/gdg/ - Game Design General

And its still better than possible 5+ rounds as you wait for everyone else to finish fighting that most systems use when knocking someone out.

You should extol your system by it's merits, not by it's comparative lack of flaws.

Players who are interested in strange RPGs gotten off the net are probably already used to houseruling or avoiding janky systems.

That's true. I shoot for either quick enough or durable enough that everyone finishes at the same time. But I also don't do RPGs, so its a bit different for how I design.

> I shoot for either quick enough or durable enough that everyone finishes at the same time.
> But I also don't do RPGs

Confession Time. Are you an orgy planner?

That's a pretty solid design goal for any game. If a player ever gets knocked out the game should be just about to finish, otherwise change the design so a player can't be knocked out.

'cause watching other people play a game for twenty minutes sucks

Reminds me of the downed and crippled states of Guild Wars 2 and Borderlands, except worse than either of them

I'm a wargamer. So close enough.

Both of which are videogames focused on power fantasies that need to be viable whether playing alone or in a group and don't feature any permadeath at all. Pretty apples and oranges from what intended to be a purely cooperative experience with an actual fail state.

Indeed. Similar levels of sweat, body odor, and awkward re-positioning.

Well put.

...

I added some parts to my Ace Combat homebrew. There's the current pdf or the google doc here: docs.google.com/document/d/1-x7vMbcJeXps8ZaeTa2ovoXK2yoB7ICqcEmNKP1dlww/edit

Recent Changes:
- Added some common pilot terminology that's either used in the games, or would be useful to players. I might change what terms are included if some become unnecessary.
- Added preliminary rules for pilots being shot down. Dunno exactly what I want the players to do during the rescue event, but I definitely want this as the "death" mechanic.
- Returning to Base: In certain missions in the Ace Combat games, you're allowed to leave the combat area to resupply. I found that to be a worthwhile mechanic to represent, as it can act both as a way to keep players in the action, and as a punishment for wasting ammunition.

Future Additions:
- Stat Blocks: I've need to add stat blocks for planes, weapons, etc for a long time. I might actually do that tomorrow/today free time permitting.
- Money: Money is the universal resource. It's both money in its true sense, but also represents xp as a means of progression. Heavily tied to the aforementioned stat blocks, so it'll have to happen after I list out what can be bought.

Because of my source material, I can afford to have a downed state when pilots get shot down. It both creates a penalty state for "death", but also doesn't completely remove players from being in the game. I haven't fully fine-tuned what that downed state really means, but protecting a downed pilot while the rescue party arrives is a thematic change of events worth including.

Its more punishing than any fall state after at least 3.5 while offering less opportunity to do anything.

It would be better to not have the fall state at all and go straight to death. In both GW2 and BL, there are things to do and accomplish in that down state. In GW2 you have the coup de grace, but also actions you can take to stall death and/or revive. BL offers actions like crawling (or running) out of danger, and a method to revive by action. You proposal has no actions to make by default, and has less purpose.

I'm afraid I completely disagree with your assessment. In GW2 and BL there are things to do while downed because they are at a level of power fantasy where any form of consequence for poor play beyond a minor inconvenience is considered unacceptable to the point that getting stunlocked by a Thief is actually less fun than dying all on top of the game needing to work as a single player, pvp, and cooperative experience simultaneously. In group content the downed state doesn't even work all that well as a method of punishment that allows the player something to do while waiting as most classes downed abilities are useless in group content in GW2 or in the case of BL means there's no consequence at all unless there's no adds/ your ally can't get to you in time.

Death is not a joke in my system, you don't just drop off a corpse and a diamond at a church then go skipping down the road hand in hand like nothing ever happened or restart from an earlier save like a video game. Not having a downed state would push the system into too punishing of a direction but my players aren't unstoppable badasses either, they need to aid each other in battle to survive.

I guess a more succinct way to state my point is that in order for a fall state to be useful, it must have a use. Your fall state is not all that different from a death state in practical terms. There's little point in separating those states as it currently stands. Including more effects (which you might have planned in the future) that interact with your fall state would be a start, but a mandatory halt on player actions is effectively death to the player experiencing it. Even DnD has their Bleedout/Saving Throw that can be acted upon immediately. Being able to do anything is preferable to nothing.

If you consider reducing both states to "the player cannot act" as "practical terms" then yes, that is correct though any state that prevents player action like a stun or sleep effect falls under the same purview. The difference is that downed is temporary, easy to reverse and consequence free (other than time lost lying on your face). Dying is potentially permanent and even if it's not your character is at minimum crippled for a while and scarred for life after that. The tension created by the vulnerability of the downed state has dramatic and narrative value while still allowing for a comeback or a tragic fall into death.

GW2 and BL's systems fall down when it comes to cooperative play, as both mandate a level of self sufficiency in order to support single player play at a one-man-genocide level of player power. This comes at the cost of supporting actions - neither game lets players directly assist one another, instead all support comes in the style of weak self-buff/heals that may affect allies should they happen to be in range.

Occasional player helplessness goes a long way towards fostering cooperation.

Also wait, have you been arguing based entirely off of my original post with the 5 turn timer?

I only mentioned GW2 and BL because they had actions worth taking in their fall states, not that they were necessarily worth emulating in your system (and were examples of games in general that had a notable fall state. Most vidya still just go from alive to dead).

The 5 turn timer was relevant at the start, but the bigger issue is with the
>Mandatory nothing
>"Voluntary" nothing or chance to truly die
option tree.

From what I know of your system, and importantly how people can misinterpret your intentions, I wouldn't expect to have an enjoyable time.

Alright so I think the crux of the issue is that you don't believe players should ever have no choices (unless dead) especially if the end of that period they're left with the choice of doing nothing or going for a ride-or-die roll.

I entirely understand the sentiment and if I was balancing to allow for single player play or going more or less brutal I'd completely agree with you.

But as I've repeated, it's a cooperative game. Being downed sucks because it's a negative consequence of poor play. Rallying sucks because it's a last ditch attempt at getting back in. The intended behavior when someone falls is for an ally to assist as soon as possible - if not out of camaraderie then out of self preservation since being down a man is seriously bad and reviving the dead is worse.

Now, I know I haven't bothered to go into any detail about abilities and spells that interact with the Spent state but even so I don't feel the system is as dire as you make it out to be. In my (limited, pre-alpha, face-to-face with friends) play testing I've rarely seen anyone down for more than 2 rounds.

I'm also thinking in terms of people misinterpreting your intentions. If you only intend the game to be played with you and your friends, then it'll be far less of an issue.

And we had a good discussion about design, so that's a positive.

Yeah, no ad homs or strawmen, it was nice. I absolutely agree that things may not be so rosy should the system be released into the wild, my admission of the nature of my play testing was meant to be an olive branch to that affect.

I believe that given a little time players will fall into whatever behavior the system incentivizes, I'll be sure to keep an eye on it and tweak the Spent system if it's not working out.

I was going to go to bed but as I lay down I thought of a compromise that would give a down player something to do while keeping with the original spirit of the mechanic.

Rather than doing nothing for a few turns before having the option of an all-or-nothing, instead let them roll a die based on Endurance every round. This number could be added to a potential LF pool which once the timer is up and the player is able to choose to gamble is the amount of LF they'd gain should they succeed their roll (or to be added on top of any healing if they're revived before that). IN ADDITION should the player choose not to attempt to rally this turn and rolls to add to their potential LF instead the difficulty of the rally roll is reduced by one. Using a d20 for ease of math, lets say on the first turn the player is able to rally they reed to roll a 4 - 20% chance of death. They could take that, or add more to their LF pool and reduce the chance of death next turn to 15% - and 10% the turn after that and so on.

That gives downed players something to do, a more interesting choice once they have one, and potentially a way to guarantee a rally if the player's allies are out of ways to revive him or end the fight but can still protect him long enough.

I like it a lot. It gives the impression that you still have an influence over your fate.

I like it a lot. It gives the impression that you still have an influence over your fate.

And now you can have even more mechanics that relate to the fall state, like playing dead, or augmenting the rolls. I'd say that's a worthwhile change.

Bumping with copy of WIP rules.

How do you guys deal with long term "health" and the crippling spiral?

Currently I'm employing a Shadowrun-ish system, but I'm not all that satisfied with it

Embrace the spiral or reject it.

Either have characters falls quick and easily with equally easy new character generation and insertion or remove the possibility of the spiral.

I'm not familiar, but I assume your players getting injured in battle leaves them with permanent malus that in turn make it more likely to get injured in battle. Since you're running something "Shadowrun-ish" I assume cybernetic replacements or advanced surgical procedures with cloned body parts are an option. If not then the only other option is to make chargen as easy as possible and try to reinforce the concept that the player's characters are replaceable and WILL wear out and die/retire at some point.

I... I just witnessed two anonymous strangers on the internet have a strong disagreement, debate rationally, and come to a consensus that was different than where either started.

On Veeky Forums.

Goddamn Veeky Forums, I love you.

Something along those lines, but the main point is how much "crippling/debuffs" should a player be forced to face at once and how long should they last.

In SR, damage can usually cripple/debuff you for 2~3 long rests/days, which will usually keep you crippled during an adventure. The problem standing is: if the adventure is too short as long as the PCs survive they face little to no crippling/debuffing, or for the extended ones this can get rather heavy handed making the PCs crawl through the finish line (if they manage to reach it)

Well that is a tough one that's going to depend a lot on the tone of your game and its setting. If you find your players frequently crossing the finish line in a wheelchair missing 1.5 limbs, blind in one eye with a nasty case of tinnitus and that's not the kind of story you're looking to tell you may want to reduce the average severity or duration of crippling effects. Is your system granular enough that you can tweak those numbers without sweeping changes?

That's a Good point, I have some granularity, but thinking a bit more about it, I believe it's easier to set "DM Guidelines" for pacing and "challenges" so that they may run a game that better suits their tastes. (Trying to keep tweak-able crippling/healing rules may lead to too much confusion/rubble)

I am nearing publication - where do I find a skilled graphics designer that can make my game look good?

I can only suggest Google with some good keywords. An artist/designer that works by commission would be ideal since you just need it for the one project.

So on the subject of downed states, I'm trying to think of something for my players to do while there's a downed pilot. The non-downed pilots obviously will want to protect the crash site and rescue party, and can fight an opposing recovery party, so they have plenty of options.

But what of the downed pilot themselves? What could that player do to assist in their rescue? There are a few missions in the games where a pilot is shot down, but they can be entire missions of themselves. Purely for game purposes a rescue should probably be an in-mission event rather than its own mission, at least to keep the player characters in the action. I'm just not sure what actions I could give the downed player, unless the lost actions/money are a sufficient punishment

Other than setting off flares or distress beacons I'd expect a downed pilot would spend most of their time self-treating any wounds from the crash, staying warm/dry, avoiding enemy ground forces if there are any and generally surviving.

That's what I was thinking too, and when I think back to the vidya missions that include a downed pilot, its about the same. I just don't know what would be worthwhile for the player to do in game while they're being rescued.

I mean, I don't really have death in my game, just a money/xp loss (since money is both money and xp). After paying the penalty you can send your pilot right back in, so maybe just losing some gametime along with some money is sufficient to make people death averse.

That's probably fine. So long as you're careful not to incentivize death I don't foresee any perverse behaviors developing.

So /gdg/, tell me about a time you had designer block and what happened to finally end it?

Did you have a burst of inspiration? Find your answer in an existing source? Or maybe you just had to shelve it for a bit. Lets hear it.

I like rubber ducky design for when I get stuck. I'll explain the situation to something that doesn't understand anything about what I'm talking about like a figma or a pet or my wife. That combined with letting go of the issue for a minute to take a shower or a nap usually jogs something loose.

>how do you handle death in your system? Is it time to roll up a new character, or can your character come back from the dead? Is death the goal of your system (yours or an opponents) or is it an aside, just one path to victory amongst many?

My system is a cold regular numeric stat system. Through development it kinda hit questions like:

>How far is just passing out?
>How much damage can someone have to die, but still be saved via medical aid?
>How much until they are paste?

Basically, when your HP is 0 to -10 you can still be saved. Anything passed that is right out. For NPCs 10 to 0 is passing out just because I've had too many weirdos in groups that like execution RP.

>too many weirdos in groups that like execution RP.
What like roleplaying out the formal process of a state execution or
>witty one liner
>flashy coup-de-grace

>What like roleplaying out the formal process of a state execution or

Like grinning like an idiot and gesturing shooting a guy on the ground. Guess that's more for a That Guy thread.

Well, I like to think of what would make the rpg 'complete' and what I need to have to have that.

Or I work on fun things for the book. Like making up items is fun, so I make some items for it and come back to the thing that has me blocked.

Hey, that's a good one!

How do you guys would handle making an economy?

i am working on a game that focuses quite heavily on trade goods. So far i expect kingdoms/cities. to have a number of regular goods, some luxury goods, and a number of services based on their size.

Common goods would be stuff like wood, iron, food, etc. Luxury goods would be stuff like wines, spices or silk. so, players will be capable of "moving" common items all the time at around 50-60% of profit if they take them to a place that doesnt produce that good. Luxury items can reach up to 300% but they are only avaible in small quantities. Services is stuff like fencers for stolen/looted goods, particularly specialized craftmanship or other unique properties of a certain place.

What do you guys think?

...

That's all well and good as a start but don't forget that political and industrial events can have a big impact on prices. A sudden peace treaty could render a wagonload of armor worthless, an unexpected plague of pests can send grain prices through the roof, and the striking of a new silver vein can really depress the value of silver goods in the area.

I recommend watching Spice and Wolf if you want some media inspiration.

Can anyone recommend any more flexible world map software out there? I've tried all the ones suggested in the OP and they're certainly good, but most of them create Earth-like maps and worlds. Ideally I would love something that could replicate wastelands and the such.

Any suggestions? Thanks.

When I'm working on the details and don't have an answer for something, I take a step back away from the details and back towards visualizing what I want the game to play like. That's what's been working for me, but it doesn't help me come up with original ideas for games.

So my system has cleric and paladin-like classes that must devote themselves to a god and be in good standing in order to have access to more than their basic class spells/abilities. Each god has its own thematic taboo(s) that must be observed in order to receive their favor and failing to do so results in a loss of those powers and blessings until appropriate atonement occurs or they devote themselves to another god. Is it too harsh to have one or more gods with taboos that cannot be atoned for once broken? I'm leaning towards no since the player has an out in the ability to find new faith.

Playing the unfinished version gives me strength and inspiration to move forward

All my goods have three prices: low, average and high. Which one you'll have to pay/sell for depends on where and who you are and who are you dealing with. Other than that you may bargain or barter to change the price

I agree with you, some gods to not be able to forgive sounds more than reasonable

>the player has an out
Makes it fine, imo. So long as there's no dead ends in terms of character development. "Development" doesn't always have to mean getting bigger numbers. Systems where characters end up being different but not necessarily any stronger are really interesting.

>designer block
>playing
Yes. And talking it over with your players. Having people say they're excited for your game is always a great motivator.

>economy
Keep it abstract. Micromanaging coins and resources and playing the margins is hard to make fun.

I'd look at worker-placement euro boardgames for inspiration on how to make compelling and interesting but fundamentally simple economy systems.

How would you feel about a grid-based inventory system in a TRPG?

Got invited to do some testing with a publisher this week.

I found a way to break one of the games they were working on, told the lead designer and he got pissed off and disregarded everything I tried to tell him, even with the other testers telling him I was right.

I was gonna present my own game project to them next month, but now I kinda think it might be a bad idea. They don't seem to have their head on right.

Depends on setting mostly, if it's Sci-Fi, I could see it working. Otherwise I would argue weight it more important for just pure ease-of-bookeeping.

Is the lead designer going to be in the test group? If so, play it cool, and do your best.
If not, your fine.

Go for it, you've got a lot farther than most of us.

He probably will be. He even argued against testers when they pointed out some confusing language in the game, then refused to shake my hand when I was leaving.

This guy is at least 12 years older than I am. Really bummed to see him be so incapable of processing feedback properly.

Hello there folks, it's HVM-user again. I've been play testing the latest batch and it's been fairly positive as of right now.

My questions are fairly simple.
Combat is yet again making me question myself. As fellow players, designers, and chucklefucks who lurk these threads do you like . .
>Fast, but lethal combat (One round can fuck you up to the point where you're out of the fight)
>Midway
>Slow, bit safer combat (Likelihood of you going down first round is minimal at best except on Brutal+ Difficulty)

I also added a new system called Virtues, Vices, Values, and Vilification. Which is similar from the Burning Wheel system, but simplified heavily.

Just wondering if that system is functional, or some necessary tweaks are needed.

I'll answer questions as I see them. Thanks folks

>To the user who suggested re-formatting my book
Polled my players, they like the way it is now. May change later. Book-pamphlet-thing is work in progress.

People will be people, he's probably put a lot of work into it so it's harder for him to accept it's wrong in a way.
It's tunnel vision, we've all gone through it once where we think everything WORKS PERFECTLY, because we know it like the back of our hands.

He should have cooled down by then hopefully.

Working on a goofy sort of party game about wizards where you make people do stupid shit, how do these titles sound to you guys.

Wezards (or Weezards I guess)
Boss Wizard
Wizardum

I was kinda confused with what I was supposed to do with this system on the first go around, but digging further I really enjoyed character creation.

It's supposed to be more akin to a toolbox for GM's, and the layout does not lend itself perfectly well.
I've been debating on adding a sample character sheet in the middle to say "This is what it's supposed to look like"

I honestly don't see the advantage of grid-based as opposed to "you have 12 slots, this big sword takes 3, this wand takes 2, this potion takes 1, and a stack of 15 arrows takes 1 too"

That doesn't sound like a publisher problem, that's a development problem. It throws up a few red flags that they would work with someone like that, but for all we know, the guy could be a lot better behaved on the business end, or even have people representing him handling it.

I'm going to have a go at generating a character and report back.

My first RPG was Dark Heresy, so 'fast, but lethal' for me! But your results may vary.

A unique for Veeky Forums is that you can go to the drawthreads and see if there's anyone there with a style that you like.

For example, I got to know Pilgrim pretty well from one drawthread req turned commish. He's now working on the art of my game.

Dangit. Second week in a row that I've missed being the OP. It seems I'm not needed anymore... Well, I will try to remember to pass by.

Also to the question:

Death is often final, but revival is possible (albeit very unlikely). Killing one's opponent is not really the planned end of any conflict, but sometimes it might be a necessary step to stop them.

I actually play with the idea of heroic sacrifice, giving sick bonuses to rolls on a character's final moments (when it already has been determined that they will die) to make deaths especially memorable moments.

My game either has the subtlest spiral ever or the most hardcore spiral ever.

You see, the only one doing damage to the player character is the player themselves. Damage means basically adding damage to yourself to boost your rolls (and thus avoiding losing fights, the fights are continually ascending in difficulty, everyone needing to roll higher and higher to not lose). Yes, you will gain ONE damage when you lose a fight, but that's all. If you EVER roll under your damage on ANY roll, something happens that removes you from the scene. If your damage is high enough, that something might be lethal.

I dunno if that is the most hardcore spiral ever (if one fight is really slowburn with really low rolls, you might instantly die), but on the other hand if you lose outright you just get one damage instead of getting instakilled.

The main thing about my combat is that it's mostly nonlethal (I take strides from anime, that's why) and characters die only when they really really want or need to accomplish something.

I'd go with Wizardum. Weezards implies that the wizards are tiny, scottish, or magical realm. Boss Wizard just makes me think of Boss Hog or Boss Nigger and I don't think that's what you're going for.

Wee-zards could also imply something else...

>or magical realm