/gdg/ - Game Design General

File: Skyresh GDD - WIP.pdf (91KB, 1x1px)

91KB, 1x1px

I guess I'll just start again then. Turns out d100 roll-under didn't fit the gameplay and feel I envisioned at all, so I guess it's just back to square 1 now.

Yaaaay.

I know this pdf is full of delusional rambling, but a man can dream.

>>53536192
Why didn't it fit the gameplay?

>>53536768
Skill progression was pretty wonky, it didn't allow power levels to go very high or have an impactful difference, the flat chances made it swingy as all hells and thus the success rates suffered greatly. Maybe I approached it the wrong way, but having to hard-cap everything and juggle with values to have a decent time with it wasn't fun at all. Not to mention that after a while so many things started to pile up that it started to feel less like a game and more like taxes.

I wanna try to get deep mechanics with simple approaches from now on, so I can have all the mechanical autism I want without overburdening the players or the system. It's gonna be tricky, but I'll eventually get there, hopefully.

by the way, I'd love to hear criticism about the new OP format, I kept the old header pasta but put the op images, design tools, project list and op pasta all in one google drive folder

the pasta document also includes >Old Thread and >Thread Topic, but I couldn't find the old thread to link it and I forgot about thread topics until after i posted it whoops

>Thread Topic:
What are some creative for the lesser-used dice in resolution systems: d4, d8 and d12?

something i observed the other day was that 2d8 has a perfect spread of 15 numbers (2-16) but i don't know what to do with that knowledge

>>53537944
>Dice
I briefly considered using a mechanic where player stats corresponded to die types (1=d4, 2=d6, etc) and skills to how many dice the player would roll.

For example; Got 3 strength and sword skill of 2? Roll 2d8 when attacking with your sword.

The idea was that you'd take the highest die rolled as the result. Thus, stats (die type) determine a character's maximum potential and skills (# of die rolled) determine the likely hood of achieving that potential.

>>53537944
Fun thing: As needed, a d12 can be a D2, D3, D4, or D6, so you can do pretty well with running a whole game on D12s.

>>53538694
wouldn't that be kind of a slog? i've thought about it too but it's not exactly the kinda thing you feel like calculating on the table, specially if you already have d4s and d6s around

File: JojoMicroTemplate.pdf (51KB, 1x1px)

51KB, 1x1px

Feedback requested on these preliminary ideas for a Stand User Micro Template For Chronicles Of Darkness. I'm trying to find a alance between customizationd broadness, as well as making the Ephemeral Being traits more balanced for player use.

>>53539983
dividing 12 evenly is super quick though, so while you might have d4 and d6s on hand, it shouldn't cause problems for anyone who is beyond 2nd grade math

File: [THINKING INTENSIFIES].gif (458KB, 256x256px)

458KB, 256x256px

>>53541179
it's not a matter of how easy it is to do it, but how practical it is at the table
sure i can mentally think "1-2-3,4-5-6,7-8-9,10-11-12 for a d4" or "8 means 3" after rolling in less than a second like anyone would do, but in that same time i've already rolled a d4 and got my result

it's like big numbers and modifiers, basic math is simple because 36+24+7-6 is gonna be 61 but at the table and at every roll that's just not fun yknow

>>53540943
Ill read it in a few, just taking this opportunity to bump

>>53538694
Despite that you can, you shouldn't, because you're specifically avoiding using dedicated dice for other common sizes. It's something that's good to know in a pinch, like if you're playing shadowrun and just need one more d6.

What's more relevant is that d12s are super satisfying to roll but have a smaller range than a d20, so if you can work out a good system numerically using d12s people will enjoy it just a little bit more than they would systems using dice that are less satisfying. Game design is probably more about the psychology than the math, the math just needs to be good enough that it doesn't create a bad vibe.

>>53537944
Why aren't we just maintaining a PDF with all the links and shit in it and a header image for the first page? You could do it via gdocs so anyone can find/post it/suggest additions

gdg needs to git gud at collaboration

>>53543023
dealing with OP PDFs is always a disorganized mess unless there's a lot of people paying attention to it, and /gdg/ shows up "whenever" and a lot of times it doesn't even have the pasta unless someone posts it in a reply

>>53537944
I've fallen in love with D12's.

>>53543557
d12s roll nicely, but the chances aren't exactly the greatest to calculate around

>>53536090
Question for you gentlemen:

For those of you who have worked on a system that allowed for additional actions if the actor had additional limbs, how did you balance them?

I'm considering simply making additional limbs a respectably expensive trait. Not sure how much though.

>>53542813
Hey, you still plan on giving it a read?

>>53544304

What do you have so far for limbs? It just so happens I'm working on limbs for my system too.

>>53544718
Sorry mate ill check it tomorrow if the thread is still up

>>53544304
Additional attacks have a stacking accuracy penalty, also having redundant bits can be a liability against abilities that target a certain number of X bodypart within a radius. I might actually need to buff additional limbs since a lot of the other traits a character can potentially choose on level/gen are more powerful while not making you a bigger target.

>>53543557
It's terrible
I ordered 4DF on D12s

0% regrets

Okay /tg/ what do you think of my idea?

>character points system like GURPS but the point numbers are smaller so less granular
>few if any drawbacks/flaws, no role play flaws for points, if you want to RP a flawed character do it because it's fun not because it lets you level up your strength
>2d6 or d12 for core mechanic, depends whether I have stat plus skills or not
>probably will work similar to GURPS in terms of how skill levels will be determined (i.e. DX+3)
>toughness system like savage worlds

Also considering ripping off savage worlds skill & attribute system, but with #s 1- 5 instead of dice d4 to d12. So basically you figure your attributes first, then skills. Each skill point costs 1 point up to the related attribute level but 2 points each past that. So for Dex of 3 (a bit above average), Guns 1 would cost 1, Guns 2 would cost 2, Guns 3 would cost 3, Guns 4 would cost 5, Guns 5 would cost 7, and so on.

Also damage versus toughness would work similarly. Weapons and strength would add a static amount, MoS on to hit roll might also add direct to damage like in traveller but that might be too Kathy. No exploding . Toughness and damage will be carefully calibrated to make sense. No more crazy exploding d4s and other shit. Critical hits will be a thing though.

Thoughts?

>>53548640
In principle that sounds like a good idea.
is your system going to be generic and universal or part of a world/setting?

>>53541441
Only speedrunners care about fractions of a second in gaming, and I have yet to see anyone speedrun a homebrewed game. If you really want to save time, there are far more impactful areas to increase your efficiency.

>>53544174
The math's not that clean, but that's part of why I like it. It has a good level of granularity that's not too small and the math isn't very straight forward, so it doesn't feel too flat when determining the weight of things, both from a designer's eye and when a player is weighing their options.

>>53550705
What are some creative uses of the d12 then? What kind of range or system would be supported by it easily?

File: staggered turns.png (73KB, 500x747px)

73KB, 500x747px

I'm trying to play around with how time is handled during combat turns to allow for parallel actions to take place if needed

Does this make any sense to you? Are there any things that look straight up wrong or that would fuck up the game flow? Basically the next character begins his actions after the last character's turn ends, but is aware of his surroundings and the actions happening around them as they happen, and not afterwards.

File: BattleWheel.png (450KB, 637x637px)

450KB, 637x637px

>>53552261
The most robust way I've seen this handled is in Exalted. Your initiative roll determines your placement on the wheel, lower being better. Then, you go clockwise resolving turns. The kicker is, different actions have different speeds, which determines how far you get pushed forward on the wheel after taking said action. For instance, making a quick Athletics action may have a speed 3, which if you went on a 1, would put you on a 4, giving you another turn before the next round of combat.

>>53552357
Depending on your GM, you can hold and take reactions against action that would "pass over" you on the wheel. That's the best I got.

>>53552379
>>53552357
That helps, action times is something i've considered as well, specially on things like rushing from one end of the battlefield to the other

Does it ever get convoluted, the way Exalted handles it?

>>53552405
Not really. Sometimes you have everybody going on the same tick of initiative, at which point stats will dictate turn order if the GM doesn't.

Things go pretty quickly, which surprised me the first time I played it. The nice thing about getting a good initiative roll at the start of combat is that if you're enough ticks ahead, you can bust out some quick actions before you attack.

Has anyone ever figured out a way to play a hidden information game with no intermediary or record system? I.E. a game you cna play in your head like chess, but with hidden information?
Or is it just impossible like I think it is?

>>53552490
check out the battlestar galactica boardgame
the game revolves around maintaining the ship in course and solving crisis

players are given cards, one of those cards tells them whether or not they're a robot infiltrator who, as opposed to the rest of the players, they must try to fuck up the ship and crew as much as they can

every character has a certain amount of cards they can draw out of 5 different categories, each with a different color and a numeric value - these cards have actions that can be used during your turn, an event, or used as currency to avoid crisis

at the end of every turn, a crisis (an event with negative consequences that can be averted) is revealed, which has a numeric value that must be met and a few colors than can help out. characters must pay with their cards facing down, and after everyone who chooses to has paid up, the cards are revealed: matching colors add, non-matching colors substract, and the crisis is averted or takes place depending on whether they reached the numeric value or not

in this situation, the robot infiltrator can pay up with non-matching colors to try to fuck over the players with crisis, as well as using card-scrying actions to try and find the worst crisis out of the ones they're allowed to see to give the other players a hard time

it's very easy to play that way, and part of the fun of being a robot infiltrator is being able to fuck everyone over without them noticing (you can reveal yourself and do other shit but that's not what you were asking for)

tl;dr use cards

Do you work first on the crunch alone, or on the fluff first?

Taking D&D, for example:
You first calculate a base HP, AC, attack bonus and average damage, the base % to hit, how many hits to kill someone, then how many round to have the necessary hits, and then you build upon this (fighter having +X this, rogue +Y that).
Or you work on the fluff first, applying the crunch to them?

You treat the game design as pure math first, fluff later, or you biuld the crunch around the fluff you want?

>>53552490
>>53552592
forgot to point it out, but the only thing that tells you that you're the robot fucker is the card you're given at the start of the round - you peek once to see if you're human or not and the rest is just you machinating (kek) against the other players however you choose to do so

>>53552642
depends on the type of game, but i generally like to nail down a narrative concept first and then try to mechanize it without destroying what i'm trying to achieve

>>53552592
>>53552665
So that's a no, then. I thought cards were the easiest solution, but the problem is I want a more "tactical" game than most/any cardgames. The ability to play a wargame with hidden information and no referees would be the endgoal. Maybe having cards represent unit types, some of which aren't real, or are different sizes than they appear. Like an ace of spades appears as an infantry platoon but it's actually just one guy, or a king of hearts as a tank squad that appears to be a group of APCs. Cards could be revealed by scouting. So at the start you'd arrange your units like normal, but most/all of them could be wrong or nonexistant and there's no way to tell unless you check.

>>53552778
you could use generic tokens to represent that "something is there" but only relate these generic tokens to a unit type that only the strategist can see through cards

say triangle tokens move in a formation, but you choose what those triangles represent: you attach a triangle token to the unit card but its true form is unrevealed to the other player until you use it or he finds out through scouting or whatever

>>53552357
What if i attack someone who acts right next to me, and his turn start during the time taken by my attack? Does he react? Do I roll for damage only after he acts and the attack hits? Do i damage him during my action and he's unable to do shit about it?

>>53549447
Generic like savage worlds. I want to "fix" some of what I don't like about the savage worlds system and make it a bit more serious.

My game have the following defenses:
>deflection
>dodge
>willpower
>fortitude

Some attacks focus on one defense, like a mental blast vs willpower or poison vs fortitude. Most of the time the player can choose which use to defend, so a rogue will use dodge while a warrior will use deflection. But how to I attack deflection in a suitable way the player isn't allowed to use dodge instead?

>>53554501
Pin them down, render them unable to move, make the attack faster than they can move, make sneak attacks default to fortitude, dont allow dazed characters to dodge, dont allow dodge at point blank projectiles, etc

Basically rule out anything where the character shouldnt be able to dodge the attack in the first place

>>53552490
The only way this could work is if it was possible to retroactively verify the game record somehow. Example would be Stratego - at the start of the game the opponent's pieces are hidden, but they are all revealed at the end, you can see all the moves, and there's no random element. So you can work backwards from the end that the game was played correctly. Definitely an interesting exercise though.

>>53550705
Out of curiousity, what is it about the math of D12's that's "not that clean"? The math on any single roll of any die is basically identical - for a dice with S sides, the chance of a specific result is 1/S and the chance of an equal-or-less than X result is X/S. Doesn't make any difference if it's a d6 or a d37, all that changes is the granularity.

Dice math doesn't really get messy until you start adding multiple results, dependent rolls, or rerolls into the picture.

>>53554501
>But how to I attack deflection in a suitable way the player isn't allowed to use dodge instead?
Dodging is slower than deflecting. You have to move your whole body if you want to dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge. You only have to move your weapon/shield to deflect. So any really fast attack you will only be able to deflect, never dodge. Whereas any really strong attack, you'll be able to dodge but not deflect. Your rogue will be able to dance circles around a big, slow ogre swinging a big, slow club. But if some little guy comes at him with a rapier or someone shoots an arrow at him, he'll have to try to deflect or facetank it with his fortitude (or hope they just miss), because he won't have time to get out of the way.

>>53554667
The problem with that is verification is time-consuming and potentially very difficult. The goal therefore would be to make THAT the game, where the verification process itself WAS how you played, guaranteeing correctness of play, but avoiding repetition.

>>53554900
d6s usage doesn't lie in mathematical perfection, but in how common six sided die are - you can get a gorillion of them much easier and cheaper than you would d8s, for example

d12s have an 8.33 chance per face, while d20 has 5% and d10 has 10%, which is why d20 and d10 are used much more commonly - d10s can also be used for d100 seeing as you get a 0-99 range and you count 00 as 100, etc - it's the same reason d8s with their 12.50 chance per side isn't used as much - it has the same issues of swinginess as flat die AND it's harder to balance chances around because they're either too small or too big of a step to work around

d4s would be an outlier here because they're underused despite their perfect 25% chance, but that's because 25% in itself is a big fucking chance and the chance range is too small to be worked with unless you're doing a super minimalistic system

do you understand now?

arise!

also, thoughts on this simple system: you have a stat, let's call it Fortitude. let's say your Fortitude is 8. damage is all dealt with 1-5 d4s. you can resist up to 8 wounds and 8 severe wounds. every time your wounds hit 8 you're given 1 severe wound, which means a -1 to all your rolls. technically this works pretty much exactly as HP, but affects your chances directly

thoughts? should there be a base value? what should the average value for Fortitude be to avoid constant death?

why are these threads always so dead

>>53552225
Personally I'm using the range in a margin of success system, since it easily breaks into smaller chunks; 2, 3, 4, and 6. Its like the idea of using the D12 for a D3/D4/D6 in a way.

>>53559915
Extremely niche subject that takes a lot of time to work on.

File: for honor.webm (1MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x404px

How do you deal with simultaneous actions and counterattacks without isolating two characters forever and without the actions being a total clusterfuck?

>>53559915
It used to be a "gib feeback plz" circlejerk without anyone actually giving feedback. Tons of people were around but nothing ever happened. Since then, quite a few namestays have left but we're much better about giving useful feedback so now we don't have enough new content to comment on and the current developers aren't getting new concerns fast enough.

And, there are a few anons who have actually finished projects, like Ops and Tactics anon that popped into a different thread and Knights and Knaves anon who finished a pretty quality game. The rest of the namefags I remember have all left other than Aegeos, and he's one of the few people doing wargames.

/gdg/ (and /hbg/ before it) threads are the #1 reason I browse /tg/ to begin with. I remember them being the most popular back when they used the Wii's Homebrew Channel OP, but again that was when feedback was scarce to come by unless you happened to be the "system of the day". It was also a time when we were more similar to /wbg/ in content and /wbg/ was suffering.

That being said, I've got 3 projects I can info dump if people want some stuff to comment on. I watch /gdg/ threads anytime I'm not sleeping or working.

I have a question; do you name your systems (other than "current project #3567.docx"), and if so, how?

>>53561912
I just nail down the main theme until I can find something more suitable. Sometimes I just stick to my terrible name.

>>53561912
I go by "Name - Version Number"
I'm on 1.8

1 for the massive overhaul of everything I did around two years ago and 8 for the number of editions with various major changes I've made.

Not creative, but it works

File: 1430019932614.jpg (39KB, 348x333px)

39KB, 348x333px

>ruled out dice pools
>ruled out roll-under
>need more than one dice but no more than 5 at any one time

god damn it what the fuck else is there

>>53564696
I just gave up on dice.

I'm using 54 card decks now.

>>53564696

Resolution mechanics aren't as important as /tg/ makes them out to be. The question is, what sort of game are you trying to make?

>>53538344

That doesn't seem too hard.

Also provides a limit, doesn't it? Stat being the max possible and skill being your chances to get it.

>>53538344
i was thinking of a similar system, but using d10 pools based on your stats and the limit being a roll-under for your skills, but it's kinda hard for me to really balance it or make it fun
like, how would you deal with difficulty, take away limits or dice? would it be based on how many hits you got, and if so would there be anything to negate it? what if i want something to feel very powerful with that many dice and only a 10-number scale? balancing that shit is hard

>>53565378
> Resolution mechanics aren't as important as /tg/ makes them out to be.
I finally created a resolution mechanic that I'm perfectly happy with, where every plus matters and nothing ever falls off the RNG, yet stacked mods have diminishing returns, and it's dead simple to roll.

And, you know what? It's like 10% better than if I did the whole thing with d20+mods.

>>53566127
tell me your secrets anon, i swear i won't steal them

Does anyone have any good resources for kingdom building mechanics? RPGs that do it well, boardgames worth cribbing from, blogs?

I'm looking to take players from their first keep (or other holding) to a kingdom the size of Ireland. It doesn't need to handle finer grain detail than that (can fall back to a standard RPG), and I'm okay with the system to get clunky when it gets larger than that (that's a pretty big scale change already and I'm willing to introduce a third system if it goes bigger).

File: Screenshot from 2017-05-14 21:58:40.png (168KB, 1477x651px)

168KB, 1477x651px

>>53566272
Not a secret, I just didn't explain because it's contrary to the point - that even the best mechanic is only a small improvement.

The best mechanic is also specific to your goals, so pic related might not actually be as amazing for what you're trying to accomplish.

File: hacked.jpg (19KB, 400x266px)

19KB, 400x266px

>>53566375
lmao stolen

>>53566375
what's the resolution mechanic? hits? result+mods? roll-under? i really like it, it's smart and simple and can be accomodated to many values and dice

>>53566588
(3+|X|)d6, keep highest 3 if X is positive, keep lowest 3 if X is negative. Your modifiers go into X. Roll above target difficulty, or roll above opposed roll.

>>53536968
>deep mechanics with simple gameplay

What did he mean by this.

I want to use a roll & keep system like old 7th Sea, where the player can theoretically have a high skill, to maximize his number of successes. But I also was wanting to use a TN dice pool like Shadowrun or ST. Is it okay to mix them? Are there better systems?

>>53566905
I want to have fine-tuned high levels of autistic customization and other oddly specific stuff without the granularity that generally comes with it

>>53567744
Interesting mission
Be careful all those customization bonus/malus don't add up and push you into "granular"

Death by a thousand cuts, in a way

File: 1469122895780.png (85KB, 210x434px)

85KB, 210x434px

Roll X number of dice (d6 perhaps but it doesn't matter). You choose WHEN to use each. Sometimes it's good to have high. Sometimes it's good to have low. Sometimes you want middle values. But you have to use all the dice before you can re roll unless you have a special event/ability.

I call it the Pullman Perfection method.

>>53568224
I like it.

>>53568224
You're decades late on that train, but its not like there are a ton of passengers.

>>53564696
Ascending dice types and roll-overs exist still, although the latter needs to be thematic in some way (It can be a little weird to handle I guess?).

Ascending dice types are a pet system of mine, I just kind of abandoned them when I started trying to reduce all the baggage to make my ultralight system ultralight. My previous system had them though.

>>53561605
I used to frequent / frequently OP these threads, but I've been on a serious depression / lethargy roll so I haven't been that active on /tg/, instead just shitposting on other boards. My own game would honestly be in the final stages (like, I need another playtest to finalize my combat system's specifics), I would just need to push Pilgrim for the art and pay him a little more so I could get over with it.

>>53570126
Now that I think about it... Kind of funny, my Plancrafter / Six Stories system is literally almost ready (It honestly just needs playtesting and balancing), but once I started making my ultralight (Misfortune), I completely forgot it. Hmm, maybe I should reread it and see if I could actually salvage it, or parts of it.

It wasn't a bad system by any means, my ultralight was just more complete thematically, I guess.

Ahh, rereading it feels so weird, because I made so baffling design decisions, which, in reality, aren't THAT baffling, but I can just see how my design philosophy has made a complete 180, and it hasn't even been a year since!

>>53564696
>http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?21479-Design-Alternatives-Analysis-Archive/page2
Have fun

File: Horizontal Character sheet.pdf (33KB, 1x1px)

33KB, 1x1px

Hmm...

Does pic related (My new sheet for my game, obviously) have too much air? I wanted to make a horizontal sheet, but the final result looks a little too open and airy, like there's a lot of wasted space...

How bad does it look? Asking mostly about the layout.

For context, the game is actually an ultralight system, so that's the whole thing.

>>53552642

Crunch, fluff is harder to write

>>53569900
I'd like to know where this was originally done and if this particular approach has a name

Sorry for spamming these latest posts out.

>>53555568
If you look at the probabilities in fractions instead in decimal percents, d12s and d6s become a much more "beautiful" numerically, especially compared to d10s.

d12s have a perfect scaling with d4s and d6s, being perfect thirds and halves. I don't remember encountering a game that takes advantage of this fact (such as having a d12 system where you can use 2d6 or 3d4 as alternative methods when your skills increase, for example).

d6s have similarly perfect scaling upwards when counting dozenal, and using them makes it theoretically possible to use fractions while counting them. In dozenal system, d6 dice pools scale as 1/6 (1/2 division of 10), 1/30 (1/4 division of 100), 1/160 (1/8 of 1000), and 1/900 (1/14 (16th in decimal) of 10000). Progression is beautifully linear, and best of all, they're extremely divisible numbers, too.

If d5s were common, they would have similar linear pattern in decimal system, 1/2 of 10, 1/4 of 100, 1/8 of 1000 and so on, but because we use d6s, I made the point in dozenal. Also, because it is a perfect cube, this is just one of the reasons why we should use goddamn dozenal systems instead of decimal.

>>53554900
Decimal system sucks, that's what.

/rant

>>53555568
>do you understand now?
Actually, no. I think I'm more confused now than I was when you started. =/

I got these two points:
1) D6's are common and readily available
2) Granularity increases with number of sides.

Agreed on both counts. The rest of it went over my head.

>>53555188
>The problem with that is verification is time-consuming and potentially very difficult.
Well, that's one of the challenges of the design, yeah. The Stratego method was that most or all of the hidden info gets revealed over the course of the game anyway - sooner or later all the pieces are revealed, and you can remember which ones used special moves or actions, so it's easy to verify.

I think that's what you're looking for - some kind of structure where playing the game out slowly reveals all the hidden info.

>>53565378
>>53566375
>Resolution mechanics aren't as important as /tg/ makes them out to be. The question is, what sort of game are you trying to make?
>The best mechanic is also specific to your goals, so pic related might not actually be as amazing for what you're trying to accomplish.
Resolution mechanics ARE important, but they should probably be the last thing you design in your game. At the end of the day, they're all ways to do the same thing.

>>53572066
Resolution mechanics are not important by themselves, but they are important in contextualizing play. Whjle optimally they should be last to be completely designed, prototyping them is an important part of the game's design, and a resolution system can design parts of the game for you.

A good resolution system can make a game, like the how the Lake in Legends of the Wulin really changes the game's flow fundamentally.

>>53566817
I understood it because I'm math savvy. How would you explain it in prose?

Looks really nice and different.

>>53573153
Not that anon, obviously, but I would just explain it as stacking advantage and disadvantage dice.

Most people at least know how DnD 5e plays, so they know how advantage works --> they realize that if you roll 3d12 with one advantage die, you roll 4d12 and take highest 3.

That's how I did it in my own 2d6-based system that works similarly.

In this case, they could be called positive or negative modifier dice, but the point stands.

I kinda made something, a sort of Game Design Idea Generator. I'm hoping to use it for this Isekai inspired OSR Campaign Supplement I have in mind.

Please tell me what you think or if ideas should be ordered differently.

https://adventuresinpowercity.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/technological-aspect-generator-alpha-1-5/

>>53573153
I'm not math savy and understood perfectly

>3d6 roll-over to pass checks
>modifiers can range from -3 to +3
>regardless of +/-, each modifier adds a die to
>take highest 3 during advantage, take lowest 3 during disadvantage

what I don't get is what happens to other modifiers? -3 to +3 is a bit too simple and it's still left for the roll, what if the character is specialized on a particular area? is the modifier simply a mechanic that is unaffected by the player (as a difficulty or a challenge set by the gm) and the roll adds the player's relevant stats, or do the players only have the +1 to +3 advantages in their favor? i like it in concept, specially if it's something simple like an OSR dungeon crawler and i love the simplicity of it, but i feel like there's something i'm missing here

>>53573631
I think the layout is a little weak, maybe also either program a random generator or make roll tables or something. /tg/ loves roll tables.

In it's current it's just options to choose from in a pretty cluttered format.

>>53537944
Let's answer to the thread topic...

I said it before, but d12 can be divided into 2d6 or 3d4, and you could use them as a dice-type progression, like if you do riskier rolls you need to roll d12 but when you do something meticulously you can roll 2d6 or 3d4.

Another possibility would be to make a system that incorporates both d12s and d6s, because they are directly compatible. I could see a system that uses 2d6 and 1d12, maybe to use them in a more clever way than simply adding up. Having two distinct sets (1d12 and 2d6) makes it possible to take higher, lower of the dice, take more risks etc.

>>53575850
If the system is more open-ended, the -3 to +3 mechanic might work fine as is (I can double this because I've made and playtested one that has a similar mechanic). If there are multiple modifiers like stat bonuses, skill levels and the like, it might become iffy... The mechanic does have diminishing returns, however, so that probably eases it up a little, at least.

what are some dice system types that can accomodate to a moderate and fair low level but still increase to really powerful shit

i wanted to use dice pools, but those are either super limited or get out of hand really fast

>>53578130
read >>53570596
Pages 2, 3, and 12 are all about rolling mechanics

>>53565311
real gamers use a 76 card french tarot

is this thread only about RPG systems, or do you guys design board game / card games too?

Using metacurrency to activate character abilities: yay or nay?

My thinking is pretty much every other method is some ridiculous game contrivance with a tenuous explanation anyway. 4E's AEDU, Vancian casting, or just flat out "You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to..." are all basically metacurrencies.

Note: This is a science fantasy game wherein all the players have not!Force powers.

>>53581194
we've had wargames in the past here, so there's not really a limit on what you can post, as long as it's /tg/ game design

>>53581218
Usually with powers, I think it's better to have a rising difficulty after straining yourself.

A nice way I found to do it is to make a roll for using the powers, and have an aspect that determines whether you can use a power "freely" or do you need to "strain" to use it. If you strain, you either get a point of fatigue or lose metacurrency and so forth. Fatigue (or mental fatigue, whatever) works well because in my game, every time you roll, you check against your fatigue, basically, so it becomes kind of an tactical element with very little work.

>>53581218
I would love if the 4e Fighter used Healing Surges for his E powers, Rogue's about triggers and so on.

My game have mages using HP for casting spells, meaning the physical stress of using magic.

Look Iron Heroes, a d20 system that heavily uses tokens for techniques.

>>53566375
Can you explain this differently/again? You say it uses d6s here >>53566817
But the chart says d12
& PEMDAS says to add three to x & roll that many d6s, keeping three of the highest or lowest depending if x was a positive or negative
Is this ^ correct?

Where would a good comunity be to go and create game art for such creators as yourselves.

For those thst are serious, your going to need some art.

>>53578130
The one I posted in >>53566375 does a good job of keeping everyone in the same number range, but there's a limit to how wide a gulf in capability can be expressed. (I guess you could start mixing dice types to make it last ages though.)

If you're not concerned about keeping people in the same range, 1d20+mods is pretty solid (or 1d12 or whatever, it's all the same). And it can last a long time if situational modifiers are bigger than level-scaling modifiers.

If I wanted to do Gurren Lagann levels of scaling I'd do something like 3d12, 12s explode, then you level up and 11s also explode, then you level up and 10s also explode, etc.

>>53575850
>what I don't get is what happens to other modifiers? -3 to +3 is a bit too simple
The chart only shows -3 to +3 but you can go further before it breaks down. If you use larger dice (3d20 base) then it'll support somewhat larger mods. If you use more dice (4d20 base) it'll support much larger mods. However this means totals are harder and you have to frequently roll a fistfull of dice.

-3 to +3 is the sweet spot for 3d6, though it goes to -5 to +5 before it gets really stupid.

>>53582267
Sorry, I made that chart when I was considering switching to d12 but I still explain with d6 out of habit. The process is the same though. I'll explain with yet a different type of dice because it doesn't matter.

You roll 3d20. If you have a modifier, you roll that many more dice, whether it's positive or negative, so both +2 and -2 are 5d20. If it was positive, you keep the highest 3. If it was negative, you keep the lowest 3.

-or-

You roll XdY. If you have a modifier, you roll that many more dice, whether it's positive or negative, so both +2 and -2 are (X+2)dY. If it was positive, you keep the highest X. If it was negative, you keep the lowest X.

>>53583097
Ah okay, I got it now, you add the modifier's value to the dice pool but decide the function by the positive or negative. Thanks for reexplaining.

That's pretty clever.

File: dva nightmare vision.png (214KB, 810x308px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 810x308px

>tfw you realize that what you want is literally impossible

>>53587594
I had a thing where the mechanism I was relying on for combat balance would break unless I added more player-facing fiddly bits than I was comfortable with. The /least/ obnoxious option I found was introducing separate "stance" and "grip" modifiers to prevent problematic abilities from stacking (you can't be in two stances at once).

And then I completely threw out combat grids and replaced it with an insane system where combat goes through a fixed sequence of phases (ambush, ranged, melee, close) which removed the entire context via which that problem could exist.

>>53559915
I can't speak for the rest of the thread, but it's because I have no worthwhile feedback and a chronic inability to bring any project past the conceptual stage.

They're fun to read though

>>53581170
I'm still planning on play testing with that.

Does anon think it's a good idea to make a Discord so we can playtest each others stuff for those of us who don't already have groups they can playtest their material with?

>>53588088
There actually is a general /tg/ one with a designer channel. No idea how active it is, been a while since I was there. I'll recheck it and drop a link when I get home.

File: 1495967506250.gif (858KB, 200x267px)

858KB, 200x267px

>>53561605
I absolutely love giving feedback, but most people present their idea like...

"Hey guys what if you roll a d10 to reload is that good or bad????"

No context, explanation, or basic introduction. Or they'll reference some 35 year old game and expect me to know what their aping.

>>53587705
How did it turn out? I like the phase idea and i remember you talking about it

>>53588397
I ran some simple tests using a benchmark party and was very happy with the results. I'm starting a campaign and will be using the system in the wild with it.

The benchmark party was a ranger (ranged multi-attack, ranged pin someone to make them lag behind), fighter (melee multi-attack, melee hold the line to make people lag behind), druid (spells take two rounds, one is an entangle, one turns into bear), and rogue (disappears in ambush stage, extreme close-stage powers).

Tests with grizzly bears (bags of hitpoints with stupid strong close range attack) were easy wins for the party with one or two bears, but at three someone got badly hurt.

Tests with three thieve's guild snipers (strong at ambush, stealth roll to repeat it) were extremely swingy. First one they were crushed, second one they took out half the party and would've been a TPK if it wasn't for some extremely lucky rolls. (Lesson: you don't need repeat stages and bonus damage on the same enemy)

Test against six goblins (they just kind of suck) went about like you'd expect.

>>53588397
I also had a bunch of ideas for adapting it for other situations.

Modern settings: phases are ambush, long range, ranged, melee, close. Most of the action happens in the two ranged phases and few melee abilities exist.
Spaceships: phases are ambush, long range, ranged, boarding, then do it again from the boarding party's point of view
Mass combat: can very comfortably use the same system

Obviously these are all end up more dramatic than realistic, but if that's appropriate it seems to work for most settings I've considered. Except superheroes, it seems to be entirely the wrong fit for that.

>>53588374
Yeah, that's a pretty common problem. I know that, that's why I usually write walls of text rather than leaving it at that. Better to have too much for most to handle than to have too little for anyone to care.

>>53582463
Once I get my money situation sorted out (government really doesn't want to return the extra taxes I've paid), I should finish up my payments to my artist and discuss the rest of my game's art.

>>53588586
Does it feel like a board game or does it allow for improvising and creativity?

File: Misfortune sheet.jpg (103KB, 1158x799px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1158x799px

>>53571417
Actually, here's a .jpg version of the sheet, and I have a better question:

Does the Strain - Despair tracker seem immediately obvious in its function, even if you haven't seen my pdf of rules? Of course, we're all more or less experienced players here and analyzing it isn't that hard, but does the idea come clear? Or does it just look ugly / fancy?

>>53589144
Won't know until the actual campaign starts.

To me the key components of a system are:
- Do people have a clear, shared idea of what the situation is and what they can do?
- Do the mechanics give the GM predictable levers to pull?
- Does the system do anything to generate interesting situations on its own?

And my best guesses here are:
- Probably. It's a bit abstract.
- I've definitely got levers but I don't know if they're predictable.
- Yes.

>>53581194
All is welcome!

>>53582463
Fiverr if you're serious but short on cash (make sure you vet your artist, a lot of fakes on Fiverr. ArtStation if you're serious and have lots of cash.

Or you could try begging on DeviantArt.

>>53589205
It doesn't look intuitive at all, but it also seems like you'd only need a few key pieces of info to make it all click. Assuming it's clever once you understand it, the strange design will be appreciated.

>>53589567
Well the idea is that if you take damage or overstrain yourself (use powers and roll too low on power-using rolls), you take strain. Then, every time you fail your rolls, you can take one point of despair to "push" a roll.

So, every time you get Strain, you color the left side of a ball, starting from the left, and every time you gain Despair, you color the right side of a ball, starting from the right. Once these two trackers meet, they start forming Fatal Injury.

The idea with all 3 of these trackers is that rolling same or under them means you either fall / get separated from the scene / get a fatal injury. You can resist falling and getting "ejected" from a scene by taking despair.

So the idea is that you take more and more damage, and unless you use Despair, you're going to fall. When you use Despair, the Fatal Injury starts to creep in.

May sound like a death spiral, but you can basically stop it any time by taking the fall. You can regulate how badly you want to win against how badly you want to not die. It shouldn't end in TPK:s anyway because anyone who is about to die can go out heroically, ignoring any strain or despair rolls (they get more fatal injuries though) until they inevitably die.

>>53588088
>>53588303
Here's a link to the Discord.
https://discord.gg/pDDYTZN

Aside the probabilities and looking at the public:
Does using a d20 attracts more people?

>>53590558
Use common sense, why are you asking us?

>>53590558
Unless you advertise it as a d20 system, not really. And if you do, people expect an OGL game.

It's just an icosahedron, it's not magic.

>>53589779
Thanks nigga. I bet it's way better than this /tg/ shit.

>>53589763
I like death spiral myself so i wouldn't complain either way. The only strange thing is scaling it for different folks. What if my guy is tough? Looks like a pretty static gauge

>>53590781
Only if you like group drama and getting trolled by traps

>>53590787
If your guy is tough, you get bonuses to rolls to resist dying, and you don't get physical injuries as easily. Injuries give you disadvantage on rolls, and having disadvantage means you roll lower, meaning you are more likely to roll under S, D or FI.

The gauge is very static, but one of the reasons why it's static is because it can encompass more than just physical slugfest, depending on the game and setting. That's the idea, at least.

>>53590781
>>53588088
You do realize theres a link in the op, right?

>>53552642
First I establish the type of game I want, cyberpunk, medfan, etc.
Then with a good idea of what I want, I work on the basic crunch, so the core of the system. When it's done, I work on the fluff, and with the new fluff elements I work on crunch that match it.

So for D&D it would be like : I'm going medfan, then I'm going 1d20 with this combat system, theses skills, theses rules for falling, etc, then my wizard are vanciand, and I have monk and barbarians, so I have to make the wizard class and monk class.

>get an idea for an element of your system
>realize it's a reskinned DnD mechanic that only works slightly different

god damn it

What do you think of Team Players vs Team Monsters initiative, /gdg/? As in, all players go in order, then all monsters go in order.

>>53593508
Works great most of the time, but ambushes and enemies with high initiative become turbo rapists that can wipe PCs in 2 rounds just because of positioning.

>>53593508
I prefer it. It makes it easier for the players to make plans among themselves, and it reduces the time overhead from switching player turns.

The drawback is that it's swingy and has a huge first-move advantage. First-move advantage can be reduced by having some sort of surprise round where only half the characters move (on average).

The swinginess can be a problem in certain situations. In the fixed stages system I mentioned in >>53587705, part of the point is that close range is extremely lethal, so you force fights to end. I have to switch to alternating initiative at close range, because the extra damage was resulting in the party with initiative winning any combat that got to that range.

File: 1489816207008.png (788KB, 1000x1200px)

788KB, 1000x1200px

In my science fantasy game characters pick a class and an elemental subclass. The classes are:

>Sentinel (Force)
>Seeker (Guile)
>Shepherd (Passion)
>Seer (Logic)

The elements are:

>Lunar (Force)
>Comet (Guile)
>Solar (Passion)
>Void (Logic)

Together, these determine the Order to which your character belongs (i.e. "Order of the Sunseekers" or "Order of the Voidseers"). I like where the classes are going, but the elements just feel off. Any ideas? Comet in particular just doesn't fit in.

>>53593770
how about Solar for Guile and Nebular for passion

>>53594575
Wouldn't Solar -> Force and Lunar -> Guile make more sense?

>>53594724
that would work too
the thing is that these are all very vague "Mind" stats and also very vague "Space" elements
it's kinda hard to work with it

File: 1495474233451.jpg (25KB, 381x600px)

25KB, 381x600px

>>53594575
>>53594724
>>53594751
>it's kinda hard to work with it
That's fair; they're described a bit better in the text. Basically, half the game is verbs and how good you are at them; each stat represents how good you are at a broad collection of verbs. For example, Force might be anything from punching someone to shouting them down; anything that can in context be described as forceful. Your class sets your highest stat and your element has to be above a certain threshold.

For what its worth, here is some of my logic:
>"Planet" cannot be an element, because the character is the planetary observer of the other four.
>Lunar is Force because it continually exerts its own gravitational force on the planet and can shield it from impacts. Your presence is a bastion of order to those around you. If you're lunar, you identify with themes of protection, preservation and perseverance. Sometimes unappreciated, never faltering.
>Comet is Guile because I couldn't think of anything better. Comets wander through the solar system and if you're comet-ary you have a wanderlust to you. Your cool wit is the reassurance of a traveler in parts unknown. Sometimes forgotten, never lost.
>Solar is Passion because it lights the way even in the infinite dark. Your heart licks at those around you like a flame cauterizing a wound. If you're solar, you identify with themes of understanding, patience and care. Often beaten, never broken.
>Void is Logic because it is the great nothing, the mystery between worlds, and you seek to bridge that gap. Your mind presses in on those around you like a distant eye. If you're void, you identify with themes of curiosity and learning, even at a cost. Often lost, never unobservant.

Your class answers "what do you do", your element answers "how do you do it". The more I think about it, nebula might be better for Guile.

Is there any way to do roll+modif roll-over without the inherent issues of DnD's progression, without completely nerfing the players?

>>53596886
Less progression, more bonuses. Give the fighter +6 to hit right off the bat, but only hand out an additional +1 to the party every ten levels. Find something other than the to-hit roll to pass out as bonuses in the meantime. 5E uses less to-hit progression and more HP and damage progression, which is boring but does work.

That or switch to a margin of success system. Could be interesting in something D&D-ish (special abilities heavy, combat focused) if your abilities were tied to margin of success, so if your fighter rolls 5 higher than needed they can spend that on a bonus trip effect. In that case you'd want basic defense not to scale (much), but could give everyone a number that decreases margin of success against them, and that can scale. So eventually everyone is always hitting for damage so the combat eventually ends, but higher level characters get to use all their bullshit effects at once on lower level characters.

>>53597269
Degrees of success are generally kinda slow, unless theres a single threshold to surpass
Any suggestions?

>>53597269
>>53598501
My system uses a threshold of 3. So overhit of 3 grants dazed, over 6 upgraded to stun, for example.
I think this helps pass the binary hit/miss of d20.

>>53596886
what do you mean by "inherent issues"?

With my game is want to have a good balance of stats without having a huge reliance on a "god stat" like Dex in many games

I decided to have a power stat, a reactionary stat, a finesse stat, anda resistance stat, for bothà physical & mental

I have

Strength-Intellect
Reflexes-Awareness
Dexterity-Wits
Toughness-Reslove

Does this seem like a good list without needing to have repeats? I like making Reflexes & Dexterity separate. Reflexes handling things like drive/pilot & Dexterity being used for things like Escape Artist

>>53601505
Seems pretty solid, idea-wise.

But here's a kicker, is this for a dungeon crawler? Because what about social stats? Wits seems like a god-stat in that case, maybe resolve if you're pushing it.

Or are you just presenting this idea, and then have social skills on another axis entirely?

>>53544304
Actions cost balance, and the balance cost increases multiplicatively. So if e.g. two actions both cost 3 balance, then both together costs 9 balance.

>>53601930
I did have more stats encompassing a social aspect but found it cluttered
Skills will range from Charm to Persuade to Reason each tied to Wits, Awareness, & Intellect.

I have a few special stats that must be purchased as merits/feats/advantages

Discipline
Charisma
Attunement (Magic)
Mutation

If you purchase Charisma it gives a bonus to social skills tests. The way I see it in the real world, Charisma kind of just helps reinforce things.

>>53604275
Huh.

Well, having a lot of stats is not really a problem in on themselves, it's a problem if the system becomes too complex because of them. My other game has 10 stats total because it has no skills, so it can handle it pretty easily (Stats are represented as dice types, and resolution rolls are just "choose two stats, roll their dice against a TN").

Like, I've tried to make my own systems in a way that you can literally have as many stats as you like in it, and as of today, I'm retooling the last subsystems that used any set stats from Misfortune. It isn't even that hard, honestly.

And still the stats are pretty much the most important factor in my game. Designing can be a little weird sometimes.

>>53604556
My original had like ten primary stats with them pairing off & making a handful of secondary stats, it was complicated & cluttered. Then I hacked off the Primary stats, then tried to categorize them into Physical Mental Social, but Mental & Social kept having too much overlap. So I restructured them into just Phys/Ment & made a better mechanical system for resolving social skills than Binary pass
/fail on one roll.

>>53600587
Characters specializing too fast which breaks difficulty thresholds and ends up in inflated challenge levels for the sake of keeping up

>>53605089
That doesn't sound like anything inherent to dX+mods, your problem is quite likely to be something else in the system that you didn't realize was a separate decision.

I random had an idea with no finer implementation in mind.

Magical spells require three overlapping "circles", which are broken in the process of casting. A command circle, which describes the target and "polarity" of the spell. A power circle, which determines the magnitude of the spell. And a type circle, which determines the "class" of the spell. For each class of spell, everything in the universe has a "negative" or "positive" polarity for that class. If something has a negative fire polarity, then it will be hurt by positive polarity fire-class spells and it will be benefited by negative fire polarity spells. A blessing of fire resistance may become a binding curse when used upon a fire elemental.

Now for why this concept of "circles" is meaningful. Anyone can break an overlapping triplet of circles to cast a spell as long as the spell's class matches the type circle of that triplet and they can reach it. Whether or not someone can "reach" a triplet is based on whatever you want though. What this means is that you can essentially create a no-go zone for magic by just having hundreds of circles inscribed everywhere that you can trigger to eat up attempted spell casting. If you have command and type circles, you can use them to eat up opposing power circles with "empty" spells. The same can be done to you though, unless the class of your type circles is not something the enemy is able to manipulate. Because of this, command and type circles are more "complex" so they cannot be inscribed into the environment as quickly, but there ARE natural type circles in some places. You may not be able to totally cancel a spell without a null command circle, but you can change the class if doing so is somehow beneficial.

Using premade circles is the fastest way to cast spells. You can adjust the power for a small time penalty, adjust the class for a bigger time penalty, and adjust the polarity and/or targeting for a bigger still time penalty.

What is a better magic system, combining buts to make a "sentence" like Ars Magicka, or a list of interesting flavorful spells separated by category like Shadowrun, 40k & Warhammer?

>>53571714
>Crunch, fluff is harder to write
LOLOLOL as if faget you just need to have the right to your own opinion. I can write good fluff all the live long day, but mechanics slow me right down

>>53606685
I prefer flavorful lists. You can get away with some weirder effects and avoid the issue of unexpected effects or breaking the game. But that's personal taste on my end.

>>53606685
"Better" is subjective and depends on a lot of other factors.

However, I'm enjoying my still incomplete magic creation system. It, like the other similar building systems, is governed by bounded accuracy and opportunity costs. Ideally it'll allow for plenty of freedom and variety of expression in game.

>>53606685
I prefer the latter

Posting my wargame system. Its supposed to be easy to learn and interchangeable between games (think Warmahordes). 10mm scale.

https://docs.google.com/a/ghchs.com/document/d/1iJVaPD0VXYfQ_xhv__J6Ne01CtgXp-ONOGeTEbbLPeU/edit?usp=drivesdk

Looking for some naming advice. When you gain a level in my system, you can pick any level advancement in the book that you meet the prerequisites for. Many of them are grouped into paths, where each is the prerequisite to the one before. Many paths are grouped into archetypes (classes), which are just suggestions.

One of the level prerequisites is a "tier" (first thing with an iffy name). You gain tiers at a rate that depends on your campaign (GM's decision), and they don't have to be in order. They block off specific kinds of abilities that can distort the campaign. The names of the tiers are the other thing I could use a renaming for.

The tiers are:
- Paragon: Abilities that can break the basic "walk through the wilderness to the dungeon" format or that are a big problem in a dungeon crawl. Flight, teleportation, burrowing, invisibility.
- Champion: Abilities that involve gaining followers and holdings. Sort of like the name level "followers show up" stuff in older D&D, but also the point where a necromancer stops being limited to one big zombie.
- Master: Abilities that deal with interplanar travel. I might actually drop this from the game but I'd like to have a name handy in case I don't.

I'd like different takes on how to name the tiers (and the concept of tiers).

>>53612646
4E had something like this. From least to greatest its tiers were Heroic, Paragon and Epic.

>>53612845
I stole the names from a mix of 4E and BECMI.

But since these tiers are tied to specific selections of powers, it's much more important that the names match the contents than that they each sound more impressive than the last.

Guys, I need your help.

In my setting I have this PC with a peculiar weapon (a rifle) that I will rapidly explain.
>It has 10 "shots".
>You recharge it, you need to absorb the mana from its surroundings.
>It cannot recharge until you deplete all its shots, but you can recharge it with less shots to be faster.
>Every shot will drop one random magical effect, but the effects will be weaker if compared with magic casted from a proper source, unless we are speaking about the element of specialization of the caster, then it will be normal.
In game mechanics I wanted him to roll a random effect roll from a table, I will make this table, but I don't know how to make it "dangerous", when will the effect it the target? When will it hit the "shooter"? When will it hit everything in its surroundings? The system I'm using doesn't have critical failure, but even if it had, I wouldn't apply it that situation only.

To make my live easier I also made the rifle work like this:
>You can charge the "power" for 10 levels of intensity.
>If you don't keep it charged the power will decay rapidly, but it will not go down more than level 5.
>So, in combat you can have a charged shot of 5, but you cannot cheese your way with a out of combat max charge every time.
>In game terms, the charges will just add a bonus on the random roll, and I will put the most "powerful" effects in the end.

But still, I don't know how to handle backfire and intensity. Any idea? I don't mind the method, I just don't want my player to make 200 rolls for it.

>>53615822
Just make the targets into different entries on the table, i.e.

>Hit target with fireball
>Hit self with fireball

For intensity, instead of going shot-by-shot, ask the player how many shots he wants to bet before firing. So if he has 10 shots, bets three, it will be a pretty alright effect. If he uses 1 it will be weak, it he uses all 10 in one go it'll be huge.

That or just have him roll three dice at once:
>1d2 to determine target (flip a coin)
>1dx to determine effect (depending on the size of your table)
>1d6 to determine intensity

>>53561584
I would also like to know

>>53536090

trying to make a "push your luck" game that doesn't use dice, does anyone have any examples I could play for ideas. what I've got doesn't feel risky enough...

>>53616798
Make an RPG mechanic out of blackjack

How do you square the circle of "you can be anything you want" in the rules while still balancing "you can't do anything you want"?
My system is similar to Risus. You just write down what your character is. This gives you an extra dice when you roll to do activities. The difference is that instead of rolling increasing amounts of dice and the resolution system being roll over a number, your traits and circumstances dictate your dice pool ( a small number of 1-4 dice ) and more difficult actions require more successes.
But how do you let players do what their identity says they should be able to do without it being unbalanced? Just hope all the players are on the same page regarding powerlevels? It sounds like a cop-out and makes you question why there would need to be rules at all then.
So lets say you have a character who is Pyromancer. Because the character is magical, any restrictions you would want to place on them are arbitrary unlike if it was a non-magical character.
My solution to do this was take a "base human" and augment that difficulty of any action based on how a base human without any special abilities could do that action. So if it's impossible for a human to do, then a player can't do it no matter how magical they are. However, tools DO count. So lets take a wooden door. If the player wanted to bash the door open, you ask: "Could a normal human bash down this door?" If yes, then they can roll to do it. If not, you ask "What would a human need to bash down this door?". If there is something that would help a human bash down the door, the difficulty of the action increases by 1 success required. But to even have a chance of having the right successes that character still needs the appropriate tool so they can roll an extra die and have a chance to meet that success requirement. Or in the case of a super strength, that could substitute letting them roll 1 extra die. If they had both, they would roll 2 extra dice.
1/2

>>53617432
So using the Pyromancer as an example, they would roll 1 extra dice because the fire would be appropriate because a normal human could possibly burn down a wooden door if they had the right tools to assist them.
Another example is Hacking a computer. You not only need the right tools, but you also need the knowledge to do so because you can't hack a computer by ordinary luck. So the difficulty of hacking a computer would be 3, 1 from the base difficulty, adding +1 difficulty because it requires training/experience, and another +1 difficulty because you can't just hack a computer, you need a computer yourself and programs to be able to interface with the computer you are attempting to hack.
Bonuses to an attempted action still apply even if it's not required but would still help. So lets say you're trying to lift a boulder. A human just needs strength to lift it, not necessarily any tool. But a tool would help. So the difficulty of lifting that boulder would be 2, but the player might be rolling 3 dice because they not only have the strength but also something helping them lift it. Alternatively, they might not have the strength but still have a tool that would assist, meaning they are rolling 2 dice and can still succeed despite not having the strength.
Is this method of determining difficulty intuitive? Is there any glaring flaws that falsify this ruleset ( i.e. something a normal human couldn't do no matter what but a magical character could still do, or something a normal human could do but the difficulty added with this criteria wouldn't match correctly )
2/2

My game has a lot to do with tags/descriptors/aspects/adjectives. I call them details.

Each PC has a collection of details that describe who they are as people (their goals, dreams, fears, etc). I call these background details, but that name feels clunky. I chose it because it explicitly ties them to the broader concept of details.

What would a better name for these be?

>>53618327
Do you know Fate Core? You system sounds really similar to it.

>>53618624
Yeah. It takes some ideas from Fate Core and FAE. Doesn't use fudge dice, metacurrency works totally differently, among other things. Focuses a lot on building out your own setting as a group. Has some PbtA-inspired moves.

Here's a rough layout for everything a PC and its player can roll for or invest points in.

---

PHYSIQUE
Acrobat
Athlete
Labourer
Warrior*

PERSONALITY
Beast Handler
Leader
Performer
Socialite

PRACTICALITY
Artisan
Professional
Ranger
Rogue*
Scout

INTELLIGENCE
Mystic
Physician
Scholar
Spellcaster*

---

The CAPS represent, in D&D terms, "ability scores", what I call talents.

The rest are not character classes, but skillsets, basically skills but each encompassing a variety of different things. For example, a Rogue roll could include rolling for stealth, picking a lock, or finding a trap. Rolling in a skill that the player has not invested a single rank in is considered an untrained, and usually has a penalty.

The asterisks (*) represent what would be typical Key Skillset in a typical adventure-centric dungeoncrawling-style adventure. Key skillsets are skills that are handled a little differently (not sure how yet), and all players must invest in at last one. Ultimately, the GM sets the Key Skillsets based on what he is running. For example, in a campaign set around warfare, Leader might also be made a Key Skillse

HP and MP are defined by a set number plus Physique and Intelligence scores, respectively.

>>53617432
I use a Risus-derived system too, for skills specifically. I get around problems like you mentioned with two explicit bans:
- You can't use skills to hit things. (You have to rely on the rest of the system.)
- You can't use skills for magic. (Ditto)

And one piece of design work:
- More specific skills are explicitly better. (They always "count as" the generic skill if you want it.)

The "magic equals what a human could do" approach has problems because you need to define which human. In a Risus-like system an Adventure Archeologist gets low difficulties for swinging across gaps, but a Tarzanian Jungle Man gets even lower ones.

So if you want to burn down a door with fire magic, is that as Just Some Guy or as Conan The Viking? Do you have a crowbar?

There's a rule of storytelling: the protagonist's magic must be explicitly defined so it feels like they're solving problems, but the antagonist's magic can be any vague thing because it just needs to create them. I think the best way to handle player magic is to give it very explicit capabilities, so they're used as problem solving instead of asking permission. A pyromancer is actually a nice quantifiable one: how much fire, how far can you throw it, what is it hot enough to burn?

If you can explicitly define your magic, then it almost turns into equipment. You might buy it as a skill, but use less like being Conan The Viking Except With FIre and more like having a fire-shaped crowbar.

>>53616472
The table works like this:
The rolls makes for the element, (In my setting an element can literally be everything, from Happiness, to Gravity.) with the intensity I will just add a bonus to the table, so the manipulated element will be more "dangerous" Another roll would decide what kind of spell it will be (Transmutation, making and so on), or maybe I should do the other way around?

This would make for more versatile effects.
For example:
>You roll, you get Stone as Element
>With the other roll you get Transmutation,
>So you get a spell that will turn the enemy (or part of it) into stone
>If you would get "Making" You would spawn a rock projectile instead, or something similar.

I don't want to put all the possible option that a normal mage would have access to for obvious reasons, but this will make the results different each time.

>>53619659
>If you can explicitly define your magic, then it almost turns into equipment.
Well I thought to solve this problem where instead of predefined spells, there are standard equipment that have a gold cost.
Instead of a player asking "Can I cast web?" or "Can my Druid manipulate the vines to restrain the enemy?" they just use the rules for the Net item if they would have the ability to cast a Net-like spell. So it wouldn't be limited to simply Web, it would be any spell that has a restraining quality. But there would be additional rules now that Spellcasters can use "items" without having to buy them or carry them and are able to use them at any time. Maybe have Gold cost:Magic Point cost as well.
So yeah, I guess it would be more like magic-as-equipment.

>>53620692
In a rules-lite system you don't really need to make parallels with real equipment, you just need a solid enough definition that you can solve things with physical intuition and everybody is on the same page. That's how the net and the crowbar actually work in the first place: you can say you'll sew a dress with a crowbar and everyone will look at you funny because that object does not fit.

When I said "magic is almost equipment" I meant it's not a part of who you are like a skill or a Risus cliche, but rather something you use to augment your basic human "can do things with hands" ability.

>>53621196
I think I get it.
So instead of the players being able to say "I'm a wizard so I can cast fireball" it's more like "I need [magic equipment] to use magic"?

>>53621397
I'm a wizard so I can use fireball to solve problems. Also, I enjoy juggling.

Look! That guy's getting away! I'll throw something at them using my juggling skill! Also I'm a wizard so that thing I'm throwing is a fireball, which should make it easier to hit, because fire tends to get everywhere.

>>53621562
Yeah but now you have the issue of "I threw a fireball, are the enemies on fire now? Do I do extra damage, or are the enemies just panicked for being on fire? How is that condition removed?" and you have to balance that as well as other players thinking "That's not fair, I'm just a plain old fighter despite supposedly being mechanically equivalent I can't do anything like that".

Looking for feedback on a resolution mechanic.
Take a normal dicepool say d10. Normal TN for success is a 7. But different races would have different TNs based on what stats they are strong or weak in. Example, a human TN is 7 for Dex related stuff, an Elf's TN is 6 for Dex related stuff.
That way they have a mechanical edge that isn't just a +2 or whatever. I've always hated the random +2 to a stat. This way a human in great shape & an orc in great shape can have the same exact stats on a range of 1-5 but the orc has the natural advantage. I like this because it goes a long way in dealing with fat elves/weak orcs kind of arguments. Is this too gamebreaking probability wise? What should this be called? I call stats Attributes, & skills are skills, but I don't have a good name/word for describing the racial advantage. I using "Shift" as a placeholder name, but I don't like it

>>53624072
Sounds like needless crunch.
So if you're making a fantasy heartbreaker it's fine. I don't think there's that many kitchen sink fantasy games with dice pools so you're at least ahead of the "but my d20+mod system is different!" curve.

>>53540943
Looks neat, I'd love to see a full JJBA RPG.

Why are these threads predominantly about RPG systems when something like a card game or wargame is conceivably much easier to make? Most of /tg/ is cardfags anyway so there is a weird demographic discrepancy here.

>>53624354
>most of /tg/ is cardfags
Lol wut

Im battletesting in my game to make sure character effects arent too broken and my friend found that the battling was much more fun and requires less set up than playing on the actual game board, like moving around the map and such

Im thinking about dropping that and working on a roll to advance plot instead of players wandering around the map until the game just sort of ends.

Instead of having a group of characters wandering around a map, youre essentially using a hand or deck of characters you build as the game goes on. Its still team building but no more if the actual moving around on the board.

The transition would include changing some keywords and characters effects/leader abilities that arent necessary on the board anymore like effects that affect move rolls or terrain.

>>53624072
Racial difficulty shifting seems a little questionable, because it brings additional complexity to the counting process without introducing that much depth.

Imagine you're GMing, and you gotta either remember all the racial difficulty modifiers, or trust your players to remember them. That is only reasonable if the shifts can only be beneficial, meaning it's on the player to remember their bonuses. Otherwise it becomes murky and will lead to misunderstandings and "we'll remember that next time" on the table.

Depending on the type of game you want, it might also lead somewhat to muchkinry.

>>53624127
Whats a heartbreaker?
>>53624784
I just really hate the +2 shit, every game ever has. I was looking for giving them a kind of bonus that cannot be copied by high stat rolls or equipment.
Their aren't that many stats effected & a place on the character sheet to mark rolls that are effected

>>53625046
>Whats a heartbreaker?
It's what systems that are a persons "unique" spin on fantasy rpgs are called. They are called heartbreakers because the creator thinks they are doing something great but then are heartbroken when no one cares and no one wants to play their system and would rather play D&D instead, despite everyone knowing how "bad" it is. At least that's how I interpret the term.

>>53625046
Are the modifiers strictly positive? Then I can somewhat approve it, even though it still might lead to munchkinry (Orc warriors might become a no-brainer rather than an option).

If you believe it works, however, I'm not here to tell you that it simply doesn't.

Now that I thought about racial modifiers, it kind of dawned to me that I would personally make games where racial modifiers are strictly negative. Negative modifiers only steer people away from certain archetypes that are very rare (Orcs are mostly illiterate, it's very rare for them to be wizards), but two characters who are modifier-less are equal in their own fields.

Of course, that might be a little downer that when you're making a character, the only things you get from your race are shitty things, but... That's how I'd roll it.

>>53624629
Care to give any sort of context to this, or do i need to Google "Popeye" and hope your design shows up?

>>53625143
This, basically.

I'm currently trying to whip up a modified version of D&D5e that my players will enjoy, tweaking the shit they don't care for, and emphasizing the shit they do.

I know they'll never actually care about the effort I put in, but it's fun nonetheless.

>>53625046
A fantasy kitchen sink RPG that someone poured a lot of effort into, but which will never succeed because it's not D&D. It's also likely that the author has never read a system other than D&D so they have a limited view of what else is possible.

>>53625143
They're also called heartbreakers because there's always something brilliant buried in there that's struggling to get out under the weight of how much has been cargo-culted from D&D, so it breaks the reviewer's heart. The term is old enough that the D&D in question was OD&D.

Also if I recall correctly the person who coined the term was specifically disappointed that none of the people writing these things had read Ars Magicka. (Which I happen to agree with. Ars is bad but really high on my list of shit people should read before designing RPGs.)

>>53625198
>>53625198
Sorry, Its my trip on /sp/

I post every now and then in /dgd/, my game is a smash-up pokemon game. The working title is "Orberu"

Battling works off a d10, this is the attack roll. 1 is a critical miss and nothing happens. 9 is an automatic hit and 10 is a critical hit, automatically hits and increases damage

There are only 4 stats, HP, ATTACK, DEFENSE and DAMAGE. ATK is added to the Attack Roll and if the result is equal to or higher than the opposing DEF value, resulting in the DMG value being subtracted from the opposing HP.

For now theres 100 characters that can be found as mercenaries (wild pokemon if you will) and 208 total including enhancements (evolutions). Each character has unique effects as mercenaries, as an allied character and as the leader of a party.

Theres 10 classes, multiple keywords, weapons, weaknesses and resistances. Im on my phone so i cant upload the character list at the moment, it might be in the archives.

Speaking of heartbreakers. I have some avaunt-garde ideas about classes for a strictly class-based game, but the system I'm working on (>>53566375 >>53587705 >>53612646 >>53619659) is not class-based.

I was thinking of making a quick OSR-style game to get the avaunt-garde classes out into the wild. Is there any existing simple OSR that'd make the best framework?

>>53624354
I'm a cardfag, who posts in /gdg/ about his card game, and even I'm willing to acknowledge that most of /tg/ are roleplayers (with wargamers a close second). We're the minority, friend.

>>53625476
>>53625379
>>53625143
Ah, okay, well I may either be working on something that is either the mother load of Heartbreakers or far enough away to not be one, depending on the definition.

It inspired by every game system I've ever played, read, watched, recorded, or heard of.

From Top Secret, to WoD old & new, from Shadowrun, to MERP, Warhammer FRPG to 7th Sea

Inspired now, not ripped whole cloth. Like here>>53606685 I'm thinking of having my magic be flavorful spells from short, lore based lists & not D&D shit spells.

I'm going to have hit locations (WFRPG/Top Secret) but not endless crit charts (MERP)

Just finding what worked for each thing & trying the best approach within my own mechanic/resolution base

It'll probably heartbreak, but everyone needs a hobby

>>53624629
So it's a board game without a board now?
Sounds good and I like the mercenary flavor as long as you're willing to keep the tone lighter

>>53626164
If you're interested in having a wider palette, there's a few RPGs I recommend you look at:
- Risus (it's like six pages, just do it)
- Spirit Of The Century (or other Fate product, it's really worth knowing about aspects)
- Ars Magicka (specifically learn about troupe play. The magic system is interesting but plays poorly)
- Dogs In The Vinyard (very different ideas about what characters do)
- Any modern story game (Fiasco, Dread, Everyone Is John)

>>53626543
Looked at Risks
I've read/played Dresden FATE, is Spirit much different?
Looked at/reasearched Ars Magicka
Not seen much of Dogs In The Vinyard
What do you mean by modern story game? Cause I might have played one or two depending

>>53626711
Risus?
Nah, Dresden is better. SotC was just the first.
Good!
DitV is mostly in the scenario writing, really.
I don't know how to define those things. They're very important to some people's understanding of RPGs, but I do improv and they seem weaker than most improv games.

>>53626983
Going by Everyone is John, I can say I've played Werewolf in a role playing fashion, as well as role playing characters during Red Dragon Inn & a few others that I can't remember the names of. Simple character/story driven games to play when not everyone shows up

Had some people test my simplified combat system. Both of them tried it because of its simplicity but ended up asking about possibilities that i cover in the full system. It confirmed for me that you want to encourage simple starts and deeper options when people are ready. I wonder how far i can push those principles of design...

>>53626711
>>53627084
Story games tend to have mechanics that generate and complicate narrative dilemmas, usually by quantifying character history and motivations in some way, and tie those mechanics to the resolution system so that the success or failure of actions drastically changes the character or the world and creates new obstacles. At least that's what I get from them. The big takeaway for me is that success can come at a cost in a consistent manner and that there are outlets for failure other than loss of HP that can be fun, especially if the player imposes them upon himself.

There's a lot more to story games, but I don't particularly like the way they play so I can't say much other than that there is much more variety to the level of agency a player has and the dynamic they have with other players including the GM (if there is one). That is something I find refreshing. You get a lot of ideas for new styles of play. What isn't refreshing is that a lot of the mechanics don't fucking work in a traditional game because they're part of a wider system that runs like a clock.

File: CLNEWROUGH.pdf (320KB, 1x1px)

320KB, 1x1px

>>53626191
>>53625198

Yeah, the board aspect stretched gameplay up to 4 hours for one game (10 turns, multiple battles)

Without the board it may make everything a bit mors streamlined. Heres the character list. a lot of the x2 buffs are being switched to x1,5 because this round of battle testing is also testing late game mechanics

and if were dropping the map, were also gonna have to alter a lot of abilities and keywords that affect the actual board

sorry for the spelling errors and sitch

>>53631471
doing a quick series of battles instead of a full blown board will help immensely but may make navigating a bit more clunky until we get settled into a core mechanic

File: petermolyneux.jpg (24KB, 317x300px)

24KB, 317x300px

A d100 system in which your Stats and Skills go up to 10, your Stats being the decimal cap and your Skills being the 10s, so a Stat of 3 with a Skill of 6 would make the roll-under be 63 base.

File: retep.png (113KB, 317x300px)

113KB, 317x300px

>>53633844
The catch is that the Stat cap works in EVERY ten.
1-3, 10-13, 20-23, all the way to 60-63. Rolling above your stat but below your skill causes you to pass, but bringing forth negative consequences, kinda like shadowrun's glitches.

>>53633844
>>53634163
So wait, you basically roll the two d10:s separately, with the 1s die being a tiebreaker basically?

Because the two dice work independently, but the ones die is consulted if the skill and the roll are the same.

I can dig it.

Reading bump

How many things do you have to borrow from DnD in order for your system to be considered a heartbreaker?

asking for a friend

>>53639132
One: genre.

>>53639132
It's more using the same conventions, no matter how differently they're executed, without actually changing what it is, what it does, or how it does it.

>>53639132
if you have to ask if its a heartbreaker protip: it is

Alright lads?
I'm making a card game in a vein similar to Coup or Love Letters, but slightly more complicated.

You are someone, somewhere, with a lot of power and money. You’re also not alone. The game that you’re playing is Bitcoin. A cryptocurrency. It doesn’t matter whether you’re representing a Firm, a Syndicate, a Consortium, a Triumvirate or even a Club. What’s important is simple: Get To The Top. Surprisingly, it’s not just BTC that you’re going to dabble in. In this world, everyone has Dirt. It’s just a matter of digging it up.

In Dirt, you’ll manipulate, extort, assassinate, sabotage, form and dissolve uneasy alliances and expose every skeleton in the competition’s closet. .

https://pastebin.com/0BfCU1yr
Advice please?

>>53640725
Seems okay, might be easier to get a grasp on with some cards to see

>>53640871
I'll make some shitty ones in paint

File: draft cards.png (14KB, 777x300px)

14KB, 777x300px

>>53640871
Left to right, we have Personnel, Mine, Operative. The number below the name is the cost/starting bid, and, for Personnel, the upkeep.
The numbers for Personnel/Operative refer to a roll made by the player, who plays the Operative.
Let's say Sarah uses Saoirse, to attempt to kill Jerome. She gets a 2. This is increased to a 5 by the bonuses conferred by her being a good shot and Jerome not being physically fit, and bleeding out before being able to get to the phone. Despite that Jerome is dead, Jerome was careful at set in place tools to make it harder to cover up his death. Unfortunately, Saoirse is sloppy. On the coverup role, Sarah gets a 3. This is knocked down to a 1. Sarah's Firm fails to cover-up their assassination, and Sarah gives the top card of her Dirt deck to Peter.

>>53641162
>ok. Seems interesting. And is easy enough to understand.

>>53641276
Do you have any suggestions?

I kinda want to make the players feel powerful, but also paranoid, and to foster an air of amorality.

File: General Setting Notes (PDF).pdf (282KB, 1x1px)

282KB, 1x1px

Here for your consideration is a post-apoc rpg. It is still very much a work in progress. I mostly wanted to share for thoughts and also to see if they base mechanisms are worded clear enough and aren't inherently broken.

Also, i would like to thank the anon from a completely unrelated thread who gave me some pointers. If you're here, i hope the document is headed in the right direction. I still haven't added an example of combat but i do plan to.

Too everyone else, thanks for looking and feel free to use it if you plan to run a post apoc game. Just give me any feedback you get from your playtest.

>>53641322
To foster paranoia, I'd make the dirt decks really small. maybe even make operatives not shown at all until a player calls another out about which operative they've got that way payers could lie and cheat up to a point. Once called out the player who was incorrect or lying loses the top card of they're dirt deck to the other.

Just a couple thoughts.

>>53641505
operative or personnel i guess

>>53641505
That's awesome. Thanks. Totally included.

File: thinking qop.png (80KB, 218x295px)

80KB, 218x295px

Should we go back to homebrew general / homebrew threads? I feel like the formatting and "seriousness" of these threads is directly related to their decline.

>>53641988
I think the problem with these is that it's like:
- 50% "Hey how do I pick a dice mechanic I NEED TO FEEL UNIQUE"
- 20% Actually a worldbuilding post.
- 20% "Here's an entire damn system, feedback please"
- 10% Narrow thoughtful questions that nobody feels qualified to answer

I'd personally prefer if it was all the last type of post and the relevant discussion. But I don't know how to achieve that. Simply banning topics kills communities.

>>53643465
>- 20% "Here's an entire damn system, feedback please"
these are the worst, specially since it was so common back in the day that we made it part of the OP and yet they continue to do it

>>53641988
>>53643465
> 50% "Hey how do I pick a dice mechanic I NEED TO FEEL UNIQUE"
Actually this would be a reasonable thing to add in the OP post. It's a reasonable question, it's just shit that everyone thinks they need to have it answered separately.

- People generally think too much about dice mechanics. Picking the perfect mechanic is only a very minor improvement over picking one of the boring standbys, and porting to a new mechanic isn't that hard.
- dX + Mods works for most systems. The bigger X is, the more bonuses you can grant before people fall off the end of the RNG.
- 3dX + Mods is similar, but it takes longer for people to fall off the RNG entirely, and it exaggerates small differences in modifiers.
- Dice pool, count successes: lets you total bonuses by adding dice instead of doing math, and allows someone with a huge pile of bonuses to still fail occasionally. But if you add enough dice it does get silly.
- The D&D problem of level disparities causing auto-success and auto-fail has more to do with the size of their scaling bonuses than with the dice mechanic.

>>53643465
I'm not against worldbuilding questions, as I consider that categorically within the bound of the homebrew itself.
It's just rather difficult to suggest ideas for class names or in general, giving mechanisms "character". Especially without some precedent for understanding the setting.

File: IMG_3071.jpg (250KB, 900x1286px)

250KB, 900x1286px

>>53641988
>Seriousness
What? If anything I think we just need a template for people to use when describing their game and asking their questions

>>53644086
To add on this, you need a mechanic that supports what you're trying to do or to show your players.

Just looking at d20+mods, you can roll over TN, roll under (mods to TN), and degrees of success over TN. You can have one source of modifiers, multiple sources of modifiers, contested sources of modifiers, scaling modifiers, variable modifiers (5e advantage/disadvantage), and many other differences and permutations.

It also has more to do with your game's math rather than aesthetics. There might be some sufficient aesthetic reasons to have a unique mechanic, but really your game's math is a more important reason to have something that flows well and is easily parsed. It all comes back to "what you do" being less important than "how you do it".

>>53640725
>>53641162
I like the concept. I feel like it would really sing with three-to-five players, but to my eye the 'dirt' mechanic doesn't lend itself well to more than two players. Have you tried it out?

You could replace the die roll with paper-scissors-rock if you wanted to tighten up the strategy and reduce the chance - operatives kill personnel, personnel dig up dirt, dirt on your opponent blocks operatives. You can keep your values as well, so a level 5 personnel requires a level 3 and a level 2 operative, played together, to take down, which hurts the players card economy. When you play dirt to block an operative, it goes to the owner of the blocked operative, increasing their longevity. I'm not sold on auctions, but it could be interesting to employ a low-level deckbuilding mechanic in the form of operatives, having them played to the middle of the play area, and then players bid to add them to their hand.

How are you tracking money? Tokens, cards, or mental arithmetic? You could just 'tap' mines like mana in Magic to pay the upkeep on personnel, that would save some bookkeeping. One mine = one money. This would require the limit on mines being lifted.

Again, I like the concept, it just feels a bit loosey-goosey right now. Those might just be my personal preferences, though. Keep posting as you develop it, I'll be interested to see it completed.

>>53645664
>How are you tracking money?
Probably tokens, though Mines-as-mana is a nice idea and I may well include it later on
>'dirt' mechanic doesn't lend itself well to more than two players
how so? I was considering having there be a Dirt (Yours) and a Dirt (Others) deck, which would solve a fair few problems...
>it just feels a bit loosey-goosey right now
I've only just started making cards tonight, desu.

I've not really playtested either. I plan to, though.

>auctions
I like the idea of small auctions. Why aren't they not your thing?

I'm working on supplemental kingdom-building rules. Does anyone have recommendations for systems that would be good to crib from? Especially from outside the RPG genre. I feel like hex and chit wargames might have the secret answer to how to make this stuff fun, but I don't play those.

>>53645765
Speaking purely from personal experience, the way you've structured your elimination condition encourages players to gang-up. For example, in a three-player game, the player with the clearest early advantage will be targeted by the weaker players. Once that first guy is eliminated, he's got a long wait until the other two take each other out, which isn't fun for him. A way around this is to have the game end once one player is eliminated, and having the win condition be based on something other than order of elimination (so the guy out first could still win). Whoever has the most cash at the end wins, regardless of dirt? Don't know. Otherwise it might be better to target the game at two people, or rethink that mechanic with larger groups in mind.

I'm making all of these suggestions through the locus of this being a micro-game similar to 'Love Letter', as you mentioned. The added bulk of an auction mechanic, two decks for dirt, tokens for money etc... become non-concerns if you market it more in the vein of the Netrunner LCG. A medium-box all-in-one card game, rather than a micro-game.

>>53646046
I do want to operate on an "if in doubt leave it out" philosophy, so auctions can go, tokens can certainly go, but I like two decks enough for it to stay.
Ideally, I'm looking at about 100-150 cards in total.

I really do like and understand your reasoning for why that mechanic somewhat encourages ganging up.

However, I like my original dice mechanic bc I feel that it allows for shocking reversals of fortune- cheap operatives killing the priciest personnel, or just nicking some BTC from the player right before a vital turn.

>>53644086
How should we add it to the OP? I admit to not checking the OP for a year or so, because I've posted it many times enough (and have some version of it on notepad).

I think new people might check it, but we gotta veer on the line of obviousness and obnoxiousness, honestly.

>>Me

And now, more of my griping.

I'm almost terrified. The license for my tools is running out in a few months, and I am unsure whether I will have enough funds to take them for another year. I also feel extremely anxious of publishing stuff made with pirated tools, so I guess I have to get to it.

Annoying part is that after reading several systems that use the 2nd person writing style, my new entries have become jumbled up with both 2nd and 3rd person writing styles, so that might warrant an entire rewrite.

On the other hand, making an entire rewrite of something this minor in scale (Come on, it's under 5000 words) would not be catastrophic, but I have already done it once (about a few months ago) as the game emerged from it's previous form. ARGH.

/blog

>>53646439
>How should we add it to the OP?
EASY ANSWERS TO COMMON QUESTIONS
-pastebin link-

>The license for my tools is running out in a few months
Which tools? My entire workflow is FOSS these days. Inkscape is about as good as Illustrator, Latex is actually better than InDesign for longer or text-heavy documents. I haven't found anything good for short charty things like character sheets though. (Then again I have no talent for character sheets nor any idea how you'd construct a sheet for my game, so that might be a reflection on me more than the tools.)

>I also feel extremely anxious of publishing stuff made with pirated tools
You can always renew your license right before publishing.

>jumbled up with both 2nd and 3rd person writing styles, so that might warrant an entire rewrite
This sort of rewrite should be very quick, since it's not the sort that requires deep thought. You just put on a new album and power through it. It's the sort of thing that goes fast when you accept it'll kind of suck.

>>53646046
How's this for a way of dealing with decks and avoiding a monopoly/risk endgame:
>Personnel dig up dirt. When they get Dirt, there is two things they can do: either immediately remove it from the game, or strike a deal with the player and return it to them.
>Operatives can use Counterespionage to take from the top of an opponent's Dirt deck and add it to your own. Flavourwise this works insofar that "The Firm knows that The Consortium has a nice little organ harvesting operation" counts as Dirt.

>>53646853
I use Adobe tools exclusively at this point, although of all the tools, I've mastered Indesign enough to use it for everything at this point. I used Photoshop for those in the past, but vectors > pixels.

Also feels very stupid because I have the full CC library that I got with student prices, but I don't actually use anything but Indesign, Photoshop and Audition in some rare cases. I will probably renew them because I just can't live without photoshop for shitposting et al, and now that I've finally kind of got the hang of Indesign, I don't really want to give it up.

>rewrite
My entire game is under 5000 words, so I'll just apply everything in 2nd person while rewriting all the parts that need actual revamps. My main motivation is that someone on RPG.net who does whole reviews for systems from designer perspective is actually reviewing it pretty soon, so I gotta have all my fixes in line.

But it's also good to get this done soon so I can maybe push this game out before fall.

>>53536090
Hi guys, I'm working on a small game that'ld be played in my Tabletob RPG campaign in pubs and stuff.
I love to build small games and i'm on the "idea" stage of building the said game so nothing is definitive or even existing AT ALL since there is almost nothing if not nothing yet.

However, I'm having a lot of trouble designing the gaming board for different reasons:
I want the game to be a Gwent-like game in its premise (army battle) but more akin to Krosmaster/Chess in the way that it is a game where you lead armies/units to fight eachothers but you must chose where the units go and attack instead of just them being represented by points.
The only problem I have in order to quit the abstract/idea stage of the game design are the following one:

-How many units can be on the field at the same time ?

-What is the smallest field I can create for such a game ?

I want the gameboard to be the smallest possible and the game to be kinda easy to understand for the gametime to be acceptable for people to play it in Pubs and INNs

My question is very abstract and I know that, but ITT:
what is the smallest game board possible for a Unit/Tactical game possible ?

>>53649880
I think it'd be a lot easier to expropriate an existing pub game and retrofit it flavourwise and change the rules slightly for your RPG. For instance, Perudo or Liar's Dice is an excellent example, because it's extremely simple, and only needs 6nd6 were n is the number of players. You could change it slightly to be more setting appropriate.

Re: your actual questions, a 5x5 board is probably best, with 4 units per player at most.

>>53650030
thanks, but I actually enjoy game designing so much that I'll probably continue designing it even if it's broken in the long run.

Thanks I'll try with this configuration, at least for the beginning in order to choose from different gaming plans I had.

If you guys get cards produced for your games, what services do you use?

>>53653142
I use magic set editor to design them and my college printer to print.

Does anyone know of a system with functional but mechanically simple custom spells? I'm toying with the idea of spells in my system being essentially programmed on the fly, based on the runes the magic-user knows and how they interact with each other. I'm not exactly sure how to approach the concept though, and I'm looking around for inspiration.

If anyone's got any thoughts or system suggestions to toss my way, I'd greatly appreciate it.

>>53649880
diamond chess

bumping while I make a real post

Are there any good case studies to look at when it comes to stealth in tabletop games?

>>53656587
That's actually what I'm doing with my fantasy rpg.
All spells have a "shape" (projectile, line, burst, touch, etc). All spell effects, like damage, movement, applying conditions, and including shape cost MP which stack additively. Metamagic counts as a multiplier, and additional metamagic effects stack additively among other metamagics. So for example, a Fireball might be 2MP[projectile] +3MP[damage] for 5MP total with the base amounts of range, damage, etc. With metamagic, your Fireball+ might be 2x2MP[longer range projectile]+3x(2+2)MP[higher damage die and more damage dice] for 16MP total.

MP is geared around individual rounds and fully replenishes, so its purely about allowing you to increase the complexity of your spells. In order to cut down on people trying to math out spells while playing, I allow spell creation during character downtime like resting. I also limit spells known so that players don't have a list of infinite permutations that they can just open up during play and it brings back a tactical decision of bringing specific spells for expected encounters.

I don't have much specifically written as far as spell effects and metamagic go as I'm focusing on getting the framework just right before adding in all the meat. A lot of other portions of the game need to be developed alongside my magic system so my progress is slow until I can hit on something that satisfies requirements for 5 or so different sub-systems of the game.

>>53658527
what do you mean by "stealth"? it's a broad concept

>>53658971
Games involving engaging mechanics surrounding sneaking, avoiding combat and detection, dispatching of enemies silently or with a minimum of evidence, and committing criminal acts such as theft, assassination, and heists on targets that aren't necessarily your standard goblin cave and evil guy's spire.

The most I can find is Dark and 3.5's guidelines surrounding sneaking and hiding.

File: FB_IMG_1496683350685.jpg (22KB, 720x720px)

22KB, 720x720px

>>53536090
Okay I'm in the early stages of designing a role playing game (basically Firefly but with Miami Vice instead of cowboys and Tarantino instead of Wheaton).

But I can't find a good dice system. I love FFGs narrative dice but I don't want to design a system around it.

What's a good system that allows success with disadvantage and also failure with advantage? And isn't Fate or only allows one of the non-binary outcomes.

Does the One Roll Engine allow for anything beyond succeed and succeed-faster?

>>53659681
If you're looking at d6, then there's the basic 6 which has a sort of nonbinary success/failure system.

1 - No, and...
2 - No.
3 - Yes, but...
4 - Yes
5 - Yes
6 - Yes, and...
7 + - Yes, and... and...

It should be pretty easy to hack this, fiddle with the results. There's already success with disadvantage there, of course.

>>53660046
I really like this idea. But how do you do skills, abilities, and challenge ratings without resorting to adding +/-'s?

For example, let's say you had two dice pools, blues for perks/character stats and reds for challenges/setbacks.

What's a good way to make those dice interact so you're left with a 1-6 result?

>>53659681
>>53661320
See what kinds of other elements you want and come up with to the game before deciding a dice system. And no, I don't mean making the entire game before deciding a dice system, but in the end, dice systems are much more about the flavor and feel of the game rather than a necessary building block.

>Do you want the game to have skills?
>Do you want the game to have rolls vs static numbers, contested rolls or both?
>Do you want to have modifiers, or should bonuses to rolls be handled in some other way?
>Do you want fast resolution or slow resolution?
>Do you want high granularity or low granularity (ie. bigger/more dice or smaller/less dice)?
>How much can the player affect their roll?
>How much can the player affect the final result of a roll?

Answer those questions and let the dice system emerge rather than taking something and trying to fit the idea you have to that mold.

You want a system that have other answers to the question: "Did you succeed" than "Yes" or "No". But what else? That kind of resolution system can be created in a multitude of ways, and the only way to know what actually works is to have a framework to inspect it in.

So, let me ask again: What is your game about, and how do you want to express that?

>>53649880
Pub games are very simple and usually based on dexterity or bluffing.

Going by the dexterity angle, you can make a tactical strategy game out of disc flicking. Catacombs and Flick Em' Up are examples of this sort of thing. Both are thematic and scenario based, where a traditional game would have a fixed scenario and highly abstracted theme (like chess).

This sort of dexterity game can fit on a 12" board, but popular dexterity games like pool, darts, and shuffleboard often take up quite a lot of room in a bar. If it's owned by the bar, the owner would actually prefer the pieces to be too big to accidentally pocket and wander off with.

>>53658527
waldschattenspiel

>>53658655
I was thinking of doing something similar to that initially, but I decided I wanted it to evoke a more, I guess, esoteric feel.

I suppose I'm thinking along the lines of Ars Magica's verb-noun system, but taking it a step further with verb-adverb/adjective-noun. Fluff-wise, spells are derived from combinations of generic runic symbols and some sort of powersource. Magic-specialists aren't necessarily the only ones capable of activating runes, but the difference between a wizard and some schmuck with a sword is that the wizard can drop a fireball on your ass and the schmuck with the sword has to find a conveniently placed boulder and inscribe a [Forceful][Move] spell onto it, or imbue a rock with magic.

Still working on the implementation itself, though.

it always amazes me how people come here to get advice about something, and then when they receive great suggestions their only response is to ask anons to keep fleshing out more of their own game for them. Why are you even trying to design a game if you can't think through any of the design challenges?

I have two questions. The first one is: what are your opinions on specific classes vs generic archetypes that can be refluffed but work mechanically the same? I feel like the former works better in given settings, but I appreciate the versatility of the latter, even if I worry it might feel too same-y.

The second one is: how do you handle classes/archetypes that are "inherently" more powerful than others? I'm not even talking about casters, I'm talking about alchemists/thieves that can create/steal items, or necromancers/gang bosses that have minions that do their bidding.

(When I say (You), I mean your homebrew or maybe a system you know about, and how well/poorly it does so.)

>>53661510
Hey, you know, this is exactly what I need to do. Because I know exactly what I want in my game, I ran it with EotE dice last summer, but I think this is a critical design question if I want to move this past a home project that could never get published (thanks non-OGL/SRD)

I loved the Star Wars system because the dice felt like they represented the situation and never mathematically locked a player out of an attempt (no 'sorry even if you roll a 20 its still a fail'). Red "danger" dice felt heavy (due to Criticals) and I loved that black/blue dice can be thrown in to represent the little things that mix up a situation. Plus the Force pips allowed players to toss their own little bits of narrative pull into the mix.

>What is your game about?
At it's core this system is about small player stories in a world bigger than the players. A break away from the grimderp that permeates everything post-9/11. I want to foster the fun, over the top adventure of an 80's or 90's action movie. I'd point to Pulp Fiction (or any Tarantino film) as the vibe I'd want, it's focused on intimate quirky character interaction while still having room for splattertastic action (both enemies and players, but in a way where the occasional rule of cool bends the rules). Something with grit, but a little wiggle room to let the players be Protagonists instead of just PCs. I want to have the players feel like even though they can't affect the "big" picture they can still exhibit agency on the things happening around them.

I guess the focus on it being narrative pushes me towards non-binary outcomes because real life/interesting outcomes are a bit messy.

Now you might say "why don't you play Fate?" which is a legitimate question. First, it's way too open ended, I find the limitations and structure of a game system to actually be a good soft primer on setting and tone, as well as character inspiration (in DnD you just choose a class).

(cont)

>>53663848
>>53661510
(cont)
I actually really like the 7th Sea 2nd Ed system where you choose a country of origin, two mini classes (backgrounds like doctor, engineer, soldier, ect) and 10 points of traits. It really fleshes out who the character is as a person, just by picking things and painting by numbers.

>How do you want to express that
If you couldn't tell, I like a bit of crunch. It's like cereal. I find really "lite" systems like Fate just... soggy. If I want to be better at martial arts, I don't want to just roll a better dice, I want to have tricks and feats that make it feel like I'm a practitioner of Jeet Kun Do or wrestling, and have there be a playable difference.

I'm thinking of having lots of small feats that can be combo'd together to make what you want, instead of big bulky blocks of stuff like levels in DnD. For the martial arts one, to make Jeet Kun Do would be a few skills in redirecting enemy strikes or sending people flying into one another. Aikido would be feats which strain people into unconsciousness or eat up their moves so they can't do anything (so it's like being pinned). Depending on how you mix and match you could have Kendo, you could have Gun Kata. And do that with all the skills (so I do want discrete skills you can choose from).

One of the things I liked about Star Wars Saga edition was the vast and unending list of feats and abilities to choose from, even if they were rather flat (and combat focused).

And I want the dice to be able to generate secondary results (like levels of success or advantages) which can be spent on secondary abilities or moves. Sometimes you just hit heavy, sometimes it's a light hit with alot of flourish that gives you better footing.

(cont)

>>53663541
I've tried a lot of different iterations of generic archetypes. At some point I even designed a system of half-archetypes where the GM would choose which pairs exist in the world and the rules would procedurally generate classes from them. (I have no idea how I pulled that off, it was a decade ago and I'm not sure where the notes are.)

I have a few problems with generics these days:
1 - Refluffing takes some work, and it uses a skill that few people other than game designers and GMs have practiced.
2 - Adding work for the GM is bad. Making the GM's job easier is one of the major reasons to have rules at all.
3 - Truly great abstract mechanics are pretty funky and hard to justify outside of abstraction land. All the chess moves are weird.
4 - Good flavorful mechanics are specific, and once you're specific the process of refluffing will grow a resistance to some ideas.

>how do you handle classes/archetypes that are "inherently" more powerful than others?
There are a lot of ways to do this. You could just acknowledge it as part of your game's structure (ie: in Ars, the classes are god-wizard, competent normal, and dirt farmer. Everyone plays several characters).

The way I'm handling it in my current project is here: >>53612646 . I've identified specific abilities that can't be reconciled with the normal flow of balance and gated them via a separate system. You need to be a champion-tier necromancer to build an zombie horde, but any champion tier character can build a castle and attract some minions.

>>53664103
>>53663848
>>53661510
(cont)

>Do you want the game to have skills?
Yeah, I want broad skills (like medicine and mechanics, various knowledge et al) which then can be spec'd into with feats to be more than just "roll to succeed". I'm also thinking of feats which give bonuses to specific uses of a skill. So instead of sinking alot of points into mechanics just so you can fix a car (because now you're also good at engineering, lock picking, and bomb disposal...?) there's a cheap feat that just says "treat your skill as if it's three levels higher when doing X" with a list of things X could be such as personal transport repair.

>Do you want the game to have rolls vs static numbers, contested rolls or both?
Static numbers are more swingy, but honestly it means you can be math locked out of an attempt, and that always feels bad. I'm thinking you roll against a Challenge Dice Pool, so there's always a chance the dice swing your way.

>Do you want to have modifiers, or should bonuses to rolls be handled in some other way?
There should be modifiers, but not +/-1's because that math always seems to bog things down. I want to throw the dice and figure it out. The thing I hate about DnD is adding all these little 1's and -1's all over the place (also why I didn't like Fate or others). I'd prefer to modify the dice pool and let the math work "under the hood".

>Do you want fast resolution or slow resolution?
The faster the better, but not at the expense of going the route of PbtA (which I have very very mixed feelings about, since everything just reduces to "roll a 7 on 2d6+stats" with minimal mechanics for challenge ratings). Roll the dice, see what happens, move on to how it affects the scene.

>Do you want high granularity or low granularity (ie. bigger/more dice or smaller/less dice)?
Low granularity. I want players to feel like their investments in character options are meaningful, but since I'm planning on chunky low health, chunky low numbers also suffice.

>>53664284
>>53664103
>>53663848
>>53661510
(cont)

>How much can the player affect their roll?
I actually want to be able to have alot of interaction with situational bonuses, like the use of gear, diving behind cover, narrative elements they introduce or use to their leverage. This is where the small blue/black dice came in handy with FFG. Plus burning pips to turn the limited "fiat pool" to my favor was fun and self balancing.

>How much can the player affect the final result of a roll?
I'm really thinking that what lands is what lands. But since there's a narrative focus, a bad roll doesn't need to mean that it just goes bad in ways other than "sorry, you just can't do the thing" or "you die" it's not so bad to get a failed roll.

I've probably prattled too much, but it's been a really good process to get my thoughts out, these were top tier questions. I'd be interested in any thoughts or feedback you had.

Because it's either wait for FFG to make an open licence agreement (I'll wait for them to make Netrunner good again while I'm at it) or I think up something new. But this was a good design primer and food for thought.

>>53661320
I finally have a legitimate reason to post this mechanic!

You have one dice pool. Advantageous things add x amount dice to the pool, and disadvantageous things add y amount to the pool. Then, add one extra die so it's x+y+1. Roll the entire pool and remove x amount of the lowest dice, but y amount of the highest dice. The last remaining die is the result.

It's super simple, has nice math, and the dice pool is always manageable. It's simple and fun enough you can make a game around the mechanic which often isn't the best way to do it.

>>53665898
Eh, not enough swing IMO, especially with smaller dice.

>>53662286
I also started with Ars Magica myself and came up with the "shape and effect" system you see now once I brought it into context on the rest of my game's intentions. Once I boiled down the essence of As Magica's magic, I realized that it was something I wanted to emulate throughout the game, but with much more structure. Having both ambiguous meanings and freeform creation makes for very abstract play, like LARPS and forum rp, and was something I wanted to stay far away from. I'd suggest nailing down a good structure for those runes so your effects are understandable and predictable. You can see it with other games; whatever is determined by GM fiat is often the most contentious parts of the game.

>>53663541
It's hard to say. They're both methods to differentiate characters through the rules, so as long as that happens the exact method isn't terribly important. Just as long as your chosen method fits within the rest of the system, it can be whatever.

I don't know what you mean by "inherently". That takes a lot of assumptions that aren't always true, unless you want inherently different power levels and you're asking how to balance something you've made imbalanced by nature.

>>53665969
What do you mean by not enough swing, and what would be enough swing?

>>53666732
Maybe I was a bit hasty because I hadn't actually run the numbers, but it's gonna be really average, especially as the number of factors increases.
This isn't so great for a d6, which doesn't have a lot of values to begin with. If a = 2 and b = 2, where a is the amount of low dice and b is the number of high dice, the average will be pretty much 3.5, and the average number of values that aren't 3 or 4 goes from 2/3 to 4/10.
I could look over the actual numbers a bit more, but it intuitively is very, very regular, because muh bell curve.

>>53663848
>>53664103
>>53664284 < - Look at
>>53664384 < - these digits!

I'll preface this that I'm jumping out of my comfort zone here, strictly speaking (Misfortune is an ultralite that has about as much text as RISUS, except I use that amount differently, so it's actually surprisingly robust), so helping with a strictly complex game with all this is not what I've been doing lately.

That being said, I like FFG Star Wars a lot as a system, so I think I can help you out here.

So, let's start by singling out the elements you want in your game to see what direction it should be pushed toward:

>non-binary outcomes
>dice-based difficulty
>tricks can be done with dice, such as additional actions
>no ±1:s, but modifiers should exist otherwise
>lots of built-in character customization with crunch
>discernable differences in playstyles due to character differences
>relatively low granularity, so numbers don't get out of hand
>a way to recognize situational bonuses and disadvantages

All right, we've already got something. Really well put together posts, I must admit.

So, firstly, two games pop into mind when I read this (in addition to FFG Star Wars, of course, where you took a lot of inspiration).

Don't Rest Your Head is a pretty light storygame, but it has an absolutely marvelous resolution system that fits the tone extremely well, and has several things going on in it (where the colors of dice, successes AND the highest die overall all matter simultaneously) with a single dice roll, so it might be an interesting read.

Then there's Legends of the Wulin, which actually has the additional actions with dice (and a LOT of other things, enough to think that you might actually know it already). Even though reading the system is not worth it (Horribly written in the book), the Wulin-anon's explanation of how it works is possible to be found. I don't remember whether I saved the screencap, but I should have.

(cont)

>>53667101
Sure, but that's expected when you have low and equal modifiers to the result. When the numbers aren't equal, you'd still get predictable results. Advantageous circumstances create advantageous results, and the more dice added the more predictable the results will be.

However, you still need to know specifically what you want so you can get specific advice.

>>53667313
Oh, no, I'm not the guy you originally replied to, that was just my input. Of course, I'm probably talking out of my ass given how late it is.

(cont.)

>>53667247
So, now that the reading recommendations are out of the way, I can actually delve into the design aspect.

Even though you wanted to avoid them somewhat, I believe an open-ended method for the more mundane specializations is better than taking a lot of feats to resolve it. The important word is method.

So say you have mundane specializations (say, occupations or something) as a separate thing in the sheet. It would have 2-3 slots to write names of skills, and then the aspect of specialization. So if you have: "Spaceship repairman" occupation with "Mechanics" and "Hacking" skills, you get specialization bonuses when you're working with the mechanics or computers of spaceships, because you know how to fix them and how to utilize the built backdoors to let the mechanics do the fixes to the software.

That kind of system would save a lot of trouble in making all the individual mundane stuff, and allows for some pretty creative and telling choices with the skills.

>"Interrogation" with a "Bartender"?! What kind of a fucking bartender were you?
>It was a bar mostly for ruskies, all I'll say

And a thing that can be butchered from both FFG and Don't Rest Your Head is that dice color matters. Even if they were the same kind of die, the color which that die is matters.

But to avoid going into nibbling numbers too much, unless you want to use specific dice like FFG, the thing here is to somehow get rid of lot of the dice with a method that changes depending on the dice (or hell, even the player).

So now we can get into the possible dice system itself.

What I suggest is a method of pairing dice together, either automatically or by player's behest.

Automatically you could do it with the biggest dice of say, two colors, (positive and negative), with the biggest dice of each color deciding the first, binary factor. The non-binary elements come from the rest of the dice.

(cont)

(cont.)

>>53667407
With a player-based system, the pairing could be done by the player, picking and choosing the dice to be used against each other in the roll. So it would become a game of risk and reward, where the question comes from the dissonance between "How safely do you want to accomplish things" against "But how much else could you do if you took the risk?"

This would lead into slower, but ultimately rather interesting and meticulous play. The automatic system might be more in your territory, I just posted this because it would allow for a lot of depth in the system itself and is kind of interesting. Gives me the vibes of playing shogi, with the kind of serenity that comes from silent pondering. But that might not fit this system.

Remember to go with the game's goal in mind first. Many games have fallen to the pit of adding interesting things that amount to nothing because they don't fit the game you're trying to play.

You seem to have a strong idea for what you are looking for, you just don't know how to execute it yet. Make like a mind map of sorts, except without a center. Then start filling it from the sides, and try to think about all the interplaying elements (stats, gear, feats, whatever) in the game outside the dice, and write the more important ones with bigger font. Then make connections between them. The elements with the most connections are the ones that are most important in the game. Then think about if the representation that you've given about the game reflects those connections. Does the one with the biggest font have the most connections?

And then, of course, you have to think how to connect most or all the elements with the most connections. That is the dice system, and that's why it should be the last piece of the puzzle.

>>53653142
Design them in GIMP, home print for early prototyping, order them from TheGameCrafter or similar. If you're in the US, you can get decks of cards printed for about $5.00 inc shipping. Internationally, it's a fair whack more.

Please check out and tell me everything wrong with this homebrew.
It'd probably be faster to figure out what isn't wrong with it. But you might have some cringe/rage at a few parts.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6d_M0xjFg2Efndvc1ZhSU9wV0FKRzhQaEZyWXlwQjV2VERZeFlOdEw5cG0yUFhOZ0pKLVk

>>53667907
holy fucking shit literal paragraphs for descriptions

>>53667907
Don't fall into the 3-column meme. It doesn't work, especially with natural language.

You really need to work some method, some kind of standard to write with. Paragraphs taking 1/3 of the page horizontally makes it look like someone slapped word bacon on paper.

Honestly, just
-Reduce column amount to two
-Separate crunch from the fluff, or separate the individual parts of text from each other
-Make some spacing as if you had images coming in if you feel that something feels empty

Like, that's just the basic writing advice, I didn't even get to read it, because the format makes it so illegible.

Also, the OP says pretty explicitly to NOT just drop entire PDF:s on us. If you have specific worries, those are more of our game.

File: cover beta.png (2MB, 1593x2048px)

2MB, 1593x2048px

Editing sucks.

I don't get to do much content writing, my only outlet is writing quotes that sound like something nit picked out of an unrelated conversation.

Still, it must be done.

>>53536968

So do you want less possible outcomes or to forego chance entirely?

>>53668059
It's for mocking, not helping.

>>53668135
Yeah, I've been in my editing phase for a preeetty long time.

Well, I did finally get some things to write when playtesting showed some annoying flaws in the game that I need to fix, but soon it's back to editing and making space for pretty pictures.

>>53668180
No need to discriminate the total beginners. They might suck at it, but we all sucked at it one way or another when we started. I know I did.

>>53668201
They actively refuse to admit that it has problems. What you see is the "updated" version.
Ignoring fixing the typos and redundant phrases, they added another page of unarmed moves, that work as melee moves, just like wielding one handed or two handed weapons.

>>53668059
>>53667907

The lore looks really cool! The system seems pretty comprehensive and there are some interesting ideas there.

Two column would be a good change and to keep that through the book. The bible is two column for a reason.

Avatre, very cheeky.

For the character sheet I would try to remove extraneous information. Like that third weapon box for example. Also, on a psychological level, on page two I would put advantages on the left and disadvantages on the right. Although I would elminate one box and rename the other 'advantages/ disadvantages.'

Further on the char sheet, I would say that the destiny and covenant bits are important enough that they should be on the front page. Maybe you don't need details, but to have a line that says Destiny points and their covenant would help summarize info for the player.

File: 1403937344343.jpg (62KB, 350x270px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 350x270px

>>53668059
>Also, the OP says pretty explicitly to NOT just drop entire PDF:s on us. If you have specific worries, those are more of our game.

Actually I don't mind it this way. The link is to the folder where the game is broken up into different books so It's pretty easy to sift through to what you want.

Although something idiot proof like a file for the simple rules would help.

>>53668412
Left is wizard expansion pack, right middle is about items, right is PHB
No it's not missing any other books.

>>53668412
Yeah, I guess it's better than most in that regard. But not having a real goal with the advice other than "Tell me what's wrong" feels like the wrong kind of attitude to come to these threads.

I don't want to put barriers, of course, but having some kind of direction where one wants to go with the advice is not only good for the other people who comment, but also for the writer who gets the right kind of feedback.

>>53668561
Point out all the really stupid shit since the maker thinks nothing is wrong with it. Is that a good direction?

>>53668573
A creator being overprotective of their creation is nothing new. They might even know that it's flawed but still be protective of the specific things they wrote.

Honestly, at this point I'm just bumpan the thread to keep it alive while waiting for an answer from the anon I directed my 3-post essay to.

>>53667247
>>53667407
>>53667602
Since I'm just reading this crawling out of bed, I wanted to say thank you, especially before the thread hits the bump limit.

I appreciate the deep dive and recommendations, I'll be looking into them during the day and get back with my analysis.

You may have changed my opinion on open ended skills, and I may steal the bartender example pretty much verbatim.

>>53669323
You're welcome, all in a day's work. I had fun.

Bumpan

>>53671289
Do we want to make a new thread? We're pretty close to the bump limit, and people may not want to hop on this close to the limit.

>>53671322
That's true. Bad call bumping at almost 300 for me.

Shite.

>>53667907
Don't make any paragraphs center-justified, only left-justified.

>>53668059
>Also, the OP says pretty explicitly to NOT just drop entire PDF:s on us. If you have specific worries, those are more of our game.

Question: who decides what's in the OP, since I think most of it sucks including the rule against PDF's

>>53671812
It's been a guideline for some time now, due to many people just dropping things without investment and having the threads die because no one is discussing anything.

I've seen it a lot. And hell, I admit doing it myself in the past. If the game is just an inoffensive heartbreaker with mediocre editing, no one is going to comment on it. Where as that thing that started this discussion is almost a crime against editors like that.

It's not law, it's just a request, because they've been the most prominent thread killers in the past. People are just not that interested in reading entire PDF:s just to find something to comment about.

Some people like reading other people's systems for fun, I admit that. But even if you like reading, there's not often too much to talk about in on itself. And if you see discussion about an interesting system, you can ask them to post the entire thing.

>>53672374
Dropping an entire PDF isn't bad, asking for feedback on the whole damn thing is.

These are all fine:
> "Page 10, combat rules, grappling. Does this make sense?"
> "There's a game-breaking combo between Steel Tide Of Death (page 12) and March Of The Lunatic Queen (page 21). Any ideas how to fix that without ruining the fun of either ability?"
> "How's my page layout?"
> "Could someone take a look at my table of contents and the order of my chapters and see if it works?"

>>53672477
I admit, I kind of jumped the gun with the OP's text there. In the OP it does say that don't drop the PDF unless you're asking for specifics - which your examples all are - not that you should never drop entire PDF:s at all.

I have once again forgotten how to communicate. My apologies about that. What I meant with "dropping entire PDF:s on us" meant exactly that. Not asking for specifics, asking stuff about the PDF in general.

>>53669526
As a fun side project, im going to adapt Don't Rest Your Head into a friendly comfortastic Animal Crossing homebrew. I know it's terminal autism but it's something to do to relax as I grunt through dice mechanics and all the things you recommended.

This may be the stupidest idea I've had in a long while, but dang am I excited.

>>53673080
What?
Excuse me, what?
Shit is getting real over here.

>>53673324
Hold my beer, it's gonna get damn cozy.

Sup guys, quick question.

I'm playing around with a roll under system. The result of a roll is compared to two numbers, the sum of your relevant attribute and skill, and a number representing the difficulty of the task.

Is it unreasonable to require the roll to be lower than both of these numbers?

>>53668159
I want chances to be consistent and have a middle ground to give both failure and greater margins of success a higher impact and importance. This could be done by having 2 or more dice, but then I also don't know how to handle character progression without capping it (I want enemies to be handled in the same way, so I need something uncapped that doesn't fuck everything up) because simply doing 2dX+Mods means I have to limit progression at some point, or at the very least give diminishing returns to stuff. Maybe having increasing costs could help with that.

Then again, I think I'll end up going for 2dX+Mods because it's the one that allows this kind of play better. I do dislike the fact that I have to drop to numbers a lot lower than the d100 - sure it's easier to manage, but it also means progression is much faster.

>>53673813
That depends. Roll-under is usually used to get away from GM-reliant target numbers, instead relying on difficulty modifying the roll itself.

What is the specific reason you want to do it this way? I could then explain alternatives, if there are any.

It's not wrong per se, just curious.

So I'm making a tabletop rpg, and I am writing the rulebook.
For now, I've made the parts:
-What you need to play
-Glossary
-Introduction to the world
-Game rules
-Creation of the characters
-How to use the dices
-Some scenarii with a replay
-Object and prices
-Event table just in case
-Credits and thanks
Does it look like something lack?

>>53674109
i'd put how to use the dice before character creation, after game rules, and the glossary at the very end (maybe before credits and thanks) i'd also put introduction to the world before what you need to play, but that's more on you than anything - does it have more emphasis on the setting or the system?

>>53674140
The system is the most basic possible, so the emphasis is on the setting.

I felt that the glossary would be better placed in one of the first part of the book because it's a rpg for beginners.

Also character creation doesn't use dices so I thought it would be better placed before the dices and after the rules....

But if that's problematic, I can change. Would you really be disturbed by that?

>>53674249
If you find that the order you're using serves your system better than any outside changes, then stick to what you think is best. Glossaries tend to be on the back of every book that has them (not necessarily rpg rulebooks) because they're an addendum or a reference, and not an introductory concept.

>>53674416
Okay thanks!

>>53666269
Those are some pretty good points. Nice to hear you're working from the same inspiration, too. Thanks for the discussion, man.

New thread when?

>>53675830
Now's as good as time as any, wait a second

New Thread
>>53676345
>>53676345
>>53676345