/gdg/ Game Design General

don't die I need to get my shit ready

How do these look for the character sheets for my game? They're intended to be as simple as possible while also serving as scratch paper.

Game's rules are at buddingheroes.com/pdf/guidebook-advanced.pdf if you didn't grab them before

I'm not able to post this weekend, but post your stuff next week if there's a new thread

Hey guys, I gotta ask a favor.

I'm running time trials for character creation for my game. Fastest I've been able to do it is 2 minutes.

All you have to do is roll 2d100 and follow this chart. Let me know what you think!

Maybe bring that health/regen section and other combat abilities frames and move them to the bottom of the page. What do you think?

did it in around 2 minutes. tall fox thing, 8 str, 4 agi, 3 mind (combat)

Today I had a breakthrough regarding one of my character classes. It's a class that was kind of incoherent before, but now I think I've found a solid mechanical schtick for it. I need to learn to stop overthinking things so much and just simplify.

>Anyone had fun with roleplaying games that had a gambling feel and encouraged friendly competition between the players?

Frankly, no. Well, not for RPGs. Usually when I do it's tabletop games like risk or heroclix.

That sounds really cool though. Go with it and see what happens.

Moving it to the bottom would give better visual framing, but the whole point of having the scratch at the bottom is so that the unprinted margin area can also be used for notes and whatnot. I also want the blank space to be able to extend in case the sheet is printed on a4 instead of letter (that's why the page's width isn't 8.5 inches - it'll print at the right size whether on letter or a4).

I could switch the places of the combat block and description/etc to change the visual weight, I just didn't want to de-emphasize the story elements

I have had fun with games that had a gambling feel. Specifically, Dogs in the Vineyard with its raise/see mechanic.
I have also had fun with a game that encouraged competition between players. Specifically, Paranoia.
I've just never played a game that combined the two.

Yeah, I've been running a test campaign. For months. We have alot of fun and the testers have been infinitely helpful, worth their weight in gold.

The tests have been over roll 20 but we first started rizon.

There have been tons of edits and tweeks since we started testing. Just the name of the game.

Here's the session log for today's test:
pastebin.com/BDFwGpcQ

Maybe move it to the top then? Or maybe to the side or something? The more I look at it the more I hate it!

I ran my system for a couple friends, it's changed a lot since then. For the better.
(Mostly)

What it sounds like you want is a Blackjack mechanic. You don't have to use cards either, dice work fine.

The premise is exactly like Blackjack. You want to get as close to the target number as possible, but not go over. With dice its roll under with penalties for too large of a gap or going over. With cards you could literally just play blackjack. You could have players roll something like two dice: roll one, add any modifiers you might want or not add those you don't, and then roll the second. Or, the player rolls and adds modifiers, and then adds a GM roll for the total. It still boils down to the same thing. Higher numbers are good until they're too high.

Yeah, the hunch was right, moving the blocks together did help. I was just being overly paranoid, I suppose

If it's supposed to be competitive, how about having a mechanic where one player can roll a number that will be added to *both* players' total?

If the target is 21, you have 18, and I have 16, I could roll a d8 to try to fuck you over but also risk fucking myself over if the roll is too high

Hey guys user on the smash bros rules. I got a test game in with a friend.
The game took around 30 minutes. 5 minute to set up and no items along with a board similar to battlefield.
We only had 1 stock this time but once you get the hang of what you roll/your stats you tend to go by much faster.
A lot of things I didn't cover like jumping and falling which i'll do in a minute.
I also noticed that X Pow with all of the specials seemed a little bit too unbalanced since special characters with lets say 6 special could seriously do up to 12 damage with just 2 Pow.
Also i'm getting rid of recover and instead you roll depending on how long you've been stunned.
Also adding a stunned state which makes the player to the rules(i believe certain abilities actually have this already written down.)
I'll also add rules for items and put character and item templates into my pdf so you can make your characters and items without writting it down in a bio or something. So far so good if you ask me.
If you have any suggestions or questions i'm more then willing to not only answer but here your suggestions.

If you have to make contested rolls against a player, then I'd just play it like normal blackjack. The highest number you can get without going over 21 or another neutral number based on whatever system you're using (cards, dice, etc).

Hello /gdg/uys! I have a minor problem with my homebrew for a post-apocalyptic setting, maybe you'll help me sort things out.

It's something simple I put together to run some 1-on-1 adventures over the Internet. Basic mechanic is 1d20+ability/skill, roll more or equal to DC. Combat is divided into 3 seconds rounds. Combatants can take actions that cost different amount of seconds, up to 3.

I have a problem of modelling automatic fire for guns. Right now I have:
- Burst Fire has no to-hit modifiers, but for each multiple of weapon's Recoil over the DC you get another hit (that one's pretty much yanked from GURPS). You can do a normal (2 sec) or snap (1 sec) burst, which have +0 and -4 to-hit modifiers respectively.
- Full Auto takes 3 seconds. It has no to-hit modifiers and you also score additional hit for every multiple of weapons Recoil. The thing is you can also Suppress your enemy - he must pass a Morale check or lose a turn cowering behind his cover. Moreover, you may decide to sweep your fire among several enemies, threatening to hit all of them and forcing them to make Morale check, albeit an easier one.

I was and still kinda am on the fence of how the automatic fire should be resolved. On one hand, the more shots you fire, the higher your chances to hit something. On the other hand, each consecutive shot is less accurate. Should I give a flat to-hit bonus or rather a chance to score multiple hits in one go?

I guess a simple to-hit degradation/cone of fire mechanic would be a subtrahend that per "second" of fire increases to make each second of fire progressively more wild.

What this means is you'd be rolling separately per "second" of attack--3 events, in your case.

Sustaining auto-fire doesn't infinitely get more inaccurate. What I would do is have the multiple of a weapon's recoil cause a Level of Suppression effect to happen (assuming lower recoil stat = better).. For every Level of Suppression, you could cause a flat amount of damage (or roll a hit like Burst Fire) and/or have a Suppression penalty like you already were thinking about, unless they take full cover, in which case they won't take any ill effects, but then they also can't do much. As far as spreading the fire out, I'd make each target a "Suppression area". If you want to suppress multiple targets, then each additional area will increase the DC. As for morale checks, they can negate levels of suppression if you wanted them to, that way suppressing fire isn't lose-lose.

So ultimately, its not too different from what you've already written. full auto is accurate enough to suppress and area, so for every multiple of Weapon Recoil you beat the DC by, you can add more suppression for more damage/ill effects. Morale would negate levels of suppression while trying to spread out your suppression amongst a larger area would increase the DC, meaning less severe suppression across the board.

I've made a game about Polish nobility duels but fuck me, I have no vocabulary needed to translate different sword techniques. Any source I can consult with?

I recognize those images! Dzikie Pola 2ed.

There's no reason to name simple cuts. Just call them "cut from the wrist, cut from the elbow, cut from the arm" - that's more or less how there were called in Dzikie Pola.

Do name some special manoeuvres, like the Polish Cut, Flemish Cut and Royal/Emperor's Cut (don't remember the exact name).

>What this means is you'd be rolling separately per "second" of attack--3 events, in your case.
This might be a good idea in the end. I wanted to avoid rolling for each separate attack or even bullet, but rolling 3 times isn't too bad. The general idea was to roll once for autofire and that would be all.

I'm not sure I understand this completely - you saying that alongside additional hits from each multiple of Recoil there also should be a "suppression hit"?

I wrote out this longer than necessary explanation, and then re-read everything to double check.

Basically, its exactly that. You don't have to change much from your current auto-fire idea. My idea is that for every additional hit you gain through auto-fire, you can get a suppression-hit like you mentioned, which can be an additional layer (like more damage, an action penalty, or whatever).

I think what I'm really getting at is that the morale check shouldn't just be a pass/fail test, but should be more difficult based on how well the attacker beats the DC. Morale would then be the counter point, where you could lessen the penalties, but maybe not overcome them entirely. Like a partial success. Taking 2x suppression penalty might suck, but it sucks a whole lot less than taking the 5x penalty you would've before you made that morale check. The morale check might remove damage (if damage is going to be the main deterrent) or it might not. But, if you're going to have levels of success in how many attacks you get while firing weapons, you might as well use the same mechanic for suppression vs morale.

Its 5am here, so that might account for the misunderstanding that lead to my previous responses. The more I read your original question, the more my idea ended up already being what you wrote (minus the scaling suppression aspect). And here I thought I was coming up with something you hadn't considered.

Ah, now I get it. I actually like your idea of variable suppression, not just pass/fail. Still, I would like the suppression to be a bit more separate from damage - with suppressive fire you can hit bugger all, but the hail of lead will cause your enemy to keep his head down nonetheless.

Also, my mistake - Full Auto DOES have a -4 to-hit modifier.

I mean, its not like you don't intend to hit something when using suppressing fire, you're just sending frequent reminders that a sturdy wall is your friend. They could not take any penalties, at the cost of their action, by staying completely in cover, but if they decide to pop out of cove while under fire, they should probably have a bad time. The initial damage might not be enough, so you might add an action penalty. Or, overwhelming damage that could potentially be completely negated by a very heroic morale check could well provide a decent risk/reward ratio. That's the real key. What's the risk/reward of both the suppressing fire, and the morale check.

Thanks for the sources and tips. I'd been trying to simplify craps but blackjack would be so much simpler.

The competition was hopefully to have players fighting over spotlight and possibly bonus combat actions at most, with the monsters they fight being the clear commen enemy.
Im not too bitch to admit I'm not quite that far. But frankly feedback has inspired me.

Sorry for being gone so long. Had work.

Is there room in the market for a randomly generated in depth Dungeon Crawler board game? Co-op and Gamemaster vs Players.

- 2.5D Dungeon Terrian. Doors, chests, furniture, etc is represented in miniature along with characters and monsters. Flat cardboard tiles make the board.

- Cards and 2 spinners are used for randomized dungeon generation. Randomized locational loot and traps. Dungeons are themed in encounters.

- Tactical grid based combat.

- Character progression in loot, equipment, character levels and combat/non combat encounters in between town, wilderness and dungeon.

- NPC hirlings, pack mule, war dogs, torch bearers, footpads, muleskinners, mercenaries, healers, Wizards, etc

I know people will say just Play D&D. Trying to bridge the gap between over simplified board game Dungeon Crawlers and true RPGs. Closest inspiration would be the Orginal Warhammer Quest.

Holy smokes, you've actually played Dogs in the Vineyard? That game is genius and pretty much has the bests conflict mechanics I've ever seen, and is completely unpalatable for just about everyone I know.

After nervously pushing past a few rough playtest sessions and 3 equally awful armor iterations, my group now favors my system to 5e, calls my turn as DM "a treat" and another player has decided to run 2 campaigns in it, reskinning from fantasy to sci-fi for one that's about to start. Only took about 6 months of gnashing my teeth over stupid stuff and realising that an ounce of inelagance is better than a ton of inconsistency.

Going to post in here rather than the desperate pit that is game finder. Any of you interested in playtesting my cyberpunk system? It'd be a regular game on EST weekends. Skype for voice, roll20 for map. As for plot, think AJIN meets Black Lagoon in a Cyberpunk shell

System : docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Aa3XMcdHzkkiY4SF2RBS2pZSgDhMrmO57xNYnWlAJ7I/edit?usp=sharing

Post your skype and I'll add you if you're interested.

I ran it twice. It's an interesting system, but it's so hard to play since it's so different from everything else I've done.
Didn't reskin it; played it straight in the default setting with teenage Mormon gunslinger missionaries in a wild west that never was.

I've been jotting down notes for an upcoming [Dragon Forest] rewrite.
The section on monster creation will include monster skills grouped by role and type.

Here are some monster skills:

>Skirmisher Tactics
When this creature attacks a hero, it deals +2 damage on a hit if the target has the highest doom score among heroes or is tied for highest. Otherwise, this creature takes a -2 penalty to the attack roll.

>Lurker Tactics
When this creature attacks a hero, it deals +2 damage on a hit if the target has the lowest doom score among heroes or is tied for highest. Otherwise, this creature takes a -2 penalty to the attack roll.

>Guardian Tactics
Whenever a hero in reach makes an attack that doesn't include this creature as a target, that hero takes a -2 penalty to the attack roll, and triggers this creature's opportunity attack.

>Artillery Tactics
Whenever a hero in range willingly moves towards this creature, this creature may make a ranged weapon attack against that hero as an opportunity action.

>Minion
Whenever this creature would take damage from a passive effect or a missed attack, this creature may save. If successful, this creature takes no damage instead.

>Elite
This creature may take one additional major action during its turn.

Well, there's a lot of other games like this on the market right now. You would have to either do something really novel or pull off some really slick presentation and design.

Your biggest competition is going to be Descent. As says, presentation and design are going to make or break it.

I'm not sold on the name for Skirmisher Tactics. Just feels bland compared to how it interacts with the Doom mechanic.

It's a tentative name. Will probably change all of the skill names as I continue to develop them.

My plan at this point is to include a very short list of example monsters in the rules, and an extensive toolkit for GM's to make their own monsters. This will be a fairly straight-forward process:
1) Determine monster level
2) Determine monster rank (minion, normal, elite)
3) Select monster role (skirmisher, guardian, artillery, lurker, etc.)
4) Select a realm type and one or two thematic types.
5) Select skills

Each monster belongs to one of seven realms:
Gods of Deva-gati
Titans of Asura-gati
Humanoids of Manusya-gati
Beasts of Tiryagyoni-gati
Undead of Preta-gati
Demons of Naraka-gati
Aberrations of the Void

The above are the monster's realm types. Thematic types include:
Vermin
Swarm
Ooze
Elemental
Spirit
Construct
Plant
Aquatic
Flyer
Serpent

Each rank, role, and type has a list of skills associated with it plus stat adjustments, and GM's are encouraged to mix and match. Maybe I'll include tables for random monster generation.

>descent

Ok I've played 1st edition Descent. There is no character creation. You are assigned a premade character. There were no randomly denerated dungeons you were completing pre laid out very small "dungeons" every single one with a boss. Character progression required an expansion.

Everyone sees dungeon tiles and miniatures and thinks descent but descent gave me none of the exploration feeling of heroquest and Warhammer quest.

In relation to conflict resolution, how do we all determine in what order the resolution happens? I.e., is it based on going first in initiative? do actions happen simultaneously? do you break things down into phases?

What is your conflict resolution mechanic and why is it the best for your system?

Define conflict resolution. A counterattack? Two people attempting to rush the same thing? A duel that you are handwaving?

Again, if you can pull off sleek design and/or novel mechanics, then go for it.

Its still going to be your competition, because of exactly as you said, people see dungeon tiles and miniatures and think 'Descent'.

conflict resolution is just a broader term for things like combat resolution, skill checks, and whatever. Its whenever you need to roll, but specifically when time/order matters.

This is cool. It sounds a bit like the circle resembles "story XP" - additional rewards obtained for following a storyline, playing in character, and solving problems as a team.

I have some questions about the mechanics in your .pdf:

1) Players in RPGs usually don't have in-game time count against talking. In D&D, its treated as a Free Action (meaning it can be done as much or as many times in a turn as possible). What benefit will Telepathy give if players are going to talk to one another anyway? Distance?
2) What exactly are spheres?
3) Will there be a mechanical benefit to sensory sharing? Same as telepathy (distance-enabled communication)? Or will everyone have access to the highest perception skills, etc
4) Are there mythical beasts/magical creatures/divine avatars, do they form groups that could be called Circles, do they ever work with/affect prana pools? From where is prana derived and is there a corresponding magic system which Awakened people pull their abilities from?

Additionally, I have a non-game mechanics related question.

1) How will the circle deal with players who come irregularly or for part of the campaign? This happens more than we would like to see in games where individualism allows a more flexible party.

I am sorry I did not comment on this earlier!
It would help if you enclosed the actual character sheet for the circle, and maybe included a complete example.

My point was that if you define the question more specifically you answer it yourself. If both are moving to do something, then AGI or the equivalent stat should give you your answer. If it's something that requires reaction time like drawing, then roll initiative if the system has it, otherwise make some kind of secondary roll based on an appropriate stat to see who reacts first.

Well, let's not discourage the guy too much.
Pic related is a centreless wheel. Impractical at the moment due to their complexity, but potentially promising with future advances in maglev bearings.

A testament to human ingenuity; you can, indeed, reinvent the wheel.

I'd have called it a Striker since it's meant to focus the highest priority target.

Skirmisher tactics would be if they gained a bonus to attack when attacking players who are in a formation (ie in tile contact) to encourage breaking formation to deal with them.

The idea was to drum up some discussion and be at least a little more useful than a bump.

However, you're assuming a lot by what you mentioned in that response. There might not be an AGI equivalent in a system, or systems might not have initiative. In fact, the system I had in mind when making the question uses neither, but runs its combat through phases (movement and action).

And then there's conflicts that don't resolve around combat to begin with. Perhaps two characters are trying to push open a door from opposite sides. You might make an opposed Strength check (or equivalent if present), but perhaps you don't include contested rolls in your system. That's a perfect invitation for someone to describe how their mechanic gets around that issue.

>anything from minor elements to entire systems
Does this mean if I'm making modules and supplements for Swords & Wizardry, it's cool to post about them here?

That's a good idea!

One of the things I want to do for each of the monster roles is to give each one a list of skills commonly associated with that role to give GM's a good scaffolding to work with when creating and customizing monsters.

Skirmisher monsters should probably get the following:
1) A bonus to attack and damage against high doom (powerful) PCs.
2) Multi-target melee attacks to punish players for clumping together in close formations.
3) Close burst/blast attacks to punish players for clumping together in close formations.
4) Increased speed and mobility related effects to help skirmishers get in close.
5) Reactive or minor action step/teleport effects for hit & run tactics.

Lurkers, for comparison, would want the following:
1) A bonus to attack and damage against low doom PCs.
2) Invisibility/concealment effects
3) Annoying status effects and action denial targeted at support characters
4) Mobility effects including teleportation to help lurkers slip back into concealment
5) Illusory terrain/darkness effects to help lurkers slip back into concealment

I am working on a generic system that is meant to be rules lite but crunchy.

I am thinking of using a d12 mechanic. I know that is more "random" but I don't really like the predictability of 2d6. Plus 1d12 has the number handle stat plus skill well.

Stats will go -1 to +3, you get Vitality (basically hit points) equal to 10 plus Strength, or 5 plus strength for really lethal games. Average people have 5 plus Strength hp.

A dagger would deal 1d4
A one handed weapon deals 1d6
A two handed weapon deals 1d8

A pistol deals 1d8
A rifle or shotgun deals 1d10
A shotgun will give +1 to hit with buckshot, I liked that rule from savage worlds, but it was broken in SW in my opinion.

I'm planning to have as few modifiers as possible. My biggest concern is bookkeeping , especially for large battles. I'd use a toughness system, but pcs Ina lethal game would be either alive or dead, whereas a small number of hp would be lethal but at least there'd be detail beyond up or down like in Savage Worlds.

Basically I want a game that can handle heroic and gritty gameplay in the same system. Probably a doomed endeavor but i appreciate your ideas.

Are hit points a big drag in large battles? This system would be used for a zombies game fighting huge hordes as its first play test. I'd use savage worlds but characters are too durable, and the system is weird for zombie bits (like, if you get bitten, it has to do enough damage to shake you, even though any bite would infect)

so without getting too in-depth (I can post more if need be), I'm having a system that's basically [factor A] + [factor B] vs a target number.

included, is the ability to get a better roll by taking your time (wind-up for a haymaker), and also act faster at the cost of effect (flurry of quick attacks)

the thing I'm having an issue with, is where do [factor A] and [factor b] come from. there's a lot of options; ability scores, quality of weapon/item, skill of action, circumstance

I like the idea of an ars magica noun/verb system; quick + sword would be a quick jab, whereas heavy + sword would be a heavy slash.

trying to think of a layout that's encompassing without listing unneeded skills like underwater basket weaving, while not being so minimal as to be forced to be super pidgeon-holing

I'm also a fan of the noun/verb system. Would that apply to both attacks and defense? Or do you mean to add in generic skill checks too? Going after common enough verbs shouldn't be too difficult. I'd consider looking through 3.5/pf metamagic feats to find other verbs you could use in your system. Things like Silent or Still could get around hearing or seeing an action.

>The intention behind telepathy was both distance, and the fact that you could talk telepathically without people overhearing you during other conversation or negotiation.
>There are three spheres. Mind, body and voice. I would call them attributes like a normal person, but I have something else using the name that fits slightly better.
> Sensory sharing was built to allow people who aren't in a given scene to have some impact instead of sitting around and waiting for the GM to get to them. Possibly allow some chars to act through them. It will most likely be reworked once I get the ability pillars actually written instead of playtest standing.
> Prana in Indian mythology is a rough analogue to Ki. Life energy as it were. So everyone has it, awakened are just hose who can tap into their full reserve and do the cool stuff. The awakened have prana pools of their own that are used to enhance skills and fuel abilities.
> I can see more intelligent creatures might. As well as a creature or two that does it innately and is a kind of hivemind.

Non story:
> That's part of the reason the locus thing exits. People can be detached or attached to a locus without having to redo the entire circle. So irregular members could just come for a session or two snd either remain part of the circle but off screen. Or detach themselves after. In universe it's mostly a matter of trust. If should are in a circle, the others there are putting some trust in you not to abuse the connection.

Haven't quite designed character sheets yet. I'll get to it asap. The complete example also seems like a good move. I wanted originally to get the mechanics and psychology of it down before I went there.

trying to make it pretty universal. so perception could refer to a scrying spell [arcane (increase) + perception], trying to hide from a town guard [sneak + perception], or trying to to see if someone is lying to you [speechcraft + perception]

attack and dodge would also be used
[power + melee] = heavy attack
[fortitude + melee] = block

trying to find a way to expand on both attack vs defense without bloating TOO bad

This along with the original idea looks like [Player Skill + Opposing Skill] vs TN, which doesn't make sense. Just having opposing rolls would make sense, but then that would be different than [A+B} vs TN.

And this sounds more like what was going on before. Once again, metamagic feats might provide some good inspiration. Silent+Melee could be fore a sneak attack, or Extended+Melee might be a flurry of blows. Also consider combat maneuvers for verb ideas. You might Bull Rush with Shove+Melee, or make an improv Bolas with Trip+Ranged

Ultimately you're going for verb ideas, so try to find some in whatever your favorite system is. Metamagic and Combat Maneuvers can be good inspiration. Especially Combat Maneuvers, because they show an effect, something different you can do in melee than just attack.Once you get a maneuver to focus on, then you can figure out the best verb to represent how that maneuver might happen.

What are some advantages and disadvantages of dice pool resolution systems?

I'm wondering if I should just make it open-ended. like you have your main stats, and for everything else, the players just make up skills.

block? sure that's a skill. block+fortitude is a full on defense. block+agility is more of a parry.

everyone is assumed to have 1 rank in any 'verb'

>pros
Pure chance has lesser impact on the game. You roll multiple dies and average result lies closer to normal distribution.
You can adjust it further with roll and keep systems.
You can tie more mechanics to different aspects of the roll.
>cons
Dice pools require a lot of dice. It might be a problem in physical format.
Dice pool systems look more complex on surface. Some players will avoid the game after hearing "dice pool".

I'd recommend making a list of extremely common skills that you could reasonable expect to see in nigh every game. Then, give plenty of space for GMs to create their own skills that might be relevant to their particular game. If your system is supposed to transcend technology levels (like handling Medieval, Steampunk, and post-apoc each), then this would be perfect for the technology related skills, or magic skills, etc. If you expect people to block in every game, the Block absolutely should be on that list of mainstays. It doesn't mean your list /has/ to apply to every possible game you're designing for, but they should be used in the majority of games played.

Having a list of essentials should provide a helpful amount of structure for players that a purely open skill system wouldn't provide.

the idea of actually rolling an active defense actually brings up something I wanted to with MY homebrew; rock-paper-scissors. anyone have a good system that does that?

like if you are attacked by a heavy swing, you're gonna want to dodge that, but if you block it, you're gonna feel the pain.

if you bock a precise strike, it's going to get into the gaps in your armor.

I'm trying to figure out how to deal with you attack me with a heavy attack, so I dodge, so you change to a quick attack, so on (who gets priority)

I remember thinking up a mechanic where initiative/momentum becomes a per-round thing. In your case, winning the rps would allow you to become the attacker, and winning rps while attacking would land a solid hit. This would mean multiple mini-rounds of rps, like perhaps doing 6 to represent a 6 second round. Whomever wins an rps bout while an attacker would actually score damage, like volleyball (score points while serving). This allows for a wide range of outcomes while still being rps at the core.

That might spark an idea for you.

Someone hear me out on these grappling rules. Theres a sligtly more detailed version on my google sheet but...

To initiate, make a Brawling attack, on hit you both gain GRAPPLED [movement is 0, cant use your main hand, ac increased by 2. Nat 1s on him hut you nat 20s hit both if you from people furing into the grapple.]

Every round, the aggressor must spend their move action as an opposed brawling check to maintain the grapple. Then, the aggressor can use their standard action to apply PINNED [ ac nets out to -10 and they cant use either hand]. The defender can use their standard to try and become the aggressor, or anything that doesnt need their main hand. They can't actively escape a grapple, unless theyre PINNED, thats represented on the aggressors turn when they try to maintain. Either grappler can make an opposed Strength check to move the grapple.

Damn it, I thought I checked for typos

I finally got around to compiling all the moving parts for my conflict/combat chapter.
Since all rules are mostly just varying abstractions, Im trying to make them work more on a descriptive basis to make combat more cinematic. Trying to avoid saying narrative because of the buzz-word feelings, but in reality my rules are probably align with the expectations of narrative combat. Heroic and Gritty are ideals thrown around, usually opposing to some degree, therefore I have reworded gritty to Dangerous.

The basis of combat goes
1) GM description followed "What do you do?"
2) Player Response with action or reaction
3) roll, want only a single roll per turn per player. DoS and DoF add extra consequences to the roll
4) PC-GM negotiation of what happens, what the true interpretation of the roll is. 'Horse-trading' of player resources (and GM resources too?) for in-game effects. Spending HP to reduce consequences, accepting conditions to push for greater effect. Etc, this should allow players to have some influence. Allow Risk/Reward play through narration rather than a dice roll.
5) The outcome. Just to settle everything.

Above is the formality of the conversation, but onwards to the interesting points, besides step 4:
Assuming 1 on 1 combat, complicated situations just modify this setup.
Sliding scale called Edge to determining winner. Take-Out is an action to end a fight, it have multiple enablers. Players have their own turn, but they "activate immediate opponents", meaning players and monsters act at the same time. This should be possible to handle with the above 5 step setup.

Combat is not about who runs out of HP first, but about who has the upper hand (Edge). As combat rages on, Escalation happens, making numbers DoS/F bigger, driving the combat to an end. Conditions comes in 3 steps: Minor (mostly descriptive, low impact: out-of-breath, off-balance, bruised) to moderate (hurt, knocked-down) and major (serious stuff, broken arm).

TBC

I'm undecided on how I want to do my core resolution mechanic. Game is somewhat of a supernatural modern that tries to be both a power fantasy and downward spiral.

Make a dice pool from [Attribute + Skill + Corruption], then make a set of matching dice. Width determines degree of success. Each 'corruption die' in the set progresses towards increasing your corruption level. So basically if you use corrupted dice, then your corruption increases, so you get more corrupted dice to use. You can't pick and choose the dice of a set, you either use all matching dice or none of them. There's a little bit of nuance, but that's the gist of it. Then:
1) I want to use d8 because the numbers feel more right, without really having tested it too much, but d10's are significantly more convenient, especially since you need to separate them into two categories. Practicality or vision?
2) I don't know if I should go full ORE-like and use height as well. ORE is very pleasing from a design perspective, it has a nice elegance. However, I don't think I really like what it does to a system in a lot of ways (primarily hit locations). It bothers me that the numbers on the dice don't mean anything, but I can't find any meaningful use for them.

Well, I'm not very familiar with DnD grappling rules but I want to note the following:

Only one character has to initiate and maintain the grapple. Other character may choose to not grab his opponent's clothes or limbs and try to move away and break the grapple on him. He can use move action to break grappler's hold by moving fast and escape. If he doesn't suceed, grappler moves with him but can't use his own move action.

If the aggressor wants to PIN, he needs to throw his enemy (make an oppossed roll) and bring him to the ground. Now his prey can't use move actions, only standard actions.

Minor conditions is mechanically action tax for the most part, with the danger of being upgraded: Off-Balance to Knocked-Down. However enough conditions can apply penalties through the Trauma Gauge, which is determined by the Defense characteristic. Hit Points are in this system but is not like in DnD, rather they reduce conditions by one step. With slow recovery, means the player determine if used. HP comes in 4 different flavors, depending on the source (the Drive characteristics). Faith HP is Gods protection, Good old fashioned Luck, Protagonism (need a better name I think) provides plot armor, and warriors can translate Expertise into "Im trained in how to avoid damage"

Im hoping /gdg/ can help find flaws in my system to smooth it out to something workable. Currently my combat rules are just some rules stitched together with thin thread, at least that's how it feels. It's very unique in the sense it's a paradigm shift from DnD (basically all my rpg experience).
There's still a "reduce this number to 0 to win"-element with edge, but it's still far from standard Hit Point implementations. Turn structure have been redone to feature player/enemy interaction as key, not slapping rules like "Attack of Opportunity" to make sense of "disconnected 5-by-5 ft square 6 second time advancement" that is the usual turn structure. I have taken this idea from TRoS/SoS with their Limelight, but without experience I gotta try myself.
Action description for players falls into "What are you primarily trying to accomplish this turn?" A fleetfooted elven fighter might charge into enemies and start tearing them up, while the short-legged gnome might have to spend his time moving from point A into the same fight. This is the essence, but I have yet to complete my brief action descriptions with their ties other mechanics, such as Overview being able to change initiative place (enemies still interact with your on your turn) or Defend action increases the Outmatched rating.

I'm not a huge fan of ORE Mecha to be honest, because it's using Wild Talents as a baseline, and it's not the most intuitive thing in the world.

My question for you is, what kinds of things do you want in your game?

Nice progress on this so far. I like the introduction to the section and the explanation for what each part and Stat does and is for.

Question: what exactly is the Structure stat used for? Stats are supposed to be used along with a Pilot's Skill, but how does Structure work with all that?

I know this is probably going to sound weird but hear me out...
I'm trying to create a system that uses a Scout Badge type system, where specific skill and talents must be earned by specific in game actions and achievements (e.g. You lit a fire without a fire-starting kit or magic? You earned the Survival Skill Badge!)
How specific should I make the rewarded skills to the action needed to earn it?

And by scout badge system, I mean literal scout badges, so if anyone has any suggestions in that regard, that'd be great!

>I am thinking of using a d12 mechanic. I know that is more "random" but I don't really like the predictability of 2d6. Plus 1d12 has the number handle stat plus skill well.
REEEokayIllusewordsinsteadEEE So the "swingy" means that you can beat it by a lot (rolled 10, 7 more than target number) or by little (3, just hit the target number), but if there's no difference in those two successes, then it's not swingy, it's an illusion of swingy.
>1d1+stat+skill
That's because 2d6 and 1d12 is not same granularity, 1d12 is larger and a roll over-like system this makes better use, where in 2d6 systems a single +1 means much more.
>predictability
anydice.com/program/1557 Now they are equally predictable. Sarcasm aside I actually am a bit sorry about the tone, what you probably refer to is that 2d6 rolls middle numbers often. That does not matter unless you use how much you beat the target number by, the difference in a pure "beat TN"-system lies with the interaction with modifiers. Press [graph] and [At Least] on anydice and see with 2d6 you more reliably defeat low number. Any bonus is just a simple shift on the x-axis, but as you can see, +1 changes by a different amount depending on where you are.

>toughness system vs HP
Usually what people mean by toughness or wound system is just Hit Point system that doesnt not scale much and start very low. Throwing damage reduction doesnt really change much about what it actually is.
Pdf related for some true alternatives to HP, wound traits, and trauma gauge. Most health system is a mix of those 3 and some variations. DnD is the "bloat version" of HP.

>large battle
Needs another system than the usual 2-6 man party.

>heroic and gritty gameplay in the same system
Gotta define those and then make mechanics around those goals.
Gritty: fx Can die in one shot - already done
What do you with heroic? Fast HP regain is considered heroic and so is High Action, but what else fit your idea of Heroic?

>RPS system
Interesting, but with only 3 options it might lack granularity. To meme a bit, add Spock and Lizard. To expand, first, more options, second adding victory points into it. The rogue gains a bonus winning with scissors while the fighter gains a bonus winning with rock and etc. You could make the stat system like that.

>Fighter
Rock 3, Scissor 3, Papir 1, Spock 1, Lizard 1
>Mage
Rock 0, Scissor 2, Papir 2, Spock 4, lizard 1
>Rogue
Rock 1, Scissor 3, Papir 2, Spock 1, Lizard 2

What you use the victory point to could also depend on class. Goal is still winning RPS but there's some extended rules around it make it less binary.

...

Bump with a thread question:

>What kind of media is inspiring your work?

For me, I've been trying to broaden my sci-fi bibliography recently. The last book I finished was Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination, which is a pretty great solar system-centric sci-fi epic that would be real awesome to play in my ORE space game.

>What kind of media is inspiring your work?
Anime?

Hey, don't knock it. Plenty of great games are mad-anime. Tenra Bansho Zero and Double Cross come to mind.

Some animus and mangos have pretty neat ideas for interesting worlds and game mechanics. Plenty of shonen mangas roll with some quirk to their world to let the main character develop their power level. Like in Black Clover and to lesser extent Chivalry of a Failed Knight.

If you dress their settings in some nice mechanic, you can get pretty enjoyable RPG.

At the moment it's a standalone stat. If a pilot were trying to push or lift or endure a massive hit, they'd use the Structure rating for their dice pool.

I've got a post-apoc style game that tracks both Needs and Vices. Needs are pretty self-explanatory. Food, Water, Shelter, Love, but don't tell anyone. Its not for Magical Realm , etc. Vices are more like addictions, Smoking, Drinking, other drugs, non-substance related addictions, and all that. Both Needs and Vices will tick up (probably per "event"), starting at 0 and increasing to some undetermined number. When you fulfill a Need or Vice, that number will go back to 0. If you don't, the tick will increase in intensity (i.e. going from 5 points to 6, or going up the Fibbonacci sequence, or whatever the final numbers might be).

I'm considering having a mechanic to get rid of Vices. Vices will be attractive options to take during character creating to make things cheaper, but within the game they can range from being a nuisance to being the death of many people you wouldn't want dead. What I'm initially thinking of is to have a way to buy off the penalty that Vices cause. This might be represented in a limit to how high vices can go, and performing a necessary action would reduce that limit until you hit 0. I'm wondering if there are any other options that might fit better. The idea is that the world sucks, and life in that world sucks, so getting rid of an addiction should be even more difficult than it already is in real life.

バンプ

Vidya
Lots and lots of vidya. I don't really spend tons of time of settings, which could easily be taken from multiple sources. My mechanics will either come from current tabletop systems, or from translating vidya mechanics into something usable for tabletop.

late night bump

fast, accessible with some crunch but doesn't require a spreadsheet

I want to emulate Gundam (mostly UC and the One Year War era) so gritty to gritty with some heroics. maybe the option for some psychic powers (Newtypes)

the mechs would be based off the ones in show,

leaning towards doing something different for the armor. Reign does it differently right?

Don't know what to tell you other than find some copy (preferably online) of a Boy/Cub Scout Merit Badge manual and go from there.

I know you didn't mention it, but awhile ago there was an user who was thinking of requiring players to study real world knowledge to use in game. Things like reading up on the climate of a given area to use Knowledge:Nature or something for the game world analogue. This would actually work perfectly for your game if you wanted to use it. Players would need to research the requirements of each Merit Badge they wanted and then perform the necessary steps in game to receive it.

It seems like this type of game would be more interesting and zaney with a scatter die for fling direction and different die sizes, d6/d8/d10, for inches of distance...rather than a set number of spaces.

You'd have different character weights which sets their default knockback distance, Light/Med/Heavy -> d8/d6/d4 and attacks add flat numbers to that.

Weak/Strong/Smash +1/+3/+5

At certain damage thresholds, your knockback dice are upgraded.

>Using Normal Weight baseline
0-30% Normal
31-50% d6 -> d8
51%-75%: d8 -> d10
76%-100% d10 -> d12
101%+ d20

Stage obstacles/hazzards could be setup at the start of a game a la 40K or the like.

Yeah, armor in REIGN is pure damage reduction. Each point of armor you have cancels 1 point of Shock and 1 point of Killing. It's a lot simpler and faster than the Light/Heavy armor system from Wild Talents.

How do you envision mobile suits working? Are they just vehicles or do you want to treat them more like an extension of your character?

This is something I could get behind.

Your damage could also represent a minimum distance that you're flung.

Let's say you start 0-3 damage is a d4. When you get flung at this range, you roll a d4 and that's how far you go. However, within that range, the current damage you have is a minimum distance, so if you have 2 damage, your fling distance is 2-4.

Once you hit 4, you upgrade to a d8, so your fling distance is now 4-8. When you hit 8 you upgrade to a d12, so you can get flung 8-12; 12 damage upgrades you to a d20. If you manage to get up to 20 damage, that's Instant Death, the equivalent of being at 300%.