Game Design General /gdg/

...

Most individual mechanic in your game?
Cooperation. Or capturing ennemies...
Pretty much gonna be a game classical as hell...

Sadly, probably the fact I don't have magical cut-off ranges for ranged attacks.

Most of my other mechanics are patched together from other systems and ideas.

So I made a damage mechanic for my game that I am not sure about using.

Basically, if you hit, you roll 1-3 dice depending on your weapon (d6s in this game). Each d6 that comes up >= target's armor removes 1 Vitality. Armor is 3 (unarmored), 4 (light/medium) and 5 (heavy), with armor 6 reserved for tarrasque / l4dead tank tier of armor.

So say a steelguard swings at a drudge zombie, and hits. Drudge zombie has armor 4, the steel guard is using a longsword (2 damage). He rolls 2d6, gets 4 and 5 so the drudge zombie loses 2 vitality. It only has 2, so it dies.

The point of this is having lower-tier enemies have 1 or 2 "hp" that you don't even really need to track. But they can still take multiple hits, and the mechanic also takes armor into account.

My other option would be "lol everything deals 1d6 +/- 1 damage and have armor 1-3 as DR" but that would mean going back to boring ol' hit points.

But for stuff like falling damage, it feels weird for that damage to be against Armor. So I made it just lost vitality per 10 feet fallen.

I dunno, do you think there is merit to this mechanic? Or should I just go for good ol' hp and rely on the other parts of my game (lots of simple-yet-powerful crafting and support classes, alternate material components, good class interweaving (alchemist and botanist can make herbs and items for mage to use to augment his spells) and village building mechanics (such as building al ibrary that lets the mage research spells faster, or an alchemical lab that lets the alchemist make more items, and increase morale) to carry the game instead?

I think it's a clean and simple mechanic, definitely has merit. I think the real question you're gonna want to think about is whether or not that system has enough granularity and gives you enough options for what you want to do with the rest of the game. It sounds like a good mechanic for a low granularity game, where detailed combat isn't the focus but the players still have tactical options. I could also see it being adapted to a wargame/skirmish game.

I think that system is kind of smart. Emphasizes the protection an armor gives way better than just basic damage reduction, methinks.

Maybe for falling damage and environmental damage, make it a similar save against dexterity / agility -type stat (If stats even work on the same ballpark as damage).

Are you guys of the opinion that your die resolution mechanic should be uniform all the way through the game? Should a skill test to pick a lock be the same as a test to hit someone in combat? With the only thing differentiating the two being modifiers and context?

Coming to light from that damage system, I have one that may need some speculation.

Basically, every weapon has a wound rating, and then they have tags.

Tags are like keys to locks. You need specific tags to beat specific kinds of armor. If you don't have a proper weapon for the job (Such as trying to face an armored knight with a longsword), you need to find alternative ways to beat the opponent.

That's why my status effects are so important. Instead of trying to overcome the -2 wound rating you get to all of your attacks (-2 is huge. 6 damage is enough to drop a regular person) by rolling high, instead you go wrestle with the knight. If you can topple them, you can jump on, raise their visor and use a knife to stab the face with +2 damage.

This system really smells of Lindybeige, to be honest...

I strive for uniformity. I want to make as little different dice rolling mechanics in the game, and thus there are like... One and half different mechanics for dice rolls. Only minor differentations of the basis in my system.

What style you like is definitely a matter of taste though. I prefer simplistic mechanics, personally.

Its nice and clean. I'd say go for it.

It should. While there are certain ways to use die resolution to represent the feel of a what you are doing, you should still try to keep it as uniform as possible, for the sake of the players. I actually recently re-wrote my system to make it so all resolution specifically uses the same formula and system.

Is it important if I use card representating monster in my game to make illustration of them?
Or player will accept to play a board game without graphism?

I'm trying to make a heroic fantasy style game. While I believe I have a rudimentry system sorted out for die resolution (d10 die pool with additional mechanics), the bit I'm seeking consultation on is Combat. My beef with a lot of combat is missing, and it taking too long. I've played a lot of DnD, 40kRPGs, even the FFG Star Wars games and combat always takes up more than its fair share of time, even if the system is designed to cut that down.

To that end, I'm going for something that I hope will work, but relies on a grid and miniatures. The game has five types of attack, not every option is available at once and instead is dependant upon the weapons a character has on them, or the spells they'll be casting. All of these attacks are made relatively to the characters miniature , except for area of effect blasts which can be centred elsewhere if the spell allows for it. Attack options are:
>Horizontal Swipe
A cone of effect, everybody within range (determined by weapon, two handed axes and hammers will have a better range than a sword) suffers a hit and takes damage unless they can pass an evasive check (these are parries or dodges).
>Vertical Strike
A column of effect, again determined by weapon, everyone suffers a hit and takes damage unless they can evade etc.
>Area of effect
A circular area of effect, this can be used centred upon the character if they wish to spin in a circle to hit as many people as possible, or it can represent fireballs and lightning strikes far away from the character
>Personal attack
When you're not cleaving, you engage in a single target battle. Again, target is auto hit unless they can pass an evasive check.

Any immediate thoughts? It's meant to keep combat fast and simple, single die rolls resolving hits and damage. Damage itself is handled by differing weapon qualities and buffs/debuffs that the players can choose before battles.

It looks like a good unique mechanic, but there's some problems with:
I believe that in this kind of system (I'm assuming a "soft" one) you don't need to go in depth with status and effects (take this with a grain of salt)
At first I was going to go against your tag key-lock mechanics, but they really make sense and make for good RP. just don't overdo it and it should be okay (see above about status)

>>This:
If monster are represented only by their cards (i.e. no tokens on the board) it could be considered a good practice to make some illustrations in most cases (you can go without for playtesting). In some very specific instances it can work: e.g. "Quest-games" where the monsters/enemies are a bit more of a simple contest in a location rather than an element in gameplay.

Well, monsters are really important. You use them to fight, and killing them is the main goal...
Damn, going back to my drawing training...

Unless you're rather talented (or had quite a bit of practice in your life) I don't recommend going through the struggles of learning to draw properly (learning the basic to be able to do sketches is just fine) if you're going to have a finished game "for sale" (even for small scale) you can pay some good artists to do the work (it's expensive, but it will pay off). If it's just for you and your friends you can grab some pics on the web and use them.

Every project I have now needs that I learn to draw. I though this one would be an exception, but no. So better learn now, no?

Seeing as the thread dies constantly, haven't you guys considered making a /gdg/ discord or requesting a /gdg/ discord on the Veeky Forums server?

Look at the art at any card or board game you have at hand. In most cases the illustration in those is not something you can learn to do quickly and even when you reach the level where you're able to draw then it will take lots of time (it took me three years to be able to use 4 hours to draw something that my instructor found "good", point being:it was only grass), usually you can expend your time better on the work of your choice (or earning the money) and find/hire someone to do the rest.

>>tl;dr: being a good artist is usually too hard and takes too much time. Hiring a pro is better and cheaper (labor-wise).

You may be right, but I have no money and I'm searching for a job since way too much.
Also I'm learning to draw since 4 years ago, just still can't do the coloring...

It's not all that different from most systems with "simple" combat systems (except on the point that is usually an attack roll instead of a defense one), and opting for more area attacks is good as it reduces the advantage from high numbers (instead of requiring an character "specialized" in area attacks). So far, so good.

Not sure, never used discord.

Searching for job can be quite hard/tiresome, if possible print your resume and go knock on some doors... and/or if you have the qualification try to be very specific when searching/applying

You will have a more accessible game if you use uniform mechanic.

But personally I don't think it's absolutely imperative.

I think the question to ask is if your second mechanic is fun and flavorfull enough to warrant the added rules bulk.

I'm in France, searching for a job is pointless today.
But back at the cards, is it a problem if I use a graphism by kind of monster and not by monster itself?
For exemple I have a monster at the first "hour" (=level) and the same in a little harder at the second hour. Can I keep the same image?

Is this only for Veeky Forums design, or is it for game design in general, including video games?
I know threads like /agdt/ exist on other boards, but they're not very resourceful. In 30 posts this thread has been more helpful than a year of threads on /v/ and Veeky Forums.

I believe it's ok, but I would make something shiny to indicate that it's not exactly the same monster (e.g. golden margins, a badge on a corner...)

It's focused in Veeky Forums games because /v/ and Veeky Forums most of the time require a different set of skills and mechanics, so we are a bit limited on what we can answer regarding other platforms, but no one is stopping you from asking and no one from answering (after all, deep down games are games and they share a lot of stuff)

Honestly, I'd say different art. The problem with using the same art is that it'd make it hard to recognize at a glance. If you are used to the easier enemy at the first hour, you may see the art for the second hour monster and may think its the same monster without realizing its stronger. This is if the cards are separate, though. You can also think about combining the information onto one card to represent they various levels, depending on how much info there is on the card.

There's a lot of similarities between the two. You may not get as much help as you'd like, but you can probably glean something about general concepts here.

They are just not in the same pile. And the card color is different: every hour we change colors starting from blue night to bloody red (or sunny red, following the scenario of the game).

If the card color is different, then you should be fine. Just something that stands out at a glance that there's a difference.

bumping...

Just to know is there any good practices when coming up with a "spell" book/list? I have tons of "spells" to design and I'm not even sure where to start.

There's always alphabetical, by level requirements, by cost, by categories and types.

Which means, all in all it's just writing a bunch and trying to balance them...I knew this was going to be trouble

To give the thread a shot, here is the current resolution mechanic I've been working.

I've also thinking of adding critical hits and critical failures for attacks. Critical hits would be easy, you roll a critical die, you also apply whatever the critical effect is. For critical failures, the idea is that if you roll two or more 1's, you have to pass a test afterwards, to represent your skill with clearing out weapon jams and such.

Yeah, that's what you pay when you want to create something; your time and sanity.

Well, so far the only thing to D12 pools have a good distribution for playing with both your "score stats" and "target number", the only concern is that people usually don't have many d12 hanging around

>>Yeah, that's what you pay when you want to create something; your time and sanity.
I estimate that I will weed to create at least around ~200 specific spells and 7 different "soft" systems for spell/effect creation.

Now speaking of combat, how are you going to roll for "combat order"?

Yeah, one of the things that pushed me towards other dice is how low the spread on a D6 is. The system is aiming for 3 on average per roll.

Its for a wargame, so players will take turns activating models, with a check with the commander at the beginning of the turn to decide the order. There's a few other things that affect order, like elite skills and such.

I'd look for any templates to cut down time and numbers: instead of various elemental bolts (fireball, lightning strike, ice spike), have one that players can choose to add effects to on cast, for example.

Add to the next thread the following line in OP:

>>/gdg/ on Discord
Channel: #dev
discord.gg/WmbThSh

Yeah, but my problem is that I have 10-ranks of spells, there are ~5 classes of magic,each "class" of magic has 7 in-categories, and they usually won't share a spell list/effect

That sounds like a bite the bullet situation.

>start out with a souls-inspired rework of D&D 3.5
>progress far enough to realise that I want to change so many things that I might as well use a different system or make my own
>spend the last week pouring through systems looking for inspiration
>now I don't even know what I want to make
This is suffering.

For those interested, my starting objectives:
>stamina replaces normal action economy, allow granularity in actions
>give everyone meaningful choices in combat without barriers/taxes, but have most of that breadth optional so that "simple combat" is still viable
>divorce in-combat roles from out-of-combat roles
>make choices in gear more meaningful

Yeah, the more you expose yourself to new ideas, the harder it gets to narrow it down. And you just keep getting hit with those flashes of inspiration.

Gonna answer all three at the same time...

Well, you never specified the problem with the exit flag mechanic itself, but there is a problem that certain types read too little or too much into it. That guys / gals. They see exit flags either as a word of god that you must now exit or die, or that they are an exploitable mechanisms with no real consequences. Of course, as the game is specifically tailored for me, I will not have problems with explaining things and putting that kind of players in line.

Then... Status effects are really the meat of combat, because... The system is that every time 3 damage is made, you can apply a status effect to your opponent. Wounding is just one of the status effects that can be pretty much anything. Most status effects boost other sources of damage, meaning you have multiple options to make the opponent exit.

Sideword, about it being a "soft" system. I am known to be extremely anal, I fill the diagnostic criteria for OCPD. The only reason this system might be called "soft" is that the general rules -section is supposed to be under 15 pages long. The design goal for me was to make something that's relatively realistic and simple in under 15 pages.

Then the key-lock tag system. Calling it key-lock makes it sound intuitive yet pretty heavy, meaning it has a complex rock-paper-scissors type of deal going on. But really, it's much simpler. Each setting has its own weapon tags. By default, a human is weak (-1) toward all tags. But they obtain +0 and +1 to the tags by wearing proper armor, sometimes even thick clothing is enough. Each singular attack can't have more than 3 tags at a time, so all that is done is checking the opponent's resistances and weaknesses toward those tags, giving +1 and -1 to wound damage. Because the tags will usually not change mid-fight, the resolution of wounds becomes ever faster as the individual conflict and as the game progresses in general.

I can't throw any balanced from the start ideas...

First thing is to think where the magic stands in Vancian-Mystic scale, then think the purpose the magic has in the world.

How hard it is to learn, can it ever be useful in mundane tasks, does it have heavy drawbacks, is it feared by the general populus?

These are important questions because it helps define what kind of magic the mages would even make in the first place. It also defines whether mages would even make more mundane spells. If their brains are on the line for being fried, they probably will clean themselves rather than make a spell for it.

After that start going through basic utilities that magic would have:
Convenience,
Defence,
Offence,
Traps,
Summoning,
General utility...
Then put them into a list where the strongest is first. Then think if you want to have the stronger spells in the hands of players before that point. If you don't, keep it that way. If you do, downgrade them.

Before long you should find lots of neat spells along those lines.

If you're stuck at "what there could even be", check out some magic-heavy system's spell list and see if there are anything that fits into the categories your setting has.

Bumping with a wholly another thing...

Anyone got good system-building / thinking music in general?

Zero Escape OST has served me well these past weeks, really gets my brain working. Probably having played the games helped with that.
youtube.com/watch?v=hVU_qKu5k4M&index=1&list=PLZEJp4L3SaqJpppna05A9TGKnm-0AW_Kn&ab_channel=monkeyscythe

Oh, that was only the first song of the OST, which is actually the weakest song of the bunch. It was supposed to lead to the playlist. Just copy the link to the address bar.

Hey you, all of you!
What kind of game are you making?
What's make it unique?
Why do you like to make it?

I have a mechanical system for representing land ownership(it's based around plantations so they're mostly slave owning properties but it's generic enough to use for any.)

I've completely decoupled earnings from questing as a result, no one pays 20 Groat to the guy who owns a fucking tobacco plantation when he takes his party out to kill the monsters. Instead you develop your property and that gives you passive reliable income so you're not dependent on the whims of the GM

There's still a mechanic that allows the GM to accrue tokens on a property he can cash in to fuck shit up. It stops the GM going all ham on one player but they still have reasonable freedom to fuck with the players shit.

There is no XP in the system as a result either, you can construct buildings on your land that give you the equivalent of XP again on a passive basis so you have reliable XP gain too.

The other big factor is because the land is so developed main characters can die and it's no big. When a character dies you don't lose all your stuff because the property just gets passed on to his heir(your next character).

I'm working on my game's hit point system and I've decided to use a system of 'stakes' to determine what happens when your HP = 0.
The way it works is that you select at least one stake from a list at the beginning of combat. You may select up to two additional stakes to gain that many hero points.
When you are hit by a Coup de Grace or your hit point total dips too far into the negatives, you stakes trigger. When a stake triggers you apply its effects and unselect it, and you can never select that stake ever again.

The list of stakes so far:

>Death
Your character dies.

>Maimed
Permanent -2 Articulation (Dexterity), +1 Doom

>Concussed
Permanent -2 Memory (Intelligence), +1 Doom

>Enucleated
Permanent -2 Awareness (Wisdom/Perception), +1 Doom

>Traumatized
Permanent -2 Speech (Charisma), +1 Doom

Now I just need to figure out some stakes to permanently reduce 'Steel' (Strength) and 'Breath' (Constitution). Any suggestions?

>What kind of game are you making?
I'm making two, currently. One as my major project (Of which I've talked quite a bit here) and another, a more tightly designed game about reality warpers.
>What makes it unique?
Both have quite unconventional mechanics. For the first one, I have explained plenty in and , the second one I haven't talked about a lot at all. For one, it uses digital root of 3d10 as a resolution mechanic. Second, it involves jumping to parallel universes, with mechanics to match.
Copying Zero Escape, but going with EVEN more fantastical version of the powers
>Why do you like to make it?
I like to make them because I love making systems in general. Many even say that I make systems more than actually play, which is true.

It also helps that they have many parts to hone, because as the influences to my games are various, combining the elements to becomes an interesting challenge in on itself. My design goals are set impossibly high, both from the perspective of my incredibly high standards and as something to challenge myself to think.

And if the challenge is clarity over complexity, it just means I'm making a better system in the end, instead of a garbled mess.

Doesn't that encourage minmaxing? Because that just means you should protect one or two stats and spam hero points until you lose?

Because usually characters who get to high levels, don't, you know, die.

And I think enucleation would need a clearer name. Enucleation is basically the name of the surgery.

For 'Breath', you could use Punctured (Puncturing a lung), and for 'Steel'... Dislocated?

Well, I could give the stakes additional harmful effects that everyone should care about

>Maimed
-1 Articulation, +1 doom, and you lose one weapon equip slot

>Hobbled
-1 Steel, +1 doom, and -1 Speed

>Amnesia
-1 Memory, +1 doom, and you lose one learned skill of your choice

>Traumatized
-1 Speech, +1 doom, and choose one skill list that you have access to; you may never again learn skills from the chosen skill list

Hmm... Having harsher effects is good, as long as it's not too harsh. The perfect fit is hard to find, though.

Question: What do you do with hero points, and are they worth the risk, in the long run? And second: Can you add more stakes as the fight goes on?

Because in Tenra Bansho Zero, there is a similar system, a 'death' box that can be ticked at any time in combat. Ticking it gives you noticeable stat bonuses, at the cost of you putting your life on the line.

Hero points can be spent in the following ways:
To reroll one die
To take one additional action
To pay the cost of spells

Adding more stakes as fights go by would be fun. I'd probably do it as a free action.

Isn't that how the war 40k games work?

I like it. Could even be spliced into an existing RPG. I'm running a D&D game based around a colonial fortress and this gives me some ideas for base management incentives.

Working on a skirmish wargame. The unique things behind it are the setting and the combinations of some mechanics.

Hellsgate is a setting where a near-future Earth is invaded by demons. Think Hellgate: London or DOOM.

I'm making it because it takes things from games that I want to see and making something I'd like to play.

Sorta. Its a bit more simplified version of it. 40k is a D6 for each attack, roll to hit by comparing the to hit stats, roll to wound by comparing strength and toughness on a chart, and finally roll armor saves by comparing to the armor stats.

Example; a Space Marine hits a Space Marine, to hit is a 4+, to wound is a 4+, and armor is a 3+.

So I thought of a possible dice system for deciding a to-hit roll on guns. In the simplest form for explanation I would use percentile dice, and roll an amount of percentile dice based on shooter skill. So poorly trained/non shooters will just roll the one dice, where the result could be anything, it's chaotic, and more trained shooters could say roll 3 die, average the results and get a more "central" result. The idea is to hit that central range, in the bell curve of possibilities, instead of being a system that aims to roll above or below a certain number. Harder shots may only allow for a range of say, 45-55, while easier shots could allow for a range of 20-80. So the more skilled the shooter, the more dice, and thus the more likely to hit dead center and get a positive result.

I've also started thinking of further possibilities in using that system, where if you roll too low, on a bell curve chart that would be to the left of the curve, so maybe on a miss like that, you have a chance of hitting a target that is to the left of the intended target, collateral or not. I also have ideas for the range shifting position left/right based on recoil, almost effectively giving weapons spray patterns with sustained/automatic fire, and other general rules for condensing the automatic fire so that you're not rolling say 5 dice for each shot in a big long spray. For example the first hit would require the full dice roll out to see if it hit it's target like a singular shot, but then rolling only a single die for each consecutive shot and continuously averaging to see if it stays within the "on-target" range. I also thought of doing vertical shifts in fire if doubles are rolled, so if a 00,11,22,33,44 was rolled, the shot would go low, 55,66,77,88,99, it would go high, and etc.

My main questions though, is it interesting? Is there another dice system that will basically provide the same results but is less autistic? I understand it might be too complex/bogging down.

My first instinct is to go with choose the highest, instead of averages, since it'd still use a bell curve, but cuts out the math. Also, even if you stick with the averaging, I'd suggest cutting it down to a D20, so it'd make rolling multiples easier.

>What kind of game?
I've got two. One is a fantasy RPG that allows me to just build sti\uff according to my interests, and the other is an Ace Combat homebrew.

>What makes it unique?
The fantasy RPG is designed to allow players and GMs to piecemeal build characters and even campaigns while keeping enough structure that new players won't drown. It combines concepts of many seemingly opposing design choices, like class and classless in archetype, wounds and hp into the Health system, both premade and DIY weapons, spells, and more. Its designed to be refluffed and have swappable mechanics from the ground up.

The Ace Combat homebrew was just a project that I wanted to do myself, even if there are currently some decent options. I want it to be easy and resourceless (not requiring miniatures, templates, etc). It also takes the 3rd dimension into account, which some other offerings ignore.

>Why do you like to make it?
The fantasy RPG allows me to just make stuff. I wanted a system that a) I built, and b) allowed me to play in tons of different vidya systems (Pokemon, Zelda, Monster Hunter, Megaman Battle Network, and more). It gives me a lot of options and mechanics to design for, and gives me experience with fitting all those things together. You might not need every mechanic to play a given game, but I want to have that support.

For Ace Combat, that series is one of my favorites. I originally wanted it to be part of the above system, but eventually I decided it needed to go a different direction. It also gives me a system to design for people brand new to the hobby while the fantasy RPG is a bit more involved.

>What is the most unique individual game mechanic in your game?
Magic. Depending on the type you're either overruling the GM yourself or giving another player the power to do so in your stead. Within reason.

Experience points are not used to level up or purchase abilities/improvements. Everything is instead balanced around spending wealth to acquire new skills, equipment, training etc.

There is also an inheritance system to deal with character death.

>What kind of game are you making?
Science Fantasy dual-dice rpg with a low power curve and quick, deadly, combat. Inspired by Savage Worlds.

>Why do you like to make it?
It's fun to tinker and play test, especially in a game where your own choices are what will punish you the hardest, as opposed to bad rolls.

Question:

Which better represents 'lethal' a circle or a diamond? I'm leaning diamond. but I'd like opinions.

Diamonds are sharp, circles are blunt. Go with the diamond.

Diamond.

Diamond it is.

How does this look?

The differing thickness between the circles and diamonds makes me unreasonably upset.

I'll be making a cleaner version once testing is over and the game has moved into the next phase.

I made some changes since I've got nothing else to do and I'm tired of typing.

Better?

So wargame question; how do people feel about having access to story characters to play with? There seems to be 2 schools on how to handle it. Games like Malifaux and Warmahordes is very story driven, so a lot of models are named characters that take part in the story. While games like GW games have a very "your dudes" approach that kinda frowns on named characters, so they are offered but as a said note. Personally, I lean more towards the second, I think too many named characters clutters the narrative of the game, though it is useful for reinforcing your themes and story of the game.

I'd go with the second. If people are so inclined, no reason they can't just note a name and backstory for each generic model.

Better.