VS Colossi

File: shadow-colossus-theme-vm11.jpg (165KB, 749x468px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 749x468px

3. Giant creatures need to represented with HP per parts or even something more simulation like.

Rather than universal HP, giant creatures need to be broken down into individual bits and each bit needs HP itself. Optionally, or maybe even optimally, all creatures should have body part HP, which will allow things like dismemberment or crippling systems developed for giant creatures to be used on normal creatures too. Individual part damage means that each part needs to have penalties from being damaged. This is a bit difficult to do in a generic method because these colossi could have very different shapes. It may require, instead, that stat points are put into limbs and parts in the ways they make the most sense for that creature.

4.Mapping might be an issue
In terms of mapping movement on the "field" this isn't really a problem. Colossi will take up more space and cover distance quicker, while attacking areas rather than distinct units. But I mean mapping the actual body of the creature itself. Once creatures reach a certain size they're more hostile buildings than anything, and accurately displaying their body and where you are on it will be something important. On normal humanoids thats not hard, you could probably get away with a stick figure. But more complex creatures might be more difficult to display. Imagine, for instance, a horse. You'd probably have to have 3, 4 or even 5 maps to accurately display your positions. And god help you if you get weird shit like shoggoths or goo blobs or anything with a shape that varies. There's also the issue of colossi attacking players that are currently climbing them. Some times this would make sense, sometimes not.

Part 2 of 3?

File: ICO-Shadow-of-the-Colossus-HD-Collection-Available-For-Preorder-thumb-480x274-20212.jpg (44KB, 480x274px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x274px

5. What kind of interactions are possible?
As I think about this, the things that come immediately to mind as stuff players would ask are
"Can I tame one?", "Can I be one?" "Can two of them fight?" And I'm inclined to want to allow that shit. Because riding a fucking giant like a pirate ship and doing boarding actions against other giant things with their own crews, and shooting arrows at each other and stuff would be great.

At this point I think the thing I'm gonna focus on is climbing mechanics. What makes climbing harder, what makes it easier, what things there are to manage and what makes it fun or exciting. Try to get that to work well and go from there.

Ooh boy, time to kill godzillas

File: Colossal Crab Mountain.jpg (624KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 1920x1080px

You could maybe handle it with a system of points? The higher your initial aproach roll on a grab/climb the more points you generate. Actions such as climbing or attacking "sacrifice your grip" meaning you spend a certain amount of points to perform an action. Monster actions, like when the colossi try to shake off a climber would subtract points from the individual in question. Actions like focusing on gripping the monsters exposed edges or shaggy fur would gain points.
It becomes a game of resource management, spending as many points as a player dares to attack or gain an advantageous posistion and trying not to be forcefully removed by the enemy. In the same token, grappling becomes a game of control at the personal level. A fighter takes control of a grapple like they would hunker down on a monster, allowing them to out manuver their opponent.
When climbing a colossus they could also perform context actions like trying to exert control over the monsters movements somehow, or trying to break off a piece of armour. Again, those actions would consume a players grip.
When, and if, a player is riding a colossus, I imagine they would have 2 goals: using their posistion to have an advantage over ground attackers, either by making attacks themeselves with ranged weapons or by coaxing the colossus to attack the enemy themselves. Second would be repelling "borders" by either attacking them from a safe posistion or moving onto the body of the colossus using climbing mechanics and performing attacks against the enemy rather than the monster.
As for the range and mapping issue, I might suggest a more abstract approach. Break a monster into several locations (Each of which would have it's own hit points, armour and context actions) and enable a player to be climbing on a ny, and move between them for a fixed action, say a move 1 from leg to body, or a move 2 from leg to arm/head on a humanoid colossus.
Cont. in next post.

File: Beast of the Forest.jpg (122KB, 900x659px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 900x659px

>>50813725
The move 2 would cost more than the move 1, as it is further and requires the sacrifice of more grip.
Overall I think a system like this keeps rolls relativly light, while allowing for depth and skill with risking grip points and potentially falling off.
Attacks would not be a case of hitting or missing, at least on the colossal scale, more a question of whether the monster even feels the weapon. More likely a weapon just does damage against a static armour value (Easily translated to an AC equivilent on the personal scale) and anything exceeding that is deliverd as damage. This means breaking off armour to deal more impactful strikes would be of critical importance.

>>50813725
>>50813829
Thats not a bad idea for handling movement. Sort of a stamina meter, a lot like SOTC or DD.