/gdg/ Game Design General

File: creation-game.jpg (66KB, 829x519px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 829x519px

has anyone tried this? I'm about to. It was linked to in the "Seventh Sanctum" site found in the Tools and Resources area.

File: creation-game-liam.jpg (63KB, 774x420px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 774x420px

This is my character. As you adjust the stats, it gives you these prompts telling you what your character is like. I guess that's supposed to help people understand what a high or low stat implicates.

>>52944959
>3.5.jpg

File: Rev3.png (3MB, 1335x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1335x1600px

I'll bump this one up with a straight up repost from the previous thread.

I'm putting together a rules-lite tabletop RPG where the players play a gang of kids that get thrown into a supernatural plot in the 80's. Think Stranger Things, Monster Squad, Stephen King's IT, etc... Maybe with a little Lovecraft thrown in.

I don't have much yet, because I am spending a lot of time on the aesthetics, but I'd love some feedback on what I do have.

Pic attached is the character sheet, and the next post will show the list of Hobbies, of which players get to choose 2 for their character.

What do you think? What can I improve?

File: Hobbies.png (3MB, 1335x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1335x1600px

>>52947953
Hobbies attached. Also, after this post, I'll post some stuff that I'm not done with - /gdg/ exclusive

>>52947953
these are amazing but what is "3" +3 to d6 or d20 chould you explain your system a bit.

it looks amazing and i'd love to play the finished version or a testing version, it's wonderful mate.

so i cant really say much than that

File: brut pool with cover.pdf (336KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1x1px

I've posted this before and didn't really get a lot of attention, but I guess I'll try again. This is a skirmish game played on a square grid with an emphasis on customization. I'd like feedback on any options that seem like they might be overpowered; I've done a lot of playtesting but it's kind of overwhelming.

File: Problems.png (3MB, 1335x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1335x1600px

>>52947969
Attached is a very, very early draft of Problems. There's quite a few things that I already want to change - maybe I can get some feedback?

>I think I want them to either be all theatrical or all mechanical penalties, but not mix and match both. Which do you think they should be?

>I don't really like Overweight. I can't really think of a good effect for it, and I feel like it's a little mean-spirited. I have Shy at the ready to replace it with, which would be Talk only succeeds on 6.

File: RollingTheDice.png (3MB, 1335x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1335x1600px

>>52947993
>>52948050
Sorry, I explained it a bit in the previous thread - it's a dice pool, so you have your score (starts at 3, and then Hobbies modify it), and you roll that many dice. 5 and 6 are successes.

I went with dice pool to kind of capture the kiddish, fun feeling of dropping a handful of dice.

I sorta started putting together the system doc, but it's unfinished and poorly designed right now. I attached it to this post.

File: Screenshot_1.png (67KB, 728x768px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 728x768px

>>52947993
>>52948100
Also, attached is from my planning doc.

>>52948146
Sounds like an interesting rules-lite game. Very nice graphics and layout.

>>52948220
Thanks anon! When I get back to my computer today, I'll bump some more with some fluff I've put together for my players.

File: 1485170112102.jpg (577KB, 1920x2716px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 1920x2716px

>>52948146
>>52948100
>>52948050
i think its gonna be awesome, i have nothing bad to say, just keep working on it!

File: MysticHarbor.png (515KB, 612x792px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 612x792px

>>52948289
Sorry, this was me, I was on mobile. Thanks again for the compliment anon.

>>52948627
Hey, thanks! My group is really excited to play, so I'm definitely going to see it through.

Attached is a tease I gave to my group way back when, before I settled on the reddish-pinkish aesthetic.

I do have the first 4 images of a 16-part puzzle that I could post, but I'm kinda blast posting at this point, so I'll wait to see if anyone wants to see them.

>>52947953
I like the design but I havve some advice.
Try and figure out a way to be able to print the stat scores inside the icon.
Like for Fighting, the fists finger fade towards the center so you can write your Fighting score.
No idea what do do with Playing.
Talking is fine as is.
Thinking could be solved in a manner similar to Fighting. A transparency gradient as it approaches the center.

Here's what I want to make:

>point buy rpg
>stats that average at 10 (like GURPS or D&D)
>2d6 mechanic

I can't figure out how to do without derived bonuses. (i.e. an 11 gives a +1) but I really want these elements in the game, they just feel aesthetic as fuck together in my head for some reason.

File: slave niggit gale.png (1001KB, 1531x957px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 1531x957px

Hand it over... that thing, your unfinished PDFs

>>52949042
This is an incredible idea, thank you. It's definitely pushing the limits of what I know how to do in Photoshop, but I'm sure I can figure it out, probably just a gradient overlay layer style would do the trick. I'll post in once I make the changes.

I'm interested in trying my hand at a Pokemon system that tries to make combat not nearly as long.

The core issues I have are that people can have 6 Pokemon each and each one has stats to manage as well. My idea is that, not only are citizens not allowed to begin officially adventuring until 16, but that the number of Pokemon allowed to utilize is 3 rather than 6. The only exceptions to this will be those in law enforcement or military branches. Of course criminals can disobey at the cost of being hunted down.

The basic idea for combat is this. Each trainer builds a dice pool for their battle between each Pokemon, which will consist of d6's and a d20 to roll for a crit. The amount of d6's each trainer rolls depends on the trainer's tactical and commanding abilities, level difference between Pokemon and stat changers like growl and tail whip. Pokemon speed might also have something to do with it. Types will determine how much damage is done.

For example, saying if I was GMing a battle between Phil and Joey:

GM: "Ok Phil, this will be a battle between your Charizard and Joey's Pikachu. The battle is over once one of the Pokemon is unable to fight on. Begin!"

Phil: "Charizard, finish this quickly with Flamethrower!"

Joey: "Pikachu, try to take him down with a Thunderbolt!"

GM: "Alright, let's build the dice pool. Phil's trainer abilities (naming in progress) grant him 2 initial d6's, while Joey's give him 3. However, Phil's Charizard is a higher level by X-amount and is faster, so throw in 3 more dice. With a d20 on each side this will be 5 d6's against 3."

The players roll and Phil ends up rolling poorly, giving him a result of 12. Joey's d6's grant him a 14, allowing Pikachu to outmaneuver the Charizard barely and land his Thunderbolt. The damage is not only increased because of type effectiveness, but is also increased because Joey also rolled a 20 on his d20!

Now knowing the dice here, the players keep rolling until one side is KO'd.

Cont.

>>52951521
With the addition of multiple dice in one roll without incredibly specific actions, this can allow the GM and trainers to be a bit creative with the results depending how close or far the were, allowing a more narrative encounter. The restriction to 3 Pokemon at all times can also shorten battles to hopefully be no longer than 30 minutes depending on the situation, though this may be affected by how detailed Pokemon information is.

As for Pokemon, rather than giving them complete statlines and basically a character sheet for each one, I want to try to simplify them to classes based on a more general Size, Speed, Defense and Power and HP, though HP might just be determined by Size class as well. I'll have to do some more work here but the end result could be a system that flows more naturally and isn't a major grind to play through each time.

Was waiting for one of these to pop up the last couple of days, because I had actual maths that I needed to discuss. And when it pops up is the evening I'm not free to maths.

>>52956161
>my hand at a Pokemon system
Such is life.

How long are the games everyone's working on? I'm working on a project intended to be comparable to things like Exalted in terms of size and quantity of content, and my playtest-doc is at around 80 pages out of a predicted few hundred.

File: Combat.pdf (55KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1x1px

Here's a bit of a description of what I brought up in the last thread. Does this sound like it would be too complex or slow?

File: rpgssystem.pdf (61KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1x1px

Is the dice system I'm using too complicated to be fun?
Also, does the attribute system I have work in your opinion? Can you see any flaws that I obviously missed? Can you think of any border cases where none of the Sins apply and break the system decided what to roll for?

>>52957291
A tick-based turn system will always add a bunch of bookkeeping, since you have to keep track of variable action lengths and action orders. And if you don't have variable action lengths and orders, you may as well go back to a more traditional turn-based system. I can't really say anything else without knowing more about the potential actions.

>>52957476
Choosing your stat looks fine at a glance. However, if there is no maximum number of dice, why would higher sin ratings allow you to you to succeed in more difficult tasks. Also, you really should have a probability table for your own use. Are you sure that moderate actions are "moderately difficult"? Because it's not blazingly obvious if moderately difficult means 50% chance of success or 85%?

File: rpgsprobabilities.pdf (16KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 1x1px

>>52957476
Having crunched a basic probability table, I've changed my mind. You're dice system is nuts.

>>52958237
That is super funky. So the lower your Sin is, the greatest your odds of being able to perform simple actions, but you are incapable of more extreme actions. As your sin value increases, you become capable of more impressive feats, but simultaneously more likely to fail.

>>52957816
My problem with turn-based combat is that it's unrealistic. There's no sense of things happening in "real time" because players have to wait for everyone else to go, and because of that there's too much time for people to discuss between themselves what strategies are going to be most effective.

>And if you don't have variable action lengths and orders, you may as well go back to a more traditional turn-based system.

Can you explain why? This tick system I've tried to describe is trying to be as simple as possible.

>>52958237
Thanks for doing the math I was too much of a lazy brainlet to do.
Those probabilities somewhat fit into what I felt when I was doing test rolls myself.
>>52958292
> So the lower your Sin is, the greatest your odds of being able to perform simple actions, but you are incapable of more extreme actions. As your sin value increases, you become capable of more impressive feats, but simultaneously more likely to fail.
That is the idea. Alternatively I could have gone for a much simpler roll above/below system but that wasn't enough of a special snowflake for me to justify writing a system for it to myself.

>>52958377
With fixed lengths, it's a fixed order. Those are turns.

At the end of the day, you're using complexity to buy depth. Look for where you can get the best bang for your buck. Tick systems are interesting, but a lot of work. If you aren't going to capitalize on it, you may want to use that complexity elsewhere.

File: Simplicity Rating.png (15KB, 313x392px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 313x392px

>>52957476
I think I've got a somewhat similar system going with my Monster Hunter RPG system. Image is related.

How it works is you have skills rated from 1 to 10 (Or possibly more, but greater than 10 would still count as 10. It'll make sense why I'd allow players to go over 10 in a moment), Which directly relates to the simplicity rating of performing the related task, minus one, as their exact SR is considered a *partial success* (E.g. Player has a 7 SR in Athletics, so to *succeed* in an athletics check, they need to roll a 6 or lower, or a 7 for a partial success).

This system is very flexible as the GM may decide that a task is more or less difficult in general or for a specific player and/or reason (Say, a player with a broken arm trying to old a door shut) by giving +/-SR to a task. (Take our previous example: Player has a 7 in Athletics, and since the task they are trying to do is actually easy for most/all people the GM decides the task gives a +2SR, bringing the player to 9SR to succeed.

What do you think?

File: Deviljho1.png (870KB, 1090x1050px) Image search: [Google]

870KB, 1090x1050px

>>52958377
Man I really think you should take a look at my game. I'll link it for you in this thread now: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C23SntKllqCK7U0tUd2aNy0KGrMoUtCt9qyguZ3ePns/edit?usp=sharing

I'm building a combat system (and RPG system) around Monster Hunter, and as such I needed combat to be fluid as well as for actions to feel diverse. I had a slightly different system with different action types before, but now I am using an "Action Credits" system, with each Combatant getting a certain amount of AC per round. This allows for some actions to take longer than others. Rounds are also done in a simultaeneous way, with players rolling "Reaction time" each round to determind when they give their actions (Actions are then given in reverse order of slowest to fastest reaction time, giving those who rolled better the chance to react to the actions of others) Additionally, AC can be saved for after the action phase, and are usable in the "Reaction Phase". Players can use Reactions to Dodge or block actions that they otherwise wouldn't be able to due to reacting slower than an attacking enemy. Of course, to save a reaction is a risk as you may not even get attacked.

This is all explained much better in my Doc, but that's the gist.

Thoughts?

>>52958861
>What do you think?
The chance of a partial success being a static 10% while the chance of failure and success changes seems weird to me.
I can't put my finger on why it feels that way to me.
Otherwise it's a pretty standard roll under.

>>52958996
Kind of like an action stack. It bears some semblance to standard turn order, but REALLY stresses going first. Normally winning initiative means getting to strike first at the cost of not being able to respond to an opponent's action. Here winning initiative potentially means getting to do both, which is pretty brutal.

File: Seregios.png (877KB, 877x812px) Image search: [Google]

877KB, 877x812px

>>52959081
Due to it being Round based, Going first only gives a player an advantage as they will know every action happening before they give their own.

As for It being unfair, Reaction time is rolled at the beginning of each round, making the order shift each round. Players will have options to gain (or lose) reaction time, so their odds at reacting sooner/later can be played with as well.

>>52959024
I understand where you're coming from, but I stand by the 10% partial success. Especially with how it works at the two extremes (1 and 10) giving either the chance for a small success against what should otherwise be utterly impossible, or the chance for even a master to stumble a little.

>>52959199
By "brutal" I did not mean "unfair," as these rules do apply to everyone. Simply know that people who move later will have major problems. How locked into announced actions are combatants? A simple example of what I'm thinking:

Player is fighting a group of enemies, player wins init. He knows which one will charge him, which one will fire, which one will position, etc. He can now act in a way so as to avoid or minimize as many of these as possible. This is going from "reacts faster" to full-blown precognition.

File: Lagiacrus.png (581KB, 953x727px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 953x727px

>>52959324
This is true. Reactions (From the reaction phase) are used to help circumvent the problem of players with slow reaction times knowing less some.

Additionally, combat will be against one Very large enemy, not multiple smaller ones (As this is me bringing Monster Hunter to Tabletop). Due to this, the fastest Players will generally only know the actions of other allies and The attack (Not targets, distance, or direction) of the monster. Also due to this, Players who rolled poorly on reaction don't need to be borderline psychic to *guess* what may befall them if they don't dodge as they only need to analyse the positioning and warning from the monster (A thing left out from the previous post, monsters give minute movement warnings before any actions are given to signify a general thing (possible target(s), possible next attacks [as these would generally correlate to more than just one attack from a monster]), and decide weather to save some of their AC to react and dodge/block the attack.

>>52959448
If I may ask, if you're making this system specifically for group of players vs big monster, why deal with variable turns at all? Player phase->Monster phase, or have fast monsters have an ability to act first. Players will talk to each other anyway, and they should be communicating their plans to coordinate, without having to predict each other. I could understand a mechanic to predict a massive monster's attack to make a preemptive action, but having all players constantly doing such seems a bit strange.

>>52948050
>>52948100
>>52948146
Loving the progress you're making. I'd buy a nice hardcover rulebook of this when finished and fleshed out. The aesthetic is just so well done and I really like the idea behind it. Keep up the great work. Not much to criticize on

Yever put memes in your game? Been thinking about.

Since we're talking of non-traditional combat styles, I might as well toss what I'm thinking of using for my system onto the pile.
I'm thinking of using a system where everyone rolls Ini, then decides what action they're going to take on their turn and "locks in" that action, before resolving every action in Ini order. Combatants can take reactions to any action taken against them, and Combatants who are killed prior to their turn get to go during their turn before being removed (although their action will be at a large penalty). Once all actions are resolved, the next round begins with the same order of operations.
I want to better represent the simultaneous nature of combat, where being able to flick a shot into an opponent a split second before they can means the difference between getting out alive and being domed.

>>52959566
The system actually started out this way, but I felt that it didn't feel like players were given the ability to see a monsters action coming and react to it, much like the mainline games.

I suppose a combination of the already existing "Warning Phase" and perhaps use of Awareness checks could allow players more information... I'll have to put some thought into this.

However, this would basically make combat vs multiple enemies (like other people for example) more difficult.

>>52959923
This is why it's important to consider what EXACTLY you want your system to do. Doing player turn/enemy turn would greatly streamline single monster fighting, allowing you to shift that complexity elsewhere, or simplify it. The downside is that fighting groups will be awkward. So how much do you expect to be in each sort of combat scenario?

I'd imagine this is also a factor in how attacks function. Monster attacks and defenses are wildly different from those of characters. If you're only ever fighting monsters, you can design a system around tailoring your approaches to specific opponents. Player attacks will only ever be directed at big monsters and players will only ever defend against big monsters, and you can design around that. The narrower your focus, the more polished you can make the experience, but the more limited it becomes.

>>52960040
yeah I guess that is the problem. It works fine with the games as they don't need a system for combat vs a group of mercenaries or whatever, just four people against a Monster.

On the topic of monster attacks I...haven't fully fleshed out how to determine how it will work, but I guess the main framework is there. Monsters will have AC just like players, and attacks will take more or less AC to use. Some of these attacks would have a unique "Lag" stat, telling how long (or how many AC) is spent *after an attack is used (This is a rough idea, I still need to sit down and put some serious time into monster behaviour).

Working on a sizable game, with the intent that it would be capable of producing a massive variety of possible characters and a relatively balanced approach to combat, social and exploration.

The setting would be kitchen-sink fantasy, absolutely insane in terms of the quantity and prevalence of supernatural threats. Standard heroes were getting their asses handed to them, so kingdoms rallied together and established a system of academies to properly train hopefuls against their myriad threats.

Yup, it's an adventurer-academy game. Play is mostly during regular field-missions to simultaneously test the abilities of PCs and to help deal with escalating problems around whatever kingdom the PCs find themselves in. At the start of each quarter, players must select how they'll spend their academic and free time, with a massive list of classes (I've got about 75 and would like 400+) and a small list of freetime activities (clubs, romance, etc.) which all have small but flavorful effects. Classes each give benefits over the course of the next three sessions, both flat skill bonuses and special abilities.

As an example:
Bedside Manner:
Credits: 3
1st: Medicine +1
2nd: Insight +1
3rd: Medicine +1, Insight +1. Ability: Console - You can ease someone’s pain as you care for them. While performing a Long Term Care action, you can care for up to 6 individuals at once. Additionally, any targets at below half of their max health when you begin treatment recuperate an additional point of willpower during their rest.

In addition to classes, PCs also pick a variety of traits during character creation, and can get extras by getting disadvantages. I have several dozen of each, and have done my best to make them all interesting, while none are flatly must-takes for certain character types and none are absolute trash.

Does this sound like something anyone would want to play?

>>52960166
I've played very little Monster Hunter, so apologies if I'm off-base-

When fighting big monsters, I think accentuating their specific anatomy is a big deal for making them interesting. Not only their special moves/attacks, but literally how they are put together. The way you fight a giant turtle thing should be different than the way you fight a dragon, etc. I'd consider how you'd go about achieving those effects. How do you make those encounters mechanically distinct, and reward players strategizing appropriately? A basic idea would be having specific body parts have independent defensive stats, and effects when crippled (something I'm considering for my own game).

File: Zinogre1.png (1MB, 1000x976px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x976px

>>52960308
The two things you suggested are already 100% in place. But first, I should explain the (Already heavily specialized....>.>) way that damage from players is currently set to work.

Damage from players is given on their weapon by three static values (For this example we'll use 1/2/3), with 1 being damage to an armored zone, 2 being damage to a regular zone, and 3 being damage to a weak zone. The turtle monster from your example could have an Armored (A) zone covering its entire back, making it very difficult to hurt hitting there, but have regular legs and a Weak head and tail.

As for breaking parts, this is also very central thing in the Monster hunter games, and I will be implementing some kind of system for this as well, though I haven't stamped one out specifically yet. Thinking on the fly, each monster could have a "break threshold" or something, where maybe a specific number could be given, and any zone that takes that much damage is broken (Probably going down one armor value, giving a + to damage if already a weak zone, or maybe giving some other kind of effect for those areas)

One other thing I want to mention, each weapon will have a "+/-" value, which is used to give buffs/debuffs to the static damage dealt. so say a player has a buff from an ally, as well as using some special ability of their specific weapon, giving them a total of 2+, which would add 2(whatever the +/- value on the weapon is) to the weapons damage that round.

>>52960517
I really like this. I'd definitely want to see interesting effects for breaking parts (break the wings and it can't fly, break the snake-tail and it can't lash at you, etc.). I also really like how you have your weapons set up. Having the four values for ARWB gives you MASSIVE opportunities for interesting and unique weapons even before special abilities (which I'm pretty sure Monster Hunter is big on). My first thought is a weapon with low A and R and a huge W, clearly made for the dashy rogue who is constantly trying to get to the weak spot, versus the hulking tank who uses a weapon with a more even statline and focuses on his A value. Meanwhile the spellsword likes his high B and is really most effective when buffing.

Yeah, I like this.

File: Malfestio.png (196KB, 376x384px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 376x384px

>>52960819
Yeah there's a LOT of variability. And that's not even including status attack values. Oh and Ranged weapons. So much Variability comes with a cost: my sanity. It's going to be a lot of fun making so many different weapons.

I'm not sure what the B value is on your ARWB thing (the +/- thing maybe?), but it is the value that applies to your weapon specifically, not other peoples weapons.

The combat of Monster Hunter is baked around constant movement and attacking and avoiding, so even the "support" weapons are built around attacking. For example, the Hunting Horn plays one note every attack, and may use 2-4 notes to play a song with various effects. Another weapon has the ability to use items without putting the weapon away, allowing for quick use of healing items, traps, and flash-bombs (Among other things). My setting has no magic (for players at least) but I could see other settings having magic and using the same system.

>>52960977
Yeah, I went with B for bonus for the +/-, and I did mean him buffing himself.

So the bit you've developed less is how the monsters will attack the players?

Also, >>52960264 is me, and I'd really appreciate any comment, if you wouldn't mind.

File: Dah'ren_Mohran.png (1MB, 1384x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1384x1000px

>>52960264
Hi um.....you wanted comment here it is. Love it. In my own system I've actually had plans to use schools for skill progression instead of levels and i just....yup this looks good.

One thing I sort of need clarification on: once they get the bonus, is it permanent? so, 1st session player gets the +1 medicine, 2nd session does the player now ALSO get the insight bonus, or does the medicine get swapped out for....nah that doesn't sound right

So in your example the player would gain a total of +2 to insight and Medicine, as well as the Ability at the end?

>>52961071
Yeah I've mostly been working on the player side of things, though I'm working my way towards monsters. Maybe I'll sit down tomorrow and just jot down the points I want to get myself started and see where I go from there. However, In reply to the previous anon, I really think that I'll have to specialize to only Monster Combat, which will require me to think about how encounters with other people that may turn physical could work. HMMMMM

>>52961182
You are correct, the bonuses are cumulative. So by the end of the quarter you'd have +2 to each of the two skills, plus the ability. Players have 12 credits per quarter to spend on classes, so you can get a sense of the range of skills and abilities each would get.

>>52961182
Maybe I should start namefagging, I'm the only one you've been talking to. One of the things I enjoy is using a second but super-simple system to handle secondary conflict. An example of this can be seen in Mythenders, which has a very complicated and abstract system for players all working together to defeat literal myths. PvP then is weird, as that structure doesn't work at all. Instead there's a simple rule that any player at any time can declare they want to kill another. The responding player can choose to defend themselves, and the two roll off. The loser dies. This is a huge contrast to the main combat system which can easily take the better part of an hour for a single fight. The result is backstabbing is abrupt and vicious.

That is to say, if you intend character vs character to be relatively rare, create a system which provides exactly how much detail is necessary, and focus on your main experience.

>>52961263
Actually, I'm not the only one, just the only one recently.

>>52959081
>>52959324
>>52959566
>>52960040
>>52960264
>>52960308
>>52960819
>>52961071
>>52961263
Are all me.

>>52949293
Roll under your attribute? That's how it was done in olden times.

File: Chameleos.png (928KB, 1111x812px) Image search: [Google]

928KB, 1111x812px

>>52961263
I only started namefagging in these threads to keep discussions more organized, as there were a lot of other ideas being thrown around by other people. I see a couple of those people in here at times. Yeah I'd recommend it.

As for that super simple system thing....yeah I probably will have to end up doing something like that. As well as thinking about how changing combat to Player phase>Monster phase will change how my combat currently works (RIP Reactions?). Lots to think about.

I do have a system in place for relatively detailed Social Conflicts, so PERHAPS I could do something similar with person conflicts...

>>52961182
There's totally nothing wrong with a game that has a focused ruleset. If it's like MH then it's a game about killing big things, even velociraptors are like twice your size. I'd rather the 'kill big things' rules be solid. I don't know how biased I am, though, because I made a game all about killing roughly human enemies that falls apart the moment someone wants to use a big monster or even a horse

>>52960264
So this system is mostly centered around your academy system, but how about the adventures that they're needed for? What sort of stuff are you using for this?

>>52961522
The idea is dealing with a diverse set of problems around the kingdom, a bit Brothers Grimm-y. Examples, off the top of my head-

A strange disease has been spreading through crops in a nearby village

Bodies have been going missing from local cemeteries, and the mayor turns out to be a necromancer

A feud has started between two prominent houses, possibly going full-blown montague/capulet

A dragon has moved in nearby and is demanding tribute

Etc. etc. Situations with a number of possible approaches and requiring pretty diverse skillsets.

>>52961578
This sounds pretty cool and I would totally play this I think. I like systems built around diverse options (Which is funny considering the heavy combat focus of my system, though I swear diverse options are available...in combat [and before combat in some situations])

>>52961481
You're right. I'm glad I posted about this in here so I could get this light shone on my...system. THE WORK BEGINS ANEW.

File: Rev4.png (3MB, 1335x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1335x1600px

>>52949042
>>52951120
So here's what happened - I tried the gradient thing and couldn't get it to look good for anything. I messed with it for a few hours, and nothing looked good. So, I decided to use some different images (that were naturally blank in the center) and redo that section so that the design kind of encourages someone filling out the sheet to write their numbers in the images.

See attached and let me know if it looks better, and thanks again for the advice!

>>52959725
>I'd buy a nice hardcover rulebook of this when finished and fleshed out. The aesthetic is just so well done and I really like the idea behind it.

Holy shit, that's quite the compliment anon! I will totally keep you guys updated in these threads, especially when I have a bonafide PDF.

File: Overheard71.jpg (92KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1920x1080px

>>52948790
I'll do a few late night bumps and post the puzzle images I mentioned earlier. This is fluff, so not necessarily game design, but essentially I'm creating a puzzle for my players using a publication in the town setting (Mystic Harbor), called "Overheard in Mystic Harbor." Think of it like a mix of the Humans of New York Twitter, and sort of a Weird Tales, Lovecraft sorta thing. I imagine it's a section in Mystic Harbor's local newspaper or something.

This will be only 4 parts of the puzzle (it's all I have right now), so it'll be damn near impossible to figure out (but not fully impossible, props if you get it).

I'd love to know, despite there being very little context, if these little vignettes fit the aesthetic you had in your mind, having seen the other stuff in this thread.

1/4

File: Overheard24.jpg (85KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1920x1080px

>>52962061

2/4

File: Overheard21.jpg (130KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1920x1080px

>>52962070

3/4

File: Overheard18.jpg (117KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1920x1080px

>>52962081

4/4

>>52959839
No.

bump for the one time

File: Party.jpg.jpg (109KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 640x360px

Bumping

>>52961963
I prefer the other version with the numbers outside but it's mostly because I really like the original icons. Nothing bad about this version I just like the look of the other one

>>52958692
But what I've tried to describe doesn't have an order in the sense that you seem to think it does. Everyone goes nearly simultaneously. Ticks aren't taken in order. Everyone chooses what to do every tick. I realized last night that a simple way to look at it was to check out a video game I've never played before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv6BaVH5u90

>>52958996
I took a look at it last thread at your suggestion, and it doesn't really fit with my idea of simultaneous. I also decided against using anything like action points or stamina that put an economy into combat.

>>52964495
Totally fair. did you perhaps take a look at the combat from Mazes and Minotaurs? It might help.

>>52962061
>>52962070
>>52962081
>>52962089
If you ever want to playtest with strangers over the internet I'll gladly help out

>>52961963
i agree with >>52964305

What's a good source for royalty/copyright/etc-free card art? I don't need anything really good looking, I just want something a little better than clipart

>>52961963
Yeah honestly these images don't outwardly really say "This is where the numbers go", as much as I love the images themselves.

File: Calendar.pdf (5MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 1x1px

>>52965574
I did, and it seems to be close to what I want. Part of me doesn't like it just because it feels like turn-based combat. As >>52958692 explained people going in an order based on initiative isn't really simultaneous. Another part of me thinks it might be the best option for "simultaneous" combat I've seen from other sources.

I guess I have some explaining to do with combat as I envision it. I'll just take a break and work on the way the world's calendar works instead. Who doesn't like useless fluff?

File: Calendar.pdf (23KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 1x1px

>>52968605
Oh fuck it didn't include the lunar cycle symbols.

>>52948021
Seems neat but dear lord is that a lot of information.

File: Volvidon.png (150KB, 734x516px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 734x516px

So I've been thinking a bit about the Armor system to be used in my System. Trying to go by Better Armor = Less damage taken, the Armor Class system doesn't really work. However, Going by a system with Mitigation, things get a bit complicated for two reasons:

>Armor Pieces
In Monster hunter, hunters wear a set of 5 different armor pieces, Head, Chest, arms, waist, and legs. I want to bring this down to three.

>Even more complicating: Static HP
This may be a thing that I end up being forced to change, but I want to avoid it if possible. Basically, The current number I'm throwing out is that Players will have a static total of 100 HP (That can be brought to as high as 150 with food buffs, I'll explain my reasoning for having higher HP values in a bit). Due to HP being static, Armor is forced to do pretty much *all* the heavy lifting when it comes to incoming damage.

The current system that has been coming together in my head has been that each piece of armor would have a set mitigation value (As well as one or more points towards an armor skill, but that's not something I want to talk about in this post) which would combine with the other two armor pieces to give the players Mitigation amount. This brings me to the complicated bit. With players having 100HP, and me wanting attacks from monsters that are balanced to their armor level dealing around 1/4 to 1/3 of their HP (or very strong attacks dealing as much as 1/2 or 2/3), armor values would need to be large numbers and therefore almost definitely require a calculator for seeing how much damage people take from attacks. This just plain isn't good. I do not want my system requiring a Calculator for finding out how much damage a player takes. No.
(Continued in next post)

File: Great_Jaggi.png (803KB, 1240x864px) Image search: [Google]

803KB, 1240x864px

>>52969423
The reasoning for having Player HP so high is that I have been working under the assumption that Player and Monster HP would be relative, even if the damage systems revolving around their HP is not, and therefore higher HP on players gives me more play room when it comes to Weapon Damage, and therefore the ability to balance weapons easier.

As I have written this, I have realized my central mistake: Reasoning that Player and Monster HP NEED to be relative at all. Especially since I have already made it so Monsters take damage differently from how players do.

Due to this, I have come up with a possible solution that I would appreciate commentary on: Reduce player HP drastically, and damage numbers from monsters at the same time.

For example, if I were to bring the starting HP total from 100HP to 10HP, Mitigation numbers can be MUCH smaller and easy to work with, with starting armor totaling to maybe 7 or 8 MIT instead of something like 70 to 80. Different armors can still be weaker or stronger between each other, but don't require nearly as massive numbers to compensate for monster Damage.

>>52969483
The size of your numbers is a balancing point of granularity versus ease of use, which again means that you want to opt for the smallest numbers which achieve the level of granularity you want. I do think that smaller HP on players is going to result in faster damage calculations. Summing MITs also seems like a perfectly fine solution, and is what many videogames use. Just make sure the individual pieces are interesting and diverse enough to warrant the mix-and-match system instead of just purchasing full sets.

That said, 10 HP might be a bit too small if you want MITs of 7-8ish, unless you really want to emphasize "Your armor must be this good or you are screwed". That is to say, let's say a monster's attack does 9 damage. A player with MIT 8 will take one damage (10% of their health), while a player with MIT 7 will take double that (20%). There is very little potential margin between damage values and armor values, as each increment of 1 off is a full 10% health different. If you fight something and your MIT is two under what it ought to be, you'll be taking SUBSTANTIALLY more damage than you otherwise would. That said, this may be the effect you're going for, with monsters being very deadly if you are not super confident you are properly equipped. The downside is that you have very little wiggle-room for the MITs of different armor pieces, as a difference of one is such a big deal. If your base health was, say, 20 or 25, you could start with MITs in the 14-16 range, achieving similar % DR but with more wiggle room to make distinct pieces of armor.

In my own system, I'm going with a generic system of weapons and armor. Weapons and armor have point-levels, with each point being usable to increase a variety of stats. For example, weapons have damage, accuracy and block as their three primary values, with a 0pt weapon at 3/0/0. Each point allows you to increase damage by 2, or block or acc by 1. No more than half of a weapon (or armor)'s points can be spent on any one thing (no overloading on just damage, for example). Meanwhile, there are a variety of tags which have associated point values that grant different effects, like making the weapon cause bleed damage or being Light, etc. By default, characters can only effectively use weapons and armor with a single tag, but they can take classes to get various levels of Exotic Weapon/Armor proficiency that lets them use weirder stuff (Need that bleeding light concealable weapon for assassins).

Armor uses a similar system, where there are 6 types of damage (bash/pierce/slash/heat/cold/elec) and armor grants Damage Mitigation (DM) towards each of these values, as well as a maneuverability penalty. Points can be spent to get a total of 4 DM to spread around (can't put more than 2 on a single one), but each point spent on DM increases the penalty by one, or points can be spent to decrease penalty by two. Therefore two players could have equal-quality armor, but one has spent more of their resources to drop the maneuverability penalty, making "light" armor. Again, there are a variety of interesting tags, though not near as many as for weapons.

The intention is to have a ton of pre-made weapons with this system, then allow player-smiths to design their own stuff if they are so inclined.

>>52970071
I'm making a monster-building system for GMs to come up with their own things. The basic idea is that there are various complexities of monsters, which have a different number of points to throw around on things. These include special abilities, but also skills like Melee, Block and Stealth. Skills are purchased as Slow, Medium or Faster-scaling. A monster's kit has no assigned power-level, with all aspects of it scaling off of power-level (the effective quarter), so you can design a monster once and it just scales up and down as you want. For example, Medium-scaling skills get +2 skill points each power level. Naturally I'd have a big bundle of pre-made monsters with both their overall kits, and their specific stats at probably three levels each, so you could fight young, adult and elder versions of them.

In case you haven't noticed, I REALLY like me some point-buy as a way of providing massive quantities of options.

File: Tigrex1.png (158KB, 934x660px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 934x660px

>>52969942
Going with 20HP might be a bit better, yes. I'll put some thought into HP but it's not super important for me to put out straight numbers just yet, as long as the actual systems are sound I can build numbers into them afterwards. Thank you for the insight!

Going back to starting numbers, I honestly could make Monster damage even straight out *start* at 3 or 4 damage (6-8 with 20 HP) with players having little to no Armor and start from there. not sure why I said 7 or 8 but you still get the point.

>>52970127
Are...are you and I making the same game?

I mean It's different, and I haven't really put any powerful thought into Monster Scaling, but it has been an intention and I'm loving the way you did it with your system.

>>52970566
The numbers you end up deciding on will ultimately depend on how lethal you want your combat to be, and the setups you want on your armor. If you want three pieces of armor which all contribute MIT, then that should give you an idea of what sort of MIT increments you'll be working with.

Honestly, monster scaling makes a lot of sense with your setup. Monster fights are a big deal for you, and I'd expect them to be very thoroughly designed. Standard fantasy games expect players to fight several monsters (possibly several kinds) at once, and each individual one tends to be less memorable than the overall combat. Your system is really about polishing that player vs monsters fight though, so you'd want as interesting monsters as possible. This naturally means that you'll end up with less of them, due to the increased time needed to make and balance each one. Making them scale, or at least presenting them at different stages, allows reuse of these statblocks in a diegetic fashion.

And thanks! I just need to make sure all of this is understandable enough for GMs, and that the options are both broad enough and balanced enough.

File: 1490561160771.jpg (111KB, 941x410px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 941x410px

From stats to dice.

how should this be done? i feel like most ways have already been done, i dont like to out right copy with the stats / dice system being slightly different.

any ideas to overcome this issue?

>>52972255
I personally would advise against novelty for novelty's sake. If the traditional systems don't achieve the effect you're looking for, by all means try messing around with less traditional ones. That said, different systems can achieve an interesting variety of effects that your traditional dice+stat or dice pool systems cannot, such as the one described here >>52957476, which can indeed lead to a unique experience. So basically I'd say evaluate whether you really need a unique system to achieve your desired effect, and if so how you can work backwards from where you're trying to get to a dice system which produces that result.

>>52972391
this is actually great advice holy cow man thanks alot.

>>52972433
No problem!

I've been considering what to do dice-wise myself. I've been going with 2d10+modifiers versus a flat target number, but I very specifically want diminishing returns on increasing skills for a variety of mathy balance reasons. Right now I have a break between "Skill Points" and "Skill Bonus", based off of a table, where your skill points are the sum from the classes you've taken, which translates into a Skill Bonus, with diminishing returns. This system works and I have a lot of control over how exactly the curve works out, but the downside is that it's kinda clunky. I've been considering an alternate dice system to integrate my diminishing returns without a chart as a middle-man, but I have the downside of needing to balance skill point values from 0 to 36, meaning systems where you add dice based on skill would get really unwieldy.

File: 1490346543437.jpg (848KB, 1920x3137px) Image search: [Google]

848KB, 1920x3137px

>>52972871
i have tried loads of different dice systems

d20+d6 per stat (to much math / time consuming)

flat d20+1 per stat (to random or to hard to fail)

+d6 per stat (to many dice at higher stat points and 1 more point is TWICE AS GOOD)

im currently thinking about a procentile based system simular to the warhammer system because its kinda simple and gets the job done without all the additions +1/-1 and all that.

this is some tough stuff to figure out.

>>52972871
Basically, I've identified a problem with typical D&D-esque scaling-numbers systems. Take saving throws in 3.PF, for example. At level 1, the difference between a good and a bad save is 2, which translates to a 10% difference. That is to say that a wizard with the same wis as a fighter will make his will save 10% more of the time on average. However, as they progress to higher levels, the gap between the two grows. By level 15, the Wizard is at +9 versus the Fighter's +5, a full doubling. BAB works out similarly, if not more extremely, where the full-bab is one ahead at level 1, but is 8 ahead by 15. This means that things that people are bad at they get WORSE at as the game progresses, and you end up with situations of there being things you just can or cannot do, because the difference between someone who's good and someone who's not is just so great. Skill points get even more insane with all the modifiers you can stack, with people throwing around +40 on rolls by upper levels, at which point challenges must be so hard that people with a +10 are out of luck, even though that should be pretty impressive.

With my class system, I want people to feel like investing a bit in things is actually worthwhile. As an example, attack rolls are compared against defense scores which are also from skills. I want someone who gets +1 skill point per quarter on combat skills to not be completely crushed by someone who gets +2 per quarter, but be significantly weaker. This means making a curve where as their skill-point values continue to diverge, the bonus derived from those points remains about static, though likely growing a /bit/. With my current setup, 16 skill points translates to a bonus of 10, while 9 skill points translates to a bonus of 7. On 2d10, a difference of one when things are close is about 10%, meaning that the person with half as many skill points is about 30% worse, which sounds right.

>>52972970
This depends a lot on the scale of your numbers. What are your average, low and high stat values like?

>>52973096
And dang, forgot to re-set my name. Remembering to put on and off the name as I post elsewhere is harder than I thought.

>>52973114
oh that was just mentioning waht i have done before, i tried most thing that came to mind just to see how it interacts so its no longer an issue.

for example 1d20+15 is kinda pointless unless what your roling against is also very high and its just a mess really

File: 1487566340164.jpg (135KB, 742x960px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 742x960px

>>52973096
very intersesting stuff, and that info on DnD is a point worth keeping in mind.

making a game that is simple with depths is truly a challange

>>52973205
1d20+15 isn't /always/ awful. The thing to consider here is the degree to which you value character skill versus chance. On dice+modifier, the larger the modifiers are, the more important is that your modifier is appropriate for whatever task you're trying to perform. That is to say, when you're trying to hit 50 on d20+mod, simple luck can't get you too far. When hitting 15 though, skill just helps your odds, or eventually trivializes the roll entirely. If the game is very rigidly structured though so that success thresholds scale evenly with modifiers, d20+modifier can work just fine even at high values. 1d20+90 versus a DC of 100 has the same odds as 1d20+5 versus DC 15. The difficult part is variation in modifier. In the second example, a 20% difference in modifier is a +1 difference (5% success difference), while in the first that would be a +18 difference, which is a whopping 90% success difference (making the roll pointless). What this means is that higher modifiers relative to dice necessitates less individual variation in order to keep things working correctly. %-wise, the differences between "mediocre" and "good" can be much larger with smaller modifiers.

>>52973248
I think this was a lot of the reasoning behind 5e's bounded accuracy, trying to rein in rampant bonus scaling and keep numbers reasonable.

>>52973349
I do a lot of math.

>>52973383
i can tell holy cow, im terrible at math but i do try to get better at it.

File: Diablos2.png (621KB, 864x696px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 864x696px

So I've been thinking about Alternative systems to use for combat versus larger groups of (Relatively) smaller enemies for my system, in possible preparation for moving towards a more simplified Player Phase-->Monster Phase combat system. In this, two possible solutions have come up that I'd like opinions on.

>Idea One: Back to D&D

Basically, take the initiative rolling and turn taking combat from D&D and use it with my weapon damage mechanics and "Monster" damage mechanics. Players roll initiative, run up to an enemy, roll to hit (which would be more difficult since its an actual smaller target, not a massive creature in front of them) and deal damage using the Armored/Regular/Weak area system already in place (Though something like a Human enemy would probably just be one armor value throughout or maybe a weaker armor value on some very small areas). This would be relatively easy to bring over and would be familiar to most players.

Idea Two: Combat....Checks?

This idea is much more brain to fingers. Basically, a player would have a "Combat" skill, which could be influenced by their weapon and armor and....This is feeling far to complicated compared to the one I suggested above. Fuck this.

What do you think of the first idea?

I've been having some good luck with a variation of my RoF idea.

The current idea is each player rolls 3D12 and chooses the highest, adding in their respective stats (Attack Skill or Defense Skill). Rolling higher on the attack roll hits and the difference between rolls does additional hits depending on the Rate of Fire stat (divide by RoF, rounding down, number of extra hits).

The math I've been rolling out is batches of 50 rolls with a differnce of 0-2 on the attack stat over the defense, with variations of 3-5 on the RoF.

What the rolls showed is when 2 over, your chance of hitting is slightly over 60%, and drops down to about 50% if there's 0 difference between skills. When it came to the spread due to RoF, 2 hits instead 1 had about a 10-20% dip over the single hit. The 2 over spread was something like 30%~ to miss, 35%~ for a single hit, 25%~ for 2 hits, and less than 10% for 3 hits.

I was thinking of going for +2 attack skill over defense skill for the basic numbers, since none of this takes into account modifiers for things like cover and range. If outside the first range band, the average being 8-10" away, they'd be -1. And cover interfering would even it out, so a model shooting at a model in cover that's over 10" away would be even. And melee is a clash, so each uses attack and the winner scores hits, so the average there is even. How does that sound for spread if the average hit has a 50% chance to wound, and the regular sized model has 3 HP?

How many things can a character in a game do? To start I had these things a character can do:

-Do damage
-Defend against damage
-Heal
-Buff a character to do its job better
-Debuff a character to do its job worse
-Area/Space Control

Then I started thinking of healing and space controll as buffs/debuffs so I narrowed it down to:

-Deal Damage
-Tank Damage
-Buff
-Debuff

But now I'm thinking that dealing damage can be considered a debuff of sorts and being able to take damage requires being buffed in some way. Is everything a buff or debuff?

>>52975878
For what purpose are you creating these categories? Are you trying to come up with character archetypes, or...? What's the context here?

In terms of tactical combat, it's really a matter of how complicated your system is and how much you want to generalize. If you want, you can do as you do at the end of your post, and essentially generalize all actions as fundamentally offensive (harming or hindering an opponent) or defensive (protecting or preparing yourself). In reality though, this is a pretty useless distinction to make. Interesting characters generally should have a little from each of these two pools, and each of them can potentially encompass a massive variety of individual options.

>>52975950
Basically making classes. I want them to be distinct and useful so in broad strokes I want them all to do something different. Basically I'm going off of the classic Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Wizard comp where in concept you have:

Guy who is good at taking damage
Guy who is good at doing damage
Guy who heals
Guy who does other useful things that don't fit into those other catagories, aka utility.

And I guess my hang up is deciding where to cut something off the utility guy to make into another class. My first thought was buffs and debuffs, but then I started thinking of everything as a buff or debuff, so after that I'm not sure where to go.

>>52976191
I would advise against this sort of set up. In a tabletop RPG players are faced with a variety of situations, and players like to be able to be at least a little useful in most circumstances. Having only one thing you can do gets pretty boring pretty fast. That isn't to say that being better at one thing than another is bad, just that you don't want one-trick ponies.

File: Screenshot 2017-04-30 at 1.17.06 PM.png (52KB, 794x231px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 794x231px

>>52968382
Pic related is your best bet. Switch it over to 'licenses for reuse with modification.' Even then, some of it might be stolen, so always exercise discretion.

Another good source is 'Pixabay' - they're mostly CC0, which is great, or CC3, which is alright.

You could also try Wikimedia Commons. There's a user named 'Deevad' who uploads some of his stuff there sometimes, it's very good for being free.

In all cases you need to be aware that you'll find one decent image for every one-hundred you look at, and even then that image won't be amazing, just workable. I managed to put together an eighty-three card deck using this method the other week, but I must have looked at over a thousand images to find those eighty-three passable ones.

If you find any better ways, be sure to post them here!

File: Rev5.png (3MB, 1335x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1335x1600px

>>52964305
>>52968145
>>52968559

Noted. I think I agree, and I made some modifications again, mainly because I needed to add some more info to the sheet. I can't decide if it's too busy now - I think it might be a little bit, but then again, that kinda sorta fits with the overall theme (a kid's notebook where he's chaotically scribbling for a club type thing).

>>52965884
I miiiiight do that. I dunno, this is nowhere near done, and I probably want to run it with my group first to see if it turns out any good. I have high hopes, but I will totally post the finished product once I have it, so that y'all can run it if you want.

I made a Monster Hunter board game for a class in college where you do a series of Mario Party team-up style fights - i.e. it's 1-3 players (hunters) vs. 1 player (monster). Every round basically increased the HR level (i.e. the monster got stronger, but the hunters got more items and could spec into more stuff,) and the person playing the monster rotated. I was thinking of porting it to an online boardgame simulator so I could play it with internet friends.

My question for you guys is this: how long do you think I should aim for rounds to be, given that each round has everyone else teaming up vs. 1 particular person? Too short and I feel like the player doesn't get time to really "feel" like the enemy monster, but too long and shit becomes un-schedulable if you want everyone to have a chance. Assuming 4 players, 15 minute rounds would give everyone a shot at the monster only once in an hour, and I'd like everyone to play monster twice. < 10 minutes in a board game isn't super long, though, I think. Apologies if I haven't given enough information to go on - the game layout itself would take a hot second to pull up from my documents and a hotter second to summarize - but how long would you guys want rounds to be in what can be assumed to be a 3v1?

>>52977929
It seems like you already have a pretty decent idea of the ballpark you want rounds to be in. My advice would be to playtest. Do several games at each round-length and collect data from the players as to their experiences and preference.

>>52977966
I'll already need to playtest to tweak the stats in the right direction; I'd rather not also need to playtest to determine the right direction.

>>52977573
I think it's really good with this current revision. A bit busy but what character sheet isn't. I like how it feels more natural instead of something with just boxes for stats because there's just so much. Also remember you can make it two pages if you need to and don't have to cram everything into one page

>>52978306
Thanks, yeah, I feel the same way, character sheets are always busy, and at least with this one, the busy-ness is somewhat thematic.

I reeeeeally like the one-page sheet, but I'm not super worried. I'm nowhere near needing another page. At worst, I could reduce text size in the top section.

>>52975039
I really like your numbers. Glad this and the previous threads worked out.

>>52975878
Depends on how you want to define each of those terms. You can differentiate Buff and Debuff as things that are specifically not Damage related, but if there are non-damage related ways to defeat enemies, then maybe damage isn't too much different than non-damage aspects. You can also expand you list depending on how things are defined. Movement control could be separated from generic buffs and debuffs to add a Chess-like element.

Like I said, it all depends on how you define and support those things yourself.

>>52978122
You need to playtest everything multiple times.

>>52979781
Thanks. There's still a lot for me to work through. This was just the basic level, I still have a few other things to cover, like looking at the difference between elite numbers and below-average numbers, and looking at a possible suppressing fire idea. The other thing is looking at RoF numbers. The range of 3-5 works very well, but going above or under that range starts to have issues.

quick bump while I work

It took a bit longer than I wanted, but I think I have a good base so far. I'm making a Build-a-Weapon workshop, and I think I have all the parts to create the majority of medieval melee weapons.

Weapons are made by combining a weapon Handle and one or more weapon Heads. Handles include 1 Handed (Haft/Hilt), 2 Handed (Haft/Hilt), and Reach (Pole/Whip). Hafts pair with the Axe, Mace, and Pick weapon heads while Hilts pair with Blunt, Curved, and Straight blades. Reach Handles can pair with any Head.

Damage is derived from a complexity score which is determined by both Handle and Head sizes. 1 handed and Small parts add 0 complexity, Reach and Medium parts add 1 complexity, while 2 handed and Large parts add 2 complexity. A character can have a weapon with 5 complexity max, but damage only scales up to 4 complexity. You can mix and match weapon parts, but you can only attack with one weapon head at a time. The damage table is as follows:
d4 - 0 comp (Dagger)
d6 - 1 comp (Hammer)
d8 - 2 comp (Longsword)
d10 - 3 comp (Polearm)
d12 - 4 comp (Greataxe)

Ranged and more exotic weapons are still in the works, but this should be a good base.

File: 1493506265350.png (279KB, 479x421px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 479x421px

What state should my game be in before I post it here for critique? How much of it should I post?

Right now I include a lot of "advice" text that isn't strictly required to understand the game mechanically, and I don't know whether to share that and overload people or forego it and have people critique the mechanics without any context.

Pic oddly appropriate, I think.

>>52984613
Whatever you need help with

>>52985039
Well, I'm rapidly approaching the point where I no longer need help with individual mechanics and rather need help judging whether the package as a whole is worth playtesting.

Of course, I'm sure I'll make tons of huge changes after playtesting (and that's exciting). I just want to put my best foot forward and make sure there are no glaring oversights, contradictions, etc.

I recently moved to a new city so I can't playtest with my old group. I'm scared of showing something that could unwittingly be super bad to strangers.

>>52985263
Just post it nobody will hate it and nobody will hurt your feelings.

>>52985352
I'm not worried about anons talking shit. I just wonder how much is too much before people stop reading, you know?

Right now it's all markdown so I'll have to spend some time converting to PDF before posting anyway.

>>52985429
> I just wonder how much is too much before people stop reading, you know?
Any more than a few pages and I'll either ignore it or skim through it very very briefly ( to the point I don't even know the contents )
People can hardly be bothered read the rulebooks for actually published and professionally designed games in the games they are actually PLAYING. Don't expect strangers to bother to read your homebrew.
Something pleasantly designed like >>52977573 could probably get away with a dozen or two pages, but that amount of effort is rare.

>>52985263
>I'm scared of showing something that could unwittingly be super bad to strangers.
What makes /tg/ so different than the locals? We're both going to be strangers and you're going to have to present your first showing at some point.

You won't get answers until its done.

>>52985561
>>52985707
Okay, I'll post the intro chapter because I just finished rewriting it. It's about seven pages and includes the basic mechanics. But InDesign is being a BITCH right now so it'll probably be awhile.

>>52983788
This sounds pretty sweet, if a bit much for your average player to comprehend. May I ask what the setting is? This seems like it would be badass in an all-dwarf game.

Also reminds me a bit of Tinker's Construct mod for minecraft. Similar setup with combining pieces with varying materials/stats to achieve an end-effect.

>>52984613
I'd say your odds of getting a detailed reply go up with a more focused question. Posting your entire doc (especially if it's long) might get you a few vague responses, but posting a single mechanic and asking for feedback is likely to get more bites.

>>52986752
That's a good bit to start with. If the intro sells the game well and grabs attention to want you to post more, you're doing it right.

File: Cover.png (4MB, 1335x1600px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1335x1600px

Since my rules are starting to take shape, I wanted to spend some time working on the cover. This is the first draft - let me know if you like it, and give me any tips... I'm almost positive it's going to change because I'm never fully happy with anything, haha.

>>52979943
If I was making a professional product, sure. But I've already tested the base game in-person several times. I'm just wondering what people think a good round length is for that sort of game when it's being played online, which is a bit different from in-person.

>>52990010
Like I said, that's what playtesting discovers for you. It doesn't matter what your scope is, playtesting is essential for figuring out every part of the system.

>>52990010
We aren't prophetic. That comes down to the actual experience of playing the game, which you really can't know without testing different lengths.

File: analog-sys-1.pdf (52KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1x1px

Okay, after three hours of fighting with InDesign, here it is. This is a universal version that I don't intend to share outside of playtesting. Once I have a refined core, I plan to make different forks that retain only the core mechanics but have different supporting mechanics to suit their genre. Then I'll playtest those too. The introduction is 7 pages and covers:

>what is an RPG
>what you need to play
>the narrative concepts of the game (similar to PbtA but worth explaining for the unfamiliar)
>the core mechanics (verbs, adjectives and how to roll dice)
>the general flow of the game
>session 0

Anything else you think should be covered? Anything you think should be dropped? Do you think the core concept of using verbs to apply/remove adjectives is solid? How do you feel about the dice mechanic? Are things explained clearly and succinctly?

I realize "what is an RPG" isn't necessary for the audience of an obscure /tg/ homebrew, but I had fun writing it anyway.

Pardon the shitty typography but I don't want to touch InDesign again today.

>>52988793
Gorgeous.

Shouldn't the title text be depressed into the book/binding instead of sticking up?

>>52974553
Me again. Just gonna bump this for opinions ;)

>>52988793
I'm not sure about the contrast between the lettering and the background. It all seems a bit too dark. That smaller font along the bottom is especially hard to read.

Also, decorative idea: old eighties sci-fi/fantasy stickers on the cover.

>>52988793
I think a few stickers and/or doodles that go with the theme on there to make it look like a child's notebook would be nice. Also the color of the text should stand out a bit more.

>>52988793
Also I think having it look more like a composition book might be cool. Don't really know if that's what you wanna go for though

File: CoverVer2.png (4MB, 1334x1600px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1334x1600px

>>52993192
Woops, I flipped the emboss. I thought had had fixed that before exporting.

>>52994508
>>52995171
I lightened the opacity of the background texture just a hair - I've been staring at this all day, so I can't really tell if it helps with the readability. What do you think?

Also, so far I've added some stains and such, but no stickers yet. I think that's a spectacular idea though, so I will definitely work on it.

>>52995304
Ya know, composition book style could be really cool. I will try it, if I can find a texture. With this, I was kinda going for one of those blank journals you can buy at the bookstore.

Thanks for all the help guys, I really do appreciate all the feedback.

Bumperino

>>52979944
>>52975039
So played with more numbers, different ranges and such. Something I forgot to mention is you get +1 if you roll a tie for the highest die. Rolling it out now, I noticed that this rarely came up, but doubles on the lowest were more common.

I've been thinking of changing it so you get a +1 if any doubles are rolled, even if not the highest, but it forces you to take an ammo/malfunction test afterwards. The idea is the occurrence is a bump of luck, but puts wear on the weapon you are using.

>>52991007
>InDesign

why would you do this to yourself

Bumpo

Basically the FATE system, except everything rolls on 2d6+ modifier and adjustments start from there.
Yay or nay?
Not planning to publish or anything, just a fast pickup idea.

>>52995477
Liking how it's coming along and it just keeps looking better. Keep up the great work dude

Looking for ideas to add to >>52983788. I'm currently considering circular weapons, but beyond those and Ranged I don't know if there's much more to do.

>>52987311
The setting is custom fantasy. I've got the concepts for many of the mechanics already settled, but I'm missing a strong "game feel". Customization is a strong pillar (character customization, custom weapons, custom spells, and more), but there's more that needs to be there than just that else you run into an actual heartbreaker scenario.

>>52991007
Mechanics are fine, content is fine. Depending on what other sections you add you might want to reorganize the current sections.

Bumping for the glory of creativity and statistics

File: AltCover.png (3MB, 1335x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1335x1600px

>>52995304
Hey anon, thanks so much for the fantastic idea. I really like the look of the composition style, but I also like the simplicity of the other one, so I'm probably just going to put together two PDFs, one with the regular cover and one with the "alt" cover, which will be this composition book image.

What a great idea, thanks again!

follows, I'm troubled about my progession and end game power level, so tell me, considering a very specialised character, how many maxed attributes and skills do you guys think one character should have? You can give different answers for different power levels such as low (street level),
regular (powerful folks) and high (legends)

>>protip: answer in percentages/fractions so that everyone can use it in their own games

For my answers,
low/regular/high
10%/25%/50%

>>53000746
Bonus points if you can get someone to actually print the book in a composition book pages, bound it again and send it with some stickers so the cover can be customized.

>>53000746
Of course dude I'm enjoying helping out what seems to be a awesome project. I really like how the composition book looks. You should see if there are any sticker textures you can put on to give it some flair

>>52951521
game is legit, my name is Phil and I always roll poorly

>>53000751
What if you can't max out an attribute or skill?

bumparino

>>53000746
If you ever decide to run with a two-book combo, you've got two good options for DMG and PHB.

I'm trying to convert my dogfighting game's combat into continuous initiative, but I'm having some issues also beneficial bump. Continuous initiative feels like it could add a lot to the feel of a dogfighting game, so if I can get a good conversion going I'm inclined to spend the effort. And of course, I'll need to playtest something to validate that thought anyway.

For simplicity's sake, moving one square in the game is equal to moving about 1/2 mile (2500 ft). The Speed stat refers to how many squares you can move in a round. A cruising speed of 2 is about 300mph. Now, were I to move it to continuous initiative I'm not sure how I might want to convert those things. The size of the squares and speed rates will stay the same (2500ft/300mph), but would I want to make Speed refer to how many squares you can move per flat initiative? Should I try to base it off of 1 square per speed-based initiative? Missiles move essentially like planes, so they'd use the same rules and would probably make things more intuitive.

>>52997404
Because I can't think of a better way to style a book.

At least I'm not using it as a word processor anymore.

>>52999600
That's a good point. In this game, there is a pool of XP tokens that players award each other based on good roleplay. Right now it's in the character creation chapter but it might be better in the introduction. We'll see how it shakes out.

How are you designing your manual? As a single book that encompasses everything? Setting and System in separate books? Something like DnD that separates it in Player, GM and Bestiary?

>>53011346
I intend to have almost everything be randomly generated so ideally it would be fully self-contained.

>>53011346
I've been considering this recently. My original intent had been to have a single core book which would be sufficient to run the game, but I'm realizing that I'm going to have a LOT of content, and it may be more efficient to have the core options in a separate handbook. The plan would be for the core book to have enough options for items/monsters etc. to run the game, but then have the avenue to release additional stuff in splats.

File: Pokemon TTRPG (HSE) V1.pdf (299KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1x1px

>>52951521
>>52951607

So I finally got around to starting my first draft of my (hopefully) simpler idea of a Pokemon TTRPG. I call it...Pokemon Tabletop RPG (Hopefully Simpler Edition). Just some heads up, this is my first real attempt at making a system like this, so I will obviously be quite inexperienced about how this should be formatted. This is a first draft, after all, and will be patched up.

Many of the mechanics are inspired from FFG's Star Wars systems...so inspired that I use a bit of their wording in some rules descriptions. I plan to go through and reword it after I get a bit better at relaying my ideas onto paper. What's really important to me about these rules is that they make for a much more entertaining game rather than just rolling a pass/fail on 1 die. I tried to take the multiple dice pool mechanic and make it my own by using dice that everyone can use without having specific symbols or using a conversion table to interpret the results.

I still need to do a whole lot more, but I just wanted to take a break from this to think for a bit and would love to hear initial thoughts. How does this look so far? Any issues with mechanics and how the dice work? What would you really like to see from this as I work on it?

>>53011346
Right now everything is going into the same book. There's not really enough to it yet that it would need to be separate.

File: Probability of X or higher.png (19KB, 1701x1198px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1701x1198px

>>52998649
This will be an interesting choice but in need of some attention to statistics.

FUDGE includes negative number ranges whereas 2d6 will not do this, so you'll be adjusting the "conventional" static (+2) difficulty quite a bit.
I'm sure this has come to your attention when choosing 2d6 but I produced a graphic anyway to show the relationship.

Assuming the player has a (+0) in the skill, getting a (+3) or higher (to beat a traditional (+2) challenge cleanly) will occur 6.17% of the time in 4dF. This is not super realistic in most scenarios, where players will probably be using their (+2) or higher skills if they roll at all, which bumps the probability of a (+3) roll or higher to 38.27%.
Keep these probabilities in mind when working with 2d6 and you could nudge the distribution towards more success or more failure, if you desire.

I'm looking for some help with my weapon creation rules.

What melee weapons can you create using the rules explained in >>52983788?

What melee weapons can't you create and think you should?

Bump for the night

>>53014397
Not that anon, but the gist of the system I'm using for procedural weapon creation is:
1. Pick weapon type (Melee, Ranged, or Projection (Wands/staves are tools anyone can use))
2. Determine points available
3. Distribute points among base stats, and special-rule tags

This seems to handle most cases, with weird weapons just requiring a new tag. My system is specifically made to scale (IE a 3pt sword vs a 5pt sword), but you could fairly easily choose a flat value to balance all weapons roughly against each other, as long as you've been good about the pricing of the different stat increases and tags.

>>53016453
The only problem with this is making weapons feel properly distinct from each other, as lines blur with the scaling. That is to say, a dagger may tend to put more points in accuracy than damage, but you put SOME in damage, and a high-level dagger may have the same damage as lower-level waraxe. Just something to consider for world setup.

>>52991007
>Players determine their success
No.. and...

Up up up

>>53011851
>d20
Now we know this is gonna be shit.

Too much system blabbering, almost nothing pokemon-related.

Seriously, how are the Pokemon stats translated? they aren't? will moves and abilities will be taken into account? How will super-effective/not-very-effective affect damage?
At least work that kind of details in before presenting something as a "Pokémon system"

>>53017888
It's not so bad; it works for Fate Accelerated

which 85% of that PDF is plagiarizing (through paraphrasing and not citing its primary source)

Is it bad form to put all game terms in a rulebook in bold?

On one hand I think it'd really help people identify terms that are important, but might look cancerous

Bumpy bumpy. Don't have anything new to post, just a midday bump.

I am currently working on the "Favorite Things" page for Mystic Harbor. What are some ideas for a kid's favorite thing, and what could it do for them?

Some examples of ones I have so far:

>Baseball Bat
>Bicycle
>Binoculars
>Book
>Hat
>Jewelry
>Pet
>Slingshot

>>53024774
lucky coin? i had one as a kid, reroll is the simple way of adding "luck"

i'll try to think of some more and some better ones

>>53024774
A doll to help reduce stress. Deck of cards to entertain. Scooter same use as bike. Metal jacks act as caltrops. That's all I can think of right now

>>53024774
Shiny rock, which could be used to fascinate?

>>53023952
Depends on how frequently you use the terms.

What is the best way to add granularity to a card game's resource system without making the numbers being tracked too big? The main thing that makes balancing difficult in a game like MtG is that the jump from a mana cost of 1 to a mana cost of 2 is quite big, and the jump becomes bigger and bigger as mana costs go up.

>>53028148
You can add a bit by controlling the specific resources required (IE in Magic something that is 2RU can get away with being a bit stronger than something that is just 3R, despite the same CMC). That said, the lack of granularity is just one of the design constraints on the genre. You could choose to throw out standard costs entirely, and instead go for something more like the pokemon or yugioh routes with entirely different mechanics to constrain the use of powerful cards, but that has its own complications.

>>53021368
>d20
>Now we know this is gonna be shit.

Almost decided to disregard your opinion there just because it's clear you didn't really read the mechanics I'm going for. But you do make some solid points after that. I made a terrible mistake labeling this as a first draft, when in reality, it's the development of the first draft. I still need to add Professions, Pokemon and their moves and related gear. As for super-effective and not-very-effective damage, I will most likely have it double and half damage respectively, though I'll need to rework how critical damage works, as having too many damage multipliers here would be ridiculous. If it ends up becoming too overpowered it will most likely result in a +/- (x) modifier to damage.

Other than that, it sounds like the main complain is lack of actual Pokemon, which I will work on. Once Pokemon are worked in, this will look more authentic. For now though, my purpose for posting this progress was to see what you all think of the current core mechanics. I would rather not base the rest of this pdf on these dice mechanics only to have to change them all if people don't like them.

My current ideas for Professions include Battler, Doctor, Engineer/Scientist, Teacher and possibly Coordinator.

As for Pokemon, I want to keep them simple yet not completely dumbed down just so they can still be unique without requiring full character sheets for them. At most their info should be able to fit on an index card. They will most likely have a Strength and Agility attribute for HP, Dodge chance purposes, typing, a size class and a special rule (such as being a Flyer).

>>53028148
Adding different types of resources that are gained through completely different methods would be the main one.

>>53033459
why not make all bonus/reduction damage additive

crits against 'not very effective' deal 150% (50% base + 100% crit)

crits against very effective are 300% (100% base dmg + 100% base supereffective + 100% crit)

>>53029106
MtG, for all the shit it gets, does a lot of simple but amazing things. There's good reason everyone steals from it beyond "its really popular".

>>53033882
That can work. I mainly just want to avoid number crunching as much as possible but when it comes to these kind of factors it might have to be inevitable. It is Pokemon, after all.

Another idea I had was making the crit double damage and having the super/not-very-effective damage be represented by adding and subtracting the number of dice involved or manipulating the end result of rolling the dice builds. That way it could just be the difference of taking away or adding dice rather than the number crunching, but that might become a bit too casual.

>>53033963
My system started as based on MtG and is literally completely different after fixing all the problems from MtG.

I'm toying with the idea of doing an entire combat as a fixed series of stages. This would give me lots of room for places to stick abilities without piles of modifiers, and it would set a maximum length on the time a single combat takes.

e.g:
Initiative - Characters make stealth skill rolls opposed by whoever is on watch for the other party. Only characters who beat the watch participate in the ambush stage. The party with more successes will have initiative (for each stage, the entire party does that stage first).
Ambush - You can flank, cut off retreats, or use your character's ambush-related abilities (such as setting traps).
Ranged - You may use long-range weapons and abilities. Effective ranged abilities are fairly rare.
Melee - You may use melee weapons and abilities. A common, notable ability causes another melee stage if successful, instead of advancing to close.
Close - There are special abilities for this stage, but even by default close combat is ludicrously deadly. It's the scrambling around trying to stab someone's eyeslits with knives stage. Close repeats if it has to.

>>53036253
So that is to say that combat proceeds one phase at a time, with all combatants being able to act in each phase before proceeding to the next?

Assuming that's what you mean, then it does indeed open up tons of design space for making, though it does limit it in others. If I'm reading you correctly, it seems like combat is intended to never go much longer than one full run through these steps, which means that the flow of combat is going to be pretty strict and players who specialize in a given field generally will have the awkwardness of not doing much, doing great, then not doing much. That isn't to say that it can't work, just that that will be a challenge.

>>53028148
I've noticed an increasing number of card games moving away from complex resource systems. Epic has the coin, which you either spend or don't spend during your turn in order to play the more powerful cards. Destiny has a single type of resource, which you get a fixed amount of at the start of each action phase, but which you can bolster during your turn. Hearthstone has a linear ramp. What I'm saying is, a granular resource system is not necessary, and its prevalence in card games is something of a hangover from Magic rather than a necessity to the genre.

What's the resource system you have in place at the moment?

>>53036523
>So that is to say that combat proceeds one phase at a time, with all combatants being able to act in each phase before proceeding to the next?
> it seems like combat is intended to never go much longer than one full run through these steps
You've got it.

Additionally, since it's whole party turns instead of individual turns, if there's some order-based thing you want to do within a stage, you can always do that.

> players who specialize in a given field generally will have the awkwardness of not doing much, doing great, then not doing much
That's a great point. I think the best solution is to avoid handing out character options in a way that lets someone fully specialize on a phase. I'm building a system where you get things in big packages (like giant feats) so I could enforce it when designing those (you could build a character that gets all the ranged options, but you'd inevitably pick up some tricks for other phases on the way).

>>53036755
You can definitely do workarounds with clever design. In that case, you need to be mindful of being able to cater to certain archetypes players may want to play while not overloading single phases. IE "I want to play a big strong warrior!" How do you handle that? (Of course a lot of this comes down to setting and the feel of the rest of your game, but works as an example). Another thing to consider is specifically making it somehow dangerous or disadvantageous to not have at least passing proficiency in each stage, to further incentivize players to be more well-rounded.

If you haven't already, I'd recommend checking out the boardgame Mageknight, both because it's a fantastic boardgame, and also because their combat operates in highly codified phases like you describe, with combatants acting on each phase before progressing to the next. Albeit as a boardgame, the specifics of how combat operates DURING each phase will be substantially different. Still a useful case-study.

>>53036755
>>53036523
>players who specialize in a given field generally will have the awkwardness of not doing much, doing great, then not doing much

On the other hand, you could have "carry" classes like a MOBA. The monk might be very vulnerable early-on, but if you let him stay alive until the close phase, he'll start punching eyeballs out of your face.

>>53036253
Sounds nice. Especially if you have decent mercenary system to compensate for group shortcomings

File: pimp.png (356KB, 658x445px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 658x445px

My RPG design theory is that you can either suck the players dicks (99% of RPG designs) or you can hold them down and dare them to break free.

I want a grounded character system where nobody is defined by classes or heroic archetypes. Rather, you start entangled in a situation and work to become a heroic archetype.

Basically, my game is about becoming a hero, not being a hero and becoming a legendary godlike being.

>>53036253
Sounds like a good idea but it may have problems with multiple characters

>>53037885
That sounds exactly like my current project...

>>53037092
>consider specifically making it somehow dangerous or disadvantageous to not have at least passing proficiency in each stage
I think I can do this fairly easily with abilities that repeat a phase. For example maybe it's possible for centaurs to force you to repeat the ranged phase. That's no big deal if you're all good at ranged combat, but a critical danger if you're deficient there.

I'll look at Mage Knight, thanks for the rec.

>>53037149
Good point. Since the close phase only occurs after everyone else has contributed, a close-focused character could be extremely strong without making party balance feel bad. And the close phase is supposed to end a combat anyway.

Close-focused monsters are also a major part of how I think the game would play. Wolves don't have any ranged or melee attacks, and if any are left by the time the combat gets to close, you have a clusterfuck.

>>53037555
>>53037918
>>53037149
>>53037092
Thanks for the feedback, all! I thought I might've made something too fiddly, glad the response is mostly positive/interested.

>>52943675
Im working on a polynesian themed RPG and I need ideas for large items. The inventory system is in slots, and the only two-slot items I have so far are massive two-handed warclubs, packing up your canoe and carrying it on your back (with a fairly high level trait unlock), a big stone wheel as currency, and a clutch of spears.

What does /tg/ think I should add? For reference, there are five slots. Two shoulders/back, two hands, and belt/neck.

>>53039969
i will play this system if you release it when its done

sold me at stone wheels as currency

>>53040116
Well, they're technically currency but they basically function as a refit.

You can either have a trinket from your home island which lets one character restock their items, or a big stone wheel (which is actually USED as currency in some Micronesian cultures) which lets the entire party refit. From there, what equipment you can get in a refit depends on your wisdom-surrogate score, with wiser characters being entrusted with more exotic equipment.

You may also like that the dead creator god was a giant many-armed kali-crab who dueled with a giant fractal-toothed shark at the dawn of time.

File: 1486196768602.jpg (34KB, 600x637px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x637px

>>53040168
>You may also like that the dead creator god was a giant many-armed kali-crab who dueled with a giant fractal-toothed shark at the dawn of time.

this is pretty much the coolest thing ever

>>53040371
Thanks for the enthusiasm!

>>53040400
i might be a simple man but i do love me some odd stuff that i never heard of before

>>53040435
Well, if you can think of any items let me know.

>>53040461
i'll try but i no nothing of polynesian

>>53040483
know*

File: FavoriteThings.png (3MB, 1335x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1335x1600px

Good morning /gdg/.

I'm not super thrilled about how Favorite Things are looking. My initial idea was to just success on roll of 4 for certain situations, but I want them to have more of an impact I think. In the attached image, Doll is closer to what I really want for them.

However, the other problem is that a kid's favorite thing is usually really unique and particular. What do you think about scrapping the list of items, and basically provide a page of guidelines for the players to just come up with their own? List some possible effects and indicate that the player and the storyteller should discuss and come to a consensus?

I think it could still be ultra-simple that way, as in, I wouldn't have to sacrifice the simplicity, but could also add some elegant bulk to character creation.

Thoughts?

Also, thanks for all your suggestions --

>>53025084
>>53025794
>>53025867

>>53041027
>However, the other problem is that a kid's favorite thing is usually really unique and particular. What do you think about scrapping the list of items, and basically provide a page of guidelines for the players to just come up with their own? List some possible effects and indicate that the player and the storyteller should discuss and come to a consensus?
That's essentially how Stunts work in FATE, and it seems to go down just fine. Maybe leave the attached page in your rules though, as an 'example' page, or as a place for unimaginative players to pick and choose from.

>>53041066
Yeah, an example page is a great idea, but I think from attached I would only leave Baseball Bat and Doll, and maybe work on the other ones so they feel more inspired.

>>53041027
I like the general idea. It's looking good but I agree with >>53041066 that it would be better as an example page unless you can come up with more that provide a greater/more meaningful impact

File: MakeAFavoriteThing.png (3MB, 1335x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1335x1600px

>>53041027
>>53041066
>>53041535

Haven't redone the example page, but I'm liking the feel of this "make a thing" page.

>>53042126
Take out the
>something like that anyway
and
>in case you're feeling lazy
Both are kinda obnoxious to read and the second one feels like it's insulting the reader if they can't think of one

>>53042480
>in case the child inside of you is dead

>>53042539
KEK but i still agree with >>53042480

>>53042480
Ok, yeah, I feel that. In all the writing, I'm trying to go for a tone of a club-leader kid writing it, but also not losing any clarity in defining the rules. I could probably think of a better way for these two instances.

>>53042539
Fucking LOL