Combat Maid Edition
This is a general for creating, writing, testing your own systems or homebrew material for existing systems and games. May or may not be related to the other general starting each month.
Share your stuff, dump your ideas, rate criticize (constructively), muse over your work or just wallow in your own game design related misery.
Thread question: what's the game design darling you refuse to kill?
Continuing to plod along on my gurps homebrew (replacement?) I've started to wonder if there's any point to actually making attack rolls with TNs above a threshold. (Likely 16) At least as long as an MoS Needn't be generated.
The system is active-defense oriented, so already, an attack made at TN 16 is some 97+% likely to just result in 'so how do you defend?' so why not just skip it if it generates no other value?
I suppose 'because it could be a critical,' but the reward for critical hits being 'remove counterplay from the game this turn,' already feels sketchy.
Largely considering as I've already resolved to use a similar rules for things like 'bothering to roll fast-draw if it's above 15.' After a point of skill, some rolls are just a nuisance because 'buh it could hit the automatic failure margin!' Fuck off, GURPS.
Players like making rolls, even if the chances are very high. And if they fuck it up, it can be memorable.
Maybe that's not what you are going for, but degrees of success are also a way to make every roll matter.
Funny, I'm basically having this discussion in parallel elsewhere.
Yeah, 'what could MoS actually do in this system?' is something I've been debating.
And there's a general consensus that yeah, people like attack rolls. (And secondarily, that nobody ever makes rolls at 16+, because 13-14 is where 'acceptable risk' tends to settle, so the TN always gets spent, so who cares?)
The game shipped with critical miss and hit effect charts, but nobody really liked them. The vst majority of results always wound up being 'you completely fuck yourself over like a dunce for lols,' or 'nothing useful actually happens,' so we just stopped using them. But, better ones could potentially be written.
So I suppose you're right and it's moot, but was at least interesting to think through. Though at least brought up the MoS thing again.
There's some consideration of stealing the idea from Secrets of Zir'An that instead of "I take negatives to my roll to do X" it's "I roll then spend the MoS to do whatever," but that'd be hard to reconcile with how the game already works. The current debate's now leaning towards 'instead of w h a c k y tables, critical results let you choose to do a thing, or your opponent chooses to do a thing,' with 'the things,' maybe tied to skill level and/or weapons/fighting style.
As if combat wasn't complicated enough, but hey, it IS a gurps rework.
Nuisance rolls stay go though. Hell, there's perks in one of the books for 'lmao, your character doesn't need to make this roll even the game designers think is a chore.' and man do the gurps writers like rolling, so that says something.
Personally I find systems with a heavy reliance on MoS clunky, every roll you're referencing a table or comparing to an enemy's roll
>what's the game design darling you refuse to kill?
I tihnk ESLOP is asking that is your personal sacred cow?
Mine is tactical combat on a hex mat or grid. While I am a bit of a narrativist in my gameplay, I fucking love moving pawns around a battlefield and trying to squeeze every little bonus I can out of reading the battle arena.
You really never heard of the writing advice to "kill your darlings"?
I haven't fucked with a neolib writing circle since college in 2006. You, instead of trying to force your jargon should learn your audience. The term as it applies in tabletop games is your Sacred Cow, not your Darling.
"Kill your darlings" has been a phrase since the 1800's...
The term Your Darling has never had a place in tabletop gaming, whereas Sacred Cow has had a place in in tabletop gaming ever since the letters between Georg Heinrich Rudolf and Johann von Reisswitz when discussing using Kriegspeil for different wars. Which, fullily eough, are both also from the 1800s.
“Silly cunt” has never had a place in tabletop gaming, and yet funnily enough he’s still here.
I can't speak much on Silly in this context but Cunt does have a place, showing up in a letter from Rutherford P. Van Houten the president of Saracouse Books and E. Gary Gygax calling him one over pulling publishing rights for AD&D in Australia.
A sacred cow is made sacred by popular opinion. A darling is personal.
The meaning is very different.
People have their own personal sacred cows, and your refusal to acknowledge that shows that you are to develomentally disabled to be allowed an opinion.
Idols are heresies just like friendship or magic.
I have heard that, yes.
It's fucking gay.
I hate the phrase "kill your darlings". The advice in its real form (just get rid of the thing that's eating up all of your time and effort on the project even though it's not actually that important to whatever you're doing) is fine, but as a phrase it comes across as very Reddit: a smarmy witticism that you can't really argue against because it does have an okay point, but that is over used to the point you would almost assume you should never actually try to do new, interesting things in favor of just publishing Boiler Plate Media #3014568 because otherwise it takes too much effort.
I agree with the sentiment of using grids for tactical combat; I love maps so much, it wouldn't be right if I stopped using them. I also like to extend that to pre/post battle exploration, when characters may loot and interact with objects more thoroughly.
However, because I like my games to be games, I am solidly gamist in my approach; never been fond of simulating things, and when I want to focus on narrative, I'll just work on a novel.
The three pillars of an RPG are Conflict, Exploration, and Interaction. I run a decidedly modern-stype RPG with quite a few player options, but I still use exploration turns for ehx crawling and dungeons. The interaction tends to be the way it's always been. Pseudo-freeform using a mix of player skill and character abilities. I've played with and tweaked how I run those time and time again, but the one thing I've never wanted to alter is hex/grid-based combat.
Opposed rolls to hit. I should probably just drop it in favor of speeding gameplay up, but I just love the idea of it for close combat fights, and I hate when you have too many different ways of resolving similar actions, i.e. ranged versus melee attacks.
Opposed rolls don't really slow things down enough to justify their removal; at least, not in my experience anyway.
I use an opposing roll when determining the priority of a reaction, which I find quite fun, and worth the extra couple of steps involved.
I got rid of them because they give you a different probability curve from the rest of the game by effectively doubling the number of dice rolled for no benefit I can see. Also both sides being active suggests a tie is distinct from either winning.
Traveller has them, mostly for character creation. I assume Pendragon has them given its nature.
I have no idea how you get any of that from a basic as fuck cliche reminding you that you need to actually look at whether parts of your work actually add to it or were just fun to make.
I came across something while writing my game. Aside from Ad&d, I haven't seen any actual rules for aging and dying of old age. How does your game handle this? I want inspiration for my own game.
I stole the D&D rules since my homebrew is a classless D&D knockoff becuase I hate WotC. I don't really feel like they're necessary, and am pretty sure isn't another way to do them that is workable.
I know that Traveller had some aging rules because as a result of characters having careers a PC can start out pretty old if you want good starting stats
The way they handled it was you would role on a table each year over like 35 the role gets harder and harder as you get older and if you fail you get a decrees to some stats
There are also drugs you can take to offset ageing but they carry their own consequences
I posted this in the Bionicle thread but I'd like some feedback here as well: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nH2YLRWp4FHFwVcVo-lly6D0jm5c3-898rfTBDCzCgc
It's a Bionicle RPG designed to be lightweight, fast, and a little more storygame-y than the other couple of Bionicle games out there. I want to nail down the classic Bionicle feel by emphasizing active teamwork (with things like combining elemental powers and a metacurrency for embracing the canonical core values of unity, duty, and destiny) and an episodic format where the GM/Storyteller ("Turaga") can generate an adventure idea from tables with built-in conflict, danger and motivation, and the players can resolve it in a couple of sessions and come out stronger. In the other thread most of the feedback has been requests for more content, which is great to see but is the biggest slog for me in RPG design. I would love some feedback on the actual rules & systems if possible. At the bottom of the doc is my original notepad writeup. Feel free to ask for clarification on anything; I also just wanna make sure this is even readable.
I haven't seen aging rules used tbh but this reminded me of my SWN 1e GM having us use the Mekton Zeta lifepath/background system. Now I want to make a really in depth life path system where you can come out 18 or 80 and really feel the difference.
The spells are neat, but for a warlock, I would suggest giving them some sort of upcast scaling. One of warlock's compensations for a lack of spell slots is that every spell they do cast is at max. Having their signature void spells take advantage of that and grow with their character would be a big feel-good.
Forgive me for not engaging a ton but I gave it a skim and I like what I saw
As a comment I'd like to say if there's an ability that reads as "Comprehensive knowledge of plants" I am hoping there's further expansion, if just in a narrative non mechanical sense, of what kind of plants to include in sessions for the game
That's a good point. I'll make sure to include plant enemies and hazards in the scenario tables.
Weapon customization. I fucking love giving players the ability to custom-build a weapon to use rather than buying from a list or whatever.
This amuses me because of how much the polar opposite I am in most games. "A gun is a gun is a gun," at least within class.
That said, give me some crazy high-magic anime setting, and we'll talk fusing crystals into swords and shit.
"Speed of play," is itself a sacred cow, imo. As long as the mechanic adds to the engagement with the game, 'how long it takes,' is of highly subjective value.
It's less applicable to fantasy, but I'm working on a john wick/call of duty action-shooter that has insane levels of gun customization and my transformers system has a pretty good amount of melee and ranged options.
It's my inner Gankerommando, I love the idea of a character just customizing the fuck out of their main weapon, even in fantasy you can get stuff like different shafts, heads to the weapon, grips, handguards, and when you get into bows and crossbows you're looking at different arms, strings, materials, you can get crazy if you're willing to suspend disbelief a bit.
I can see it. The problem I always run into as a simfag is that it's hard to make that customization do things within the numerical constraints of most games I interact with.
See gurps problem with 'everything is +1 to hit,' which gets rapidly out of control. Though that's as much do to the authors lack of imagination as anything else.
That said, as we steal more and more shit from other games to integrate, firearms have been growing some levers for me to hang differences off of, even if it's still fairly muted compared to games that really want to lean into that.
Yeah if you're into hyper-simulationism then I can see the problem. My general solution is to use a pointbuy system, with more effective attachments/parts costing more but also having their own drawbacks. For example, a drum magazine would take more actions to reload but reduce reloading frequency whereas a smaller magazine is quicker to reload but holds fewer rounds.
A long barrel might give better range, but lower your mobility. That sort of thing. The trick is to make it a set of trade-offs, but again if you want to go for hard-core simulationist philosophy I can see it being a huge issue since IRL attachments don't really... do much. Parts, sure, if you're altering a modern or near-modern rifle's barrel, chamber, etc that's different but if it's just optics and lasers and foregrips and the like it's gonna be tough to justify those changing performance in a significant way.
Yeah, tradeoffs are definitely the way to do it.
I'm not really so much 'hard core,' simulation but yeah, it can be a problem. But I've solutions. Circumstantial penalty removal, for instance.
It's nominally a -2 to engage a target you didn't know was there when your turn started. Instead of a bonus to hit over irons, a reflex sight offsets this.
OIptics have a whole set of things, in being requisite or penalty-avoiding for certain range bands. (eg, a range band may be "-6 optic 2" so a tier 2 optic is required, and without it you're looking at another -4, if you can see the target it all.) Which to me makes more sense then...again, 'lmao, it gives you a bonus to hit.'
Lasers may offset the penalty for not taking the turn needed to ready and aim a weapon, at least at very short ranges, etc.
And a lot of these categories are calculated off the weapons bulk/handling, which can be negatively affected by more shit, bigger mags, etc.
Those are all at least the plan so far. It's just a matter of having enough levers, and thinking outside of this "A weapon is a hit bonus and damage number,' box a lot of games fall into. Like in your reload time example, how it influences your considerations of action economy and situational risk is much more interesting.
>"Speed of play," is itself a sacred cow, imo. As long as the mechanic adds to the engagement with the game, 'how long it takes,' is of highly subjective value.
I've been adding engagment to my fights by making my players adhere to a shot clock, or an overall time limit justified by some in-game phenomena
So far it's been successful. If you force them to think fast they'll have good ideas
This is also fine. Time constraints can also add to a game when it's what everyone is onboard for. Though I think what we're really talking about is speed of resolution, not speed of player decision.
Don't fucking die yet I haven't even gotten to read the thread yet
What do you expect from nu-/tg/? Most of the people who actually do shit have left.
Me, I'm literally redoing a system I made from scratch because I don't like the current iteration at all. Too janky, to easy to break all in the pursuit of giving players options. So I'm going back to the drawing board and making something simpler that still offers options.
The last couple of these threads were really active, as active as a homebrew general can be.
This threads mistake was probably not to copy the usual generals OP or starting in the middle of the week.
I got chatgpt to smarten up my notes, if anyone could read through this and tell me if they get the gist of it I'd appreciate it. I've been stuck on the actual card design for years, mostly because I don't have an efficient way to print cards or otherwise test them.
I really want this game to exist so I can stop thinking about it and move on with my life.
Now you need to format-up your notes. What the hell is this ancient scroll of a .pdf? Make a page. Put words on it. Format into multiple columns or not, as you please. Use a reasonable, page-sized font.
I guess this is intended for mobile reading? And that's fine if so, but for the love of god why do you have a line break between every line in your text, and then a double line break after every carriage return? It looks like someone who tried to cheat on a highschool essay by writing big and double spacing.
Is this any better?
>Can't highlight/ctrl+f vs can highlight/ctrl+f
Yes lmao better already
Uh a fucking tactics game that takes place on the XY axis of a map like a 2D platformer, this solves the issue of verticality that the top down perspective struggles to demonstrate
It's difficult to simulate verticality on top down grid maps so instead this is a hypothetical game where the game map is like castlevania or metroid or some shit and can simulate multiple levels
>It's difficult to simulate verticality
Just build it out of card.
Sure thing lets take the bus to our buddy's place 2 hours away with our 3d map hope it doesn't rain or it's fucking ruined
Cool, I like worms, the applications.... are endless!!!!!!!
Why are you taking an open topped bus in the rain?
Skirmish games with vertical terrain have existed for decades, it is not actually difficult at all. Removing one of the very useful horizontal directions for an occasionally interesting vertical one is a terrible idea.
My guy this is a game design thread, I tried to come up with an idea that would solve one of the issues found with top down grid maps, I don't have the time to make 3d terrain, the space to store it, or the time to fuck around trying to transport it.
>Removing one of the very useful horizontal directions for an occasionally interesting vertical one is a terrible idea.
is like saying that all 2d platformer video games are obsolete because super mario 64 was released more than 2 decades ago, tools are tools, design pieces are design pieces
Nta. Slap a scalar unit representing height on stuff. Use predetermined units. Add some terrain modifiers and hazards to your new locations. Ain’t as hard as whatever else y’all were planning. You can cheat on the progression to show resistance/distance etc if your ranking is sufficiently gapped: 1 2 4 8 16…Remember to mind such when applying parallels.
Frex, you want ranged weapon measures (across the same space) to be weaker than the movement range — to show off air current autism or whatever. Therefore the series A:1 1 2 3 5…which is less than B: 1 2 4 8 16 would be a relevant choice.
TL;DR It’s all relative to what you want.
...Worms. You just invented Worms.
which isn't necessarily bad, and I now wonder if there are any tabletop systems for playing Worms
Hey dorks. Rate my retarded idea and suggest similar games for my perusal. Don’t say Alternity.
First, a 3d6 (abc) control roll across 3…18. The 3d6 line is ‘welded’ to a fixed set of narrative outcomes:
3, P1:(best internal spread on b+c)
18, P2:(worst internal spread on b+c)
Traits give a range of shifts applied to the control roll’s outcome.
>Agent Saboteur [3:1 Spend, +2S, Either]: Use +ac advantage as damage bonus. Requires [Semtex-ting] in play.
>“Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever?” [0 Spend, +3S, Other]: Mental/social contests only.
>Sinister Zither Music [1:1 Spend, +3S, Other, M:+1S Opposed Cost]: Vienna only. Tracking/investigation buffer only.
The ‘outcomes’ aren’t direct results, but are grades of misfire/special proportions that are processed at the wargame segment of the 3d6 roll. Technically the outcome positions along 3d6 don’t have to be symmetrical, they can apply solely to a single entity. But I’m not sure if they should…
Any thoughts on how to delimit this layer? At the base, I’m restricting input (that moves the control roll) to the Roller, unless a Trait specifically applies. A broad Trait cap of 1 per Entity during this phase should work well enough, yeah?
The Traits themselves are graded in terms of: cost per shift & maximum shift. A few errata — a turn classifier, and misfire/specials — are given in the examples, but that’s about all I can think of…
…there are more layers on that single 3d6 roll, but never mind. This shitty place has to show utility for me to fucking bother.
Work on your bot, this spam is complete gibberish.
Fun fact: Harry Lime is the name of the titular Third Man, and the name of the burglar from Home Alone. You are literally too retarded to recognize a human. (You) are what we get after 500 years of cuckoo clocks. Fucking pathetic. Also:
>bOaRd GaMes what are they?!
Horseshoe theory of intelligence in practice, how quaint.
shitty survival horror ttrpg idea
not being proficient/specialized in a weapon especially a melee one doesn't mean you use it less effectively or can't use it at all
instead it means you break it much faster
combine this with limited inventory space and you are gold maybe
fuck wrong pic
How about you use more ammo like you're not used to the shooting pace so you hold down longer on an auto or something?
i would say so for firearms but they are one of the weapon types that i would be inclined to reduce things like hit rate for characters that are completely unsavvy with firearms
but characters that can handle their guns should fare fine should be able to handle different weapon types a quite a bit better
>still not done
This will be a monster.
Jesus Christ. And I’m in a rut at only 120.
How long have you been working on it?
Or just do both. Having a separate map/slider showing verticality was something even clueless noob me was able to figure out while playing 3e.
>How long have you been working on it?
Maybe 3 years, with varying degrees of focus, and working on different system in between.
Huh, about the same. That’s holly impressive.
I try to keep things under 100 pages for the player-facing portion. Usually, the length of my documents is due to formatting. I try to make shit look nice and as a result take up more space than I strictly need to. The GM section might be another 50-75 pages.
I made a skin, eye, and hair color charts based on the fitzpatrick scale. Due to my severe autism, i do not know if they will be received well or not. Are they a good addition to my game or is it too risky?
>+30 to hair color
FATAL tier but also funny
Black why does your game have a section dedicated to rolling for hair color
How do you even roll a d33
It's an example of good presentation.
Being black gives you eye and hair color bonuses, which means it's not racist. Now reverse it and make it give you -30 hair points for being black. Ruh roh! Cancelled
So I'm a new DM to 5e, sorta we've played about 3 premades, and I'm going into a more free form game. Less structure more my own thing.
One of my players was wanting to play a void-esque warlock and we where working together to come up with some abilities. This is what we have, but we are both new and don't know much about the game so I am wondering if you guys have some advice. Be nice please
>two new lvl 1 spells
>s v m
>You can summon a tiny void rift next to a tiny object you can see within 60 feet and grab that item. You pull that item to you through the void.
>s v m
>concentration, up to 1 hr
>You tear open a transparent void rift visible only to you. As a bonus action, you can teleport to the void rift. It disappears if you move more than 120 feet away from it.
>lvl 1 feature (Void Gaze)
>At 1st level, as an action, you gain the ability to see through solid objects to a range of 15 feet. You are blinded past that range, but within that range, you have darkvision if you don't already have it. This special sight lasts for 1 minute or until your concentration ends (as if you were concentrating on a spell). During that time, you perceive objects as ghostly, transparent images. The range increases by 15 feet at 6th level and again, at 10th and 14th.
>lvl 6 feature (Nether Step)
As an action, you can temporarily step into the void until the end of your turn. While in the void, you can move through creatures as if they were difficult terrain, and you do not trigger any attacks of opportunity. You can force any creature you walk through to roll a Charisma saving throw as they catch a glimpse of the terrors of the void. If they fail, they take 1d12 psychic damage and are stunned until the end of your next turn. You can use this action a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
>to be cont
>lvl 10 feature (Lacuna Shield)
>Starting at 10th level, you learn the spell Shield. It counts as a warlock spell for you, but it doesn't count against the number of spells you know. You can also cast it once without a spell slot, and you regain the ability to do so when you finish a short or long rest. Whenever you cast this spell, if the added AC would cause the attack to miss, you open a void rift and redirect the attack to another creature within 30 feet of you.
>lvl 16 feature (Null Home)
>Starting at 14th level, you learn the spell Demiplane as your patron has designated a space within the void to be yours to use as you see fit. It counts as a warlock spell for you, but it doesn't count against the number of spells you know, and you may only cast it as if it were a ritual spell. Within this Demiplane, there is always one unseen servant ready to serve you and your allies. Once per long rest, you may designate any number of creatures up to your Charisma modifier. Those creatures must succeed on a charisma saving throw or be sent to and trapped within your demiplane for up to 1 hour or until you lose concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell). Once the time is up, or you lose concentration, the creatures return to the location they were at or as close as possible if the space is occupied.
here are my suggestions
nether grasp can be good because you can just steal shit through windows 60ft away. however, its usage is situational due to mage hand, a cantrip, being able to do many things this spell can also do.
Void Rift needs to be either a higher level or nerfed. It's comparable to dimension door and misty step but unlike either, it can be used multiple times and is a level 1 spell. I would make it a level 2 or a level 3 spell.
Void gaze is kinda meh but it has some usages, like seeing through some doors, walls, and chests. I would suggest limiting it to proficiency bonus times a day, recharging on a long rest. Infinite uses at level 1 would be fucking insane.
Nether step is ok. it can be good if you stack movement speed and rush through a bunch of retards. At worst, you walk into one thing and make it skip its turn, which is kinda useless in 5e.
lacuna shield is dumb. One reason is that shield is a level 1 spell and you're getting at level 10. Another reason is that the secondary ability (redirecting damage) requires the dm to keep track of more shit, something that should be avoided.
null home is ok. However, demiplane is an 8th level spell and warlocks only get up to fifth level spells. Demiplane sucks so balance wise its ok. I dont think nulll homes ability is every gonna come up because dnd 5e games on average dont go past level 5-10.
I recommend you choose 2 spells for each spell level up to 5 for the expanded list of spells, like the other warlock subclasses.
Overall, the class is flavorful but somewhat lackluster. I would say its weak in comparison to some of the stronger spellcaster/warlock subclasses. If your player doesn't mind playing something a bit weaker, then I would say you succeeded in designing this.
Thank you very much for your in-depth breakdown
I appreciate all the criticism and will give it a couple extra looks
I have never made an amateur game before. I have an idea of the game being based around the use of limited turn/use Equipments to help with actions/goals for players.
What are some recommended readings for someone new?
Always, always start with rpg design patterns https://archive.org/details/RPGDesignPatterns91309 it will intrude you into design patterns and how to use them. From this, try to apply patterns to games you like and extrapolate from that.
Thank you for giving this to me. I'll be going over it.
I’m working on an amateur game with a trait system, can you guys tell me what you think about it?
A little background: very character starts with a composure stat that starts out between 5 and 15. You make a composure check by rolling under that stat with a d20.
Every character starts with two virtues and two vices. One of each type must be a major virtue/vice (subtract 3 from TN when doing composure checks).
When attempting to act against a virtue, or resist a vice, a player makes a composure check. Failure means succumbing to their tendencies.
Successfully acting against a virtue or vice causes a “trait shift.” e.g. selfish becomes generous, kind becomes cruel, etc.
Over the course of a game, if the GM notices a pattern of behavior, they can suggest a new trait to be added to a character.
This game partly focuses on the reputation of adventurers, who are the lowest social caste. Changing vices to virtues means people will respect you more, and thus the player is rewarded with EXP when they do so.
This is my first draft of the trait system and I’m mostly going by my gut. Please lmk what you think!
Describe the basics of your game first. I'm guessing it's some form of RPG, but what kind of game is it for?
>This game partly focuses on the reputation of adventurers, who are the lowest social caste
What is an "adventurer" and why are they a social caste at all? You're assuming the players want to improve their reputation, but then why did they become adventurers? These aren't supposed to be "gotcha" questions; I need a clear idea of what you're trying to do before I can tell if it works.
>One of each type must be a major virtue/vice (subtract 3 from TN when doing composure checks).
3 points on a D20 is a 15% difference. That seems tiny for a "major vice".
It’s a grim, fantasy setting where humanity is on its last legs. Adventurers emerged as their own social caste when monsters started attacking human civilization. Adventures are people who don’t have the skills to do anything else, and so they risk their lives clearing monster settlements, either in hopes of finding wealth left behind or because they were hired to do so. Adventurers make enemies with monsters, and so they bring trouble wherever they go. This is why people hate adventurers.
I wanted this game to be about surviving in a world that hates you, and so players are rewarded for (a) getting into dangerous situations and surviving, and (b) making the world hate them less. Point b is part of the motivation behind this mechanic.
Okay, good. I'm not sure I quite buy the logic of it - how people know you're an adventurer for instance - but knowing it useful.
It sounds like most of the game will be exploration and fighting, and the vice/virtue mechanic won't actually be relevant there. And I'm not sure how much it will help your reputation to cure your alcoholism if giant spiders are still following you home from work to destroy the village.
I'd suggest some sort of networking mechanic, giving you tangible benefits for making friends and penalties for fucking up. Focus on why they want the world to hate them less rather than devising ways to make the world hate them more.
People would know that you’re adventurer the same away they would know you’re a peasant or a noble; the way that you dress.
Do you have any suggestions for how networking should work? Is there an RPG or genre I can look to for inspiration?
>the way that you dress
So change your clothes when you get back to civilisation? If they're plundering monster riches they will quickly be able to afford new threads.
I'd expect networking to be a more abstract form of base building. I've heard Mutant Year Zero has decent systems for that, but don't know anything about it myself. Board and card games might be a decent place to look for ideas.
Ops and Tactics bro, post your newest version.
Doint a D&D conversion to only d6 while keepimg it as mathematically faitful as possible. That is just the excuse to clean and make my own houserules into a cohesive thing that i can show to people, as there are much more changes. Not sure If D&D variants are welcome in this threads
> the reference sheet fits on a single page
I’ve done it. At long last. And it doesn’t look completely fugly.
You mad lad. You absolute fucking champion you. Living the dream. Mad cunt.
It really is amazing
I recently brought my rulebook down from 22 pages to 14 and it feels like I've understood another level of dharma
I'm trying to avoid burnout without slowing down by asking for help. Right now I really just want to know what people think of my...
1: Basic rules. Are they easy to understand? Is anything worded poorly?
2: Formatting. Does the information flow nicely? Is anything referenced before it is explained?
The way you write the rules is understandable only for people who already play TTRPGs. On the very first page you mention "aptitudes", "dice pool", "successes" etc. It is more like a blog post that describe a Homebrew rules. It also all over the place, like "blocking" is described in "Clothes" instead of a chapter dedicated to combat. So to understand all you have written and get a big picture the one need to read it through beginning to the end and only then come to conclusions, trying to put all the things together.
Also, there are infestation of extra spaces.
Thanks! This is exactly what I was talking about. My editor has no experience with TTRPG manuals, so when I sent them examples they were like, "Yeah, I get it; it works." I thought I explained dice pools alright. You should be able to comment in the document, so feel free to manually suggest edits in the document itself.
>game is a train wreck
i will now attempt to kill the maths that is causing the problem. i think i can win because math is subjective
no, its not in a coherent enough state for external review and its still in the middle of substantial overhauls to fix the current crisis. you can have the problem though
i changed armour from a flat DC to damage reduction but that made the average damage per attack skyrocket so i raised armour values to compensate but skewed the balance between weapon skill and strength to get massively lopsided so now i need to scale back armour values without bloating HP, still preserving the poise economy and keeping everything entirely open at all levels
oh and without breaking the action economy too i guess
Damn I remember when I was in this state, good luck bud
I would recommend ditching a DR system for armor, it's an easy calc in a video game but easy if every attack has to factor for it you'll end up with characters that deal 0 damage in every scenario and characters that will deal so much damage the DR is useless
My solution ended up being an Armor Break system, like a second health bar, which also had math every turn but it helped feel like combat was always progressing and low damage dealers could participate without getting nullified completely
ah yeah, terraria does something similar and has similar problems. dont worry, this is a nightmare far too overdesigned for that, there's like three different intersecting checks and balances on it. besides, lancelot should be able to slaughter a bunch of children with near impunity, its a feature
I got some testing done though, it MIGHT be fixable
Also just spitballing
One end condition in my card battler is getting 10 VP to win the game. VP is gained from your actions, attacking, etc. I've been musing about having it be colored b/w yours and your enemy.
And since it has a round structure built in, I've been wondering about a second condition - after the 3rd round, the winner is
a) person with the most of their opponent's VP
b) person with more opponent VP than their own VP
Obviously this is all contingent on how the game plays, the latter in particular could be really frustrating if there's no means to burn VP - but conceptually, does it sound like shit?
Fak I meant to add, the Rounds already have 2 end conditions in them (steal 3 VP from opponent or route all their units), hence why I started musing about the whole game having 2 victory conditions
Is this a good idea to encourage squad coherency without enforcing it for a big skirmish (20-30 models a side, single based human on 20mm bases)?
>Bonus on attack, morale if entire team is within a box (4x6 for standard 5-10 man squad)
So you can detach a guy to go pull a lever for the mission, but you're strongly encouraged to keep the group together.
>having the perfect name for a game
>barely nothing else
the longest journey begins with the smallest step, but still
What's the name
I want to design a horror-themed card game, in a similar style as Hecatomb but centered in a grim metropolis that spans all reality
I'd like to call it DISTURBIA
I remember reading some book by Richard David Bach from the Ferret Chronicles about the writer who have nothing but the perfect name for his future epic novel. However, he ends up writing fairy tales for kids that give him somewhat recognition because he has genuine inspiration to do so unlike with elusive novel that doesn't even have a plot.
I wonder how can I effectively represent horror in a card game?
I don't want to use the much maligned "sanity meter" in my game, it doesn't fit what I'm looking for
neither does starving the players from resources and force them to fight against overwhelming odds, I feel that survival aspect is not fun in a competitive game
I'd like something gnarly and horrifying... using grotesque art is simple, but I need to find a way to translate that same feeling into the game's mechanics
the closest I've been to replicate something similar has been with the mechanic that allows players to sacrifice smaller creatures to play bigger and more expensive ones
some of those creatures have "grudges" or effects that linger after being sacrificed and can temporally pass on to other creatures in play
I believe it gives a sense of "recycling meat" so to speak
but other than that, I don't know what else should I focus on
I have the opposite issue which I've talked about in these threads before. I made a Metroid system, and I can't for the life of me think of a good name that rolls off the tongue that isn't literally already a DS game.
Thoughts on Silhouette dice pools for damage resolution (Xd6, highest value +1/additional 6), with the result subtracted from some Defense value for the resulting damage that goes through?
Is it too clunky for a wargame?
dunno if this is the right place to ask but its the closest to the question I wanted to ask.
Has anyone tried the project moon fan trpg? And is it any good?
Alright, so here's a premise I've been toying around with as an alternative to Damage reduction in 3rd edition, which I refer to as "Damage threshold".
Damage threshold has 2 numbers (Example: 4/1). The first number is the most important number: So long as the physical damage does not exceed that amount, you have resistance to it (Damage is halved); but if the physical damage exceeds that, it basically "punches through" and you lack resistance to it.
The second number is a "minimum reduction" amount. If the amount is high enough to exceed the resistance cap, you still reduce it by that amount (So if you have 8/2 and get hit for 10 damage, it still reduces it by 2); This also works in a situation where the second number would be more than resistance (such as if you get hit for 4 damage and you have 12/3, the amount gets reduced to 1).
This is an attempt to make damage reduction more effective when hit with large numbers without completely invalidating small numbers. (As an explanation for how the 1st and second number interest, the second number is going to be 1/4 the first number rounded down. So it'd go 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, 7/1, then 8/2).
As a correllary to this, Armor and AC "caps out" at a much lower level so its much easier to hit a person in heavy armor than light armor.
AC is renamed "Def" for this purpose.
Chain shirt: Def: 4, Max dex: 4, DT: 8/2
full Plate armor: Def: 5, Max dex: 1, DT:16/4.
Explain more differently please. I feel like I almost but not quite get it.
I've been thinking about attack and defense stuff as well.
Also if you're going to make the thread when this one dies please wait until Friday to do it thank you arigato ne
Lads, it has been a pleasure. Wish I had more time actually reading and adding something to the discussion.
I won't do it, but the usual anon will probably make a new thread starting next month anyway.
>what's the game design darling you refuse to kill?
My convoluted resolution/action mechanic. It's been a point of mild confusion whenever I've playtested with friends and family (though they do end up getting it), but man, it was the idea that spurred me onto this whole project and I'm not giving it up.
Do go on. I've had a similar issue getting people to grok a multiple-D20 system where each die result controls something independently ontop of the overall lowest number being the one checked for success.