/gdg/ Game Design General

>Do you prefer comprehensive gear lists, or do-it-yourself guidelines
My fantasy RPG is built around DIY structures for things like magic spells, weapons, possibly even map building. I like the idea of being able to really create what you want, or at least a close equivalent. So, if Gygax wanted to make his Glaive-Glaive-Fauchard-Spontoon-Halberd-Bec-de-Ranseur-Glaive, He would know what that would do, and how much it costs.
>What mechanic from another system do you wish you came up with yourself?
Doesn't matter. I intend to choose the best mechanics for my RPG, regardless of if they already exist or if I have to create it.
>When do you work on your game?
Right now? Never. When might I otherwise work on it? Whenever I have inspiration

A perhaps easier way to categorize your mages would be to have Domain mages stay the same. Type mages' definition would also stay the same, and specialist mages would have both an action /and/ target restriction. Double the restriction for double the bonus.

With those definitions, Elementalist would move up into Type, and Red/Green could be domains. Also, there's room for a blue mage (who might be able to cast any spell, as long as they "steal" the spell from someone in the vicinity. Colors would be domains, and stay very generalized. Going further with that, Mages could both have a Domain and a Type. For an extreme example, You could be a Red Specialist who Controls Fire. Therefore, you wield a Torch which both acts as a club and is your fire source (because you cannot both create and control fire as a specialist). Another example might be a White Necromancer who might be proficient as a priest of the dead/gravekeeper.

I think something like the above provides for a lot of variety, especially when you start mixing some of the seemingly weirder options together.

here. I posted before reading. On the subject of middle ground, I believe its absolutely necessary to have some level of both. I may want to have DIY aspects in most of my game, but I think you almost require some good, hearty examples to give the rest of your options context. Like when I get around to finalizing my rules, I'll have the rules to create your own weapons, but have a list of how some of the most common weapons used would be made. If a sword is made by abc, and a mace is made by xyz, then I'll be able to more easily figure out what I have when I combine abz or xbz together. It also keeps people from getting frustrated when all they want is a simple shortsword, but they have to go through a Subway style line to get it. You get a base first and then modify it, either lightly or heavily.

For magic its a bit more difficult, but I reconcile that by lowering the minimum required steps to create a spell. A Fireball is simply Fire+Projectile at its core. If you want something more complicated like a twinned-enlarged-delayed blast Fireball, you can make that too, but you know ahead of time it'll take more effort to make. I'll also encourage players to create a few baseline spells before hand so it doesn't bog down the game (or restrict them to a spell book they completely build each morning, which could serve a similar purpose).

I want to give players a lot of options and depth in playing, but I also can't bog down the game with all those choices. So, offering streamlined options makes tons of sense.

That actually sounds pretty damn good. It streamlines it and makes it easier to understand, but still allows considerable room to play around and customize.

I love the specialist idea in particular.

Many thanks for the help and quick reply.

-----
Funny you should mention blue mages, because I will be including something along those lines.
Classes in my setting are a human and demi-human only sort of deal. This is because humans are not native to the world; they arrived via deus ex machina portal when their own was destroyed. Their breed of magic, and the abilities their non-mage classes use, are foreign to the world and are thus unique to mankind.

Native species like elves, orcs, and dorfs, all operate under a different system. Instead of choosing a class, their race alone determines what they can and can't do. They come with a large list of racial abilities they can tap into using a mana system, which operates sort of like weaker Fate Points from Dark Heresy. They do have magic users, but it's different than the magic humans use. Think innate ability rather than a learned skill.
It's probably going to be a bitch balancing all this, but I like the idea enough to at least give it a shot.
Also, I find it a nice call back to early D&D.

Anyway, blue mages were humanity's attempt to harness native magical abilities. It worked, but when the blue mages realized how powerful they could get by stealing native magics the majority went a bit evil. They're actually going to be one of my go to baddy groups as the native races all hate their guts (the feeling is mutual), and they tend to be neutral at best to other humans, who they consider lesser beings.
Oh, and blue magic is a hereditary ability; all other human magic is learned.

Vancian magic works really well for tabletop games since it's relatively easy to balance and keep track of. But what are some good substitutestuff, other systems that work well for pen and paper games?
I like Vancian magic as much as the next guy, but it's nice to mix things up now and then.

I like the fluff. If blue mages are almost going to be their own race (and by all accounts it sounds like naturally(?) magic humans are not quite so human anymore) then it make sense that they'd be removed from the rest of the races in a... social aspect. I'm getting an Altmer vibe from the blue mages. Lots of hubris and outright disdain to go along with their magical prowess.

Sounds like you've got some stuff to work with.

Does the guy making Dragon Forest ever post here? I saw a thread about it earlier today and thought it looked really cool.

Yeah, pretty regularly.

Thanks. I'm usually either lurking or posting in the worldbuilding threads. I got a bit frustrated trying to adapt existing systems to fit my fluff and decided to try tailoring a system to my needs. No idea if it'll work or not, but it's been fun figuring this stuff out.

I'm glad Veeky Forums has threads like these and the worldbuilding ones.

Well it depends on how high magic you want to go, and what sort of magic you want to represent. You need to think what aesthetic you want for your games magic

Keep in mind the world doesn't need yet another half baked generic fantasy rpg so you better have a specific setting with a specific focus in mind.

Should it be unlimited but dangerous?

Esoteric and subtle?

Think of rules to reflect your goal.

Not sure if this is acceptable for /gdg/ but I'm seeking some help for a D20 based system I am designing.

HP and damage are both scaled down considerably from most D20 games and I am looking to make weapons different from one another.

Things like Axes doing extra damage on a critical and swords having 2 smaller dice. But I am at a loss for how to represent Spears. Does anyone here have any ideas ?

Other than the obvious reach advantage, you could go with a momentum thing. Represent the thrust as you move in to hit.

To represent their additional reach you can give them a defensive bonus

I'm having reach as a seperate property you can trade some damage for rather than a weapon type of its own more pr less.

I am also not sure what you mean in game terms by "momentum". How are you envisioning that mechanically?

I really want to have a combat system with less RNG, that actually has a way of performing realistic melee combat.
Have any systems for htis been made before?

Redid the mech/Frame creation method to be more point-buy and less math-y. As before, it's intended for GMs to make their own stuff for games, as I hate systems that leave out the processes used to expand what content they have.

As always, could use people to check it out and give comments and suggestions.

Like charging and such.

So they get a bonus on charges? Eh, I'm not too keen on adding conditional stuff like that. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Spears?

Maybe something like the ability to parry at a distance, an initiative bonus if the enemy is far enough away, or even bonuses to attacks of opportunity?

Honestly, I'd suggest watching a lot of good kung fu movies involving staff and spear weapons. See the kind of shit you can do with one. I feel like crunch should stem from fluff.

Or you could go the Final Fantasy route and have spear users jump dozens feet into the air and impale their enemies from the sky a turn or two later.

You know, be realistic.

riddle of steel is as realistic as it gets but still has considerably rng

+ AC could work, though I might be worried about 1-H spears plus a shield in that case.

Also, the jumping thing is more something I'd put in a class than an inherent property of a weapon. I'm mostly just looking for something small so that two otherwise identical characters will feel slightly different.

Well, the thing with spears is that they're great for untrained peasants. Simple point and shove interface.
But someone with a lot of skill can make them almost magical.

I'd say have it be a weapon that does not penalize the user for not having a spear-related feat. It also might be interesting to give groups of people using the weapon some sort of bonus. Maybe each person after the first trying to hit the same enemy gets an increasingly helpful to-hit-bonus?

Users who actually do have spear-related feats would get the + AC bonus or whatever else you go with.

Oh, and if an untrained person uses it they should get a massive penalty if an enemy successful parries an attack. You get the jump on your enemy, but if you miss or they knock it out of the way and get close you're pretty much fucked. Which is why the spear is traditionally used by a group.

Hello!

Today I added rules for 'Homes' (stronghold building/domain management) in the Survival chapter. Heroes can stake out a space and designate it as their home. Whenever heroes lose doom points in or near their home, they gain that many Security points to spend on expansions, constructions, and amenities. Heroes can build gardens, fortifications, workshops, shrines, and more. You can even recruit a friendly goblin called a domovoi to live with you and do housework! There are also rules for haunted houses and vermin infestations.
I am adding these rules because I don't want my game to be 'grimdark' all the time. I want to offset the bleak brutality of the world with some comfy parts.

I've been posting a little bit on the Giant in the Playground forums and getting some feedback there. Some have commented that a few of the classes may be a bit schizophrenic or have overpowered combos.

Pankrators are getting a rebalanced so that it is a little more difficult to knock targets prone, and they lose their Theme Song skill and Delayed Damage Pool stuff, but they are also getting more skills that pertain to single-target lockdown.

Angels only count songs they've spent during the same scene for Deus Vult! and cap their bonus at their level, but now they also get to add that bonus to attack rolls.

Automaton winds expire at the end of the scene, but the Spring Loaded skill gains an additional attack.

Oracles need a massive overhaul. They are thematic and flavorful already, but they need to be more mechanically focused.

Moribito has great examples of spears

My bad on not explaining this earlier but I'm trying to keep the system relatively simple. So Feats are out.

I really don't want spears to be an "every one has proficiency" thing since
1. That means even wizards can throw a D12 in someone's face.
2. It means there's no reason for fighters to ever use one.

>added rules for Homes
Muh dick

This game perfectly combines comfy and grimdark

Somebody in another thread was talking about using RPS concepts in a realistic sim fight. That's a possibility.

>Do you prefer comprehensive gear lists, or do-it-yourself guidelines
A mix of both. I made a crafting system in my own game, but also have some unique weapons and armor in mind.

>What mechanic from another system do you wish you came up with yourself?
I guess I kinda wish I came up with Exalted's stunt dice. I like that idea a lot.

>When do you work on your game?
On and off weekends for now. I'm coming close to having something that's playable.

I added two new classes just now!

>Veteran
A bit schizophrenic right now (will tighten them up after playtesting). Like D&D rogues, Veterans have a sneak attack skill allowing them to deal extra damage to disadvantaged enemies. Unlike D&D rogues, Veterans also have a number of skills that buff and heal their flanking buddies every time they make an advantaged attack! Veterans also get an Ancient Grudge skill that gives them always-on advantage against enemies of a specific type they select during preplay.

>Jack
As in 'Jack Frost' or 'Jack-O-Lantern'. Jacks have the ability to make enemies vulnerable to one of three damage types (cold, fire, or lightning) plus spells that deal damage of that type.

New links:
gatekeepergaming.com/article-6-how-to-get-minis-made/
boardgamegeek.com/thread/838422/mass-production-custom-made-miniatures
flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/

Bump.

Hey guys, the other day I had a cool idea for a simple and flexible magic system. I'm pretty tempted to write is as a savage bolt-on or homebrew replacement for their powers section.... Or just write it as it's own thing and let people do what they want with it.

Question is, before I go and put pen to paper, are there any other nifty magic systems out there for me to study a bit?
I've already played with the TORG and Ars magic systems which are obviously the heavy end of the scale with stuff like SW being lighter.
Any tips?

I would advice you to take a look at GURPS Thaumathology, as the entire book is dedicated to diffrent magic systems and tweaking them.

Thanks user! Got them in a folder on my pc but never read them. Will check it out now.

Any advice on how to make SWAT game? If anyone played the PC games. CQC with a lot of covers, tactics and uncertainty.

Can someone please advise a GOOD written system to draw inspiration from?

>tfw I spent all day at work thinking up a neat setting with an interesting game mechanic
>tfw I start writing it down when I get home and I realize it's basically a Dark Souls clone with an Adventure Time-y vibe

Why live

That sounds awesome though.

Sorry for the 8 page PDF. But this is my latest playtested packet. I'm going for a heavy push-your-luck game with a focus on cinematic action (and some tactical stuff). The game should feel like gambing with fate. It's currently very mechanically focused and I haven't done the worldbuilding/abilities, but it's smooth and playable.

I would love any feedback! As a show of good faith I promise to review every PDF posted in this thread when I get back (About to go do work. Will be out in 5 hrs or so)

I don't normally tripcode, but I need to prove I'll keep my word somehow.

I'm super in love with it too, I'm just afraid of being called a hack and or faggot. Which I guess is a silly thing to be afraid of in roleplaying games. Here's the pitch:

The game takes place in a dangerous world left behind by the Humen. It is populated by a myriad of creatures created by the Humen, both friendly and dark, powered by a mysterious energy called Heart. Day to day living depletes heart very slowly, almost negligible in amount. However, adventuring hardly qualifies as day to day for most! Heart is also used to power many of the special abilities that folks use, and is often used as a sort of currency. The closest thing to dying in this game is running out of Heart, at which point you go to sleep. You can be easily revived by a friend finding more Heart to give you (however if you get lost and run out of Heart, you're in for a long nap!). More Heart is found in various artefacts and trinkets, and within most creatures (though taking someone else's Heart is widely frowned upon!). Heart also slowly appears when friends spend enough time with eachother (generally too long for it to be worth losing adventuring time though).

At character creation, players buy abilities, stats, and other goodies from a starting pool of Heart. There are no "classes," but the major (and most expensive!) abilities would be a close comparison: it is rare for a character to have more than two, and one is the most common.

You and your friends play as one of the three most common friendly (though not always!) creatures: skeletons, autos, and goblins.

The feel is meant to be dark fantasy with a cartoonish vibe.

Dude. Don't be afraid. Your idea rocks and I would play the shit out of it.

As someone who is working on publishing a board game, and making a tabletop RPG for fun, here's my advice to you. One of the most important skills of a designer is learning how to listen to criticism. You could make the holy grail and people will give you shit anyways. Don't take it personally. Just realize that they have a reason for what they are saying, and get as much info as possible. Don't have an ego and take advice that needs to be taken, but know that there is a lot of criticism that should be ignored.

Bumpity bump.

>The feel is meant to be dark fantasy with a cartoonish vibe

Sold. I love. Make it. Make it or I'll call you mean names over the internet.

I meant to comment on this today, but got caught up with something else.

For some reason, I feel like your first version was a little more intuitive. This one is more consistent, with the use of Modifiers, but those numbers don't mean anything in the game world outside of acting as useful mathematical tools. One nice thing about ORE is that that it's delightedly free, in large part, of things like Ability Score Modifiers which serve to basically fix broken math.

Also where you write here:
>Speed = desired rating * Engine modifier
It makes it seem like your Speed itself is equal to that, not its cost.

I feel like it's not coming together as nicely I'd like, mainly because it isn't written in natural language, which is something that more ORE guidelines use.

Bit more from me.

I'm starting to doubt whether or not the Ars Magica ripoff stuff is going to work. I still like the morality/action/target split, but using it makes some of the more common types of magic hard to define. Like summoning. When a creature is summoned, the summoner is assumed to have control over it. So, a Summoner Mage would be using the Control action/operation/whatever. But that wouldn't account for how the creature was summoned in the first place. Would that be a Change operation, or would you count the portal or what have you as the main action? Would it then be a Create Portal spell? But was is being created? Portals don't really fit into any of the Forms (though I could always expand the list).

Just using a more usual school based set of magics -- Conjuration, Alteration/Transmutation, Enchantment, etc -- would be much simpler. Should I stick to my guns and risk a confusing mess, or go with the tried and true method? I'm worried going with the standard option would lead to certain schools being almost entirely devoted to one of the domains. A restoration school wouldn't work at all for a black mage, for example.
In either case, I'd keep the Domain idea and have an "other" category for mages w/ otherwise undefinable focuses (red mages using quick-to-cast magics, for example, wouldn't really fit with any other category).

Also, if I do keep the current system, I'd go with the suggestion from in regards to Specialist Mages. Domain/Operation/Form mages would all have pre-defined names and rules. Specialists, who chose an Operation and a Form and stick to them alone, would have a table of some sort to help players make such a character. They would not necessarily have pre-chosen names apart from a few examples.

Thoughts?

Coming up with a homebrew system for a friend's RPG he's coming up with. Details not terribly important aside from it's modern day with squad level tactics (with the players forming the squad).

As far as dice mechanics go, I was looking to go with something simplistic with 40k and White Wolf Themes. Simplified here for discussion:

Attacks largely classified into Melee and Ranged.

Dice pools for attacks generated from stats:

>Gain 1d6 for Melee per Strength

>Gain 1d6 for Ranged per Perception.

Skills are generally used for attacks and can modify these pools.

>Hard Strike- Melee. This Attack gains +1D (plus one d6)
>Expose-Ranged. This Attack gains +1 To Hit if you are Flanking.

Baseline difficulty for Attacking is 5+. Any die that rolls 5 or higher scores a Hit.

>5d6 Melee attack rolls: 3,4,5,5,5. Score: 3 Hits

Armor counters attacks. Armor has an Armor Points which is treated as an overshield or Temporary hit points. It shows how much damage it can soak before it is rendered useless. Negate shows the roll needed to negate 1 HIt.

>Suit Mk. I Armor: 8 Negate: 5+/Ranged 4+

Shows that this Armor can negate up to 5 Hits before being rendered useless. It will negate Hits on a 5+, or a 4+ if they are ranged.

>5d6 Melee attack rolls: 3,4,5,5,5. Score: 3 Hits
>Armor roll: 2,3,5. Negate: 1 Hit.
>Result: Defender's Armor Points at 7/8. Defender takes 2 Damage.

Crits bypass armor entirely, they cannot be negated.

Does this seem simple enough or convoluted for a party?

Sounds alright to me, though if I were playing it I'd need a chart handy just in case.
I remember the d6 Star Wars game having a fairly solid set of rules. Might help to check that out.

The old old Star Wars or the newer ones by FFG?

I read a little bit about the FFG version, though it seemed like it played more into symbols than raw pip values, not that there's anything wrong with that.

I have a write up in progress as it also goes into Cover and Flanking mechanics (think of X-Com Light, I suppose)

Cover generally offers a straight penalty to To Hit for the attacker, a -1 for Light and -2 for Heavy. Either basically makes umodified attacks only hit on Crits (5+ to 6+/7+).

I also need to keep a tally of To Hit bonuses and penalties overall; if To Hit is too easy to come by then I either need to get rid of some of them, make it harder to obtain, or switch to d10's to allow a further "range".

Flanking right now depends on Facing and FoV, more or less similar to Battletech; encounters take place on Hexes to allow an easier time of determining facing and a unit's FoV is determined by drawing a straight line from it's facing and adding in a 1 hex adjacent line on either side of it to make a cone, as it were.

An attack counts as "Flanking" if it is made while outside a unit's FoV and confers a +1 To Hit. In addition, any other friendly units that are also in Flanking position confer a +1D to the Attack.

This means that while YOU may not be Flanking a target yourself, you would get a bonus if an ally is.

Thats probably the most wonky or complicated part of it overall.

>The old old Star Wars or the newer ones by FFG?
Old. I didn't know FFG had a d6 SW game.

>A restoration school wouldn't work at all for a black mage, for example.
Not with that attitude

Some schools might just need a minor renaming. What's important with your idea is that you have defined differences with how the magic interacts.

For example, in my homebrew I have two main divisions when it comes to the magical effects itself. What magic affects, and How magic affects it. You're pretty close to that here. Your Form is the what, and Operation is the how. once those are solid (like they seem close to being), its really just coming up with synonyms for those concepts. Determine what is absolutely necessary for magic to do, then give it a name. If summoning is just that vital, then it needs a representation. If it isn't, then it can either be dropped or fit into an interpretation of one of the existing categories. You could get away with Using Ars Magicka naems. You could also get away with using the DnD schools. Or, you might need to create your own naming conventions to encompass and define the possibilities and differences between your magics.

As far as Mage names go: Is it necessary to make defined names for them? It could easily be handled by the players themselves.

>Is it necessary to make defined names for them?
Now that you mention it, no.

That's actually just about what I needed to hear to keep going. Thank you for the advice and pep talk.

I suppose. I don't really get the Domains and how they interact with other things on the list. What's the difference between a White mage with Fire and a Black mage with Fire? Or is only the Black mage allowed to have it?

I suppose the easiest way to go about it is your meme "Mages of the Black school tend to focus on the destructive capabilties of magic, bringing all force to bear to see how far they can go"

"White mages tend to focus on the protective side of magic, seeing it as an shield rather than a sword. Where a Black Mage might conjure a fireball, a White Mage would form a fire shield to punish any would-be attackers."

"Grey/Blue/Red/Teal/Shit-Brown Mages are detached from either; they focus more on the hermetic study of magic in and of itself. They study it for knowledge and knowledge alone with no goal of bringing a power to bear. They will test limits with one particular spell then go further by trying to create a new effect or spell based upon their knowledge of it. A Grey mage might dabble with a fireball and a fire shield, and study fire control further to find that he can simply being to super-heat metal objects such as swords and armor rather than direct flames themselves, for instance."

Well, the driving principle is that Domain mages (who operate like you say, focusing either on destructive or constructive magics) have a very wide skill set, with access to a large number of spells, but are weaker at casting them than a more specialized mage.
In other words, a fireball spell cast by a black mage would be weaker than one caste by a fire mage, and weaker still than one cast by a mage who specializes in Creation and Fire. I haven't decided how much of a difference there would be, but for sake of argument lets say a Fire Mage's fireball would be 50% stronger than a Black Mage's, and a Creation/Fire Mage Specialist would cast one 100% stronger.
But a black mage would also be able to cast a summon zombie spell, or use lightning, or poison an enemy. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a Creation/Fire Mage wouldn't even be able to use a spell that puts out a fire. He could only make it, but he'd be really, really good at doing so.

The more specialized mages will also probably be able to cast more frequently. Kind of like a warlock in 3.5 D&D.

It's all a matter of restriction. The more restricted or limited a mage's range of spells is, the stronger those spells are.
Domain Mage: strength 1
Operation/Action/Whatever Mage: strength 1.25
Form/Target Mage: strength 1.5
Specialist Mage: strength 2

In terms of fluff, there are no dedicated clerics or god-related magics. A cleric would be something along the lines of a White Mage who learned magic from a benevolent deity's teachings.

> I don't really get the Domains and how they interact with other things on the list.
In many ways, they don't. It's a different category for a different type of mage; a fire elemantalist wouldn't give a damn if a spell were tagged white or black.

In terms of fluff, there are no dedicated clerics or god-related magics. The Domain category is largely there to allow for religion-based spellcasting, or things of that nature. A cleric would be something along the lines of a White Mage who learned magic from a benevolent deity's teachings. (not that all white mages HAVE to be clerics)

In crunch terms, the driving principle is that Domain mages (who operate like you say, focusing either on destructive or constructive magics) have a very wide skill set, with access to a large number of spells, but are weaker at casting them than a more specialized mage.
In other words, a fireball spell cast by a black mage would be weaker than one caste by a fire mage, and weaker still than one cast by a mage who specializes in Creation and Fire. I haven't decided how much of a difference there would be, but for sake of argument lets say a Fire Mage's fireball would be 50% stronger than a Black Mage's, and a Creation/Fire Mage Specialist would cast one 100% stronger.
But a black mage would also be able to cast a summon zombie spell, or use lightning, or poison an enemy. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a Creation/Fire Mage wouldn't even be able to use a spell that puts out a fire. He could only make it, but he'd be really, really good at doing so.

The more specialized mages will also probably be able to cast more frequently. Kind of like a warlock in 3.5 D&D.

It's all a matter of restriction. The more restricted or limited a mage's range of spells is, the stronger those spells are.
Domain Mage: strength 1
Operation/Action/Whatever Mage: strength 1.25
Form/Target Mage: strength 1.5
Specialist Mage: strength 2

Yeah, it's kind of hard to break away from O.R.E's point-buy system, but I really, really like the gradual method. Just have to make everything fit, really.

Mk. III up for anyone willing to take a crack at making a mech.

>Do you prefer comprehensive gear lists, or do-it-yourself guidelines

I prefer more effort to be made on the GM/DM side of things. Maybe a small list of known weapons for stat lines, but I really like to keep freedom in my systems.

World of Darkness is one of my favorite weapon listing, including the Armory book on creating prototype weapons.

>What mechanic from another system do you wish you came up with yourself?

Malifaux's use of playing cards instead of dice. Not my favorite game, but it is pretty cool to system.

>When do you work on your game?

Typically in the summer time; It's the slowest time of year for game studios. I'll work on the game for a few hundred hours over a 2-3 month period, write a bunch of notes, then pick it back up the next year.

(Currently on year 5 of a miniature strategy game, and 3 of my RP system using tarot cards using this method)

Bump

Bump some more.

The gradual build idea is actually great. Don't break away from it, just expand on it. Like I said it really gives the feeling of building your mech from the ground up.

Incidentally, since you know about ORE, can you give this a read and let me know your thoughts? I don't get a lot of feedback in general in this thread because few people know much about it.

New to tgs, but after playing pandemic and super dungeon explore, I found that co-op games can be generally played by one person.

What would a game that requires two or more people to be played cooperatively be like?

Why isn't d20 roll under stat done anywhere?
That way attributes could be kept like in other d20 games, but every point put into attributes has an impact.
Is it for some reason I'm not seeing not usable?

Cultural momentum. The d20 is so closely associated with "d20+Modifier, roll over" that doing anything else feels wrong to a lot of people.

FFG's SW isn't d6, it's custom dice and is based around a narrative Advantage/Disadvantage system that actually works really well if your players are into it. Check out the Campaign podcast for an ideal representation of how the system works (though I think it's been about 3 episodes since they did any actual rolling, since right now it's all character stuff happening right now)

A cooperative game that CANNOT be played with one person seems like a logistic impossibility. Even a game like Space Alert, which has a time limit on each round and throws a ton of stuff at you at all times, can still be played with one person.

The only reason why more than one person would be a NECESSITY in a tabletop game is if the two players had to hold certain information secret to themselves, which kind of goes against the whole "cooperative" aspect of the game.

Still work on Necromancer every now and then, really have to get back into it.
Some bits and bobs from the current draft

I want to say something like Between Two Cities, where you cooperatively build a city together with another player, but that also has a little bit of competitiveness.

1-vs-all games are technically cooperative games, but in a 2-player game the other player isn't actually helping you.

Games like Mysterium might be a good example I think, where one player supports the other player to victory. Deception: Murder in Hong Kong is another good example, and that one also has one traitor player in addition to the clue giver.

>Incidentally, since you know about ORE, can you give this a read and let me know your thoughts?

It looks great. Good layout, informative, and gives all the information needed for that section. Took a look at it before, actually, and it reminded me to add armor weight to my own lists.

>just expand on it
Any suggestions for that? About the only thing I can think of is defining new equipment.

>Any suggestions for that? About the only thing I can think of is defining new equipment.

My suggestion for the Gradual Build is to include the raw calculation along with your descriptive paragraph. I actually really like the raw calculation for its transparency, but the description helps the GM see why he's doing what he's doing.

That makes sense, and would bring things more in line with other O.R.E. modules.

Are you going to upload your work when you have it done and polished? Can't get enough of sci-fi settings, and anything O.R.E. is welcome.

Of course. I've been assembling it piece-meal, as I finish one element and work on another. It's pretty much a mess right now, but after a year stuff is finally coming together and approaching a playable form.

Here's one largely finalized draft of the playable alien creation rules.

That's pretty neat. Can't wait to get a hold of the final version!

Here's the basic outline and the rough progress that I've gone through:

>Introduction....0%

CRUNCH
>Basic Character Generation.....80%
>Xenotypes..............................90%
>Factions/Companies................0%
>New Skill Rules......................30%
>Esoteric Disciplines.................0%
>Combat Updates......................0%
>Equipment..............................90%
>Martial Paths..........................90%
>Spacecraft Generation.............70%
>Space Adventuring..................15%
>Space Combat........................10%
>Marvels (Reworked Magic).......40%
>One Roll Xenotypes.................50%
>One Roll Creatures..................80%
>One Roll Planets......................90%
>One Roll Spacecraft..................0%

FLUFF
>Backstory.................................80%
>Factions...................................10%
>The Galaxy................................0%
>Faction Technology....................0%

Plus more stuff I'm sure I haven't thought of yet. The final product, I think, should be less than 100 pages.

Looks like a lot of work. Good luck and godspeed, user!

Yeah, but it became a lot more managable when I realized that it would better served as sort of an expansion to REIGN than a stand-alone product. It saved a lot of time, especially in the combat and skills section, so I only have to explain what's changed from vanilla-REIGN.

I love the types of shields. it's clean and encompassing.
So each action contains a domain, an action and a target? Are bonuses for each domain/action/target tracked seperately or are they just toggles (Known/unknown)?

Other than that, I do really like the system. More subtypes would help. So far as defining things better: Part of the charm of ars-magica is the broadness of the scope. You might want to define "spells" that are set in stone and safe, and then use this for wild casting or something which has more risk?

I like it, but the language does need cleaning up. I'm not fond of putting multiplication into the costs. You might just want to say x points per level or something.

Does the armour thing mean that you will have to repurchase armour multiple times in game, or does armour refresh every now and then?

Do you ever take inspiration from video games?

Occassionally. I've taken some inspiration from Bloodborne to be honest, purely for how dynamic combat can be. I also look at VGs form the perspective of "how could someone take what I'm doing to play Mass Effect or some other sci-fi game?"

>So each action contains a domain, an action and a target?
The idea was for the action/target thing to define what a spell does, and use that to define its morality (leading to domain). But after putting a little more effort into defining things and trying to write up some sample spell lists, it just isn't practical for my needs. To have the specialist mage stuff, I'd need to write up dozens of spells for every conceivable combination of action and target. When it comes down to it, there are only so many Create + Plant spells you can come up with. Same goes for Destroy + Water, and many others.
I'm almost certainly going to drop the current categories and just use the tried and true Schools, albeit with a few tweaks. What are currently called specialist mages will have to be revamped into more distinct classes.

And I'm not confident I could pull of a spell designing system for the game and keep it even remotely balanced.

I'll have to rip off Ars Magica another day.

All of my projects have taken inspiration from vidya.

One is an Ace Combat homebrew, so that's obvious.

My fantasy RPG took from lots of sources. Guild Wars gave me my hit locations/rates, Chrono Trigger gave me stats, Monster Hunter+4e gave me my wounds/HP system, and other games like Zelda, Pokemon, and other things I can't think of right now have given me inspiration and desire to create mechanics and/or modules to experience those worlds.

Mechanics are mechanics whether they're in vidya or table top. All it takes is a little translation.

The idea of ars magica was that you didn't need to write spells. It was pretty freeform and had sample effects. You could make up magic on the fly.

My suggestion was going with a mage-like rotes+freeform system. Defined spells are easier to cast, but you can go freeform at a greater risk.

Not that user, but it's basically whatever you have control over. Every new way to define your Mage means you have greater control over less options.

That might work, actually. I'll have to play with it. I really love the idea of using the system, I'm just not sure how to pull it off.

I think you can make it work. Allow the player and GM to interact in regards to spell balance. It creates a somewhat unique interaction that's lost with some other systems.

Remember, a large reason 3.5 is imbalanced is because people make houserules with the intention to make things smoother, but have the additional effect of changing perceived imbalance gaps. Not that the imbalance isn't there, just that power levels differ between people.

It might work if the Specialist mages have a single action/operation and more than one form, as long as the forms are related somehow. They may be similar, like a human/plant/animal (ie, life) or fire/water/air/earth (elemental) focus. Or they could even be opposites, like human/dead body or fire/water.
It also might help to disallow ones that don't make sense. For example, how would Create + Dead Body even work?

I posted this in the last thread just to get some ideas on it, but I've been wondering since then if I should add to it.
It's a pretty freeform game, and it's supposed to be quick and easy, which I think is it's main quality. But I'm worried that if I don't include some kind of health system, my players will never be worried about getting killed, since there's no mechanic to handle it.
Thoughts?

At the moment I'm designing a war game that plays on a hexgrid with different kinds of units and terrain using dice to do stuff.

There will be:
Different kinds of infantry
Vehicles like armored transport, anti infantry, anti aircraft, MBTs, artillery
All kinds of aircraft

Terrain will consist of:
Plains
Woodlands
Highlands
Water
All with different pros and cons for different units.

Each players starts out with an HQ, a Master Gunship, and 4 dice. A players loses when his HQ or Gunship is destroyed. Units have different stats like HP, movement, armor, attacks, range, other abilities.

A Master Gunship has movement 2 and gets an additional movement for each dice you put on it, up to a maximum of 4 total movement per turn. Heavy and slow so not too much movement possible. Put a dice value of 5+ (you can use several dice to reach a value) on it and it can repair 1 HP. Higher values for more powerful abilities and attacks. Some will have a restriction regarding the number of dice you can use for it. Like a powerful multi-hex targeting missile attack will be 14+ but maybe allows no more than 3 dice to contribute to it.
For each unit except for infantry you gain another die. You can use dice to build factories for vehicles or hangars and airfield for aircraft. When using a die like that it gets removed for a number of turns. Fewer turns if you contribute more dice. But using too many might leave you weak on the battlefield.
There will be several stronghold hexes on the map and you gain 1 die for each you control.
Jets must always be moved a minimum number of hexes because they can't hover like helicoters. Plus they have a certain turn radius so you can't go back and forth with them like Pacman. Aircraft will also feature fuel which you have to consider when moving around with them, especially with jets.
You can use your dice to research new tech like lasers, railguns, orbital weapons, etc.

Do you guys have any ideas or suggestions? Would love to hear your thoughts.

What scale are you planning on using? Sounds like this would work well at the scale of Epic: Armageddon. Have you thought at all about maybe using telescopic stands for the flying units? I can't recall seeing a game really take the 3d part of aerial warfare into account, save for a WWII fighter game I saw played at a convention once.
I feel like having the gunship's destruction end in victory for the opponent will lead to a lot of AA spam.

You certainly have me intrigued.

I've tried to adapt Monster Hunter to tabletop, with some less-than-salutary results. That may change, of course, but it's an interesting problem to tackle, as most character improvement comes from gear instead of leveling up.

Version 5 up, with minor changes and hopefully fixed language to make things flow a bit better.

I like the resolution system, though the lack of context on boons and banes makes it a little hard to fully judge.