|
https://kanbanflow.com/ Another thing is to take your plan, chop it up into sections or chapters and then write that out. If you start stalling, pick up another section. For this, something like Scrivener might help too. I'd say "make a plan", but the true value of a plan is in how easily it lets you get to work and sort out what you're doing. So instead I'll say, get to it and start!
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:https://kanbanflow.com/ I will take a look at these things! But without trying to sound like I'm backtracking on actually doing something, what if I've started a project that's just too big, and I'm just not ready for? Would it be better to take a break and practice on smaller things first? To get experience and to practice, perhaps build up confidence? The project I'm on is really large, and I do think I might not be ready for it. Would it be wrong to put it on hold to try and work on other things I want to do that would be smaller and more manageable? That I don't think I'd fight myself every step of the way?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
If a project is too large, it's perfectly fine to shelf it for a while to finish something smaller. Then when you reenter the large project you'll be surprised to find all kinds of new ideas and ways to do things that you didn't even know you were thinking about. And if you think of something for the large one while in the middle of your smaller project, just write for the large one anyway! I'm usually actively writing at least two different projects at once. Don't expect your schedule to be 100% rigid and strict. The mind isn't rigid, and your writing schedule will have to accommodate that. But my actual advice is the same as ever: do something you feel like you could manage to finish, and finish it. If that means a smaller project, go for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
64bitrobot posted:what if I've started a project that's just too big, and I'm just not ready for? Would it be better to take a break and practice on smaller things first? To get experience and to practice, perhaps build up confidence? The project I'm on is really large, and I do think I might not be ready for it. Collaborate! Two heads are better than one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Collaborate! Two heads are better than one. This! Also, if you do decide to shelf it for now, but you're worried about "what if I forget my cool idea for X!?" Then creat a text doc, title it READ ME and just go word salad on every idea. Don't make it pretty, and do a line break or two between ideas for readability. Any ideas go here, regardless of where they "might" belong in the over arching project. whether it's a single word, or line like "wizards wear special hats" Or land A hates land B, both are at war with C Or a mechanic "all dice must be even numbers", or it's one to two paragraphs, whatever. Just write until you can't imagine anything else to say. and then when you do go back, you'll have a snapshotof where your mind was and can pick up where you left off. Error 404 fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:After much hand-wringing and procrastinating, I finally typed up my D&D clone/heartbreaker into Google docs. I still have to type up feats and maybe roles, but chrome crashed a dozen times in addition to my usual touchscreen problem spazzing out, so gently caress it for right now. Did the short writeup for the skills system in my heart breaker (click the link in the quoted post, it's right at the end) I had some ideas before about skill usage in combat, but I need to flesh those out and see what will/won't work within the system as it now sits. Kinda trying to decide if I should include OA's and therefore tumbling/shifting to avoid them. Thoughts? Edit: expanded on skills, added a couple feats, wrote up Roles P.d0t fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Had an idea for a combat system. I threw down a bunch of words and ideas in this doc, but my basic plan is throwing together something like the 4e powers system with the Dungeon World "DM never rolls" thing to try and sort of emulate things like Dark Souls and character action games where avoiding attacks is something you actively do. Numbers in the document are pretty much just off the top of my head. The gist is that each round has an 'attack' and 'defense' phase (the order of those being decided each round with an initiative roll). The PCs have stamina pools, and most of the good abilities have a base stamina cost to activate and then further stamina can be spent after the roll to improve it 1-for-1 (but you only find out the results of your action after spending stamina). Monster have success tiers based on what you're rolling against (the highest tier of success has a lower entry point if you try and dodge a heavy attack rather than tank it with your face, you need a lower roll to get the best result using prayer or heavy weapons against a skeleton instead of a light weapon, etc). I'm trying to build gameplay to encourage these behaviors: 1)Layering debilities on tough enemies to set them up for a party member to use a high-cost maneuver without having to spend extra stamina to achieve the best result 2)Forcing choices between expensive abilities that do better things at low tiers of success and cheap abilities that, if rolled poorly, you'll have to spend a bunch of stamina on to get a decent result anyway 3)Weighing when to go all-in on attacking vs. conserving stamina for defense (when attacking phase happens first) or weighing when to not spend extra stamina on a dodge, eat a hit, and save the stamina for your big attack (when defense phase happens first) 4)Paying attention to results to find the breakpoints in the success tiers, so you know you're safe dodging with a result of 8 or whether you need to always spend stamina to tank a the big guy's hammer Is there a game that already did this that I should play instead, or one that came reasonably close that I should be stealing from?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
I playtested something like that, actually. "Crone" is an card-based combat RPG, now in beta, where "Initiative" is both turn order and a fuel for action use. It uses debility in an interesting way, as putting a -1 initiative on someone who relies on a 2/3 combo can seriously alter their plans. [It also uses dice vs Target Number to differentiate between Success and Minor Success].
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Fiddled with the idea enough to get it into something I can fishbowl with. Here's the new thing, as two characters and fancied up things for the enemies. There's no chargen rules, of course, so built from scratch. Decided to combine the 4 pairs of stats into just 4 stats, though that unfortunately drops out the ability to have high magic attack and low magic defense or etc. Are chart look-ups too old school a resolution mechanic?  
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:Fiddled with the idea enough to get it into something I can fishbowl with. Here's the new thing, as two characters and fancied up things for the enemies. There's no chargen rules, of course, so built from scratch. Decided to combine the 4 pairs of stats into just 4 stats, though that unfortunately drops out the ability to have high magic attack and low magic defense or etc. I took a look at this when you posted it. It seems pretty interesting. I think the charts look kind of cool, to be honest. And maybe if you want a retro old school feel, charts are pretty good. The only thing I'm confused about is the ATK/DEF. Is ATK for when it's attacking, or when it's being attacked?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
I actually confused myself on that for a bit, but eventually got it to "You roll defenses against the ATK chart, and attacks against the DEF chart" which seems easy to remember.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
So, I have spent about 3-4 hours over the last 3 days doing 3 redesigns of the initiative system in Blood & Gears and removed another rule entirely in an effort to streamline and make things work better. Also completely retooled half the damage system to make it fairer and the STRIKES subsystem to make it useful. Gah, I wish I could just get the design right the first time around instead of the incremental changes that make up my design method.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
surmasampo posted:So, I have spent about 3-4 hours over the last 3 days doing 3 redesigns of the initiative system in Blood & Gears and removed another rule entirely in an effort to streamline and make things work better. Also completely retooled half the damage system to make it fairer and the STRIKES subsystem to make it useful. Dude, my game system I posted upthread has been in the works since before there was WoW or 4e. Re-iteration happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
surmasampo posted:Gah, I wish I could just get the design right the first time around instead of the incremental changes that make up my design method. No-one gets it right first time. Writing is rewriting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
Something I always hated, especially in low-level games, is the roll to hit/miss/roll/miss treadmill. It's not only frustrating, but boring. That gave me an idea for a combat system where basic attacks are guaranteed to hit and cause damage, but only a limited amount. Fancier attacks can cause much more, but with a chance of failure (whether missing or "oops, you chopped off your mate's arm" fumbles), or are limited in uses or have a recharge time. Are there any existing games that work along these lines?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Something I always hated, especially in low-level games, is the roll to hit/miss/roll/miss treadmill. It's not only frustrating, but boring. Dungeon World does this. in most situations where it makes sense you just 'deal your damage' which is, you roll your class' damage die. it only ever gets more complex if you're trying to stab a dude and there's a chance you'll be stabbed back. in which case you actually make a roll (2d6+relevant stat) on a 10 or higher, you hit and take no damage. on a 7-9 you hit but must also choose from a short list of complicatations and only on a 6 or less, you miss, and the GM gets to decide something bad happens to you. (but even on a miss, you gain XP, so it's never a total wash)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Dungeon World does this. Seems like a stretch to call that "most situations", unless you spend most of your time stabbing helpless people. Even archers ought to have daggers. I also think Payndz is talking in the context of tactical combat gameplay, which really isn't Dungeon World. I actually go with a very strong "assumption of success" in the game I'm working on. Everyone rolls dice at the start of each round, which gives them (with almost 100% certainty) one or more sets of dice they can use on actions during the round. If you use an action to attack, it happens, unless your opponent takes an action to avoid your attack in some way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Funny thing is, making it so people actually always hit makes for a game that's easy to balance around. D20 is the loving worst, IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Yeah, the system in my mind is more D&D-y than *World, but I have a real dislike of drawn-out combat (one of the reasons I couldn't get into 4e, even though now that I've had time to figure it out it has elements I like), so I'm trying to speed it up as much as possible. The basic idea is that characters can take one of three "stances" per round: Attack, Defence or Support. Attack gives you bonuses for getting up close and personal, but in turn puts you at more risk of being hit yourself, while Defence is the conservative 'default' option that also lets you make what are essentially opportunity attacks against anything that tries to harm an ally in a Support stance. (Support is for ranged and caster attacks, as well as non-combat actions.) Classes get various 4e-power-style special attacks, but they can only be used in a particular stance - so if you want to make a crazy whirlwind strike against several opponents, you have to be Attacking, making you much more likely to be hit yourself in the process. (No guts, no glory!) There's no grid, or initiative; all attacks are simultaneous, so even if you take out all the enemies, they might get their licks in too before they die. It's still early days, but I figure that Defence will give you an auto-hitting basic attack (1W+stat bonuses, or whatever) and the option of a single OA that has to be rolled for, while Attack cranks up the damage considerably but you have to roll for success - and it might go horribly wrong if you fumble.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
Cross-posting:P.d0t posted:I added some more stuff to my D&D clone/heartbreaker, posted over in the Workshop thread. In addition to this, I have written up a quick class guide to help people with making their characters: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HhsM3aLgT3e0fsW1ozt8ZDuD5byHyK1VDbOzOYbFyg0/edit?usp=sharing I also added the rules for random stat generation to the original design document. So... yeah. I think this game is basically complete, aside from playtesting and feedback...? Edit: I guess I could put in some guidelines for enemy stats 
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
So I got enough rules together on the 15th for the alpha mechanics testing I want to do this month, then realised that I needed to format what I had done so that it would be more useful than a loving pile of manure for the testing. That wiped out about 5-6 hours of my weekend mucking around with basic styles and moving a couple rules into different places plus a couple terminology edits All so my gamer friends can use a nicely bookmarked pdf to tear my work to bits. Got to find the breakables as early as possible them ole chaps. "Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." surmasampo fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
While avoiding doing actual work on my project, I decided to whip up a quick summary for how the setting looks: https://lionsofthenorth.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/swords-of-the-eastsea-the-gazetteer-summarized/
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
OK, so I've failed to have anything I can actually show by the end of February (right now the game is just a OneNote file), but at least I've made some progress in that I have all of the core objects mapped out and the conflict resolution mechanic designed. My biggest sticking point right now is character creation, which I hadn't expected to give me so many problems when I first started brainstorming. What's turning out to be the hard part is a way to guarantee a certain amount of simultaneous conflict and cooperation to jumpstart the first few rounds of the game. The premise is that the PCs are all members of some sort of interstellar council in a space opera setting; in the long run there are mechanics to spawn new elements based on how earlier conflicts resolve, so I think once things hit the midgame they'll be fine. PCs will have a number of core values, and they build up a kind of hero point-currency by taking actions (or backing other people's actions) that support those values - but there is no guarantee that a given group's values will clash directly. I don't want to go the Fiasco route of only pregenerated PCs, but I'm thinking right now of a middle ground where the GM provides a series of galactic controversies that are in play at the start of the game prior to character creation. All new PCs must have a strong stance on at least two of those controversies to fuel the initial rounds. After that the consequences start spinning out of control and the game should have its own momentum. Question for those who have done this before - at what point do I move from just playing it myself to validate the concepts & mechanics to actual playtest? At the very least I'm going to loop through character creation a few times, but I'm wondering if I should play through a large number of rounds (12-15) just to see if it holds together as I expect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Just realized I haven't checked this thread in like a month. I'm so bad at this.PublicOpinion posted:What kind of map-making advice are you looking for? Like, making them presentable in a graphics program or dungeon layout or what? Dungeon layout, really. Making an interesting flow, putting together something interesting, things like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
I've never mapped for publication, but here's some I've got: This is from my 13A game and probably the most involved one I've ever actually used. Since I do my gaming on Roll20, I think of my dungeons in terms of screens. A few of the screens are just for setting, but if I'm planning on having a fight on a screen I'll do the map with that in mind. I try to have multiple ways of moving through a screen even if you can only go to the next area (if there's something the players might want to avoid, like an incredibly obvious trap, I'll try to include a way to go around that screen or multiple ways into it). Specifically because one of my PCs teleports regularly I include gaps that block movement but not line of sight. Except for the purple caves where the challenge was to find the right way through while being accosted by too many bugs, the dungeon itself is fairly simple and most of the effort went into the encounters.  I still haven't finished this one, it's an idea I had for running a B/X game. For this one I went more simulationist and included the areas and layout I thought were fitting for a ruined dwarf fortress. I started with the thumbnail sketch and laid out some rough room ideas and then blew it up to full size and started putting down the real lines. It's again meant for roll20 though it's not quite obvious, the map is spread out over 6 screens. Most of the "tactically interesting" effort went to the barracks (top right) where I was going to put the goblin bandits. I also knocked out a couple walls in the residential are just to include extra paths.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Just, as in, this morning, got the idea for a pro wrestling rpg playing on tropes/archetypes of wrestling and rpgs. The alignment system would have to have its own unique mechanics because players are going to be making Face or Heel turns and taking time in the Tweener stage all the time. If you're a masked heel, and some pro-america faces rip your mask off, causing you to swear vengeance and rally people to join a rivalry against them spanning at least until the next big event show, this could cause turns for both camps. Classes would be things like Blue Chipper, Foreigner, Ring General, The Beautiful One, etc. Both in-ring/backstage kayfabe and real life locker room politics would have to be a part of it. You'd create your character, give them a real name, then give them a Gimmick, which would be the class. Storyline progression and character development could allow for stuff like compendium classes, where if you are, say, the initiator of some political screwjobs you can take moves from the "Holding the Book" tree and specialize in being Kevin Nash, sacrificing entertaining the fans for making personal gain. Thinking about it a little more, in terms of player vs player conflict, this is a lot more monsterhearts than apoc world. This literally came into my head as I was eating a banana two hours ago so don't expect updates for a minute. edit: The GM, or "General Manager", is Under the vegetable fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
So, the playtest on the weekend gave me a bunch of useful data. I ended up modifying a rule mid session to improve flow and found that I needed to both spend more time on generating numerical data for actions. I also discovered I had totally failed to realise that given the option, the players would try to use social-fu in combat to de-escalate the situation, so i need solid support for that. Planning to run these monthly as I design as getting the data is better earlier rather than later. "Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:
This I quite like. Pro wrestling's full of all these roles and expected behaviors and weird little contrivances that back into traditional rpg assumptions pretty well. The inter-player conflict is especially interesting, considering the multiple levels on which relationships exist in the sport. On-screen chemistry mingles with backstage rapport which are both affected by fan perception which influences business which starts the whole cycle back over... It's a rich setup for drama.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Data encoding with playing cards... http://www.timwarriner.com/carddata/index.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
P.d0t's Heartbreaker has been updated.
• this also removes some of the feat tax bullshit I discovered in char-gen theorycrafting, and brings damage more in line from one character to another. Damage keys off your middle stat instead of having one stat for weapon damage and another for spell damage. • Lowered attack values (lowest attribute instead of middle) because they were out of whack w/r/t defenses; this also makes more stat arrays viable without nerfing the ones that were already good • Simplified Encounter power mechanics, bringing them in line with how Dailies operate; buffed the effects of both • Streamlined names for feats, and other minor editing Feedback goes here: ninethreefive@hotmail.com Edit: • updated poo poo-Farmer phase • added Numbers-go-up mode P.d0t fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Just realized I haven't checked this thread in like a month. I'm so bad at this. I'm gonna make a post later, tired now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:P.d0t's Heartbreaker has been updated. • did some more minor editing, DM advice and optional rules type stuff. • tweaked Leader abilities sightly. The big change was increasing Encounter Reserves from [lowest attribute] per encounter to [middle attribute]. I was finding (since HP is relatively low) that reserves were always getting used for healing, and I wanted to mix that up a bit by adding more usages per encounter (reserves also function as the game's Action Points). A dude I played 4e with once, said it looked promising and he might look at using it for his next campaign. I was pretty stoked to hear that.  Edit: • added Light Shields to equipment list and Medium Armaments • added all one-handed weapons to Light Armaments More edit: • added proficiency feats (Armor/Weapon Training) • added advice for Skill usage in combat (Stunting) • clarified some actions in combat (double move, switching/drawing/stowing/equipping shields and weapons) • feats basically fall into 5 categories now: Advantage, Expanded Defense, Damage Type, Training, and Skill Feats P.d0t fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Mar 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
I am currently working on the following projects and desperately want to finish one:Tollymain's To-Do List posted:- A card-based storygame about godlike figures and their followers in a harsh, possibly even ruined world. (90% complete but I want to rip up the old mechanics and start over because I know I can do something that works better.) My biggest hurdle right now is finishing up a prior obligation (contest judging). I feel bad about working on my own stuff before getting that taken care of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Tollymain posted:I am currently working on the following projects and desperately want to finish one: Can you explain some of the card mechanics you are working on/want to change? TBH I'm not a pro at this game design stuff, but I also haven't worked with cards ever before and sort of intend to do so at some point. It wouldn't hurt to get myself in that frame of mind and away from dice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Progress on setting up an LLC and finding art is taking longer than I expected, so in the meantime I've still been writing down other ideas I had in my head. A lot of them are small mini-booklets for Pathfinder, although I intend to hold my works to a higher standard than a lot of 3rd party shovelware which gets pushed out regularly. Currently I'm working on a variant Paladin, of a more revolutionary anti-establishment mindset. It's meant to be an entirely new class, features and all, and not just a variant. I'll post it later once I write up the first draft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Can you explain some of the card mechanics you are working on/want to change? Right now it's just a number-matching/exceeding game that involves small player-made tableaus and hands, it ends when you eliminate players down to a single winner, but I have a better idea now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Okay, so I've got an early playtest together for a superhero Apocalypse World hack. Yeah everyone tries one, but it's something simple and striking and finishing games is better than not finishing games. I've been having a lot of trouble getting my gaming group together lately, which means I'm struggling to playtest it, so any help or feedback you guys can give would be really appreciated. Playtest Documents PS: Sorry for the crappy placeholder art.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:Okay, so I've got an early playtest together for a superhero Apocalypse World hack. Yeah everyone tries one, but it's something simple and striking and finishing games is better than not finishing games. There's not a lot here but it's a good start. Apocalypse World doesn't immediately lend itself to the superhero genre as readily as other systems, but I think with some work you could make a really really good superhero game with it. I think the big place you would need to work on for a *world superhero game is the playbooks. You can't just make them like the stock AW playbooks. Superheroes are a weird type of character because they tend to fall into specific tropes (like the brick and the vigilante, etc) but they all have unique details. The Hulk and Superman are both Bricks, but they have little in common beyond super strength and invulnerability. You need to find a way to express that with the playbooks. A few ideas off the top of my head: You could take a page from Dungeon World and add "backgrounds" like Alien, Robot, Mutant and give each a different starting move associated with that background. You could have each playbook chose moves for a set of categories like some superhero video games have done. For example everyone gets an offense, defensive and movement ability. Players could mix and match to get what they want. You could have each character pick some of their moves from a shared pool that covers all the basic generic abilities like Flight, Regeneration, armor etc. One other thing I would suggest, check out the alternate harm rules posted in the Apocalypse World thread, I think that they would lend themselves a whole lot better to a superhero setting than the stock AW harm rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
The insight I'd use in designing a superhero apocalypse world hack is that the playbooks in AW are often more about your place in society than they are about your specific skills or abilities. So in a superhero game my playbooks would be things like "the paragon," "the vigilante," "the mastermind" and so on. I feel like, ideas-wise that's about a third of what I'd need. I'd also need some sufficiently generic moves to handle different kinds of superpower use. I might have some kind of overlay playbooks - like, maybe you choose one playbook that describes your role and another smaller one that relates to your powers - just to allow me to tailor some of the moves to the specific kinds of powers you see in comics. Looking over the classifications of powers used in worm might give some playbook inspiration. I hope somebody does one along these lines because I'd like to play it but I'm not enough of a superhero geek that I could do it justice myself. Edit: Thinking a bit more, I think that FATE would probably be a better fit for superheros than AW. I'm not the sort of person to recommend FATE for everything, and I generally prefer the philosophy behind Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard over the philosophy behind FATE... But this sort of pulpy action seems right in FATE's wheelhouse. Superpowers usually have downsides and the GM should be able to compel on those downsides mercilessly and incessantly - almost every superhero has some kind of fatal flaw that comes up over and over and over again, whether it's Kryptonite or something more intangible. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Now with commenting enabled! Man, I am bad at the internet. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 12:05
|
|