|
Two minutes, both players draw at the same time. In testing, it was about five altogether, including descriptions, adjudication and rolling. It does put the focus entirely on one (or possibly two) players at a time, but it doesn't drag as much as you might think. Much more would get pretty bad, though. I initially was going to have duels go multiple rounds, until I found that more than one-on-one doesn't really work. More than a single round would seriously exclude other players. It helps that any player can duel, so there's no reason one person should always be in the spotlight. There is no "duelist class" that constantly takes five minutes out of the game. So long as players take turns, I think it won't be too onerous. Unfortunately, having more than two people at a time just doesn't work that well. It makes it tough to figure out who's actually fighting against who, or else you end up with a single NPC against three or four players, rendering the entire thing moot. I tried a few variations, but one-on-one works best so far. I like the Pictionary idea, though. My only worry is that the game is intended as primarily cooperative, and so I worry that players will intentionally interpret the NPC drawings as ineffectual as possible. Possibly only have them describe the drawings done by other players? Or possibly allow other players to use their Aspects to "enhance" the duelist's drawing (letting them add small details related to their Aspects)? I dunno. Throwing out ideas here.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
Yeah, you would need to have a way to ensure that players can't game the voting system. If its a FATE derived game something simple like declaring that a picture of a fire hydrant is really a penguin could cost a fate point. Another complicating factor: are these pictures in black and white or in color? Or start off black and white and gain coloration, perspective, shading and such as the game progresses. This applies to both the dueling pictures and the picture-characters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
I posted a while ago somewhere that I was thinking of writing a "Nelson's Royal Navy, but with airships" game, and I've been steadily working on the setting, and kind of on the rules too. Rules are probably going to end up being a *world hack because my original idea of using Crown & Anchor dice ended up looking pretty similar to DW. The short version of the setting is "Fantasy navy/pirate game, with airships and other weird stuff". Anyway, here's the setting outline, I'd love some feedback. ---- The game is about being on ship voyages, not about land adventuring. The world is not Earth. Much of the world is water or uninhabited. Something like an 20%-80% land/water mix for the whole planet. The largest landmasses are roughly europe-sized, and often divided into as many nations. The world is not close to fully explored. The world has several large, distant nations that the PC's region has little contact with. The world has several large, nearer nations that the PC's nation is in a shifting state of war/alliance with The oceans are full of smaller landmasses (about New Zealand sized) These smaller landmasses are often uninhabited, or inhabited by primitive or supernatural cultures. Physics is different here. Physics = magic = physics. Airships are common. The world is inherently magical/weird. Humans can't do magic. Humans can produce devices which do magic for them. Natural philosophers are constantly trying to find out how everything works, they come up with important new stuff regularly. "Healing magic" exists and is important. It takes the form of potions, salves, etc. There is no evidence of the literal existence of Gods (ie, nearly or actually omnipresent/omnipotent beings don't seem to exist). The PC's nations share a common monotheistic religion, but practice it differently. There are small and large differences in practice. There is a state religion in some nations, others primarily follow a centralised religion that doesn't care about national borders. Some nations have intertwined head-of-state and head-of-church, other have not. Other (further) nations have different Gods, many gods, or no Gods at all. There is no evidence of miracles or divine intervention, although most people believe these things are real. Demons, evil spirits, malevolent ghosts, etc all have a literal and dangerous existence. Other non-supernatural weird creatures exist (eg, parazoology stuff, "sea serpents", whatever) Religion isn't really a super hot topic with most people, although very religious people do exist. If Gods were proven to exist and understood, it would be a really big deal because of the way supernatural/tecnological stuff interacts. Because of this, there's a not-insignificant amount of "research theology" going on. PCs are human. Human comprise the majority of sentient creatures. Other sentient creatures are -weird-, not just pointy-eared humans. Some sentient creatures can use more/different magic than humans. This magic isn't "learnable" by humans just by practice, but if the principles are understood it can be harnessed. Technology is magic. Technology is simply magic that is understood, quantified, and applied (eg, airships fly "by magic", in that it wouldn't happen in the real world, but the in-setting science of it is well-documented, there are equations and everything) Magic is physics/chemistry/technology that is not understood. It can sometimes be rote-learned and poorly reproduced (eg, small sparks from the fingers are producable by humans with enough practice, but lightning-bolts are not possible). If the principles are understood, then a device can be produced that perfectly reproduces the result even when operated by someone who doesn't understand. Think about a handgun as a "wand of bullets" and you've got the idea. That is, you know how to operate it, clean it, load it, but would need to take it to a gunsmith to reproduce anything but a dangerously crude version. Because of this, there aren't any human "wizards". That said, most sailors learn at least one or two "tricks". Making sparks, seeing a little further than usual, semi-accurate weather prediciton, holding their breath longer than normal, etc. Airships are common. They are made of wood. They have sails above and below. There is no gas-bag, the ship floats on the Aether because its hull is treated to do so. The Aether is deeper/shallower in different places. The Aether has currents and storms, just like the atmosphere of which it is a part. The Aether sits at a certain height (or depth, depending on how you looks at it), which depends on the terrain below. Over water, the Aether tends to be very low. Over most land, the Aether tends to be at 50-500m (yards if you want). Sometimes the Aether is so near ground-level (or even below it) that ships cannot fly there. This can happen anywhere, and there are (sometimes incomplete/inaccurate) charts to show it. Cities can usually not be flown over/near for this reason, nobody knows why it works like that... yet It's FAR more likely to happen over land than over water, to the point where flying over land is considered dangerous. Over land, it's more likely to happen in hilly, mountainous, or broken terrain, but can happen anywhere. Mountains and very steep terrain are "reefs", you can crash into them because the ship is buoyed up too slowly to rise over them, or not buoyed up at all. Smaller craft (sloops, frigates) can ascend steeper terrain. Rowboat-sized craft don't work - the hull treatment requires a minimum area. Airships are not supposed to land. Landing breaks them, often irreparably. "Dry Docks" exist. They are huge, immobile, and complicated. Airships range in size from 50 to 300 feet long and 10 to 80 feet wide A small cargo airship might carry a crew of 10-15. A larege one as many as 30-40. A large battle-airship might carry up to a thousand crew, officers, and soldiers. A battle-airship might carry 120+ large cannon and half as many smaller guns. A cargo-airship might carry up to 10 smaller guns. Warships that large aren't uncommon, but they're unlikely to go on long voyages, they're for war. Smaller warships are far more common. The smallest warships might carry as few as 12 guns and fewer than 100 crew. 30-40 guns and ~300 crew is a large, dangerous frigate - the type sent on long voyages of discovery or commerce-raiding. Many sizes and roles of airship exist. Some nations use similar patterns for ships, other nations use unique or semi-unique patterns. Prize-taking is rife, so this is not a good indicator of which nation owns any given ship. Cannon/carronades are common They work much like 18th century naval/artillery pieces, with many men serving one gun. They fire mostly solid, cannister, or chain shot. There is variation amongst ammo. They are divided into two basic categories Carronade: Shorter ranged, less accurate guns that fire heavy shot to smash ships up at close range (these are lighter per-gun and require fewer crew) Cannon: Longer ranged, more accurate guns that fire (usually) lighter shot to damage ships at distances (heavier per-gun, require more crew, often used as "chasers" on smaller ships) Firearms are common Rifling exists. They are mostly muzzle-loaded, although revolving-pistols exist too (each individual shot loaded like a muzzle-loader) Hand-weapons are the most common weapons. Swords, axes, pikes, bayonets, knives, hatchets, etc are widespread and often-used. Mostly because firearms take far too long to load in shipboard melee fighting. Most weapons are single-handed, or capable of being used single-handed. Mostly because you want to have a hand free on a moving deck. Armor is not common. Firearms make it pretty pointless, and it's not going to stop cannister-shot or a musket ball anyway, so why bother? Some national militaries specify that armor be worn even aboard ship. This armor usually takes the form of a steel breastplate and helmet, but can also mean just about anything. The world is big. Duelling is not uncommon, and is usually performed with sword or pistol. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Don't put long lines of text in code tags, Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Oops, fixed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:Yeah, you would need to have a way to ensure that players can't game the voting system. If its a FATE derived game something simple like declaring that a picture of a fire hydrant is really a penguin could cost a fate point. Another complicating factor: are these pictures in black and white or in color? Or start off black and white and gain coloration, perspective, shading and such as the game progresses. This applies to both the dueling pictures and the picture-characters. Spending a fate point is a good workaround. I like that. As for the pictures, I think the dueling pictures would be pretty simple. The picture-characters are as complex as the players want them to be, with appropriate advantages and disadvantages. Like, a stick-man might be able to fit his arm through a keyhole, but he might have trouble playing the piano, sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Oops, fixed. No, it isn't. Just put it in quote tags instead of code, please, unless there's something about it I'm missing where it absolutely has to be in a fixed width font?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
OK, I've just detagged it. It had indents. They're gone. I'm sure it's still readable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
I'm looking to sweep away the last remnants of ability scores from my D&D clone; instead, I've figured it out where you can have a highest/middle/lowest unnamed modifier for all-things combat and I'm looking to port that over to the skills section. I have some basic ideas in mind, that I'd like some opinions on: 1) Keep the existing list of 6 skills; key 2 skills of your choice off your highest modifier, 2 off the middle, 2 off the lowest OR 2) Rip the background system from 13th Age; 3 backgrounds, 1 for each modifier OR 3) Something more complicated and restrictive
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
#2 sounds pretty labour-intensive, but also the most interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:#2 sounds pretty labour-intensive, but also the most interesting. From what I gather, 13th Age backgrounds are basically "haggle with the DM to let your bonus in a broad field of expertise apply to an ability check." Mechanically, it's not complex. The modifiers I'm already using aren't far off those of 13th Age, either; they're a little bit higher, but my skill system is also roll-under, so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Ah, I'd go with that then, it sounds like a pretty good solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
Since I'm using 1d6+1d10 for attack rolls, I've had some requests that something cool happens when the d6 result is higher than that of the d10. Here's what I came up with: A) if the attack hits, you can use the attack roll for damage OR max your [W] die B) if the attack misses, you can [damage the target/push the target/shift yourself] an amount equal to the degree of failure Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Miss affects would be great:
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Miss affects would be great: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you mean "use the d6 result instead of the degree of failure" That could work; it'd definitely be quicker and the d6 would probably be in the lower range on a miss, anyway. I was also thinking of PCs doing this same thing if an enemy misses (any miss) them with a melee attack. It might get messy if both things trigger on the same attack, though..
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you mean "use the d6 result instead of the degree of failure" Yeah that's what I meant  I'd playtest before you add anything that triggers whenever a single one of your DM rolls does something fairly common; anything that scales badly as you add monsters is going to make things that should be 'Epic' much more twiddling boredom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Another thing I'm working on is simplifying the equipment system by abstracting it out a bit. Now the problem is that I'm starting to complicate it a bit, and I'm not sure which direction I should go with it. The original premise was basically: if you use d10 for your defense, the your damage die is 2d6, and vice-versa. Now, to keep things easy to balance around, your defense would be either d10+Highest mod or 2d6+middle mod, but at that point, do we even need to use both expressions? Or does you defense die even need to be related to damage die? My own thoughts are leaning towards just going with 2d6 for defense (opposed by 1d6+1d10 attack rolls), but maybe I should just keep it as another lego-brick the players can fiddle with..?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
I always go back to first principals when I'm in a design situation like that. What is your overall design goal and which of the options better fulfills that goal? The first thing to figure out might be, "Why do you want simplified equipment?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:I always go back to first principals when I'm in a design situation like that. What is your overall design goal and which of the options better fulfills that goal? The first thing to figure out might be, "Why do you want simplified equipment?" As I mentioned, it's to make things a little bit easier to balance around. Originally, I had weapons granting their damage die as a defense die, which basically gave classes with more weapon proficiencies far greater options than other classes, and led to me constantly trying to patch things without any real success. The main problem I'm gazing at now is that there are only 5 stat arrays in the game, so I am trying to do things to keep each one viable; generally speaking, min-maxing/dump-statting is better than having a more even spread. So by allowing more flexibility in picking your dice, there are more options for effectively building your character, even if there's only one "best option" for each dice setup. Restricting the point-buy to reduce the number of arrays seems undesirable, and expanding the number ranges of modifiers means rebalancing a lot of things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Where should I start if I want to get into designing elfgames? Is trying to make something from an OGL system like FATE or D20 a good way to get my feet wet? e: I know to start with a concept for a game, I'm mainly just asking if adding on to an existing framework is a viable alternative to making a system from scratch. SALT CURES HAM fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:Where should I start if I want to get into designing elfgames? Is trying to make something from an OGL system like FATE or D20 a good way to get my feet wet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Picking a system first will end badly. You want to decide what your game is going to be about and then find/make mechanics to fit it rather than the other way around. This is me quoting entirely for emphasis. Your game dictates its rules and absolutely never, ever, ever the other way. A good start is to figure out what your game is to be about and find games that purport to emulate that, devour them, then start making one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
I already know that I need to know what I want to make before I think about mechanics. Like I said in my edit, I'm just asking if adapting an existing ruleset is an acceptable alternative to making a game completely from scratch if I'm new to this side of the hobby and (accordingly) don't feel confident in my ability to design an entire system from scratch.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:I already know that I need to know what I want to make before I think about mechanics. Like I said in my edit, I'm just asking if adapting an existing ruleset is an acceptable alternative to making a game completely from scratch if I'm new to this side of the hobby and (accordingly) don't feel confident in my ability to design an entire system from scratch. Do people hack games all the time? Why yes, they do!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:I already know that I need to know what I want to make before I think about mechanics. Like I said in my edit, I'm just asking if adapting an existing ruleset is an acceptable alternative to making a game completely from scratch if I'm new to this side of the hobby and (accordingly) don't feel confident in my ability to design an entire system from scratch. It's your game, do what you want, it doesn't have to be "acceptable" to anyone but you. There's no Game Design Authority that rejects games based on arbitrary rules. If your goal is to make a game because you want to make a game, then you're going to fail no matter what choice you make. If you're goal is to make a game that fills a need/want that you have then you are going in the right direction. Determine what it is that you want your game to be about (whether it's a setting or style) and then either find or create a system around that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Things like Fate Core and Savage Worlds are heavily tilted towards being customized for your individual game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:I always go back to first principals when I'm in a design situation like that. What is your overall design goal and which of the options better fulfills that goal? The first thing to figure out might be, "Why do you want simplified equipment?" Getting back to this, I figured out how I want to handle equipment and such (although I should probably re-crunch the damage numbers, but they're probably fine) To wit, here is the beginnings of the rewrite of my heartbreaker that I can't seem to shut up about. DTAS is happening! ..sort of. Commenting is enabled, and feedback is much appreciated. Other poo poo that I have figured out but have not typed into google drive yet: Updated rules for using Encounter/Daily powers, because the die progression flow chart got me laughed at before. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:I already know that I need to know what I want to make before I think about mechanics. Like I said in my edit, I'm just asking if adapting an existing ruleset is an acceptable alternative to making a game completely from scratch if I'm new to this side of the hobby and (accordingly) don't feel confident in my ability to design an entire system from scratch. *well, nobody worth listening to. **does anyone count as a non-novice game designer. I am especially including published game designers in this sweeping generalisation. Splicer fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:I already know that I need to know what I want to make before I think about mechanics. Like I said in my edit, I'm just asking if adapting an existing ruleset is an acceptable alternative to making a game completely from scratch if I'm new to this side of the hobby and (accordingly) don't feel confident in my ability to design an entire system from scratch. No one will blame you for making a hack - and especially not for your early projects. Best games to hack currently are Fate Core and Apocalypse World. d20... depends on your audience. It's not a very good base to hack from but may well be much more familiar to the people you play with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
A while ago, I visited /tg/ and found them pretending to discuss a card game based on the animal world. Yes, I know that 4chan is where the scum of the internet gathers, but you've got to admit that they come up with interesting ideas from time to time, even if they rarely work with them. So I found the idea neat and built some rules for such a card game in my spare time. What I have right now doesn't even deserve to be called an alpha, since I have barely enough cards to use as examples. Still, I would like to know if the mechanics are solid enough to work with before making a whole library of cards for something whose rules don't work. I'd like to hear your opinion on it. But before posting I would like to know: is it acceptable to post about a card game here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Go bananas. The title of the thread is more important than the subline; card mechanics are TG design.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:A while ago, I visited /tg/ and found them pretending to discuss a card game based on the animal world. Yes, I know that 4chan is where the scum of the internet gathers, but you've got to admit that they come up with interesting ideas from time to time, even if they rarely work with them. When I was little I played a card game about predators and prey in the animal kingdom, then got home and told my dad about it and we made our own D&D hack for it, with purple worms eating bugbears and all that. It was fuckin great. I say do it! Do it! Make the thing! gently caress with it! Have fun! Tell us about the stuff you do and gently caress with!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
I hacked Lady Blackbird / Death School last week and also wrote some notes on the process. You can find the pdf of The Bugs of Venus here if you're interested, but I thought I'd post the design notes.quote:Within Lady Blackbird is a wonderfully flexible template for character-driven one shots. It is also written and distributed under a generous Creative Commons license (see above). I suppose that’s why so many hacks of it exist.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Sorry for the late answer. I don't seem to be able to post images, so I'll write the test of cards I use as examples here. edit: it's just too long. I've put the whole thing in a pastebin: http://pastebin.com/Sd31dcQz paradoxGentleman fucked around with this message at 02:26 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
I need some math help. I want to know the odds of getting doubles in these scenarios: A) roll 2d6 and 1d10, keep the 2 lowest B) roll 3d6 and 1d10, keep the 2 lowest C), D) same as above, but keep the 2 highest E) Bonus round: same dice expressions, but trying to get maximum possible on both kept dice instead of doubles P.d0t fucked around with this message at 07:39 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
2d6 & 1d10: * 2 lowest: 20.83% (75/360) * 2 highest: 14.17% (51/360) 3d6 & 1d10: * 2 lowest: 27.78% (600/2160) * 2 highest: 18.33% (396/2160) One sec and I'll get the bonus stuff. e: I don't really get what you mean by "maximum possible on both kept dice". Could you clarify?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
I think it means either 6/6 (on the two d6's) or 6/10 (on a d6 and a d10) as the two lowest/highest dice of the set.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:I think it means either 6/6 (on the two d6's) or 6/10 (on a d6 and a d10) as the two lowest/highest dice of the set. Correct. Granted, the odds of rolling 6,6,6 on 3d6 and 6+ on a d10 when you're trying to keep the lowest are pretty slim, but, for the sake of completeness, etc. Edit: actually that one would be 3.24% by my figuring. Let me know if I'm wrong. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 09:45 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Any Vassal Engine pros here? Have some questions about the editor that I can't figure out with the manual or faq. I'm posting over on their forums, but I figure I'd hit up some goons too 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
Your chances are actually pretty low. In order to keep the highest possible while keeping the lowest rolled, you have to roll a 6 on every d6 and a 6 or higher or the d10. If you're rolling 2d6, that means that your odds are 1.4% (5/360). If you're rolling 3d6, then your odds are 0.2% (5/2160). Keeping the highest changes things around quite a bit. With 2d6, your odds are 4.7% (17/360), and with 3d6 it becomes 9.2% (198/2160).
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:23
|
|
