|
Zeerust posted:5e is an interesting choice for a WFRP heartbreaker, considering how flattened 5e's progression system is, although honestly I don't know how 4e does it compared to 2e. My first instinct would be concern that a 'job' system won't translate over particularly well because the Proficiency system means any trained skill scales to your level, whereas increasing your skills in WFRP requires job changes to allow more advances to be bought. I've added in an expertise system - your first advance in a skill takes it up to your proficiency, and you can get two more +2s from more advanced careers. Also to buy an extra point of proficiency requires completing a career and buying a minimum number of advances from it (if you can't buy enough advances you just didn't learn enough there).
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Okay, that makes sense. Pvt. Scott's suggestion on the previous page works out almost exactly how WFRP handles skills when you break down the percentages. Do ability scores do anything by themselves in this system, or does it only use the ability score modifiers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:I've added in an expertise system - your first advance in a skill takes it up to your proficiency, and you can get two more +2s from more advanced careers. Also to buy an extra point of proficiency requires completing a career and buying a minimum number of advances from it (if you can't buy enough advances you just didn't learn enough there). Less obligatory suggestion: Instead of just two flat +2s, make one of them the 5e Rogue's anything less than a 10 is a 10 ability or something similarly more "sidegradey"
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Obligatory suggestion: Merge Str and Con, and give Int and Cha some manner of meaningful passive combat benefits. I know you have a thing going with your lords but please, I beg you. On Int and Cha, I'm trying to think what if anything fits; I'm deliberately going pretty trad this time. (I've already included a manipulation action to play with popcorn initiative). I'm also wondering how much I'll annoy people by giving Int to the Denier on the grounds you can use it to explain things away if you're smart enough. This allows me to put the Changer benefit as taking "Double or Quits" on a 1-3 rather than just a 1. In other words you may reroll any roll of a 1-3 on a d20 but if you fail the second roll it's a crit failure (GM's choice).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
I'm working on a dice pool mechanics overhaul of Troika! - the end goal is to have something that feels a little lighter and more picaresque, and has more hooks for weird unique mechanics. This does mean steering away from the OSR side of Troika!, which is a positive on my end. It's a work in progress. I call it ParaTroika! because I'm terrible. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VFiSuBecMEBy_G-miGlL818fdUi1oYlXoYcSlNrLYhQ/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
No, no, no. You should call it "Perestroika" (restructuring). That would be a brilliant name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 05:32
|
|
|
Ilor posted:No, no, no. You should call it "Perestroika" (restructuring). That would be a brilliant name. I mean it's a pun, on purpose - this is not quite Stroika! so it's Para-Stroika, and also it's a restructuring of Stroika. I'm terrible because it's a pun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 05:47
|
|
|
I am currently working an RPG and I have a slight issue of concern. The TL;DR of the game I'm working on is that all player randomly roll their race and two classes, currently (and for a while) I've had it set up that no races have an attribute penalties (and all races just have +2 to two different attributes, or occasionally +4 to one attribute, humans have +2 to two random attributes), considering the races range from thing like Pixie and Minotaurs, is it too weird to not have attribute penalties? The reason i don't want any is that people aren't crippled if they roll "Pixie Fighter/Barbarian" Classes also give attribute bonuses if that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
If I roll Minotaur Fighter/Barbarian what will I look like? Also post your ability scores so I can get mad at you
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
Splicer posted:If I roll Minotaur Fighter/Barbarian what will I look like? Here were my original ability score: Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Agility, Intelligence, Willpower, Perception, Charisma. Fell free to rage about how dumb they were. To answer your question while I haven't finalized what minotaurs stat bonuses let's say for the sake of argument they were +2 Strength and +2 Constitution (it's either be that or +4 strength). All attributes started at 10 (don't worry I smart enough to make then matter all rolls are based on a d20 roll under, so that every point matters, races just get +2 for a little extra oomph plus I had hybrid rules which +1s were given). Fighters gave +4 Strength, +2 Constitution +2 Dexterity, Barbarians gives +4 Constitution, +2 Strength, +2 Agility So a minotaur Fighter/Barbarian gets 18 Strength 18 Constitution 12 Dexterity 12 Agility 10 Intelligence 10 Willpower 10 Perception 10 Charisma Plus the player would have 6 points to raise any attribute no higher then 18 (so they could raise any attribute other then Strength and Constitution) I guess the problem is having ability scores in this system in the first place or rather having races give bonuses to them that some would be better then others. Also considering classes give bonuses that over rewards synergist rolls. It might just scrap ability scores and all the rolls based on skills (Races still matter because they give two racial powers, with humans just getting one extra class power per class). I guess could just reflect small things logically be weaker in making damage rolls (and carry capacity) based on size categories (but having small things be balanced in other ways such as evasion and accuracy boost and cheaper weapons and equipment.) If want to keep attributes maybe have a smaller number of them would be good? I've in other (far less complete) projects used the "Body, Mind, Social, Grace" split before, but i felt in a crunchier dungeon crawly game, having familiar attributes would be good for the D&D crowd i'm semi-trying to attract, but I dont' wanna copy the "D&D 6" exactly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
I think having three character elements randomly contribute to your ability scores might be the source of the awkwardness here. The 7th edition of Gamma World had you randomly roll two 'classes', and each class gives stat bonuses that mean all of the abilities that class gives you are going to be effective. When you put a third wheel on that bicycle, things get a little more confused. Ideally, each 'part' you roll should have an established purpose and playstyle, and a character emerges from the synthesis of those elements. If you've already got two Classes contributing to your statline, do you really need a Race doing the same thing, especially when you get a pile of freebie points to spend? The easiest way out, to me, is to scrap racial ability scores and keep your race as something that gives a couple of unique abilities, like you said. It also sidesteps the awkward conversation around the idea of someone's race determining their aptitudes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 06:42
|
|
|
Zeerust posted:I think having three character elements randomly contribute to your ability scores might be the source of the awkwardness here. The 7th edition of Gamma World had you randomly roll two 'classes', and each class gives stat bonuses that mean all of the abilities that class gives you are going to be effective. When you put a third wheel on that bicycle, things get a little more confused. Ideally, each 'part' you roll should have an established purpose and playstyle, and a character emerges from the synthesis of those elements. If you've already got two Classes contributing to your statline, do you really need a Race doing the same thing, especially when you get a pile of freebie points to spend? A lot of fantasy games have problems with having very disparate creatures available to players. You can get around things like “why does this 1” tall pixie have 18 strength and the centaur has 3 strength” with size tags or the like. The pixie is obviously going to have trouble body-slamming a centaur (assuming you want that sort of simulationism) so maybe a penalty to using strength on something bigger than you could be a standard rule. A human kicking in a human-sized door is going to have an easier time than a toddler-sized gnome kicking in a human-sized door. Reframing attribute scores to be mostly about how well a character utilizes aspects of their body and mind rather than some sort of empirical unit of x, helps too. Wanna play a totally ripped dude with a low strength score? Cool, he’s just trash at actually using his bulk effectively when it matters, he sucks at fighting and he always lifts with his rippling back muscles when he should be using his glistening Adonis-like legs. The whole racial bonus thing is a big gnarly knot that needs to get untied by the mainstream industry as a whole. At least Pathfinder uses the term “ancestry” now rather than “race”. A step in the right direction. You could even still have attribute bonuses attached to being an elf, but you get a Dex bonus because archery, dancing, tumbling etc. are all culturally encouraged, and you get an Int bonus because the elves have a long tradition of extended logical education and a love of complex puzzles or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 11:17
|
|
|
Pvt.Scott posted:Reframing attribute scores to be mostly about how well a character utilizes aspects of their body and mind rather than some sort of empirical unit of x, helps too. Wanna play a totally ripped dude with a low strength score? Cool, he’s just trash at actually using his bulk effectively when it matters, he sucks at fighting and he always lifts with his rippling back muscles when he should be using his glistening Adonis-like legs. I think this is the crux of it, for me. A Minotaur might be naturally larger than a Gnome, but a Minotaur Wizard isn't necessarily going to have learned how to put that bulk to work, while a Gnome Barbarian is going to be a sturdy little cooper's barrel of a bastard who can use their low centre of gravity to absolutely punish opponents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
I'm almost done with a magic system for my somewhat-rules-light fantasy heartbreaker game but I need some advice on certain aspects of it. Magic spells come from items called Talismans that can be used once per day to cast the spell particular of that Talisman. A character must attune a Talisman to themselves before they are able to use it. Every Talisman that a character has attuned will permanently reduce their maximum HP by a small amount but they will regain it if they lose contact with the Talisman for a certain period of time, severing their connection to it (and will need to re-attune the Talisman if they get it back). Visually I picture Talismans looking like flat oblong metal objects about the size of a television remote which are covered on all sides in complicated runes, arcane symbols and embedded with crystals and other magical crap. I'm trying to work out the fictional framework for these Talismans in the game setting and I'm stuck deciding between two options. : Option 1 Talisman's are basically one way spirit phones. Each Talisman connects the user to a specific entity which resides in the spirit world and who controls the arcane forces of that particular magic spell. Attuning to a Talisman in this option means making a bargain with that particular spirit and granting it some of your life energy (reduced HP) in exchange for being able to call on its power once per day. In this setup I think it feels a bit more like Clerical magic since the spirit being called on by the Talisman is the one that holds all the cards. From where they are sitting they are making off like bandits since they get a near constant influx of delicious mortal life-force and in exchange they just have to send over a small bit of their own energy which can only be called up under strict circumstances which they dictated to you at the start of the agreement. The exchange rate for life-energy to arcane force is probably fairly absurd but they'd never let on and likely grumble about even the small amount of work they'd be called on to do anyway. Option B Talisman's in this option are more like very limited djinn. Each Talisman would have a weak and very minor generic elemental spirit trapped inside of it, and its energies are shaped and directed along extremely specific configurations to create the effects of the spell. Attuning to a Talisman in this option would also involve establishing a link to this elemental, but in this case you are forging a symbiotic bond with it where it feeds on your life-force to sustain itself, otherwise it would go dormant and the Talisman would fall inert. The Talisman can only be invoked once a day in this version because only the most minor elemental spirits are weak enough to be trapped inside a Talisman and attempting to call on their power more than that would likely over-drain their energy and destroy them outright - so a failsafe was put in to prevent that since Talismans are expensive and dangerous to manufacture. In this setup the character is the one calling the shots since the spirits are essentially little more than batteries. The Talisman feels more like a Magi-Tech tool from some powerful fallen civilization, and very few of them are still around nowadays. They can usually only be found in the oldest ruins, and only the most wealthy or powerful would flaunt theirs openly. As a flavor element I think it would be fun if this version of the Talisman came with "familiars" - visual and auditory hallucinations of the elementals the character has bonded with that no one else can see. They aren't around all the time, but when a character has the Talisman in hand they can communicate with it. -- Does either option sound better than the other? Or are they both crap and is there a third way to re-skin the Talisman idea that isn't?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 03:30
|
|
|
Wow, this is a tough one. Both ideas have merit as far as flavour and worldbuilding are concerned; I think it comes down primarily to the themes and nature of your game's world. Option 1 is interesting to me because it means you have these incredibly powerful, eldritch beings who will have their own values and goals, and anyone using a Talisman has to capitulate their own vitality to them. It's good groundwork for a darker fantasy setting where mortals are essentially surviving on the mercy of higher beings. Option 2 has more of a Vancian feel to it, in that as you said, Talismans are more of a synthetic construct that executes a set 'program', using an encoded elemental as the conduit and the user's life force as the battery. This connects more, to me, with what a well-executed setting with a precursor / fallen civilisation does - there's a sense that you're in the twlight of a golden age, using tools that were once commonplace and easily understood but are now arcane relics reproduced by a select few. If it were my game I would probably go with Option 2 because I'm a Vance geek and magitech is cool, but it depends a lot on your priorities in terms of what kind of world you want to present to your players.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 07:02
|
|
|
Why not offer both options? It could be interesting to choose between striking a devil's bargain warlock-style and holding a literal entrapped spirit in your bag. Barring that, I think the Option A is most interesting - especially from a design perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 07:11
|
|
|
The janky-rear end PC game Inquisitor by Cinemax (no, not that Cinemax) has seals which are your option 1. Most offensive spells are cast through seals directly tied to angelic beings, and the caster calls upon them and spends mana to rain down fire, lightning, cold and more. Other (far more varied) magic is done through learning different books of lore and increasing your prowess with each spell “school” individually. It’s a huge chunk of character points to skill up and is incredibly weak and inefficient unless you fully commit to it. If you just need some magic to help with big groups of enemies, the seals are the only magic you need. The seals break after x uses (usually somewhere between 20-50 with more powerful seals having less charges) and you have to go buy more, which is expensive. The church doesn’t make those things for free! If you go for options 1+2, pick one type for mostly utility stuff and the other for nuking poo poo, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 11:09
|
|
|
Why not both? You've got your lower case t talismans that are trapped mini elementals, and then you have your capital T Talismans which are connected to weakly godlike beings. And that opens up theoretical double capital T Talismans where someone's managed to trap a weakly godlike being and oh hey there's like three adventure paths already written.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 15:20
|
|
|
so i'm still in the brainstorming stage of what i'm doing at the moment, but: are there any minis games that have notably simplified/not-fiddly mechanics? i'm poking at an idea for one, with the goal being relatively fast and easy-to-pick-up gameplay, and i'm honestly really inspired by how games like new-XCOM and Battle Brothers basically take the core idea of a minis game and surgically remove all the fiddly ultra-detailed bullshit. are there any games in the actual minis space I could look at that do similar things, so I can get a feel for how it translates?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
Thanks for all the comments - the general consensus seems to be using both setups would work and I've been thinking a bit about how to do that. Maybe the first option would work best as Ritual magic which can produce more powerful effects similar to the way that Beyond the Wall or 4e use Rituals - contacting the greater spirits requires a lot of setup and long casting times but they are also a lot more powerful than anything a Talisman can produce. The secrets of how to perform different Rituals would probably belong to the cults that worship the greater spirits or musty old grimoires, but there'd probably be ways for players to get their hands on them if they are daring enough. I'm a big Vance fan too, so keeping the Talisman's as ancient artifacts of a fallen civilization that no one really knows how to make anymore works alongside it. Maybe it can all fit together - like the ancient civilization that created the Talismans kept harnessing spirit power but ended up accidentally drawing the attentions of the greater spirits and things got a little apocalyptic. A few centuries down the line and all knowledge of how to create Talismans has been lost and people worship the greater spirits that utterly destroyed their ancestors civilization as gods. EDIT: Or maybe take the idea even further and have the greater spirits themselves be higher-grade constructed arcane intelligences created by the prior civilizations that grew steadily more powerful and intelligent over time and then went all Skynet/I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream on the precursor civilization. Bob Quixote fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jun 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
WeedlordGoku69 posted:so i'm still in the brainstorming stage of what i'm doing at the moment, but: are there any minis games that have notably simplified/not-fiddly mechanics? i'm poking at an idea for one, with the goal being relatively fast and easy-to-pick-up gameplay, and i'm honestly really inspired by how games like new-XCOM and Battle Brothers basically take the core idea of a minis game and surgically remove all the fiddly ultra-detailed bullshit. are there any games in the actual minis space I could look at that do similar things, so I can get a feel for how it translates? Depends on where your threshold for ”fiddly” goes. But for exsmple I’d say Lion Rampant is one of the least fiddly tabletop wargame I’ve played. Minimal movement rules, quite abstracted combat, and a very simply activation system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SpeaktheSky/status/1289694538257186816 I'm running another game jam, though this one isn't games—it's Trophy Dark incursions in trifold format! The stakes are low (read: there aren't any) and there's a bit of randomisation, plus it's very short form (a typical incursion can easily run to about 4 times the length of this). Here's a thread in the jam forum that summarises a bunch of help, examples, and advice for people who don't know much about writing incursions or designing for Trophy. You can also ask questions there or here (or on the official Trophy discord—ask and I'll see if I can get an invite link). Overall I think this is pretty beginner-friendly, and you're encouraged to license and price your work as you see fit. The list of Themes to pick from will be revealed on the 8th of August, so it's just anticipation-building (and learning about Trophy if you're new to it) until then. EDIT: And I've now published a free set of trifold pamphlet templates for Word (and OpenOffice and LibreOffice), Affinity Publisher, and Googledocs. They're nothing fancy, but I had some people ask for them on twitter. UnCO3 fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Aug 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 08:55
|
|
|
So I've worked out the basic outline and concept of mostly the setting and character creation of an RPG i want to work on, let me know what you guys think (I know this a huge info dump but if anyone is bored enough to read, I wouldn't mind feedback) The setting(which I've been working on for years but was more for a novel or a webcomic, before I realized it worked as a role-playing game) Fundamental premise is that everyone (I do mean everyone not just player characters) has a supernatural power called a "Blessing" and a practically and/or symbolically related supernatural weakness called a "Curse". Setting is pseudo-sci-fi in that certain technology is better in this setting than the real world (armor kind of looks halo armor but doesn't have the special shield poo poo, guns are slightly better, cybernetics exists but are limited) They are monsters in this world, and basically anything outside of cities and surrounding farmlands (all artificial dome protected), is dangerous however both criminals attempting to escape the law, and scientist doing research (usually with guards) will go outside of the dome walls. They are two countries you deal with a very controlling "orderly" society where peoples needs are taken care of,but people (aside from those with truly minor blessings) are assigned jobs, basic stuff like having kids requires government, and constant surveillance exists or in the "free" society were people have are allowed to choose careers, kids etc, however the government provides almost no services and cooperation rule the land. TL;DR the two countries are Totalitarian Communist Government vs. Pseudo-Anarcho Capitalist (Though I will never use those terms in the books because I want to avoid real world political terms) Your party is a military squad in the orderly society who deals with Monster attacks on civilians (certain people such as scientist need to leave the dome for purposes), hunting down criminals, and dealing with rebellions (the last one is suppose to be sometimes messed up) I'll leaving out of a lot of extra detail I already have written down so if any detail has you curious let me know and 90% chance I've already thought of it. Character Creation First thing you do is assign your attributes, Attributes are separate in physical and mental, Attributes range from 0 to 5 for humans (with 1 being the average), they are all start at 1 for Physical and 0 for mental. Your physical stats will be higher, to represent most of your training being physical Physical Attributes are: Strength, Fortitude, Dexterity, Reflexes Mental Attributes are: Intellect, Judgement, Willpower, Social The next thing you do is your blessing. You have an amount of points to modify your blessing. Choose from a list of "Base Powers" with a point, then you get to modify the base power by like applying enhancements or limitations (just flat point mods). Note that you aren't quite just restricted to one Blessing in the truest sense, secondary aspects of Blessings are a thing (Shooting might come with fire resistance for obvious reasons etc.). All Blessings in this book will be limited to those the society would actually make a combat person (IE not pure utility blessings, incredibly minor ones, or blessings that could be more useful somewhere else (Ie teleportation of others)). Any points left over from your blessing are redirected into improving Attributes, Skills, a small collection of Merits, or Combat Skills. After that you choose your curse, unlike blessings curses are free formed, just describe and discuss with your GM what you want your curse to be, and you two discuss specifics, duration, exact penalties to attributes and skills in certain situations etc. You get XP when the Curse matters (If you get a penalty and fail by that penalty etc.) After that you assign your combat skills. They are only two: Melee and Ranged. Their is basically a sliding scale of how much you are proficient in each: 3 in both, 4 in Primary and 1 Secondary, or 5 in Primary and -1 Secondary. The last category requires GMs permission and GM is only suppose to grant if your curse makes you actively less viable in the secondary then an average person. After that you pick your Skill Package. They are 7 options (and every player is required to pick a different one making this a group discussion is encouraged.): Medic, Navigation, Communication, Technical, Information, Tactics and Stealth. After that you pick you pick 1 "Hobby Skill" which doesn't have do anything on your adventure (Cooking, Sewing, Painting etc.), just for fun defining your character. After that all players Define 2 NPCs that they personally know are close to, then each player will choose 1 other persons NPC and say how they also know them. After that the players as a group will define the city they live (while the boarder detials of society are pretty heavily defined individual cities are not specified at all for this exact purpose) along with a boss figure who gives you orders. Other Mechanics Skill rolls are d20 + Skill bonus. Attack rolls to hit are d20 + Combat Skill + Dexterity versus the targets d20 + Reflex. Target wins ties. Grid Based Movement. Game cycle continues goes from: Mission -> Downtime -> Mission Pie in the Sky Stuff Yes i know it's dumb to already have Expansions in mind when you haven't finished writing the first one but I can't I have several like extra books after the first, all of them deal with alternate campaign types rather then just expanding on the original. -A Book where you play as a small mercenary company in the free society. (Will include rule for money and resource management, and includes Blessings that the Orderly society wouldn't make combat people but are still at least semi-viable for combat). -A Book covering espionage and intrigue stuff for both the first two societies. (Will include rules for spy stuff along with Blessings that specifically are beneficial for intrigue.) -A Book where you play as a people in small tribe in a different part of the world isolated from the part you play in the main book, who need to find a way to use their blessing and curse to creatively survive without a dome or technology and where they are monsters. Virtually every blessing that is not in the intro book will be included along with survival rules -A book where you play as regular people in a modern day earth setting who mysteriously just got a blessing and curse (Like the small tribe book every blessing that is not in the intro book is included, along with rules about dealing with government agencies.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 10:13
|
|
|
what kinds of things should I be doing to make sure I get the most out of playtesting? I've run about seven or eight sessions using the system for my co-creator and some mutual friends, and it seems to have been going mostly smoothly, but I feel like there's probably a lot of stuff I'm missing due to everyone involved being very inexperienced with the game design process. there's been a couple times when we've used a subsystem for the first time and immediately realized it sucked in practice and started trying to rework it, which I thiiink is a good sign. I mean, if we weren't learning anything at all, I'd be even more worried.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 09:43
|
|
|
Once you get to a point in internal testing where you think none of the subsystems suck/are broken, you need to get outside feedback on how your game works. Don't just run the game with your friends and co-creator; you know how the game is intended to be played, so you end up with the D&D3 problem*. Find some friends (or some people on the internet) who haven't played your game and ask them to run it and report back on their experiences. That doesn't just help with finding broken bits, it also can point out where what you want the rules to be and what they're communicating doesn't work. *: the playtesters, knowing how the game was "intended" to play because they were coming from 2e, didn't actually test half the things in the game. Save-or-suck spells hardly came up for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 11:47
|
|
|
so I've drilled down what I want to do for my aforementioned project mechanically a little better, after looking around at some skirmish-level wargame rules. essentially i'm planning a sort of co-op wargame, like a mix of something like Necromunda or Battletech with a regular RPG, where one side has each player controlling a single unit against a GM controlling the OpFor. OpFor will have genericized stats for each unit, whereas the "player" side will consist of 4-6 individualized units made through a chargen system and tracked on a simplified character sheet, with some sort of campaign system tracking advancements and injuries between battles. however. I'm... sort of unsure about the theme I want to go for, because it feels like one of those death-or-glory things where it's either exactly what everyone wants or it'll start an unbelievable shitstorm. essentially: the theme I want to go for is a near-future USA, where fascism has fully taken over and the players are rebels fighting against the government; the player characters will be assorted punks, anarchists, and rioters, whereas the OpFor will run the gamut from civilian brownshirts (Proud Boys etc) all the way to full-on spec ops units. the real-life inspiration should be very obvious (*gestures wildly at the news*), which is why I'm unsure about this because it could come off as being in very bad taste. however, I'm also very definitely trying to hit it from a left-sympathetic position where the rebels are the unambiguous heroes and the fash are the unambiguous horrible villains, with the mechanics treating the former as characters and the latter as genericized mooks to make it effectively impossible to "flip around." part of why I'm unsure is tone. my gut wants to try and detach it from the obvious current events by taking a bit of a Verheoven/C&C Red Alert/Metal Gear tonal approach to it, where even though the overall message of "gently caress fascism" is serious, all the in-the-moment details are fairly absurd and presented with tongue in cheek. however, i'm not sure if this would make it better in terms of taste, or significantly worse. e: to be clear, I fully intend to make chuds angry as hell with this and have them see it as in poor taste; that's sort of inevitable. i'm more worried about the actual target audience, left-wing wargamers, thinking this is gross and awful. i don't wanna get in a situation where both sides hate me for entirely different reasons, so I feel like I need to spitball this and workshop it a little before I start writing anything concrete beyond mechanics (the mechanical idea seems pretty sound, inventive even, and I can absolutely retheme it if this one sucks). WeedlordGoku69 fucked around with this message at 11:22 on Sep 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
noether posted:what kinds of things should I be doing to make sure I get the most out of playtesting? I've run about seven or eight sessions using the system for my co-creator and some mutual friends, and it seems to have been going mostly smoothly, but I feel like there's probably a lot of stuff I'm missing due to everyone involved being very inexperienced with the game design process. there's been a couple times when we've used a subsystem for the first time and immediately realized it sucked in practice and started trying to rework it, which I thiiink is a good sign. I mean, if we weren't learning anything at all, I'd be even more worried. Gonna second the plan of handing it off to a group who know absolutely nothing about the game, and seeing how they enjoy it, and see what questions or issues they have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
Fashionable Jorts posted:Gonna second the plan of handing it off to a group who know absolutely nothing about the game, and seeing how they enjoy it, and see what questions or issues they have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
Get them to record the zoom session for sure. It can make sense to be available for clarifying queries; you’ll know what needs to be made clearer and you can avoid cascading misinterpretation that means they end up testing a game that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike yours. (I haven’t done game testing, but I’ve done other usability testing and being able to hint people back onto the right path can avoid wasting everyone’s time when they get stumped or misinterpret something.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
Splicer posted:This is very important, you cannot be there. If you're there or contactable for queries while they're testing it defeats the purpose of finding out how completely and utterly you've failed to communicate things as written. For reference, this is called "blind testing". Occasionally you'll see blind testers credited in old RPGs or other tabletop games. DigitalRaven posted:Don't just run the game with your friends and co-creator; you know how the game is intended to be played, so you end up with the D&D3 problem*. <snip> I want to emphasize here that this also introduces a different problem in testing: people who play the game the way they think it's supposed to be played. It doesn't matter if they've never played the game before, if they have an idea of how the game is supposed to be played ("Like AD&D 2e", "Like D&D", etc.) they might leave avenues explored and not find problems. As I understand it, a lot of playtesters will run the game in normal conditions and report problems that arose. If you have the resources for it, it can be really valuable to set some blind testers specifically to the task of trying everything they can think of to make weird stuff happen. Trying out bizarre builds if your game allows that kind of stuff, etc. Oh, and you have to tell playtesters very specifically they are under basically no circumstances to alter or ignore any rule (as roleplayers, being experienced with bad systems, often do). To test the game you have to test the consequences of weird and dumb stuff too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Oh, and you have to tell playtesters very specifically they are under basically no circumstances to alter or ignore any rule (as roleplayers, being experienced with bad systems, often do). To test the game you have to test the consequences of weird and dumb stuff too. i think this sort of depends on how set-in-stone your rules are, because it seems just as valuable to let them houserule whatever they want so long as they tell you what they're houseruling, why they're loving with the RAW mechanic, and what the houserule consists of. this essentially turns the exercise from "your test group papers over your bad rules" to "your test group tells you why your rules are bad and proposes a fix."
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
this all makes a lot of sense. I'll see if I can round up another group to hand it off to for a while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 08:06
|
|
|
What are some good tactical games that don't make use of cover? I'm not saying the game shouldn't have rules for cover, but I'm looking for something distinct from, say, Fragged Empire, which put cover front and center. I'm looking at the feasibility of putting together some 4E/Lancer level rules for superheroes, but superheroes don't tend to seek cover.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:What are some good tactical games that don't make use of cover? I'm not saying the game shouldn't have rules for cover, but I'm looking for something distinct from, say, Fragged Empire, which put cover front and center. Most games that don't use cover as a main thing use range and movement restrictions instead to create tactical options. I mean, that's basically the concept of chess. By giving different "powers" different ranges and areas of effect, you can add lots of tactical options. Adding minimum ranges, not just maximum ranges, is a good idea. Risk of friendly fire could also be a way to mix it up, so that say brawlers can avoid nukers by getting up and close with the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 08:22
|
|
|
I don't know if this is necessarily the thread for it (or what in god's name would be a proper thread for it), but I'm taking a swing at a writing game / roleplaying-esque thing that I've been thinking about for years and if I don't actually try to pull it off it will continue to haunt me forever http://arenaarcadia.com it's still a huge work in process while I hash out the logistics; I don't think anyone's done exactly this kind of thing before so I'm having to do a lot of learning, with my face basically, players create characters and then have them fight weekly in a pro wrestling / e-fed type setup, but the players involved with the fight personally negotiate who wins and who loses and how so every week you're collaborating with a different person on telling a new fight story. Winning characters go up in ranks, "losing" players get compensated points that go toward new weapons and armor and poo poo armor and weapons and poo poo are pulled from literally anywhere, any fiction, I don't give a poo poo. Characters are original but species are likewise pulled from whatever who cares tell a story Lunatic Sledge fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Oct 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
I think I just had an insane idea for a game so posting it here. If this is not the right thread, let me know. Beginning with an overview and key factions: https://breadthofpopsanity.blogspot.com/2020/11/post-apocalyptic-pro-wrestling-part-1.html So using Feng Shui 2 as a basis once I got the fluff (I know the system and think tweaking it would be relatively easy) so open to any and all suggestions on how to tweak it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
So, bizarre question I'm just throwing out there. Say two games make their core system available to be used freely with an open game license...is there any reason (beyond specific terms in the OGL) why parts of each game could not be used to create a frankenstein game, even for commercial purposes, crediting both systems? Like, just to use an incredibly cursed example...let's say for some reason I thought that Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition and FATE were just a perfect match waiting to happen and I explicitly take say...the Aspect and Fate Chip system from FATE and tie it to the class and d20 resolution mechanics of 3e, because I'm a madman and I have no sense of right and wrong. Any reason why that couldn't be packaged together and sold?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
oriongates posted:So, bizarre question I'm just throwing out there. Nope (if in America at least) As long as you steer clear of presenting the material in the same way as the copyrighted stuff (layout/art/exact same wording and examples or whatever from the actual paid products the license is tied to) game rules cannot be copyrighted. This is why the OSR/D&D retro clones exist. E: I’m mashing up the rules from multiple D&D editions, OSR games and little mechanics from a dozen other things right now. I might even publish it some day
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
Pvt.Scott posted:Nope (if in America at least) As long as you steer clear of presenting the material in the same way as the copyrighted stuff (layout/art/exact same wording and examples or whatever from the actual paid products the license is tied to) game rules cannot be copyrighted. This is why the OSR/D&D retro clones exist. I'm not just talking about pure mechanics. I'm talking about the normally copyrightable material of an SRD, things like Feats, Spells, Classes, etc...plus the ability to explicitly advertise the game as a hybrid of the systems. And even if I could technically use a lot of stuff there's a distinction between "I'm using game materials explicitly provided for public use" and "you can't legally stop me from taking these ideas."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Any of you ever had this moment, when, after a playtest, your players most unanimously say "You know, this would be great as a boardgame, as an rpg, not so much." ? Feel a little bit crushed after last nights playtesting of my latest project =|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 08:31
|
|
