/gdg/ - Game Design General

Here's a 24-hour RPG I made. I did this a couple days ago but I didn't post it (was looking for 24 hour RPG thread).

This one is about martial arts. Players create a martial artist in any era or setting. The game has generic rules for outside combat, meaning it works close to the World of Darkness Storyteller system. The entire RPG uses only d8s. Each player will most likely need 3-6 d8s depending on convenience.

There's a version with an interactive charsheet which is slightly too large to post. If anyone wants it just reply.

By the way, don't open this in your shitty browser PDF viewer. Use a real one like foxit.

The idea was that Rome wasn't that great, but the three technologically advanced factions have twisted legends of it into something amazing. Think like El Dorado. Also, I chose the groups I did because I wanted a lightning focused army, a mechanised army, and a space marine style army, and those three civilizations were the ones that seemed most likely to develop those technologies. Though there will be other groups.

And they are convinced enough that they want to plow Rome's soil for gold when the spies return with news of Rome being an ordinary city for the region? I guess fair enough, but it seems a little sobering, doesn't really bring hype to the affair.

I was thinking more that it's collective denial, kind of like how a group of cardinals would react if you provided them with evidence of that there is no God in this world, and that they all think that the generic European city they're looking at is just a very clever disguise.

Unmatched set penalties:
Over powered parts can be detuned to give a penalty/lower-output or take maintenance (subdual) damage.
Also skill penalties can be in several parts:
1) Can be reduced with testing and balancing time.
2) Can be reduced by training and piloting time.

Module costs: 50%? Obvious capabilities + share of full vehicle cost. modules need to be able to deal with what the vehicle can do. The SR-71's movement capabilities bled into every part of the vehicle.
You can have module interface standards:
It should cost less than a multifunction weapon or multiform new form to match modules to interface standards, since it doesn't do it itself with the push of a button. Maybe the price formula is that of a multifunction weapon minus the how much work and materiel you need in the field to get it to work. You could put a separate supply system into a part to get it to work at full power.

Not sure we're going to do costs as part of the system, since it's generic and every world will have different costs and currencies. Maybe something abstract like profit factor.

What would be an ideal number of different units per army?

What's the scale?

Don't know yet.
I was referring to how many individual unit entries I should have per army book, btw.

Actually, now that I think about it, 20mm seems to work, so I'll probably go with that.

Unit choices or units on the field?

Unit choices

8 to 12 choices are a good starting point.

Thanks

Does anyone know how I would go about distributing a finished version of this game?

We're in the same boat, there. No idea.

Newest update. Changes are highlighted.

Bumping while I work on rules.

Is this ability worded clearly?

Tenacious - When this daemon and another would destroy each other in combat if this daemon has more than 1 Health it is reduced to 1 Health instead.

Close enough, I'd just add a comma in between "combat" and "if" for improved readability.

Got the beginnings of my first army book done, though I'm not entirely sure what kind of points stat increases are worth.
Note: 'Viking' was basically the Norse word for raider.

Does it trigger off of only when they destroy each other, or when it is destroyed by another daemon?

Thanks.

It triggers when both daemons would destroy each other. In such a situation a Tenacious daemon with more than 1 Health is reduced to 1 Health instead of being destroyed.

Here's an article on the subject by Neckbeard Lord Pulsipher
boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/23620/ruminations-about-magical-numbers-boardgame-design

>Tenacious - When this daemon and another daemon would destroy each other in combat, this daemon is reduced to 1 Health if it had higher than 1 Health instead.

Is this a bit clearer?

bampu

What are some "bonuses" that can be given to player rolls? Here are a few examples:

>extra dice
>bonuses to rolls (ie +1)
>ignore lowest dice
etc etc

Also multiplication and division, but those work better on the stats/tests than the dice rolls.

Delta Vector is also a pretty good blog about wargame design.

I have three main ideas that keep bouncing around, and I need to settle down and finish one. Would people be more interested in picking up

>An RPG whose mechanics and fluff all have to do with a world where every living thing is much larger and hostile towards humans.

>An RPG about talking to spirits that inhabit literally everything (think shamanism and shinto kami).

>An RPG where you get bonuses by choosing one of 100's of guilds or factions and leveling up based on the unique design of each group.

Is more Health bad? To me it sounds like you're referring to post damage-phase Health totals. But your wording might just be that way to prevent daemons with an innate 0 Health from gaining Health through something adding the Tenacious keyword to them.

Maybe I'm just retarded.

Redpill me on RPGs with no mechanical character advancement

Do you mean no leveling? or literally no mechanical improvement at all?

Without leveling, Monster Hunter makes a good base where you character capabilities are the same from beginning to end, but you get different mechanical advantages depending on what armor and weapons you wield. I.e., if you need to avoid a stunning dragon shout, you'd get armor with the Soundproof property.

If you're talking about no progression period, I had an idea of an RPG where your stats were in a constant state of balance. Other players could change your stats on "leveling up", but whatever changes they made, you could do the opposite movement to a different stat. For example, if someone made your Strength stat 4 worse, you could give any other stat +4, but if they also made your Charisma +2, then you'd have to lower another stat by 2. I've since put that on the backburner, but the idea is still there for the future.

I'm assuming that the idea is that when two daemons fight and reduce each other to 0 health, if the Tenacious daemon had more than 1 health, its reduced to 1 health instead of 0.

Its pretty straightforward, but lets give an example:

One Demon decides to Allahu Akbar another. Normally this would kill them both, but because our friend Jihad Jimmy has Tenacious, he's reduced to 1 hitpoint instead. After realizing his extraordinary luck, he decides to do it again. However this time he's at 1 hitpoint, so now he'll die and stay die.

I'm researching tank/vehicle combat to try and adapt it into a wargame/RPG. Does anyone know any good books/sources to read on the matter? Ideally, I'd like to know about the hardships of actually damaging/destroying/incapacitating opposing vehicles, as I know a little already, but would like to try and model much of the details.

So far, I'm trying to make a system that forgoes health bars or hull points in favor of a more binary system that causes a vehicle to suffer damage or not. The problem with that is that early tests have shown hits to be very random, with a lucky strike often incapacitating a vehicle on the first hit, or a pair of tanks squaring off against each other and suffering several rounds of glancing hits with no real effect before leading to someone finally dealing damage with a good dice roll.

Also, I've tried to model the game using d6, but I've since moved on to using a d20 based system to simulate 5% increments of probability. I'm also toying with the idea of going to a d100 system instead, but since multiple attacks will be rolled each turn, I'd like to keep it to using a single die per attack so that multiples can be rolled at once.

Posting an idea from the last thread for feedback and ideas.

Playing around with the idea of random objectives in a wargame. The idea is to fit the idea of exploration, when a game is played, you place X number of markers. When a model moves within 3-5" of the marker, you draw a card from a deck of random objectives, and replace the marker with them. It would be things like finding an ancient archive and a model needs to feed action points into it, as they try to decode and download the info; finding a stash of tech and treasure, so replace the marker with a scattering of markers that models need to collect; spawn a monster or monsters that attack the players; etc.

I know a lot of systems use the hull points or health system to help make vehicles feel more like the sturdy hunks of metal they are. You shoot a soldier in the arm, and except for those extraordinary cases, they're out, but you put some rounds in a combat vehicle, and unless you get lucky and take out a key piece in one go, the thing will keep going. It may not be going at 100%, but it can keep going, since pain isn't a factor.

first

Definitely second. Sounds like an interesting concept.

First is pretty much most standard RPGs where players go through a gauntlet of random encounters with huge monsters.

Third sounds like a clusterfuck.

First sounds kind of like Attack On Titan

second sounds more unique. first and third are basically every RPG.

A bump a day keeps the bums away.

My game has four stats: body, mind, heart and soul. I was thinking of having separate pools of HP for each. In this system you also spend HP to take actions, so it's more a measure of your endurance/willpower than actual health.

Is this too much to keep track of? I also considered something like the Dark Souls board game, where you have AP on one side of a track and HP on the other, and you die when they meet. But I think x4 might be too much.

Try a cross for the stats, I guess? Yeah, the DS board game works because there's only 2 stats pushing and pulling against each other.

That's a fantastic idea and I feel ashamed I've never heard of it.
This makes me think of a body/will 'line' where actions cost a certain amount of energy from a side. The current amount of energy on each side would also provide the modifier for relevant success/failure checks.

If only Jihad Jimmy had better healthcare..

It is an interesting idea and a good way to prevent turtling but how are you going to handle first player advantage? Or just lucky random objective spawns deciding games?

For first player advantage, alternating activations should help. You can run up and trigger objectives, but if you haven't taken some time to set up support, you are leaving it open for the opponent to move in and take advantage when they activate.

As for lucky objective spawns, that's gonna need to be how balanced the objectives are. Overall, the idea is for a less competitive focused game, and a more narrative driven game. Like how in games like Necromunda, Mordheim, Gorkamorka, and Frostgrave, winning isn't also the best strategy for your warband, sometimes its best to run away and not lose too many guys or what treasure you do have.

I more or less meant the former, with possibly the stat switching from the latter.

I'm a little worried that without leveling an RPG won't be enough of a skinner box to keep a fair sized gaming group

I had an idea for a while about making a game that incorporates some things from duskers and space hulk. Ive got alot of tyranids so might as well make use of them.

>want to keep working on my game
>the drive just isn't there
>the project is fine but I haven't played tabletop in months
>every time i want to round up people for one-shots or campaigns nobody wants in
>i can only round people up when i want to test my game
>i can't test my game because there's nothing new to test

how do you keep yourself motivated, /gdg/

I was looking to run a game based of the Asterisk War anime, and I was wondering what Veeky Forums thinks the best system would be to run this game.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. I think the phrasing could be a little clearer but I might just have brain damage.

Maybe:
>Tenacious - When this daemon and another daemon would destroy each other in combat, this daemon remains in play with 1 Health if it entered combat with greater than 1 Health.

Mostly it was the "if it had higher than 1 Health instead" tripping me up. Maybe it makes more sense in the full context of the rules, but I think if you phrase it like the greentext above (or similar), it would be clearer.

But what if the Demon entered combat with 3 HP, and was reduced to 1 HP a few turns later. Then afterwards, it and the enemy demon both die? That would end up with a different result than the original wording.

I'm don't understand how my rephrasing is mechanically different from the example I replied to. The daemon only dies in combat if it entered combat with 1 HP and receives lethal damage, or receives but doesn't deliver lethal damage, correct?

I gave up, my game was never going to be real so why bother. If I ever got a group together we would all just rather party or do something fun than pretend to care about some clusterfuck card game.

Entering combat and the point in time where two daemons destroy each other are very likely not the same point in time. That changes when the rule would take effect.

We don't really have any background as to what constitutes as Combat Starting, or any other terms that might be commonly used within the project. Since the original rules only reference a) Two daemons destroying each other (assuming at the same relative time) and b) the Tenacious daemon must be above 1hp for the effect to take effect.

I literally only changed the end of the reminder text to clear the ambiguity of "if it had higher than 1 Health", using the example provided to figure out what that bit even referred to.

The phrasing as stated by the dude, edited by a guy:
>>Tenacious - When this daemon and another daemon would destroy each other in combat, this daemon is reduced to 1 Health if it had higher than 1 Health instead.

My phrasing:
>>Tenacious - When this daemon and another daemon would destroy each other in combat, this daemon remains in play with 1 Health if it entered combat with greater than 1 Health.

And I confessed earlier that I don't have the full context of the rules. Assuming it functions similarly to pretty much any popular TCG though, my phrasing changes nothing but the clarity of the text. If it doesn't function remotely similarly, the dude should make that clear before asking for our opinion, because we can only assume baseline concepts like turn phases and combat resolution steps exist.

Also, I never said or even implied "Entering combat and the point in time where two daemons destroy each other " were "the same point in time". Obviously they wouldn't be.

Obviously we can only work from the information provided, so why comment to the effect of "you're wrong because we don't have the full context of the rules" when we're all clearly only working based on what is posted in the thread?

My only point was that adding "...if it entered combat with..." changes when that rule goes into effect. Its an important point to remember, especially since we don't even know if it is a TCG or not, but our argument has entered a level of pedantry that isn't necessary for this thread.

pastebin.com/cXFPcV8M

So, I've decided to try and make a pokemon style RPG, because I didn't like the direction the current offerings went.

Now admittedly, if I were truly wanting to do a Pokemon RPG, I'd probably base it off the Mystery Dungeon games. But, because I've never played one of those, I decided to base it off the main series games. I also decided I wanted to try to make it as familiar as possible to those who have played the games. It assumes that you'll be using the actual game data for what you need (pokemon base stats, move stats and abilities, etc).

I know a lot of people want to let their imaginations go wild when they play a game of pretend, but I'm a little conflicted on exactly what I my scope really is (also, I'm trying to make this quickly, so that will affect design time). In addition to trying to determine what I rules I want to add, I don't know what rules I /need/ to add. Somethings just don't need to be represented mechanically.

What I'd like to know, is:
1) does this do at least a decent job of translating original numbers to numbers more easily mathed in game
2a) Is this enough you could play at least a rudimentary game (more like a playtest) of pokemon, either as pokemon or a a trainer?

2b) If not, what more is absolutely necessary before playing?

Original poster here. Sorry for not providing more information and so leading to your argument. You were both, in a sense, right based on what you knew of the rules.

I think that this is actually the clearest phrasing posted so far in this thread. The others were close but a bit ambiguous, to my fault as I didn't disclose enough information.

Thanks, all.

In case you are curious and to clarify: I think that if you really, really tried to you could read the "instead" as replacing the destruction of both daemons which is clearly not intended. This phrasing avoids this.

So expanding on this with the idea of victory points and bartering after the game.

The basic idea is that Victory Points are not some nebulous score, they are physical goods that the warband collects: tech, data copies, materials, goods harvested from monsters, etc. The idea is that when a game is over, you send warband members that were not injured in the game to sell the points you. You need one able member for every 6~ points you want to town, and you can either sell each point for D12(?) credits for the warband's stash, or use it to barter for better goods to purchase. You roll a die (D3 or D6, not sure yet) and add to it +1 for every point used for the barter. You compare the roll to a barter chart, and you can purchase anything that has a number next to it equal to or less than what you rolled. For example, if you had 3 Victory Points (I'll think of a better name for it) and you rolled a '2', you'd have access to any items with a '5' or less next to it. The idea is trading pieces of loot to grease the palms of merchants to get access to better quality merchandise. Any points you do not sell or barter with are stored in the stash, so you can save them up for high end merchandise that would otherwise take lucky rolls.

Going back to the objectives and the idea of how many points they'd give, I'm trying to keep it in the range 2-4 points total for the objectives. It'd be things like: hacking a database successfully would give you 3-4 points, while fighting off a pack of small monsters that spawned would be 1 point each. So you'll have some that give bigger payouts, but need more strategy and work to get (The hacking idea is you'd have to keep a model at the computer for a few turns to successfully hack), while there are ones that are easier, but give less and are open to your opponent stealing them.

...

bump

Can you enlighten me if the following mechanic appears in any game

>Players add 'bad' cards to their decks as a cost to play 'good' cards

I haven't heard of any games that do that.

Not cards, but I think FFG Star Wars has something like that for Light Side/Dark Side dice

Should having a high stat in something negatively effect saves against other things? For example, is it balanced that one character could be so dumb that they simply don't think about the Eldritch Abomination closing in on them, while another character is too busy panicking trying to decipher what the fuck they're looking at because they're very intelligent and everything about their form defies all the knowledge they've gathered to that point?

Depends on the tone of your game.

Are there any games that have you leveling up your dice? Like, level one you roll a d4, and if you level up you roll a d6, then a d8 and so on...

[Dragon Forest] user here.
Still working on that rewrite.
I thought I would give you some updates:

>Skill Selection
I'm revising skill selection.
Characters now start with five skills at character creation chosen from either their class skill lists or the general skill list. However, there are compulsory selections to be made.
Each class has one starting skill. These are compulsory skill selections at character creation.
In addition, you must select at least two 'utility' skills from either your class skill list or the general skill list.
Your remaining may be selected freely.

>Armament Modifications
I'm expanding the list of weapon and armor modifications along with enchantments as a special class of modifications. You may have only one enchantment modification per weapon or armor.

>Finesse
Some weapon/armor modifications have a {Finesse +X} tag where X is an integer you add to your Finesse count. You take penalties if your Finesse count exceeds your Dexterity score.
Finesse represents items that require extraordinary amounts of skill to use, and is used as a balancing mechanism for more powerful modifications.

>Memory
Enchantment modifications add a {Memory +X} tag to weapons and armors where X is an integer added to your Memory count. You take penalties if your Memory count exceeds your Intelligence score. This is used to balance magic weapons and armors.
All magic weapons allow you to roll +Magic Attack instead of +Physical Attack on attack rolls with that weapon.
All magic armors allow you to add +Fortitude to Armor defense instead of +Reflex.

Hey guys, I'm finally getting around to building a system--before I always went way too crunchy to keep track of anything, but I recently cobbled together a skill, wound, and combat system that I quite like.

However, in my efforts to type it all out, well, the skill system goes to fuckshit. Like it's completely out of order and won't make sense to reader. Any tips on how to go about it step by step? Also, feed back appreciated.

Here's a basic outline (which will probably clear up for me how to write it):

>skills groups have stat(s) associated with them
>Skill Groups have Tiers, with the higher Tiers (General, Type, Specific) having a higher multiplier.

>Example: Bladed Two handed Weapons>Balanced Bladed Two Handed Weapon>Scimitar

>PS can branch

>The base costs are at 4, 3, and 2.

>If someone with Scimitar picks up a Cutlass or something simular they'll be at -1 to -3 in skill. While if they picked up a broad sword they'd be at 1/2 level. (still playing with this)

>Skills max out at 25, But specifics get an effective bonus every 5 levels, maxing them out at 5 points. They are not penalized for being in other circumstances, IE fighting sword to sword on horseback.

>cost to level up skills is 1*base up to the lowest associated stat.

>After that roll versus Skill-(stat+Synergy). If you win it's 2x, if you fail it's 3x. Even if you decide not to learn after failing a roll you must bank at least one point, and you may reroll next session. However, failures compound, so you might end up 4x, or even 5x. This is like being in a rut at school and just falling behind more and more.

>If you have a teacher the price of study is lowered by 25%, and failures max out at 3x

>skill points are rewarded at level up and by the GM at the end of a session

>Maybe techniques will be a thing, costing 1 point base?

>Stat Group Tier system will hopefully lend itself well to class creation

>I wanna be a knight!

>Okay, Knightly Weapons>Horseback and weapons>Lance. etc

I've heard the idea pitched, but never implemented.

I think one furry RPG used it but it created problems with character progression. Having more dice in dice pool was generally better for achieving great results than bigger dice since it's success based.

My ideas for armies for my wargame(no definite stats yet)
Norse:
Leaders:
High King: Tanky, terrifying close combat murder machine + Grand Ruler Archetype (gives all nearby allies massive stat boosts and an extra action per turn, but if he is lost, the owning player has 1 turn with heightened bonuses to win or loses the game instantly).
Jarl: Close combat unit, good stats, General Archetype (gives nearby units 1 extra action or special abilities representing tactics).
Thane: Close combat unit, good stats.
Elites or whatever name I choose for this category later:
Berserkers: Fast and fragile close combat unit, ignores normal morale rules, can sometimes ignore fatal wounds for a turn or two, get no penalties for wounds.
Huscarls: Tough and slow unit, can be either ranged or close combat, can intercept any ranged attacks meant for allies behind them.
Stormskald: Single guy with a heap of buffing abilities and an AoE or two.
Frostskald: Single guy with a heap of single target high damage abilities/weapons and a few debuffs.
Freemen: Small squad with low strength and toughness, but high accuracy and sniper rifles.
Rank and File:
Vikings("Viking" was the Norse term for raider, so it's justified): Slightly above-average melee unit.
Thralls: Weak and cowardly but well equipped ranged unit with high accuracy.

Gonna rebump for this.

I don't want to continue working on it as-is if I'm going to have to scrap most of it.

Note that each army will have different unit classifications, to mix things up

Empire of the Rising Sun(Japan/Weaboo)
Leaders:
Emperor: Very high ranged/close combat skill, reaction and morale stats, terrible in other areas, pilots a giant diesel-powered mech with ridiculous armour and strength + Grand Ruler Archetype.
Shogun: Good skill, reaction and morale stats, is either piloting a medium mech, which has low-ish speed, but high strength and armour, or a high-level suit of power armour, which is a well balanced mix of speed, armour and strength. General Archetype.
Daiymo: Good skill and reaction, other stats average. Is piloting either a fast mech or a suit of power armour.
Elites:
Shinobi: Stealth-based ranged unit. Squishy
Samurai: High CCS soldiers in power armour.
Exalted Samurai: High CCS soldier in a light mech.
Mechanics*: Very limited defense, can repair damaged armour and mechs
Cannon Fodder
Archers*: Weak ranged unit with short range. Cheap and expendable.
Gaijin: Weak melee unit. Expendable
Support:
Heavy Mech*: Tough artillery unit. Very inaccurate and expensive.

*(Or whatever Japanese word/name I can find that suits this unit better. Calling on you, any weab trash who read this.)

Prussian Remnants next, because I don't know as much about Mongolian history as European history, nor do I have any sources on the medieval Mongolian military like I do for the medieval Japanese military.
Leaders:
Baron: Above average melee unit. Makes any aircraft he's on more accurate and harder to hit. Has the General Archetype.
Knight-Captain: Above average melee unit. Makes any airship he's on harder to hit.
Mercenaries:
Anglish Longbowmen: Ranged unit with above average strength, and high accuracy and range.
Frankish Knights: Tough and fast melee unit riding unarmoured mounts.
Lombardi Crossbowmen: Mixture of crossbowmen with high damage and shieldbearers. Mostly stationary.
Turkish Janisaries: Fanatical, skilled melee unit.
Landsknechts: Defensive melee unit with lances
Crew:
Mechanics: Can repair vehicles. Little combat ability.
Boarders: Fragile melee unit with average strength and close combat skill. Get a bonus when attacking the same turn as they left an airship.
Airships:
Light Airship: small capacity, fast, and fragile
Medium Airship: average capacity, speed and plating. Has low-damage guns.

B.U.M.P. - Bitches Underestimate My Power

I really like the prestige classes from dnd 3.5, but how do I replicate that in a classless system?

For reference, a character gains 2 feats when they level up, which can be spent on a feat, an increase to an ability score, or skill points.

Any idea on how that system worked?

My idea was that the main dice you use changes depending on your power level. Level 1, pretty much everything you personally do is on a d4. Then that dice gets larger as you level up. Like, there is still a chance to get a low roll, but you upper limit increases over time.

How does that sound?

Let them pick a feat which is a "prestige class feat". It requires you're a particular level and you can only select one, or whatever.

The feat itself just gives you the same sorts of stuff a normal feat would give you, but it also provides you with access to some exclusive feat choices unique to that prestige class.
As they keep leveling up, they can then choose to dive into the prestige class as deeply or as shallowly as they want, or progress outside of it. And they could even choose to just never gain one, if that's their preference (and they're welcome to change their minds later.)

>want to write my own game
>consumed by indecision
>have no idea what to do anymore
>cannot make basic decisions
I've been reading the rules of lots of different systems for ideas but now I have no idea how any of their shit would play out in practice because I can't actually play them.

I too, am consumed by indecision

Have you tried writing down what you want in your system and some basic rules? First step's always the hardest after all

bump

Do you prefer rolling over or rolling under?
What advantages are there aiming for low rolls instead of high?

I have been writing myself a wargame for about 2 years off and on... just write when you are inspired

I prefer rolling over. Rolling under has the advantage of having a srong limiting factor for rolls, but I prefer the freedom rolling over has.

Thoughts on what I should add/remove/change so far?