/gdg/ - Game Design General

File: ss+(2017-02-13+at+10.12.59) (1).png (66KB, 552x423px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 552x423px

Whatcha been doing since the last thread, /gdg/
I've been working on a bunch of mechanics and I have about enough to redo the character sheets, so I'm working on that right now

I'm sure there's still lots to be done, but at least i'm doing something, right?

>>51724703
Nothing much. Art has been delayed due to prolonged sickness of the artist, and I've started building the next project because most of the Misfortune doesn't need almost any design anymore.

>>51724703
Good to see you're still active.

I've been struggling with some game mechanics since I decided to change how bonuses work. I may simplify a few of them to prevent bloat.

File: 1d100.png (108KB, 300x196px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 300x196px

So I'm developing a pretty fancy percentile dice based system for the fuck of it. The purpose of the system is to provide a point-value based way of methodically creating characters out of essentially no content (all based on leveraging a simple and intuitive d100 checking system).

So the rules allow you to buy Conditions, Skills, Knowledge and even Backgrounds (which are cool way of letting players assert things about their characters in game and mechanically acquire characterization) based on various criteria for determining costs. Part of this is acknowledging some of these things have different levels of specificity. For example, if you lived in a certain city for 20 seasons, you can divide twenty points into different tiers of specificity, allowing you to choose how much experience you have with the wilderness of the area, the city itself, specific neighborhoods, even specific buildings. It's up to you to decide how nitty gritty you want to get.

But this is turning out problematic. I had an easy time mechanically deciding how to approach varying degrees of specificity for Background objects, but I'm not having such an easy time with Skills. How do I allow the Fencer to excell at fencing, but still get some benefit in fighting in general, but not be better than the "fighting in general guy", but still be better than him at fencing? The question is how to mechanically describe the varying degrees of specificity that exist within skills in a fun way. For this, you must know how to make a check.

TBC

>>51730945
So, I'm not totally married to this way of checking, but I do like it. Basically, you just subtract a d100 roll from your skill. You can say success is that number coming out positive, or you can use the actual value of it to determine something like seconds passed, value of collateral damage, members of a swarm destroyed, whatever. Modifiers are ok, I just don't know how to decide what to do to a Check based on whether you've got more specific/general but meaningfully related skills in a way that doesn't encourage "I'm very dexterous, therefore the best at all things", type situations.

The problem is with retaining the premise of the whole project, that the system is like a method for describing a character without pages and pages of mechanics describing each skill, condition, whathaveyou. All the actual things you write down on your character sheet (which is just a piece of college ruled or whathaveyou) are derived from the system, not explicitly contained within it.

I'm also willing to make some compromises to the premise for things like attributes (think STR, DEX, INT, BLAH, BLAH) if you've got a solution which incorporates this.

How should I do downtime? My game has characters taking downtime in one-month blocks.... as well as some events that can happen during that time. Should it be a decision the group makes at the end of a session? Should there be a limit how much they can do at once? I have trouble reconciling the board-game nature of this part of the game with the natural flow of an RPG.

>>51730945
And I do plan for the system to support "content packs" in the future. Basically, I or a fan or whatever goes through the trouble figuring out a bunch of Skills and Knowledge and things, based on a setting they've got in mind.

I myself have a setting that I want to use this system to realize. Also if anybody has any questions about Knowledge or something, any mechanical questions I didn't talk about, let me know. I want some help on this.

>>51724703
Typed up a page of lore that was supposed to be a punchy intro paragraph but quickly went sideways because I have no self control. It'll probably wind up in a lore section or sidebar instead. Other than that I've been too busy with work and school for anything substantial.

>>51730945
One of the common ways is to have numerical splits at each of those levels of specificity. Fencing is Fencing+Fighting, target then just Fencing, or just Fighting. It makes the fencing guy better at fencing, but not better at fighting unless that fighting is fencing.

It might not be exactly what you want with your system, but it is an option.

>>51724703
I am looking at creating gamebooks for newer mediums. There was an anon at >>51722218 that writes gamebooks as a hobby, I wanted to ask him about the state of the hobby if he visits /gdg/. Or anyone else who has a current interest in gamebooks.

>>51724501
OSR inspired Space Fantasy game that uses a dice pool system for combat instead of d20 vs AC.

Have been creating a web version of the rules for easy reference. When we finish the first playable version I'll be posting here,

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

1B, 486x500px

>>51724703
I have exciting news. I finally statted out planes. I haven't done any balance passes on them yet (mostly focusing on price rather than stats themselves). All I need to do now is put some special weapons in and its time to fly. Also, don't tell anyone its taken me over a year to make plane statblocks.

Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-x7vMbcJeXps8ZaeTa2ovoXK2yoB7ICqcEmNKP1dlww/edit

Hearty bump

>>51729149
>Good to see you're still active.

I leave all my projects every few months
I was considering canning skyresh altogether because I wasn't paying attention to it but realized I have a ton of stuff I can do and I still haven't found a game or setting that fills the niche I want so I still had all the reasons to continue doing it

i'm so desperate to work on a project. what is the best way to get in contact with people working on things? i don't give a shit about money, i just want to help make something worthwhile.

File: BSTW FULL.png (157KB, 784x2416px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 784x2416px

>>51724703
had an idea for a simple board game. need to invest in a new printer that can print both sides of cardstock.

>>51739342
Start your own project. Invite others to help.

I FINALLY MIGHT HAVE FIGURED OUT MY WEALTH SYSTEM

Dunno why I didn't just use percentages before

Income Tiers
Destitute 25%
Peasant 100%
Adventurer 500%
Noble 50,000%
Elite 500,000%

Cost per year for food/supplies is 84% or 7% per month

Item costs range from tiers 1-9:
1 | .05%
2 | .25%
3 | 1%
4 | 5%
5 | 25 %
6 | 100%
7 | 1,000%
8 | 10,000%
9 | 100,100%

This lets me both have a wealth based system and currency system if need be

what do ya think? Haven't figured out what items would go where, though I suppose that's generally obvious, can also just slot an item wherever using the tiers as a guide

File: designdoc.png (255KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1000x1000px

Does this game flow make sense?
The idea is that you leverage personal and group vendettas to increase combat efficacy the longer you maintain them and the more instances of conflicts you have with the same enemies.
Once you get revenge/resolve the issue you cash in the accumulated points from the vendetta for experience and face.
More face ( basically social capital ) makes it easier to accomplish your goals without direct conflict. For instance, enemy parties might peacefully retreat when they realize who you are or what group you're from. But lacking face might mean that same group has no problem trying to rob you or kill you
This system discourages murderhoboing because all you'll do is risk losing your face for the benefit of...making enemies. But of course if you want fame and wealth you'll inevitably make enemies and gain vendettas.
Combat is intended to be incredibly lethal where most of the combat is decided in preparation and motivation rather than character skill.

Problem is, I'm having trouble thinking of a way to make combat simultaneously lethal when either party intends it to be but give leeway when the combatants are just testing their mettle or sparring. Maybe some kind of escalation system.

>>51724703
Been stuck deciding how powerful characters will start as and their potential max power level by the end of a campaign. Things like figuring out how much time it would take to be among the best swordsmen in the world, for example. Or how often characters should be able to raise their attributes.

>>51740776
player scaling is always a bitch to tackle

You know what I often think when doing game design? "This would be so much easier if the system only supported human-sized creatures."

>>51742412
are there any sites thare good with level sorting and attribute distribution? from like lv 1 to lv 50?

>>51739806
At a cursory glance I can´t figure out what you accomplished here.

What is the base you apply those percentages to? What is the difference between wealth and currency and do you expect to use both at once?

Like, maybe currency is mention in the fluff and background materials, an wealth is the actual game machanic. Does the wealth work like d20 Modern arthmetic and tables autism of 25 gold*level* something equals $X which you then have to look up how much wealth that is, Or like Apcalypse world´s simplification of 1 unit of wealth per instance of a valuable good or service or about 1 month´s worth of living expenses or tribute.
In general I am intrigued on how this works and where you´ll be going with this.

>>51744586
The income percentages are for yearly income, dolled out per month

the item cost is 1:1 conversion from the income level of the peasant tier, if a short sword were Tier 5 or 25% it costs 25% of that yearly income income level, or 25% off the 500% an adventuerer makes, they'd be at 475% or points if you want to think of it that way

The percentages can be used on their own or you can assign a Currency Unit to them

You'd always start the peasant tier, so let's say they make 1,000 gold a year, adventuerer's make 5,000 gold a year in that setting

the sword being 252% of 1,000 gold means it costs 250 gold.


a more modern system would be like 20K for peasant tier, 100k for adventurer tier, and say an assualt rifle would then be 25% of 20k or $5,000 works out well enough, could make minor adjustments for items here and there naturally, but it gives you a base to start at, an average pistol would probably be like Tier 3, so that would cost 1% of 20k or about $200

I guess I really didn't explain it well in my excitement.


TL:DR
basically the income level is yearly, you can use the percentages, or turn it into points, or a currency unit.

The item cost is a 1:1 conversion of that, so Tier 5 would be 25% of peasant tier
-
-

well it makes sense in my head anyways, need to think on this more

the system I'm trying to make is a universal one

>>51740055
It looks like you already have it honestly. You have what you termed as "random" combat being the first level which will escalate into "plot" combat. Termed differently, you can have Surface and Deep combat each taking those roles. Surface combat is banter, sparring, jokes, and whatever else is transient. Surface combat isn't intended to last long. Deep combat is meant for dealing lasting blows and injuries, either to face, reputation, physical health, etc. Deep combat is when you transition from banter to a rap battle, or from a rap battle to gang fight. Its not just 2 levels of combat, but a scale that you can keep escalating or deescalating. Escalation almost always comes with an inherent risk for losing more face even upon victory, while deescalation usually gains more face than it loses. If you can make a good dichotomy about losing and gaining face in those situations then you'd be set. I think the particular nature of combat would determine exactly how much face is gained or lost, so you could have a number represent how the situation looks. A risk vs reward attribute could help players decided which combats were worth the risk and which ones would be pyrrhic at best.

>>51740776
I use bounded accuracy in most of my games which makes figuring out rate of growth much easier. If you have open-ended growth, then you'll need a good system to handle that rate of growth. I'd either bank on going for bounded accuracy so you can have a good rate between very static powerlevels, or go for open-ended growth and not care about the maximum.

>>51744868
Different anon, and I can dig it. I was thinking along the same lines myself since it keeps numbers both smaller (and therefore more manageable) and scalable.

>>51742745
This is my problem. How to do size without just piling on HP or damage.

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

1B, 486x500px

sorry that last pdf was weird
anyway this is the second draft of the character list for my pokemon-esque smash-up tabletop game
215 collectable characters total right now

>>51745414
Could also adapt a sub section like Peasant - 1/2/3 for x1/x2/3 the income to fill the gaps

I'm just glad I finally got my currency system handled, can get back to optimizing the combat

still have to take a lot of time to come up with various examples of what item should go into what pricing tier

Friendly page 10 bump

>>51729445
Sounds brilliant, no sarcasm. At least you're not pretending to simulate, which means a guy like me who loves simulation won't get disappointed when it's not one. The self-aware commentary thing is fun

>>51730945
Sounds like an experience/skill system, but one where the numbers aren't directly matched against corresponding challenges...?

>>51731151
There's no such thing as a natural flow to an RPG, in my experience. My question is whether you want realism (the world doesn't wait for you) or convenience, or strategic richness.

>>51739342
Unofficial Elder Scrolls RPG can always use more hands on deck. There's a discord link somewhere on tg I'm sure. We're gonna be putting out the v2 of 3rd ed soon and need help updating all the splat books since magic and combat were overhauled.

You know, if you're into that sort of thing

>>51739342
People are always looking for playtesters. If you see one that interests you, I'm sure the poster would gladly accept the help.

Anyone have a big list/lists of enchantments or effect for potions, weapons, etc? Preferrably over 100, but I'll take what I can get.

>>51739416
You can always knock up a prototype on something like thegamecrafter (warning, will not be cost effective if you live outside the US).

>>51751716
Potion Of:
>http://powerlisting.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Random

>>51746286
How to do it is the easy part. How to do it without the rules becoming an overcomplicated clusterfuck is the hard part.

File: City_Block.jpg (252KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1200x800px

>>51751827
was reading up on them and, while useful, doesnt tackle the problem with the artwork.
where can i find a generator for this style map layout?
Not necessarily the grid system (gozzys does something similar) but the style of the artwork, a large BEV shot of a city, possibly cartoonish like heroclix and nothing in the tools and resources really does it

Could someone link an up to date discord link?

File: 1476839668053.jpg (19KB, 238x227px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 238x227px

Should I try to avoid the possibility to minmax or embrace it as something that will happen and continue to apply seemingly exploitable mechanical feats?

I dislike minmaxing but tailoring around the issue of minmaxing might gimp my game in the long run and make players feel less powerful than they should be.

But on the other hand, less minmaxers.

>>51756530
you mean this? https://discord.gg/3bRxgTr

>>51745321
Not sure I know what the terms mean, but I don't intend for characters to be able to become infinitely strong.

>>51759440
I think I´d err on the side of what is less work for the GM to write up stuff. Unless you´re really pasionate about the feats or point build options and components, or they really, significantly make sense for what the game and the system focus on.

>>51759440
Heard good advice that there are 3 types of players

Expressive
Experience
Exploit

You can put in things for all of them, but you should be aware that they all want different things. Minmax is exploit.

How many dice do you roll before you start hating it?
Would you be annoyed at rolling 6d6 constantly with no math involved, just looking to see if you rolled a specific number or two?

>>51759552
Also relevant for >>51759440
Bounded Accuracy just means you have a hard limit to maximum power growth. DnD 5e is a good example. Except for rare circumstances, you can only have an attribute at 20 or lower. There's an expectation that its relatively common to max out at least one, maybe two, strengths for any given character. Because of this, numbers for all characters are much closer together so you can expect characters of a similar level to be much closer in powerlevel. Compare to 3.5 where as long as you can find new sources of power, you can keep stacking them until you hit ridiculous numbers like 100+ AC, have +55 in Hide at level 5, or add Wisdom to damage 4 times over.

Another example. One of my current games limits level to 20 and stats to 20. Reaching 20 in any stat is very easy, so the expectation is that players will spread their stats out even if they want to specialize. Then all I needed to do is divide progression into 20 equal parts and my growth scale was set. Everything else can then be based on that.

If you don't want to set an upper limit like I did, then you'll have to constantly be aware of what options you add and how they interact. Anything could be possible for exploitation, but that's not to say that its a worse design direction. It also won't be nearly as simple as dividing growth into equal parts like you can do with bounded accuracy. You'll need to look at where different characters can start in terms of powerlevel, and how much they can add and how quickly. You can have characters start strong and grow slowly, or start weak but grow quickly. In either case you'll want to look at the "average" character first. Figure out what you want the "average" character to do both in the beginning and at the end, and then figure out the maximum and minimum at both the beginning and end. You'll have 6 points of reference that you can then use to literally or figuratively graph out how each character can grow.

>>51761918
plenty of dice games use 5-6 d6 so that wouldn't be unreasonable.

>>51761918
In dice pool system like the new Mutant, you frequently roll in the area of 10 dice. As long as you're not suppose to sum the result, I don't think it's a bother.

Discussion Time!

Considering some of the posts already, lets talk about player progression.
>What constitutes as progression?
>How can players progress?
>Most importantly, Why did you make those decisions?

>>51724501
>see thread and remember I haven't worked on my game in half a year
Oh dear.

>>51746334
this anon
>>51763430
in the smash up, players progress when they reach an XP cap. Battling, converting mercenary Characters into the Players party as well as completing quests grants them XP as the game progresses. XP also varies based on level difference in battle. Stronger Characters are worth more and weaker Characters are worth less.

originally, their XP count between levels was just the level but doubled. (Lv 5 = 10 to Lv 6; Lv 6 was 12 XP to Lv 7) but once I dropped the Pokemon skin and added the Smash Up skin, the level minimum dropped from 5 to 1. so that system couldnt work. (Lv 1 would only be 2 XP to level up which is just killing one opposing character in battle) so I bumped it up to 10XP from levels 1-5. Once it hits 6, its back up to doubling the level to find the XP count.

>>51756376
Three options:
1) Google images, filter licensed for commercial reuse, look for your resources. Hopefully it's all listed correctly and no one sues.
2) Search for an art resource for independent game developers (eg: OpenGameArt), manually grid the art in photoshop. The usage rights are normally limited commercial, which limit print runs to 500k.
3) Microcommission.

I'd go for 2, then 1, then 3.

>>51763430
I've been thinking about removing the level based mechanics from my game and going into a complete point buy, like WoD or Shadowrun. Leveling necessitates classes, which many have complained about as restrictive. I agree a point buy is more organic and has better verisimilitude, which is a virtue I invest heavily in when designing.

I've long defended level mechanics for balance administration, however. By tying certain skills to minimum level requirements, I help avoid munchkin tactics by racing builds to OP powers and abilities. By tying them to classes and having a level cap of 20, I avoid having to worry about minmaxers finding synergistic combos of high powered skills that break the game. Multiclassing is much easier to balance than comparing all possible ability combinations.

That's balance on the game design end, but there's also balance on the game content end. For instance if I have a party of 4 level 5's, I know roughly what they can and cannot be expected to handle. But when I look at, say, a WoD system, I have no idea how to evaluate a 40XP character and what sort of challenges they could deal with.

Point buy system designers- what are your solutions to the above mentioned merits of level systems? Was it easier or harder to balance encounters?

I've been working on a Kingdom Building and Management system- the same vein as the Kingmaker module, but using mechanics more similar to that of the Civilization series.

But Civ is a complex mess with lots of accumulating values that are only suitable for computer play. So I simplified it to static values rather than accumulating, and tried to rebalance mechanics so that the game makes sense for a single generation.

Unfortunately it feels a lot like the end result is severely lacking in depth. The optimum strategy was always "get as many tiled yields as possible, then trade for comparative advantage". If I restrict or eliminate trade (which is simpler), then it was just "get as many tile yields as possible while balancing the different yields"- which had slightly more depth but still amounted to a simple math problem, and lacked verisimilitude since its kind of absurd to say you can't ship lumber or grain down the river.

Needless to say I found Pathfinders rules sorely lacking. Do fellow anons have any other clever ideas on how to simulate this activity?

>>51764558
If the game is not very tactical, I find point buy useful. But if the game is highly tactical, I'd look at what the players are trying to do and just make more classes to cover that. Tactical choices don't matter unless one choice is more useful/versatile than another, which directly works against balance, and the result is every character buying the same power because it's become mandatory via the law of the jungle. hope this helps

>>51764624
I'd shake it up by adding periodic events that change values, forcing the players to adapt. Events like adverse weather effects on supply, sudden demand for certain goods, glut lowering trade values, boom harvests.

>>51764680
Hmm, yes. I want my system to accommodate many interests, among which tactics is one. Some settings can be a nearly combat free economic trading simulator. Others are literally SWAT and Counterterrorism operations planned out in excruciating detail for hours then executed in a handful of minutes. Curiously, the same level of tactical detail handles Ocean's 11 style heists quite well also.

So you're saying that because I support such tactical detail, I'm locked to level systems instead of point buy. Strange, I would have assumed Shadowrun is highly tactical. WoD not so much.

>>51764787
That's just what I would do. I think Shadowrun made a mistake there, and that the magic-vs.-bionics rule was arbitrarily added to desperately try to balance things.

I am not saying you are locked to level systems. Using classes does not necessarily mean characters gain powers with an abstract XP level system. They could develop a talent through repeated use, or from trainers purely via financial expense, or in other ways. But you can use level as a way of rating the power of the character. Or, the powers could be assigned points just as in point buy, they just wouldn't be bought, they would only be for calculating character power only, as they are for starting character generation in GURPS. Classes are valuable when you can know at a glance whether the party has decent ranged capability, or whether anyone is left alive who can heal, or things like that.

>>51764680
>>51764787

That idea is based on quite a few assumptions. As soon as you have multiple powers that are both necessary and mutually exclusive, you have tactical depth. What you would need to do is make sure that each power is a solution to specific problems. The more specific, the better in this case. You cannot allow all powers, or even majority of powers, be bought by a single character. This even works when your point buy has literally 0 progression. Compare to DnD 5e's feats. There are no feat chains, but if you have 5 Fighters that could take 1-3 feats each, you can have 5 distinct and useful Fighters. Each could have a distinct role and would be useful when creating a tactical battleplan. As long as you have distinct and specific means to overcome specific problems, you're golden.

On the other hand, you could consider the amount of powers someone has as a level (are a 3 power character and a level 3 character appreciably different?), so it really depends on your definition of level, class, etc.

I'm designing a game, and I'm wondering if you guys have any resources for calculating stats and running battles? like formulas and that type of stuff.
I'm not great a math and have trouble visualizing things like that, making sure my math formulas arent going to give unfair advantages to certain situations. I just want to know what makes balanced gameplay in comparing things like Hit% and attack value to enemy defense, calculating damage... etc

the reason it has to be mathematical is because I'm actually designing a video game

>>51759440
The best way to counter minmaxing is to make it ridiculously easy, so much so that to the point that players feel like they're taking candy from a baby and simply won't do it out of the obvious cuntery they would be displaying if they did.

See superhero games

>>51761502
This is insightful, and I'm adding it to my table rules upfront just to clarify basic misunderstandings about the nature of table top gaming. Here's a quick writeup I did based on my intuitive interpretation. Feedback and corrections appreciated if I missed the point.

***

First off, its important to ascertain whether we're all here to play the same type of game. People want different things from table top. That's fine. But if we all want differnet things, its important to understand that from the beginning and behave appropriately.

There are three types of players:
Exploiters
Expressers
Experiencers

>continued in second post

>>51766479
Exploiters are in love primarily with the game's mechanics, and the setting is merely an ancillary vehicle meant to provide interestingly different tactical scenarios- often even with limited justification for conflict. Aka “min-maxers” or “rollplayers”, the purpose of the game is to get a strategically optimized build and then demonstrate its theoretical potential with execution through gameplay. Such players are very much in love with the game mechanics, much less so the roleplay.

Expressers are here to role-play a character concept. Many don't care about the rules at all, except in as much as they interfere with the verisimilitude or immersion in the story. When game aspects help regulate the story or provide an element of chance and excitement, they enhance the Expresser's experience. But otherwise, the game mechanics are often a distracting nuisance to the Expresser. Attention to detail in the worldbuilding and setting are of the utmost importance to this player, as are the behavior of other players being in harmony with the setting. Furthermore, Expressers are often attached to a specific concept character they want to roleplay, and are averse to high lethality games. Expressers often require agency and their ability to pursue their in character goals- thus Expressers abhor railroading.

>dammit, still too long. One more post

>>51766479
>>51766500
Experiencers are here to have a good time and be entertained. They are here to be told a story or otherwise just enjoy goofing off with friends. They are generally open to anything, but if placed in a sandbox tend to idle and grow bored if there isn't a particularly ambitious Expresser around to lead them. These players might even specifically request to be railroaded into some adventure, and will evaluate the quality of the game based on how strong the storytelling is. A game with too much emphasis on mechanics or tactics may leave an Experiencer playing on their phone, rolling dice only when prompted letting an Exploiter determine their actions for them. Unlike Expressers which often come with a character concept in mind, Experiencers are more open to pre-generated characters or playing a generic character and letting their personality and story develop organically with improvisation.

THERE IS NO RIGHT WAY TO PLAY. Different people want different things. And it is absolutely possible to have an appreciation for all of these different aspects of play. It is also possible to build a game that caters to a divided group- but only if all players understand and are courteous to eachother's desires.

>>51765133
Which would work great, if everything in the newly developed was well balanced, and if you were going in with the built-in redundancy of a party of 15 players. No balance, and everyone learns OP Whirlwind Attack and the DM falls asleep before the second round. No redundancy, and the one guy who had Trip was too injured to use it when it was needed, or the 5 fighters forgot to bring along a cleric, or whatever.

Basically my argument is that players, especially new players, are not going to know what should be bought, especially when that decision is individual rather than handed down from a party leader. Nor would they want to, most of them. Classes serve as a guide. They also help with balance because they are point-buy sets that have been tested. By limiting the players to the classes you have tested, you eliminate the need to evaluate the power of every possible configuration of point buy and balance them all- a herculean proposition.

I'm making a random table for royal courtly intrigue. Got any suggestions for interactions that should be put on the list?

>>51766957
The obvious stuff is espionage, assassination, poisonings, etcetera. Servants being bribed to spy on eachother. Starting rumors to attack reputation in court.

Less obvious perhaps. Simple trading of favors. Nobles primary asset is their power, and power is only as useful as you use it at your discretion to get stuff done that is beneficial to you or your friends. Friends who fail to repay favor debts are quickly cut out of the loop as their reputation sours. What sorts of nasty things might a person be able to do by trading favors?

Imprison people falsely. Possibly even rush an execution without proper trial (if one is even required). Wardens in many countries are allowed to escalate sentencing or abuse prisoners in lethal ways to enforce discipline. More commonly you can just use the police (or the shire reeve and his posse, or whatever is the stand in for constables in your setting) for basic gang activity. Beat people up who speak out against your rule. Seize assets as "fines" or just emminant domain.

You could also ransom permits or licenses, bury things in bureaucratic tape indefinitely, tie up court cases indefinitely. In medieval times you couldn't sell guano without permission from the local lord. Instantly cast out any merchant who doesn't pay a hefty "license fee". Or who otherwise offends you. If modern banking is a thing, you can even have foreclosure people "accidentally" go to the wrong manor and "accidentally" lose all the stuff they repossessed. You could also get bankers to forge debt notes of merchants, putting them in debtors prison even if you had no influence with the courts. Or even use such debts as cause for war.

Though in medieval times most scribes were in the clergy. So you'll need to work with them on all the bookkeeping, census records, and getting your international affairs legitimized by the pope is basically the equivalent of modern UN sanctions.

Oh man, I'm just getting started.

>>51766767
It really isn't problematic to design something that alleviates those issues. You can eliminate redundancy by making each power a one-time buy. Plenty of board games do this and it isn't hard to justify as a design decision. Plenty of different groups are built out of distinct roles: Military squads, sports teams, RPG parties, etc. Particularly in sports there are many different philosophies to build a team, and all of them can accomplish the same goal by winning games. The advantage of a tabletop GM is that encounters can be handcrafted around the makeup of the party. Honestly most of the work would be done by the GM anyway. All I'm really doing is repeating good vidya puzzle design. However, a ttrpg designed around these concepts from the beginning would make it easier for such a GM to craft those kinds of puzzles.

At its core, classless point-buy is a series of colored keys that correspond with the same colored locks. The only difference being the color, aesthetic, or fluff. Mechanically and mathematically they can all be equal. 1d20, 3d6, and 1d4+8 are all statistically the same, yet they feel very different. Likewise, one character might have the ability to dig, another might have dynamite, and a third might use rope. All three are ways to get around an obstacle like a wall. Mechanically they're not different, but they definitely tackle the same problem different ways.

Players can be completely mechanically the same, but the fluff around something can change everything. Even in something like Monopoly, where there are literally no mechanics tied to which object you use, people will still care which object they get to use. Its absolutely possible to design a game that uses balanced, classless point-buy and to design it well.

>>51767192
You could also pass laws that benefit certain merchants or guilds, so that they get a monopoly. Speaking of guilds, that's basically the period equivalent of labor unions. And you can do a lot if you have influence with the guilds. Like say you want a secret hideout built. You need a bunch of carpenters (possibly miners if you want it underground) who can keep a secret and work without money changing hands (since a treasury withdrawl will be a good indicator for anyone spying on your finances- which is yet another use for intrigue). You can also use guilds for sabotage. Like making sure every carriage wheel Lord Assfuck buys is always got a defect and will eventually break, sending his carriage into the ditch and possibly killing him. You could also possibly arrange for a strike in a competitor noble's city, thus sending him to economic ruin, then swooping in an commandeering the assets since the guilds support you already anyway.

And I haven't even gotten into actual crime syndicates you could affiliate with. Smugglers, Privateers, hit men, racketeers, arsonists for hire, or even just outright fucking mercenaries. If you're a friend of the Thieves guild, then suddenly your estate and city are crime free while every other noble has gang violence and crime problems, making them look bad at court. These are also the guys you'd go to for a frame-up. Commit a crime and plant a bunch of stolen paraphinalia to frame your rival. Often the police can do the same thing but they operate more publicly so if there are important VIP witnessess you need to think you aren't corrupt then police won't do.

In a more mundane way intrigue is how you get your kids into an elite school. Its also how you control the research agenda (magical or otherwise), decide who gets tenure, and stack a political bias in your research department (publishing false results- e.g. tobacco is good for you! Every time a Tory is elected the economy improves!).

Not done yet, kek

>>51767251
Relevant in games where academia=mage guild, wizards are holy shit more important than any professor ever will be. With enough favor trading you could run that bitch, and basically micromanage who gets what magic items. Blacklist people from ever getting any magic items or services. Double so if clerics have magic and you got sway with them too. Then you control healing, ressurection, and goddamn possibly even confessionals for blackmail. And if clerical healing involves some degree of mundane medical care, then people might get "worse" sometimes. You might even be able to deliberately control the spread of disease among cities and nobles.

And the thing about power is that if you have it, it helps you get more of it. If the police and the thieves guild work for you, are the mages really going to risk pissing you off? Especially if you offer to pull strings for them when they need it. And then you have mages, thieves, and police- the clerics will fall in line. Though those moral fags are probably the most problematic.

Oh shit sone I haven't even started on the media. Newspaper presses may be a little modern for your setting- hard to tell- but media moguls have always had notorious sway in society. And before newspapers you can buy off the heralds for the same effect. If every herald in the city (they can't all be wrong right?) accuses noble X of raping children as part of witchcraft, he'll be dead by angry mob before he ever gets a fair trial. More importantly, if you own the heralds/news/media you can keep things quiet if you don't want scandals to get out. And knowing you have that power is instant blackmail on sooo many nobles. On a related note you can run PR campaigns through heralds and thespians, good or bad. Become popular for helping the poor, even if you never actually did anything substantial beyond a token public display here or there to confirm the rumors you started. Lord Andrew Jackson- friend to the common folk!

>>51764624
Bumping for more replies to this. Anyone done any good work on city/kingdom management?

>>51766506
As somebody who qualifies as an Experience type plate you aren't representing me the at all. The more game mechanics and novel ideas there are, the more engaged I am. The moment I have seen everything the game has to offer is the moment I'm bored. Experience is not about the social or dramatic fanfare, it's about trying out possibilities and pushing the system to the limits even if it's not "optimal".

Exploiters are about optimisation.

>tfw want to use d100 but there's no reason not to use d20 because everything increases in intervals of 5 and i haven't introduced any fine-tuned modifiers or point-buy chargen instead of dice-point chargen yet

god damn it

>>51763430
>What constitutes as progression?
Getting more aircraft, or upgrading current aircraft.
>How can players progress?
Just completing missions. Taking damage or losing aircraft reduce the money you can earn, and therefore progression.
>Most importantly, Why did you make those decisions?
For an Ace Combat themed game, it felt like it fit the best. It works really well if you're a squadron of mercenaries, but its fine even as a national airforce. I didn't want to bother with RP rules, or pilot stats, or anything like that, so it became obvious that the best way to handle progression was by combining money and XP into one thing. The aircraft, weapons, and upgrades you purchase allow you to become better at or expand your role. I felt like that was the right way to handle progression, fitting in with the theme that I wanted to convey.

Heres a good one that most devs have an issue with..
How did you handle currency and item management in your game?

>>51765239
I have in the past written code prototypes for these sort of things. For example, two entities (with varying stats suca as hp, damage, dodge, armor...) hitting each other until one of them dies, and then run these simulations 1000 times and count up the results to see how good certain stat arrays are against others.

>>51769985
So why do you want to use a d100 in the first place?

>>51771007
Kind of hard to answer that without any context at all.

Are you writing a wargame, roleplaying game, one shot, campaign system, narratiive focused or combat focused etc.

RPG usually mean some book keeping anyway so adding prices for items and subtracting from your characters balance with modifiers for rarity/legality/contacts seems a pretty sensible way to do it.
As long you - the writer - prefer some default inventory tables from which to shop even casually running into merchant should be possible during a session.

As for item management some systems have weights for items in addition to other stats and you can just tally to the max permitted by your strenght or endurance.
You might want to limit to a degree so nobody runs around carrying 50 daggers or pistols at the same time, but generally speaking I'd say that's the way to go if you got that much crunch/bookeeping.

Otherwise just say each character is allowed to carry one side arm in addition to their main weapon.
This might work better for oneshot games or something that places more importance on actual roleplaying than dice rolling.

>>51771082
I like d10s and 2d10 instead of d20 leaves me without 1s

actually i want to introduce more finely tuned modifiers and a point-buy system but I haven't gotten around to it and since my stats increment in 5s there's no reason to make the leap just yet

>>51771201
If you know you're gonna have to do it eventually, that's a good enough reason to do it now.

>>51771143
>Are you writing a wargame, roleplaying game, one shot, campaign system, narratiive focused or combat focused etc.
Oh I just meant in everyone's game theyre working on now, not for anything specific for me.

For my game, you gather characters to build a team. If you get Characters that dont suit your team or have really bad stat rolls you can trade them for items as currency. The value of the items are arbitrarily based on how much I think theyre worth compounded again how often they should be used in game. (Something that helps you reroll dice rolls should be expensive and shouldnt be used too terribly often so about 10-15c vs a basic Healing Potion that should be used more often than not so about 1-2c should be fine)

Im interested in seeing how its handled in other more RPg related homebrew systems.

I really want to hear about the Ace Combat guys system more. I loved Shattered Skies growing up and still play Infinity today.

>>51767192
>>51767251
>>51767343
Thank you, that is actually incredibly helpful!

>>51772029
It was fun to post too.

>>51768169
Still hoping somebody might have something on Kingdom management. Who here loves hex tile economic games? Will trade two wood and a sheep for good advice.

>>51768270
I'm not sure I understand. How do you take a system to its limit without min-maxing? Like trying to build the worst possible high level character or something?

I appreciate the feedback and would like to update my description. Experience was the one I was least sure about. I just don't fully understand the difference yet.

>>51771007
I have a caste system which is rolled at character creation if not set by story (for instance, enlisted men all get the same caste: blue collar, while officers get their own caste: professional). For each caste, transactions below a certain amount are considered negligible. So for the highest caste- Aristocracy- everything under 1000 Gold is negligible ($USD=10,000).

Abusing this system invokes a few other rules, generally not necessary. For instance you can't resell what you buy and make a profit. Buying 99 of a thing (just below the limit) is fine although dubious, but if you turn around and do it again in the same month then I charge you for all of them- so bulk purchases or multiples are treated as a single purchase. Beyond this I've never had a problem.

>>51771007
>How did you handle currency
Abstractly. Bean-counting isn't especially fun and it goes against my goal of a fairly light and loose system.
>and item management
Limited slots. It's a bit videogame-y but players get a few lines for objects they carry on their person and can be used whenever, the rest is in a kept in an also limited but far more generous shared party storage that's difficult to pull from in combat.

>>51763430
>What constitutes as progression?
Ye olde xp, levels, and classes. I feel that quick, simple, and familiar is the way to go when crafting a light system with a low barrier to entry.
>How can players progress?
I'm leaning toward xp on goal completion rather than combat completion. It's a combat heavy game but I don't want to disincentivize social/role play and there's less bean counting/balance considerations.

>>51774694
>How do you take a system to its limit without min-maxing?
Not that anon but I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume this means testing the limits of what concepts a system can support before it breaks and the character becomes unplayable or unfun.

>>51774751
So deliberately looking for things the GM isn't prepared for? Or are we talking like a QA job where you're just looking for bugs and exploits? That can't be right- that literally is looking for exploits ergo Exploiter.

>>51775213
I think he means more like "Hmm, I wonder if unarmed fighter is a viable concept in this system. How about grappling specialist?". So more like testing out what different ways there are to play.

>>51775213
You're thinking too mechanical. Let's say X system is largely designed around soldiers, medics, spies and the like - let's see how it handles a wandering chef that's quick with a knife. Can that character concept work within the system and how well does it work?

File: 1463410210104.jpg (190KB, 1436x849px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1436x849px

Hi /gdg/,

Two slightly related questions:
How do you handle natural abilities/skills every character has, but that can also differ considerably with training or talent?

The basics like swim, jump, climb, athletics/run or flying if applicable.
Sure Attribute plus a skill can work, but this could feel like a tax for all around physically fit characters.

Another thing is basic senses. Seeing, hearing and smelling. A unified sense stat can be difficult to determine when a player race has senses that vastly differ in keenness.

(Two characters have high sense stats, but one has this because of exceptional sight, the other exceptional hearing. They spy into a dim cave pit. Via stats both should notice the sharp stalagmites at the far bottom. Logically the keen hearing character wouldn't be able to hear an inanimate part of the scenery.)

>>51776296
The answers, as always, are very dependent on what underlying system you have, but:
First question:
Just use Defaults; When attempting something anyone should be able to try, but you lack the relevant skill, roll against attribute minus standardized penalty.
Second question:
What's stoppning you from giving races traits like "Good hearing: +2 to sense rolls where hearing would apply".

File: Cool It.gif (995KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

995KB, 500x281px

>Too busy with work
>Wanna build a system that uses 3d12
>Players could opt to "burn" a d12, effectively succeeding at some monumental task but losing that d12 for a long period of time, making rolls difficult afterward
>Have no idea how to pull this off

It's like that time I took a dump and a cat fell out

File: 98215.jpg (802KB, 1195x709px) Image search: [Google]

802KB, 1195x709px

>>51776951
>Just use Defaults
I might be irrational, and I can't put my finger on why this solution feels somehow crude.
It doesn't feel thematically appropriate to take defaulting penalties on a normal movement ability (although capabilities may vary).

>What's stopping you from giving races traits like "Good hearing: +2 to sense rolls where hearing would apply".

I don't want to start scattering little skill bonuses around that are context sensitive on top of that. Since I will be going pretty granular I want to keep things as ordered as possible. I prefer a regular universal mechanic (like a separate seeing stat, a hearing stat and a smell stat would be, but I'm shying the nitty gritty split that would be a precedent among attributes) which is always the same except for the individual values versus opening the door to a multitude of little conditional bonuses on every creature. And the more I'm working with fine distinctions -which I like a system to be able to represent- the more likely I am to place a modifier on a creature. It wouldn't just end up being race A and B that have that trait as their thing. It would be a plus or minus on every race in multiple steps of boni and then comes the bestiary.
Basically, the more often a value is in use the more sense it makes to have it as a proper entry versus an addendum.

Maybe I'll end up doing this nonetheless, but I'm mainly asking because I may have obvious blind spots or somebody could say something that bring forth a new and exiting solution.

>>51777216
Why stop at burning just one? You could have smaller dice and more steps and burn attributes separately. Burned die is guaranteed to come up max or something. Could work well for a system where you have to pace yourself and ration effort.

>>51777216
Losing one-out-of-three dice is very crippling. That might be exactly what you intended, but if it turns out too much, consider stepping down in size instead. Here's some dice averages:

dice: Average:
3d12 19.5
3d10 16.5
3d8 13.5
3d6 10.5

For reference, the average of 2d12 is 13.

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

1B, 486x500px

I'm at an impasse. My game has four stats; for each point you put in a stat, you gain one of that stat's powers. The sum of all your stats is your Rank. Your powers scale on Rank, so investing in multiple stats is not crippling.

I made these five apiece but I feel like it's lacking. The powers don't seem very fun or interesting. I want to create guidelines for players and GMs to collaborate to make new powers but how can I do that when I cannot do it myself?

>>51778489
You could deconstruct your powers along the lines of common building blocks, price or limit those blocks in number and then set an universal target budget per power.

Blocks can be area, duration, range, number of effected targets, damage done, damage absorbed, distance traveled, armor added, armor penetrated etc.

>>51778770
That's a pretty good idea, actually. I thought about it in the shower and maybe it can be boiled down like this:

My power...
>causes harm
>protects from harm
>heals harm
>affects an area around me
>affects an area I choose
>modifies my equipment
>alters my target's perception

But it...
>lasts a limited time
>lasts through only so much harm
>affects a limited area
>affects a limited number of targets
>dampens my perception
>only affects targets of a lesser Rank

For each "My power..." you must also choose an accompanying "But it..." of your choice. Then flesh it out using the implications of your power in general circumstances.

File: Hellsgate Playtest v0.1.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Working on cleaning up wording a bit. I at least have it in a state where I could probably hand it to someone and they would get the idea.

I think the vehicle's ramming rule and trying to explain switching the offensive stats normally used for the model's defensive stats is clunky right now.

File: basic1_lg.jpg (54KB, 500x662px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x662px

So I'm developing my own generic RPG system, what are some good systems I can take inspiration from ?

>>51724703
Chipping away at the big picture designs for my fantasy heart breaker, abandoned the first draft to start over, and I'll use that first draft as reference material.

Designing it top down, starting with a lots of what gameplay subsystems/minigames I will need, as well as an extensive list of the broad categories of tasks characters will do.

Not gonna have conventional attributes.

Gonna iron out what to build before I iron out the exact math, but I want it to be easily compatible with Pathfinder and 5e adventures, so whatever the final version is like will need to be able to convert that stuff over, ideally quickly and on the fly.

The basic starting point was originally d20, but I'm butchering so many sacred cows and changing so many core mechanics it's not recognizable or compatible anymore on the player side.

>>51785072
GURPS, Obv.

Unisystem.
Hero
Opend6
Valor
FATE?

That's all I've got.

Why are you designing one? Have you identified a gap in the market you want to fill? Are you dissatisfied with the existing options for some reason?

>>51785272

I got OCD wich makes me always disatisfied with the official systems thus I'm making my own so I can finally be at peace

>>51785463
Ah. That's fair.

I've got things that I'm dissatisfied about in every game I play/run, but most of the time it's not severe enough to demand I make my own game to replace it.

I'm working on a d&d replacement due to my dissatisfaction with many 5e and Pathfinder rules, but looking the core premise and adventures.

I'm not expecting it will make me any money (but if it did that would be neat). I'll be satisfied if I can run it instead of d&d in my own group.

So my game has different categories of moves similar to PbtA.

>GM moves
>player moves
>weapon moves
>power moves
etc

What is best: List these moves at the end of their respective chapters (ie GM moves go in the GM chapter) or a single chapter in the back of the book (GM moves go in the "GM Moves" section of the Moves chapter)?

>>51789113
Into the moves chapter.

Is my shooting mechanic too complicated?

>After successfully rolling to hit, you must roll to wound.
>Subtract the weapon's strength from the victim's strength. This is the number you have to roll higher than.
>If the result is 0 or less, and the victim has no armor, automatic wound.
>Otherwise, roll must be higher than difference in strength, and lower than targets armor value

EXAMPLE
>model with strength:3 and armor:6 is hit by weapon with strength:1
>roll must land on 3, 4, or 5, to wound.

Weapons will have a piercing value as well, if it's lower than the victim's armor, it's negated. However, was also considering making it so that only values between the piercing and armor values count as saves. IE weapon with piercing:6 scores a wound on model with armor:5 if 6 is rolled, but not if 5 is rolled.

Is that too complicated?

File: World of Warhammer.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

What is better, assuming the same relatively simple ruleset

>simple, concise instructions of what to do that fit onto a dozen pages
>simple explanations of how mechanics work and why, with examples, that fits on fifty pages

My game is pretty simple mechanically, but I keep writing WHY things are the way they are, HOW to use them and giving examples of them in action.

Contrast this to something like World of Warhammer, which fits the entire system on a dozen pages but leaves a lot unexplained; it is just instructions of WHAT to do.

>>51790134
>but I keep writing WHY things are the way they are, HOW to use them and giving examples of them in action.
Just put that info in a box with clippy or call them designer's notes.
They're not clutter if they give the player insight into how certain mechanics form synergies and what is an intended strategy.
Just make it so the player can clearly distinguish between rules as written and your commentary. Otherwise you end up with a lot of searching for specific rules among the examples.

>>51790134
There's really no need for an explanation of why the mechanics were written this way unless it's to help the DM arbitrate.

>>51790489
>>51790561
Let me give an example. My book says this about health:

>[Harm] is a measure of how severely damaged, exhausted or otherwise drained a character is. It is applied or resisted like any other tag, but unlike other tags, harm can stack - characters can have this tag up to five times at once.
>Injuries are a broad category of severely negative tags attached to one of a protagonist’s approaches, lowering that approach’s rating by 1. Whenever a protagonist reaches 5 [harm], they gain one injury and clear any [harm] (effectively returning to 0 [harm]). Protagonists never have more than 5 [harm]; any extra [harm] is discarded after applying an injury.
>Each of a protagonist’s approaches can only sustain one injury. When a protagonist gains a fourth injury (having injured all of their approaches), they also gain the [helpless] tag - they cannot take actions and are effectively removed from the scene. They may be knocked unconscious or even killed, as appropriate to the fiction.
>Should a protagonist injure an approach with a rating of 0, its rating becomes -1; instead of subtracting it from an obstacle’s difficulty when calculating risk challenge levels, add 1.

I could summarize this in much less text with:

>[Harm] is a stacking tag that measures how damaged, exhausted or drained a character is. When a protagonist reaches 5 [harm], they apply an injury to one of their approaches and return to 0 [harm]. Each approach can sustain only one injury, reducing its rating by 1. A protagonist with four injuries is also [helpless]; they cannot take actions without aid and are effectively removed from the scene.

I'm questioning whether it is necessary to explain what happens when you subtract a negative number, or things like that.

>>51790787
Depends.
Is it explained elsewhere? then you don't need it here.
If you got another section about risk challenge levels and it's explained there you don't need it while talking about health.
You should however not that it is possible have a negative rating for clarity's sake i think.

My projects always fizzle out when I've got the introduction, setting, character creation, how to play and how to GM chapters done.

The thought of pumping out tons of items and monsters according to a template just exhausts me. It's really boring, and I never know how many is enough. Because my system has armor/weapon mods, I feel like I have to create a few dozen of those, which sucks.

>>51789361
I'm not quite sure I follow about the piercing value.
The rest is a brilliant ballistic penentration mechanic!

>>51791515
creating dozens of items for a system you haven't playtested seems like a waste of time anyway.

How about enough items for a single party of playtesters instead?

>>51791515
Hey, it took me over a year to finally add statblocks for aircraft in my dogfighting game. I know the tedium. However, like >>51792160 said, you should playtest a lot first. It'll also give you direction on what, how, and when things should be added.

>>51790787
The first example doesn't help me at all to understand the gameplay concept you're describing. The second, while simpler, clearly leaves out some information that's included up top. I can't say whether or not the information should be included without understanding it.

File: flowchart.gif (11KB, 580x530px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 580x530px

>>51792046
I suppose your confusion kind of answers my question, but maybe this will explain it better and maybe you can help me word it in a less confusing way.

>>51792715
What do you find confusing, outside of maybe lacking context for certain terms that are explained earlier in the book?

File: stockfresh_2195796_developing-skills_sizeXS.jpg (46KB, 387x310px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 387x310px

>>51785503

Quick question here for you guys, how would you classify skills in a generic system if you ahd to write one ?

>>51792973
Different anon, but I think the thing that confuses me the most is at Armor Value. It seems like step 1 and 3 both want large numbers, but step 2 wants lower, so the switching back and forth feels weird. Step 2 is basically a way to determine if you specifically hit an unarmored area right? So the Armor value is kind of like a "% of the body without armor" more or less? Its mechanically sound, just not completely intuitive. Make sure the rules are written in a way that people get the right idea about how they need to view the different parts, and maybe name changes (like Armor Weakpoints instead of Armor Value or something). Otherwise I like it. Its very compact.

>>51792973
How many D6 are going to be rolled per attack?

>>51796290
Thanks for the feedback. It seems like the confusion stems from which side of the number line you are working off of. I'm trying to keep from having to roll a ton of times for every shot taken. I combined "to hit" and cover saves into one roll in a similar fashion. I may just scrap the variable piercing value for singular trait that just negates all armor, so there's only one window of success.

>>51797410
One d6 for each attack

bump before bedtime

>>51797434
So one attack per action, or multiple? I'm just trying to understand the granularity of the system. I like the idea, just that a D6 doesn't give a lot of space for growth with the system.

>>51800493
To attack, nominate which of your units is attacking, and which of your opponents units is the target. Nominate which weapon your unit is attacking with. Roll 1d6 for each model within the unit equips with that weapon, the results of which will determine whether the attack was on target, or "hit" the enemy unit. For each attack that "hit" the enemy, roll 1d6, the results of which will determine whether the attack dealt enough damage to "wound" the enemy.

This much is pretty standard for war games. What I'm trying to do is combine these two rolls with "save" rolls in an interesting way. I'm not too concerned with growth at the moment. The game is supposed to be smaller scale and very lethal, so numbers are going to stay small.

Maybe coming up with a fun way to visually represent the stats might help, like shields and hearts on a number line.

Post-bedtime bump

>>51801080
>>51797424
>>51792973
>>51789361
This anon here. I did some thinking at work today, and figured a way that may make my system less confusing.

Armor now starts at 0, and higher values are better.

Strength is called now Vulnerability, lower values are better.

When shooting, add your weapon's Strength value to Victim' Vulnerability value and subtract your weapon's Piercing value from the Victim's Armor value. Now your roll must land on a number between the adjusted Armor and Vulnerability values.

EXAMPLE
>model with Vulnerability:4 and Armor:2 is hit by weapon with Strength:1 and Piercing:1
>Vulnerability:4 + Strength 1 = 5
>Armor:2 - Piercing:1 = 1
>roll must land on 2, 3, or 4 to wound

Is this any easier to understand? I came here asking if my system is too confusing and all I accomplished was confusing everybody. Should I just start over with something more traditional?

>>51802832
Having two pairs of stats with distinct names makes things a bit clearer.

Vulnerability as the only "less is better" stat looks odd, as well as (consequently) adding one pair of stats and subtracting the other. On the other hand Vulnerability and "hitting vitals" make sense conceptually. And the order of (V+S) as upper bound and (A-P) as lower bound is easier to remember than "which difference on which end?".

>Lurk a few "things you hate that systems do"
>See "When you roll to attack and defender rolls defense instead of defense being a static value"
Is it really that bad? Having a static defensive value would require me to rewrite my system instead of having a unified resolution mechanic.

>>51804203
>Is it really that bad? Having a static defensive value would require me to rewrite my system instead of having a unified resolution mechanic.
Depends on what the defense stat is supposed to represent and what your game is supposed to do.
Just because some nerd on the internet throws a shitfit because not every game is written exactly like the one he likes/grew up on doesn't mean it's bad.

So without know anything about your system, I can only ask why you care about that anyway.
Even if you roll for defense and want to avoid a static value you could still work with modifiers to give the players the feeling that they don't have to rely on just blind luck.

You are the only one who knows the mission statement and the inner workings of your project, it's up to you to decide if a static defense value would serve that purpose better mechanically or would provide a better feeling while playing.

>>51804275
Well in my system you roll your attacking dice pool and if you get equal or more successes than your opponents defense dice pool they rolled your attack hits.
If there was a static defense, there is now the issue of if your opponents static defense exceeds your dice pool it is impossible to hit them.
And I feel like there is a huge difference between 0% chance to hit and even something as low as 1%, but still possible, chance to hit when establishing the tone of the game.

>>51804203
I don't think it's bad.

>>51804348
If there is 0% success chance the roll is kind of superfluous in the first place.

>>51793265
I reread it now, and I think I may have been a little tired. It seems more understandable now compared to last night. Though I would recommend explaining injuries before harm, because one leads into the other. It also wasn't clear to me why harm was a keyword, but injury wasn't.

>>51804348
What aspects determine what you roll for defense? For example, I could see rolling to determine if you manage to block an attack with a shield. That's an action that requires skill, and can succeed or fail. But something like rolling to determine if the breastplate you're wearing protects you is stupid.

>>51804516
You'd get +1 by default for evasion, +1 if you had a shield, +1 for having light armor for example.
So you roll 3d6 and a success on any roll 4 or 6 ( there is a reason for this ). The dice pool is also necessary to determine what you can do in addition to successfully defending yourself

>>51804741
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have armor effect your opponents rolls?
If you're going to make recourse use mandatory to use your deffensive gear the combat gets much less choice intensive, which I assume is part of the goal of your dice pool system. Let players armor and shield defend them passively so they can tank up with heavy armor and rely on it to defend them, that's one of the chief benefits of armor is real combat.

File: Annie Leonhardt Sparring.png (2MB, 700x921px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 700x921px

>>51777755
I didn't mean only one, sorry about that.
>>51778016
It is pretty damn crippling, so I've been juggling ideas. Maybe use one d12 for special powers and saving the other two for skills, combining the three for those "do-or-die" adrenaline situations. Right now it's all up in the air.

>>51804489
Thank you for your feedback. I explained [harm] first because it leads to injuries, not the other way around - when you reach five [harm], THEN you gain an injury.

[Harm] is a tag because the word, "[harm]" is exactly what is applied to your character. It's just a general harm. Whereas injury is not a tag because you don't apply just "[injury]" - you apply "broken arm]" or "[bruised ego]" or whathaveyou. I can see now that that wasn't clear, so thank you for bringing that up!

Now I'm debating whether both should be keywords (you just suffer generic [injury]) or neither (you have to be more specific about what exactly [harm] entails).

Two questions:

Is it a good idea to list the chances of all possible dice outcomes? I'm doing 3d6 individual roll over vs TN, so I thought it might be helpful to provide a chart that explains "At difficulty 3, you have a 13% to get three successes" for example. I can see why that might take away some of the "magic" but I feel players should always be properly informed.

Second, exactly how much material does one need to start playtesting? I have the fundamentals but not all the extra stuff like lore, statblocks, items, etc.

>>51801080
Ok, that makes more sense. I was looking at it as an RPG.

>>51802832
Reminds me of a cross of Infinity's and Dark Age's systems. I'd say this is much clearer.

File: 3845120_460s[1].jpg (273KB, 460x834px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 460x834px

Been trying to figure out how to fix the Wizard problem I'm at right about now.

Not for its own separate game, but a homebrew set of rules I'm working on.

Yes, another "fuck vancian magic" system.

I've balanced Sorcerer's and Divine casters so far, but Wizards have propped up a stone-wall against me, and I can't seem to get through it.

So far, here's what they are:
-No spell limits per day
-No spell preparation ahead of time
-Spellbooks are essentially required as they contain the runes from which the wizard summons the magical power that they wish to enact
-When they don't have their spellbooks, or aren't using them for one reason or another, they can use spellcraft to draw/scribe the runes onto another surface and then cast
-Spellbooks are associated with schools of magic, but can have other spells written inside them, and are merely starting books based on which school the wizard would like to start with
-Outside of the school their spellbook is associated with, they must either find/create their own spells which is a harder or easier task depending on the setting, and takes longer to learn depending on what level spell it is
-Casting spells is the easy part, but finding each spell in their book I'm thinking should take around a full-round action

So far, I'm having trouble figuring out a way to balance them so that they can't just constantly spam spells all day long, since Divine casters are limited based on them requiring a wisdom check, and Sorcerers require a willpower save.

I don't want the rule to be too gamey and want it to fit in thematically with a gritty-magic setting. Basically, I want a risk-reward system for magic, but for wizards, the risk doesn't necessarily have to be physical, the risk could just be time, but I'm having so much writers block right now...

Alright guys, I need some design philosophy. I'm trying to make a grid based shoot em up tabletop system, and what I wanted to do was give actual tactical choices, so I took a cue from XCOM.

I think I made things almost too realistic though? The way it works currently, if you're wearing heavy armor and using cover, you're almost impossible to kill by shooting, because you have high AC and the armor is giving you DR.

Currently the work around is just "This is why you bring grenades, have enough mobility to flank them and negate their cover bonus, fry their control systems, or grapple rape them" but that doesn't feel right.

It feels like it'll just cause frustration when the players go face to face with a Sundowner

I'm using d20+dx by the way, the better you are at shooting, the larger the secondary die is. AC is typically around ten, but getting a big AC is doable if that's what you're trying to do.

>>51808931
Have you thought about modifying the cover system that you can use precise aim to try and avoid hitting the wall so that it doesn't give them such high AC?

>>51808931
How heavy is heavy armor?
The players shouldn't be able to beat a tank with small arms, they shouldn't be able to beat somebody wearing a tank with small arms either

>>51808931
>I think I made things almost too realistic
>lmost impossible to kill by shooting
Ha!

>because you have high AC and the armor is giving you DR.
Dunno, but you could just say that all cover that isn't hard cover, i.e. stuff you cannot shoot through at all, doesn't stack and you just use whichever has a higher rating.
Heavy armor guys are still gonna be harder to kill when in cover with lightly armored guys, even if they are hiding behind the same thing provided their armor is that much better.

>>51810388
>Ha!
A more accurate assessment is "impossible to kill by shooting BEFORE he shoots the entire party dead"

>>51809272
What do you mean by precise aim?

>>51809633
The heavy armor is "I can't actually move faster than a slow walk without cybernetic enhancements, but hey, I can have my teammates stack up behind me!"

What is /tg/'s thoughts on symmetrical systems vs asymmetrical systems? In other words: systems where the NPCs generally play by the same rules as the PCs like D&D or GURPS, vs systems like Apocalypse World or FATE where the player mechanics are very different from GM mechanics. There's also stuff kinda in-between like Savage World.

I feel like an asymmetrical system has some big advantages. Player characters can have a lot of depth, mechanical complexity, and build options. But the GM is still able to very quickly improvise, and doesn't have to prep a lot of stats and stuff for NPCs and enemies.

On the other hand, a symmetrical system feels a bit more "real". Like you're actually simulating characters in a world, rather than just collaboratively telling stories about those characters.

Does a system need to be symmetrical to have tactically interesting combat? I feel like it could definitely be done, but every example of a good tactical game that I can think of is pretty symmetrical.

Also, does anyone have some good examples of how to simplify GM NPC mechanics without sacrificing too much on the tactical side? Stuff like "mook" and "minion" rules.

>Genies

Lets say you have a PC Genie in your party. In combat, would his abilities be more active like hes actually striking the opponent or passive like buffs for your allies?

>>51811301
I feel naked GMing asymmetrical systems. It feels like a cardboard facade compared to symmetrical design.
But it is ok to deny NPCs special player benefits like fate points and death rules.

>>51811466
That is more a fluff question I think. Depends on the setting, depends on the Genie in question and depends on the player.

>>51812565
I mean like how would a genie handle combat?

We came to the conclusion it would cast spells that feed off mana like a mage

>>51806501
>-Casting spells is the easy part, but finding each spell in their book I'm thinking should take around a full-round action
> they must either find/create their own spells which is a harder or easier task depending on the setting, and takes longer to learn depending on what level spell it is

Who would bother to make such a character when you could use the simple sorceror rules?

>>51806129
Since it's a game first and foremost, it's good to create a prototype as soon as possible. Right now what I'm designing is in the early stages, but we're already focusing on creating a short adventure so we can start seeing what works.

>>51813987
Because I made it so that sorcerer's require a willpower save each time they cast a spell, or they suffer subdual damage equal to the spell level. The reason for this is because through their "innate" magical abilities, they will their creations/effects to life, failure to do so would be fairly taxing on their body if they failed to channel it properly.

A successful fortitude save can halve the damage. Better start bulking up, sorcerers.

File: ORBERU SETUP.png (179KB, 2292x974px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 2292x974px

drunk, typed up a typo ridden png describing my main gig at the moment

>>51814735
its been a project for about a year a half. It started as a Pokemon game between a friend. We had just finished the first round of blindtesting when he had to back out so I had to take over the whole thing and that included a switch from the Pokemon skin to a Smash Up skin with a bunch of playable characters. Theres over 200 in the game right now

After the first round of Blindtesting not only came the new compatibility issues with some characters and enhanced plots but what was also added was
-Weapons
-Special Attacks
-a Good v Evil Mechanic
-Personality Traits

Whiel weapons and personality traits were a hit, the Good v Evil Mechanic and Special Attacks were not. Players often forgot to document changes in nature and when learning new attacks,Since there was already a lot to keep up with, I decided to get rid of those.

Losing the movelists causes a whole new slew of problems. The Sub-Classes main appeal was being able to learn moves off separate sub-class movelists. Now that the movelists are done for, the only appeal to the subclasses is the weapons which I must now increase the amount of. And the Beast Sub-Class cant hold weapons, its only appeal WAS its movelist. For now, Beast Sub-Class Characters just get a boost to stats when stats are assigned.

Blindtesting showed me people much preferred seeking out building strong teams and strategizing their character effects and leader abilties together to create strong teams rather than try and make "good" or "evil" characters with strong special attacks.

Right now, Im in the middle of updating the Character list, next is revising the rules to include new stuff and drop outdated info and then revising and adding Items and weapons. After that it's coming up with some suitable plots for some blind test runs to see how its coming along.