need to open a DC 10 lock and you roll a 2 while having a +7 to "Open Lock". You're skilled in the subject, but the die roll represents the circumstances that caused you to fail: the sun was in your eye, the lockpick you were using was rusted and broke off, or you became briefly distracted by an errant thought.

File: Trust board.jpg (38KB, 1500x600px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1500x600px

>>50815902
Might as well take a tripcode from now on.

1.You bring up a nice point with how the trust is counted. Personally I think that the best solution I could come up with is releasing a board that would count trust, that would work like image related. Probably drop a dice, counter on anything to the number of trust you have for each faction would be enough. That should make any concern about clarity go away.

2.The game has numerous " classic zones ": you have the battlefield, the graveyard, but you also have a zone called " Prison ". It's basically an exile zone but if a card is sent to a prison it's sent to that ability owner ( except if the card in question says otherwise ). So for example you'd have a mercenary card called " Emprison " that would take a creature on the battlefield in your prison. Basically, except if mentionned otherwise, the card in prison zones cannot do anything, but cards can get them out of prison. There are multiple ways to get permanent/temporary trust but not one set way to get them.

3.Mercenaries generally use up the trust. Thematically wise it's like stabbing in the back the corp you have that trust in. Destroying a creature is something considered outrageous because it might cause a lot of trouble with a lot of other factions. But you bring up a nice idea, I'll note that somewhere

4.Think of it like Hearthstone. In hearthstone you have a mana container that gives you one extra mana per turn. In Mercenary it's the same: Your trust counter is the maximum trust you can use per turn. If I have 8 trust with the NEC, I can use a spell that uses 5 trust and another one that costs 3.

5.I am unsure by what you mean with " card hand ", but any zone in the game ( like your hand ) is a ressource that can of course be exploited down the line.

Also I forgot to mention this, but the game will probably be simultaneous turns, unless I see the game does fine without.

>>50816283
Well having a 3 means your odds of failing are greater.

>>50816574
Unless the system is doing a weird thing where you WANT to roll low or that low=better. The logic being "1 means you're 1st-tier" or some such.

>>50816919
No, it's still the same. If you're changing from a system where a 10 is normal to one where a 3 is normal, and you're rolling equivalent probabilities on your dice, the actual amount of faces you can roll drops down, which increases the chances of failure.

>>50817188
you and I might be talking about two different things, because that didn't make much sense to me.

>>50795701
If you also spend it to get gear and heal, there's then plenty of reasons to manage it.

There's more to character advancement than just character abilities.

>>50817348
If you're rolling a d6, as opposed to rolling a d20, you have far more chances to fuck up than you do with a d20 even if you think the odds for success or failure are 50-50. This is because the d6 has a different shape, and when you roll a dice what matters is the probability that certain faces will appear based on how you rolled and what it impacts, not just the number of faces that equal a success or failure.

>>50795477
This is a good idea, but when implementing you'd also need to go hard core into it. Not having enough uses for xp would end up running against the core of the design choice. XP is the player's way of influencing the world around them, like making the entire game run on Fate Points. Class progression, equipment, resource pools (healing, mp, etc) and all that function off the same resource. If you have some good pricing rules (so you wouldn't need to write anthologies on individual and specific costs), you could have a pretty good generic/freeform system.

File: Moscow_daniel.jpg (480KB, 1656x1200px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1656x1200px

The resources in OP don't really seem to have much to do with the technical side of game design, that is designing the game. Deciding on the maths behind certain actions. Are there any good sources on this sort of thing? Studies on the types of RNG that get players most excited to roll some dice. What kind of actions players find most rewarding to partake in from a purely mechanical standpoint.

Something that goes into player psychology behind whether or not to go with 1d20 + X, or 2d10 + X, or Xd6, or having a player draw two cards from a deck of 52 and have that determine the result. Or how often a player should 'succeed' at a task (or degrees of success) to provide the best results for enjoyment. Or the types/categories of choices/decisions that different types players like to make. Just anything that talks about designing a game from raw mechanical standpoints.

Obviously a lot of it depends on player type and game type. But certainly there must be some literature on the subject, seeing as people get paid to make products/keep businesses afloat based on it.

Intuition as someone who plays games is all fine and dandy and gives good context to feel out game mechanics but sometimes you just want something more concrete and tested to reference.

>>50801853
I'm >>50691935, making that much more depressing game in #3 and this is some of the thematic design I was looking for. I hadn't really gotten around to this question before, but it definitely makes sense now.

Rolling over [Stat] would give me that dissonant feeling I want. It might also help me figure out some math things when only penalties, but not bonuses, exist. The rules will discourage players from interacting with each other at all (which is a theme you should obviously ignore when playing a game). The rules should personify Internal Doubt. However, I also want players to be able to actually help each other succeed in a real sense even though on the surface it appears like they're getting penalized for accepting help. I have a scenario involving lifting a rock that requires [12 Strength]. Players A and B each only have 10 Strength, and if they accept help they each are penalized for -4 points. However, both together still hit that 12 Strength requirement. The problem is that the scenario doesn't take different attribute scores into account (two characters with 10 Strength and 4 Strength respectively would be lower than just the first alone), and trying to say "You each take a -40% penalty" Is difficult to make simple with paper or mental math.

The first issue could be solved by limiting the variation that is possible and just saying "tough luck" if two people end up being less impactful than one. The second problem is a little more difficult. It'll require a simple solution that can be phrased correctly to create that subversion. Rolling over [Stat] wouldn't be related to that scenario, but it might also be the answer I need to make design progress.

File: GURPS.png (24KB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x283px

>>50818585
Plausible in theory, but I'm not really looking to make a grand generic system. See pic related

>>50804694
>>50804751
>>50804858
The problem with percentages is that they don't math easily unless they're in multiples or 10 or hardbaked into a d%/100 soft-cap (as in, nothing gets higher than 100, so +47% is just +47). Usually you'll want math to be as simple as possible so that people can do it quickly. You might also just require/encourage a calculator for play.

I really, really like the graphs and the information they give. You should definitely include the first picture in your rules. Everything else looks good so far for the aesthetic you're trying to present.

>>50813280
Even the ideas will depend on the game.
More accurately, it will depend on the aesthetic. You should have rules presented in a way that reflect and support the aesthetic you're designing for. Like, if you're making a game about struggling with the grimdarkness of the far future, then maybe having large attributes with a lot of bonuses isn't the most appropriate. You can see DnD (particularly 3.5) doing this well. DnD is generally assumed to be high fantasy, and so rolling d20s, adding +55, and Full Attacking for 20d6+135 are standard-fare within the meat of the game. You'll start pretty lower in the first levels, but grow significantly towards the end. By comparison Brown Box DnD has a lot lower and more constrained numbers, and its dungeon crawling experience is much different to 3.5. Even 5e, with its bounded accuracy and Advantage/Disadvantage helps keeps things more consistent, reflecting its more uniform balance philosophy.

And like >>50816283 alluded, a lot of those decisions can be for psychological purposes. Bigger=Better is intuitive. Games and Sports usually follow that, but you could always subvert that expectation like Golf does. You always want to score more points, but when you're counting Strokes (Mistakes) instead, then your thoughts about performance change. Rolling d20+Modifiers to beat a Target Number is pretty intuitive. Rolling more and larger dice is also pretty intuitive, but 1d4+5 averaging better than 1d12 isn't quite so intuitive. However, you can leverage that to create different feelings or scenarios. 3d6 is more consistent than 1d20, but they average the same, and whatever level you use that difference can affect a lot of other parts.

The key all comes down to having your players "get" what you want them to experience. Your design choices should support that experience.
Balance is an exercise in Math, Design is an exercise in Art.

>>50815040
> My game has no bullshit ressource system.
Except it does. The resource are the cards themselves. I mean, I can't say I've seen that exact mechanic used before (then again, I don't play CCGs), but its definitely a resource that limits what cards you can play.

I like the core idea though. I feel like it would work best by having a single deck that all players draw from. Your strategy will depend entirely from what cards you draw a la Dominion. You could also see the trust you have with factions directly on the board. Active cards are trust, Destroyed cards are mistrust. Perhaps you could also have a forced discard (like something based on hand size) which could help generate that mistrust for other factions. This was written before I read >>50816502, so the real issue is:

We don't know enough about what you're already done to actually help

>>50818413
That's dependent on many assumptions that become irrelevant with different design.

>>50818954
Math is easy because there's always only one answer to each problem. Anydice should solve most all those problems if you're good enough at using it. You're asking for Math and Psychology resources.

How or why you use the math is subjective and that's where designers actually make their money.

Math-design question:
Where do you draw the line between simple and "realistic"?
How do you approach the issue of intuitiveness and fun, from elegance of the system or from how players will handle the mechanics?

>>50820116
More asking for personal opinions and choices than a sort of definitive answer by the way.

>>50818954
That is a good point, I could add some resources about game theory and GNS-thelry to the OP.

Those are, of course, fine places to start... But now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever seen anything in-depth about the pros and cons of dice systems,that's actually something we would need to kind of approach ourselves, probably.

There are fine resources purely on probabilities but dunno how much about the application in tabletop context.

>>50820116
>>50820123
I bring out relativistic realism by things like unpredictable health systems, and with general applicability of "You can attack with any stat". Trying to make combat go into a point where a smart guy can beat a strong guy, even in a physical fight, if they're smart. But only if they're smart.

On the case of simplicity, I've said it that I'm trying to build Misfortune like how Ico was built back in the day: by subtraction. Although the ruleset has gotten larger, it is because the direction of the game has become clearer. If a system does not reflect the feeling I try to evoke from playing it, it's out. Unless the system can be reworked to fit the game better, of course.

Over the course, I've removed almost as many parts from the game as I've added to it. And the final result of the current game is that whenever you roll, your roll is compared to several numbers on the character sheet, and only one of those numbers can be influenced directly while rolling.

It might sound weird, but the idea is that instead of trying to make up new roll types or some more checks, the player must ALWAYS check against Despair / Misfortune (whatever I'll call it), regardless of the roll.

If it sounds laborous, but when Despair is usually in the range of 1-3, in a 2d6 system, it very rarely needs to actually be checked against.

File: Latest card.png (30KB, 618x804px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 618x804px

>>50820116
I actually forgot the intuitiveness-part.

That is, by having rules simple enough that the most important ones fit on the sheet, explained and all.

See the pic related, it's my character sheet. Really, just look at it. It's the size of an index card, and it includes EVERY base number the player will roll against (inside the circles and squares), and all the modifiers, explained.

What it doesn't explain, of course, is the rolling itself, but the system can be explained in under five minutes to an open mind.

And most importantly of all, intuitiveness comes from the place that I call "no confusion". Anything you do in the game, if you need to roll, you roll 2d6.

Game Design:
>http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
>http://www.diku.dk/~torbenm/Troll/RPGdice.pdf

These could be included to the next OP, do they look decent?

>>50816283
Both seems good, but perhaps we should make a new doc with a summary of references and leave only a few here (or else we might be reaching the OP word limit pretty soon, also there is some stuff missing from there already)

>>50820126
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21479
It doesn't deal with math, but it does talk about mechanics of existing games, including dice systems. Its my absolute favorite resource.

File: Coverpng.png (629KB, 1524x1076px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 1524x1076px

>>50820116
I research a game heavily, ideally from first hand accounts, then make sure I model the most important elements of the period. As long as I do this in a simple way, there should be a good balance of realism and simplicity. Its always a balancing act, and in the end play-testing will show you what works and what bogs everything down.

For example the WW1 game I recently finished (westfront) I listened to a lot of audiobooks of first hand accounts of the war, books like "Now it can be told" "a german deserters war experience" and "the eastern front 1914-1917" were all fascinating insights into the period and gave me a lot of ideas. Some things like Recon didn't make it into the final rules, as the system I had for it didn't really do anything, and plus recon is mostly handled by H.Q. and thats above the player in the game I wrote. Things like sending runners back to request more ammunition or creeping barrages working correctly in-game I felt were very important, so kept them in. The communication system could do with some streamlining though. Always room for improvement. imo It takes a few years of playtesting to really polish a game to a high standard.

Nothing beats play-testing.

>>50819793
I understand what you mean. It is still hard for me to actually provide you a complete PDF with everything because this isn't as detailed as I hoped it would be.

I feel the main concern for me is the card design and the lore. Do you think I can make a PDF with the core mechanics and then ask for help? This is something I've always wanted to do so it matters a lot for me!

>>50821125
Okay, this is pretty much a whole reference resource by itself, if the guy could go through the effort of putting it all on a a single bookmarked PDF or wikia page it would be "perfect"

>>50820116
>>50821504
>>Nothing beats play-testing.
Aye, this above anything else, I try to run a game using my own system, it's easy to see what rules are missing and which ones are going over the top once people are actually playing the stuff...The next step, once everything is ready, is to have someone else run a game for me, first one of my initial players (if possible with fresh new players) and see how it goes, then try to get one of those introducted to the game and see how he does, last but not least try to find someone to run the game without ever having experienced it before...the last step can also be your first release (but I would advise for you to tag a long one or two tables to see how players/GMs are handling it and see if you need to change stuff)

>>mfw I'm going to be stuck on the first step for a long time....

>>50821904
Card design is a big problem because it usually is a massive endeavor in games like the one you proposed, they are pretty much like trying to come up with a spell list (like DnD) or equipment, for this you should find a co-designer or players that would ask for stuff you haven't created yet. Improvise, analyse, balance, test, implement, rinse and repeat.

Lore is kind of a lesser issue (unless you want a very massive and detailed lore), mostly lore can build itself organically as you build your game, if you watch out for it you can see trends and reactions, and you just have to fit the theme/lore. But detailing lore would be more a /wbg/ stuff than ours, we can at most help you come with general lore-explanations for your mechanics...

Ok question about opposed rolls. A pilot inside a hardsuit adds one of their pilot stats (1 to 10) to one of their hardsuit stats (1 to 10) and rolls 1d20. If the result is equal to or below the sum of their two added stats it is a success. Outside of a hardsuit a pilot can only use one stat (1 to 10) but still uses a 1d20 to try to roll under. This massive difference is to represent the level of magnitude a hardsuit offers a person who without one is hobbled by bulky environmental gear, breathing apparatus and closed sensory ports which makes things infinitely harder to deal with. Pilots should be pretty rubbish against hardsuits without a mechanical backup, where a pilot would use one stat to attack but still use 1d20 to try to roll under (Even then the targeted hardsuit could elect to dodge and use two stats and do so on a 1d20 putting them at an advantage)

To account for the difference inside a city (where there is a much reduced level of environmental danger and no requirement to wear such gear) an ejected pilot still only uses 1 stat but instead rolls 1d10 to try to roll under. Would this be a suitable system for differentiating between the hazardous outside environment to pilots (and by extension unsupported ground troops)?

>>50822828
For physical tasks it sounds pretty okay, the only point is that hardsuits should have above average physical stats so that most people don't get hindered by their hardsuits on the city (unless you want that to be a thing, of course)

>>50822048
What mechanic would you guys use to represent the power to call for "divine intervention", being it either calling on a higher power (God) or employing lesser powers (imps/wisps)?

The general system is 2d10 roll under attribute+skill+Dif. Modifier, you get a higher degree of sucess for each 2 you roll under.
About the specific mechanics involved is that you have "Potential Points" that you spend to learn/level up your "powers", in theory all power groups can use up to 4 power points per level...

For instance, I have the "High Magic" power, which is divided between:
"Wizardry" that requires the user to use an action to gather mana/prepare before casting anything (they get +1 on gather mana tests, +1 to their mana pools and +2 spells per level).
"Sorcery" that allows the player to instantly cast their spells using only their permanent/current mana (they get +1 permanent mana point to use on sorcery spells, +2 to their mana pools and +1 spells per level)
"Spell Craft" additional practice studies on the field gives you +1 to mana pool and +1 spell per level (can be bought twice).
If you know both casting methods, whenever you want to use a spell you must choose between one of them, but the spells known and mana pool is shared between them.

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

1B, 486x500px

Bamping with a new, updated version:

>Added All-Out Powers = Using 5 strain to get +10 to a roll
>Changed Detriments to Ejection = When you roll under your Despair, you get forcefully ejected from the scene. If Despair is high enough, you have a chance to die.
>Changed group combat so that a smaller group has a fighting chance
>Removed Succumbing rolls, they were useless
>Changed how strain works (slightly). You run out of juice by rolling under your Strain, it makes more sense in context of the rest of the game
>Basically, the whole game is now only about decreasing or increasing the difficulty of rolls, and comparing singular dice rolls with several things (like, while casting magic, you gotta roll over your despair, strain, ordinary and other weakness to get no setbacks. It's still kind of balanced because Despair shouldn't ever be over 3 and Strain only rises as you use magic).

>>50823127
When inside a hardsuit, the pilot uses a combination of the suits Bulk and Servo stat rather than one of their own so are still at a large advantage for physical feats of strength. In direct combat the stats used is the pilots Melee Skill stat + Hardsuits Servo stat or for ranged attacks, Ballistic Skill + Hardsuits Sensor stat.

While it might sound weird I considered using the pilots physicality as the other stat and I'm wondering if Morale would be a better choice given the cybernetic link. Should a physically or mentally strong pilot be at an advantage or should I stick to having it as only two hardsuit stats in feats of strength when inside one? Have some kind of small bonus when morale or vigour goes over a certain value?

I kinder like the idea of that dumb mecha cliche of a pilot screaming and the willpower having an extra effect in there somewhere

>>50825507
You could add a "pushing limits" action that allows you to give your hardsuit a boost, but it strains your body and/or your mind, getting gud at hardsuit fighting is not for the meek.

>>50825614
Or alternatively pushing it to the limits in a way that it endangers the hardsuit's hull integrity.

Stuck at work bump

>>50825614
>>50827806
One idea I've been toying with that would fit with that is the option to "push" on rolls where the standard critical failure rating of 20 on a 1d20 has 19 or even less counting as a critical failure too but at the benefit of adding an equivalent number to the base stat being tested against.

Like this a player could have their pilot 'strain' to say, resist a hacking attempt on their hardsuits computer. The pilots Intelligence stat would be boosted by 1 at the penalty that rolling a 19 or 20 will result in a dangerous critical failure.

An easier alternative mechanic might be that a player can elect to have their pilot 'strain' and prior to rolling, increase either their Vigour, Morale in certain situations with failure of the roll resulting in pilot damage or a temporary -1 penalty to the stat they were boosting.

I could instead use this as the mechanics for when pilots dose themselves with drugs in which case they might be able to boost any of their pilot stats before making the roll.

Page 10 bumpa

Sort of an overall question rather than specific: At what point does having to refer to the rules text become obnoxious? Dungeon World makes it pretty clear that only the DM will have to read through the material in the book cover to cover, while the player can basically refer to a two-page document for everything they need.

>>50833931
If you need not even look at the rules after reading them, that is optimal. It implies the rules are clear enough that there is no need to double-check them.

If there are tables that you use while playing, that's fine.

If the rules have quadratic formulas or some weird calculations in general, especially if they're for things that are supposed to be counted mid-game (meaning character sheet crunching is not included), it's not good.

All in all, the more the GM or players need to refer to the book, the worse the situation is, save for things like rolling tables or item lists. No one has fun when the GM has to find, double-check and read some paragraphs on how to roll to resist curses, putting the game into a grinding halt.

Of course, if some madman makes a game where referring to the rules text is part of the game, it of course works differently.

>>50834076
DragonRaid is the only exception I can think of. Terrible game overall for a number of reasons, but they do one really cool thing: to cast spells, you have to quote scripture. I'm not a Christian by most measures, but that's fuckin' heavy metal.

Should have waited until Saturday bump.

Here's the prop, btw, as the last thread ended before I could state my case in full: Someone remakes the /gdg/ thread every second Saturday regardless of the status of the previous thread. Previous thread 404'd after one day? You wait. Previous thread lasted until the second Friday? Still make one. It works for other venerable institutions of /tg/ such as Storythread and it'd work for us too.

Just my cents.

I'm gonna dust off my ambitious RPG system and see what sounds like a good idea. It's been morphing and improving for about 9 years. I'm so proud of the simplifications I've made over the iterations, and the GM tools I've built. I think one of the most neglected things in RPGs is a good set of tools to help the GM build coherent worlds so they don't have to rip off their favorite anime every time.

An idea I've had for potential ground forces vs hardsuits is that a piece of equipment players could acquire would give them a single equivalent hardsuit stat that they can include in their role.

An example might be having a link to an anti-armour rifle which would add a Sensor value to the Ballistic Skill. Hardsuit stats are 'servo' 'bulk' 'engine' 'computer' and 'sensor' so what other equipment things could a single guy have. At the moment I have a linked gun for 'Sensor' and a kind of artificial muscle suite that adds a 'Servo' value

What could Bulk, Engine and Computer be? A kind of loader, jetpack and servo harness thing?

>>50797866

It's abit complicated but I think people can grasp it.

File: 1360815615146.png (42KB, 328x206px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 328x206px

>>50836303

Keep us informed man!

>>50795017

Cliché Character Bingo

At the start of the campaign, the DM describes the setting and mood and allows the characters to design their own characters as usual. However, they also give them a 5x5 grid of blank squares, better known as a "bingo card," onto which they write various clichés for their character. If they DM uses 5 clichés in a row, the character gets a bingo, and the DM must give them an award. After which the board is wiped clean and they start over.

An example of the award is a +1 enchantment to be applied to one piece of the character's equipment. Applied to a weapon, it is a +1 to attack, to armor +1 to defense, to another item it is a +1 to saving throws or skill checks. The enchantment is permanently attached to the item and cannot be transferred when the character gets better equipment, but is considered "lucky" for the character and will become a "legendary relic" if they become famous enough.

As an example of a cliché, let's say one of the players wants to play as a "Fighter." A cliché for a fighter is a "Half-Orc Barbarian," usually with an axe. So the top row of their card would read:

"Halfbreed"-"Orc"-"Barbarian"-"Two-Handed"-"Axe"

However, because the character is a cliché, the DM knows more or less what to expect and how to balance encounter. They give the player one reward for not writing a novel length backstory for a character that doesn't have a clear role in the adventure. For example, the Half-Orc Barbarian has a +1 Axe. However, no matter how long a backstory is, the player can only get one bingo from it, so the rest of their backstory is original. Perhaps the half-orc is female. Perhaps she is a "warrior-poet," who travels around writing down the rich oral history of both half-orcs and barbarians. Perhaps her mother was a similar scholar, a Jane Goodall to the green gorillas who "went native."

>>50838945

The first line of the bingo card is all clichés that the character embodies though their design and backstory, their first bingo. This means they fit the standard idea of "what a hero is like" and thus may have a "heroic destiny." This may help explain how they got a +1 item, and further explanation add to their backstory.

The second line of their bingo card has less to do with the character's design and more to do with the player's tastes. For example, let's say that just as the half-orc character is female, so is the player, and thus they find the whole "chainmail bikini" thing offensive. So the second line of their bingo card reads:

"Red-Haired"-"Blonde"-"Chainmail Bikini"-"High Heel"-"Loincloth"

So if Red Sonja shows up in the game, this character better get those +1 boots or she is walking. There are some clichés players just hate seeing in their games, and this is a quick reference for the DM. However, there are other times when players will derail the game just to troll the DM, or the DM will feel like being a troll. Proceed with caution.

The third line of the bingo card contains what is on some bingo cards the "free space." In some traditional bingo games, this space in the exact center of the card is already marked at the start of the game. In some games this space is even marked after the card has been wiped clean. We're not that nice.

For example, the exact center spot is marked "(Tavern)." Considering how often the adventure begins and ends in a tavern, this is almost a free space. The reason for the parenthesis is that a Tavern can also be called a "Bar" or an "Inn" or an "Alehouse." The player doesn't care what it is called, it is a place to pick up rumors before and between adventures and carouse after adventures. On the free-space slot alone, the DM is not allowed to quibble about vocabulary or spelling. The other four lines on this row, however...

>>50839174

The first row of squares on the bingo card was "backstory," the second row was "pet peeves." Some characters have long backstories, some players have a long list of hated clichés. However, by the third line, ten or so clichés in, most players will start think about the munchkin potential of these bingo cards. Obviously you need five clichés to appear in a row, and if you're not in a tavern, you're probably camping out somewhere.

The DM is not going to allow you to put "campfire" on your bingo card. However, there are four spaces on the third row besides the "free space." Now, some people call it a "bedroll," other people call it a "sleeping bag," still others a "blanket" or even a "quilt." If you can show the DM four words for it, you can put ONE of them on the third row. They must be reasonably familiar words, but the DM does not get to keep the list. The player is also allowed to call the item by the name on the bingo card, in the hopes that the DM will screw up and use it in their description, earning you a mark on your bingo card. To compensate for this, the DM gets to pick which ONE of the four on your list you use. Also, some "mead enthusiasts" may take offense to you calling your "drink" a "beer," and it might be enough to make the "Alemaster" kick your character out of the "Alehouse," but this leads to barfights and good roleplay.

So for example, the female player of the half-orc barbarian writes down "large chest." This is one of many euphemisms for those bouncy things inside the chainmail bikini top. Depending on how many euphemisms the DM knows, and uses in character descriptions, this may be "(large chest)" in the "free space." However, since her character does not have lockpicks, she has no problem putting chests on her row of cliché items, and no problem coming up with other terms for them.

The next two rows are usually the "goblin row" and the "ghost row."

>>50839410

The fourth row are fairly common generic encounters that player could do with or without. Goblins, skeletons, slimes, rats, bandits, all pretty common for the start of a campaign. It is probably not a good idea to include all of these in a row, both because the player needs something to fight, and because they might need to encounter all five to get a bingo.

By comparison, the fifth row is referred to as the Ghost Row because it is enemies that the character normally has trouble with. In our example, the fighter has trouble with fighting intangible opponents they can't hit. There are ways around this, depending on the system and setting, but the player would probably rather avoid encountering them. Rust monsters, diplomatic immunity, hostage situations, immortal NPCs, there are all kinds of things that could go in this row. Some of them might have already been covered in the second row under "pet peeves," though it may help to separate "story clichés you don't like" from "encounters where your character is useless."

Also, as you approach the last rows, consider that bingo comes not only from having everything in a horizontal line, but a vertical line and a diagonal line. For example, our player notices that "Orc," "Blonde," "Large Chest," and "Diplomatic Immunity" align vertically. She knows that the bottom row is occasionally treated as a suggestion box by killer DMs, so she gets the evil idea to add "Sister."

To her backstory, she adds that she has a half-sister who became a traditional orc "breeding sow" but nonetheless inherited their mutual father's "taste for human flesh." She absolutely hates arriving at a new settlement only to find her older sister has already given everyone the wrong idea about what "orc women" will do after a few drinks. Her sister talks about "good of the tribe" and she does have some influence with the local nobles, one of whom is a quest giver...

>>50839761

...As the party gets into the middle-levels, they are more likely to get involved in politics. This is less fun for the fighter-character-player who just wants to kill things. Further adding to their misery, characters from their backstory are usually thrown into the intrigue-and-danger where political opponents fight dirty. So an encounter is set up with a sleazy noble who has the wrong idea about how to treat an orcish lady.

...Blurting out her sister's name in the confusion, the party has a few ideas about how to deal with the noble. Doing the "piggly-wiggly" might be blackmail material for the leader of a human settlement, especially if her sister has proof. This forces the player into yet another uncomfortable piece of roleplaying...

...Or at least it would, if the player didn't know the game. In an RPG that allows charisma checks, she could solve this whole thing by rolling high enough. She also knows that her sister has a necklace which improves her "charisma," which she uses to appear more attractive to humans. Getting a bingo the moment her sister appears in the story, the player uses her +1 to steal her sister's necklace, which in turn allows her to make the diplomacy check to get the noble to help her. Mission accomplished.

To avoid arguments, both player and DM have a photocopy of the bingo card, which are both marked in a fairly permanent ink at the same time in view of the other players. Other players can have different bingo cards for different character classes, such as thieves with "(City Watch)" in the Free Space, or a mage with "Witch Hunter" in their Ghost Row.

Further fun can be had creating bingo cards for movie poster characters before a movie, though other rewards will have to be determined...

...This goes in the game design thread, right?

What games have the most interesting health/damage system?

I want to ditch meat points and give damage more narrative consequences but I'm kind of dry.

>>50842671
I've seen a few area based ones, hit locations and body part specific effects. No examples off the top of my head, though.

>>50842671
I don't know any off the top of my head, but I've been wanting to play around with "hope" as a measurable statistic. I suppose that'd be more in line with morale, but I enjoy the potential wordplay between "Hope" and "HP".

>>50842671
>>50821125
Also discusses Health systems.
Honestly, if the question is ever "Has X been done before?", check that.

>>50842903
Been struggling with Health systems lately. On the one hand it's an easy and effective way to communicate damage, but on the other it can lead to overly crunch-based mechanics that take away from the actual roleplay itself.

>>50843069
Additive wounds vs toughness check is the way I like running things. The more wounds you get, the higher the chance is to get knocked the fuck out. The tougher you are, the more probably you're gonna recover from a blow.

Straightforward and simple. Probably too simple to many people, but that's how I roll.

That's always the first thing I suggest. But I can give input on other ideas.

>>50843489
If you have other suggestions, please share. I'm off to work atm but I'll be back to read them.

Health is a tricky thing cause in actual fights, it's over after the first couple of blows- really decisive. But narratively speaking that's boring and too quick to end the action of combat/danger.

>>50843626
Sure, uhh...

>Initiative damage like in Exalted:
Can be a little tricky to manage because the initiative scores keep jumping and it takes forever to do damage to each other.

>Hit location damage:
I know, it sounds like the crunchiest of the bunch, but actually, this kind of realistic damage (if designed with a solid hit location system in place) can be pretty good. The insides of the hit location system doesn't need to be anything fancy, just give -2 or -4 to rolls with it depending how badly damaged that body part is.

How about being beaten and death? Give some sort of pain threshold. Make the pain threshold something that is checked against EVERY TIME THEY ROLL ANYTHING. Might sound crazy but if the numbers are relatively low (as they should be, hopefully), usually it can just be handwaved unless someone rolls really low.

When pain is too high, characters can do two things: either withdraw or tick their death box (Stolen from TBZ, kind of). When their death box is ticked, they can ignore wounds, but are able to die. How can they die depends how you want it to be done, but a neat way for it would be either the character's crit fails or opponent's crits. That way there is no pesky mathematics in the way.

If you do that to opponents, too, they will feel more humane, not being some random bandits in Skyrim who are ready to die for a few pennies.

Hmm... That's all I have for now, I guess.

>>50843784
About pain checks: have the pain checks be part of the actual roll. If they fail the pain check, you can give them some mercy ticks before they need to tick the death box, so they won't be going into death battle from one tweeny stab by some random gobbo. Or make the pain threshold another fail state (or a negative modifier):

>You stubbed your toe while searching through the room, meaning you need to take a break

Or alternatively make the pain threshold a thing that starts affecting when it gets high.

And yeah, pain is gained from getting wounds, but also from using wounded body parts.

Already more in depth than just meat points.

>>50842671
That depends what you want to do with your health system. If there's lots of combat then you'd probably want a meat point system, if there's lots of downtime between adventures a wound system isn't bad. Basically you want the system to fit in the expected genre.