Academagia Thread 2

Thanks for making a new thread!

Right. Obviously the players are all spellcasters, but I deliberately designed Alchemy & Artifice and Traditional Shamanism to be good choices for knights, spell-blades, martial artists, etc.

For example, Life Channeling and Shaman Training are meant to be good choices for a fighter, with its chi-power, unnatural stamina, and ability to embody archetypes. Armory & Equipment is also a good choice.

For rogues, Shaman Training is also useful, but I figured Potions & Herbology and Transfiguration & Imbuement would be the two leading choices, since you can make poisons, smoke bombs, and make useful 'gadgets'. Armory & Equipment lets you make invisibility cloaks, as well.

While the spellcaster-centered setting limits choices for people wanting to play rogues or fighters, Extracurriculars and Paths are also included to help flesh out these characters.

The system is certainly biased towards spellcasters, and assumes everyone can cast spells, but you can just play in a universe where even fighters and rogues have some magical talent.

Forgot my image

Bumping with a pic to show support.

From reading the rules that's what I was coming to realise was the case - this system is absolutely ideal for what I want to run.

so what character concepts do you have for this for when you start playing?

Bump.

I guess I'll shill the discord where we help cashmore on development.
discord.gg/4hsuB

there's been talk of magic having special synergies or relationships.
what kind of relationships should they be?

Glad to hear it!! What are you looking to run? I can make suggestions, and if you have any ideas for your setting that don't quite fit in the system yet, maybe that'll reveal a missing gap to fill for the next edition!

Nothing mechanical, I think. I just want to make sure there are spells in each school that you go, "Oh, that'd combo really well with [X school] or [Y spell from X school]" That way there's inspiration for character concepts. You can start from the bottom (picking combo-tastic schools) or from the top (character concept), or somewhere in the middle (role, as this user: )

I totally am gonna be a golemancer if/when I playtest as a player. I love golems.

Also, I just saw Fantastic Beasts today, and loved it! Lots of good inspiration!!

>What are you looking to run? I can make suggestions, and if you have any ideas for your setting that don't quite fit in the system yet, maybe that'll reveal a missing gap to fill for the next edition!

I was , my idea was the players are all smalltown trainee adventurers in an extremely high magic world, living in an "archetypal" green and pleasant JRPG style setting a decade after the world was saved.

They're so smalltime the mentor they look up to was the comfy NPC sidekick to the party who saved the world (who is living happily on her reputation of having been present on the airship at the final battle).

The world is industrialising now, but the Stalwart Brotherhood, the group the PCs are a part of, keep traditions of travelling wizards and warriors solving problems alive. Bandits, lost artefacts/children/pets, wandering monsters, tour guides etc. Doing the stuff the military hasn't got time for.

Everyone can use magic, primarily via a mechanical implement that stores spells.

forgot a picture

That sounds so fucking good.
I am stealing this, big time.

bump

>bumping instead of adding to discussion
dummy

Sounds great! I am happy you feel this system would be a good fit.

What're the rules for combat and damage? Can't find them in the pdf

The game doesn't have a combat and HP system yet. Using the existing version, combat would be run totally narratively.

If you need quest ideas Trails in the Sky has them in spades

>your party are called in as substitute teachers at a primary school
>your party are called in to help with a school play
>your party are asked to recover overdue library books
>multiple lost cats/small children
>help an old man eat his favourite childhood meal once more
>help a woman afraid her husband is a gambling addict by beating him in a card game, however you can
>multiple treasure hunts organised by an asshole thief

>adventurers as substitute teachers
I am going to watch the fuck out of Trails in the Sky now. Many thanks, noble user.

It's a game, not an anime!

I'm working on a damage system right now. Talking in the discord about it at this very moment, actually. Right now, the system only supports narrative combat and damage. So for example, injuries would make certain Tests have a higher Curve, or make certain actions cease to be Easy for you, or maybe make certain actions flat out impossible.

It's an RPG (available cheap on Steam most times there's a sale).

It's legit one of the comfiest games you'll ever play, your protagonist is an adorably straightforward girl who takes no nonsense from anyone and mostly saves the world through bloody mindedness.

The substitute teacher sidequest is EXTREMELY GOOD despite mechanically just being a simple "did you read the ingame codex" quiz.

I loved what i played. I should start playing it again.

*play, user

I'm working on a 'patch' to bridge the gap between the current public version (0.01), and the next version I'm intending to release (0.2 or whatever). Because that version is going to wait for the inclusion of Example Spells, and is going to require a complete redo of the rulebook (since I lost the original file), I figured that for playtesting purposes, I'd just release what mechanical changes / addditions are going to be present in 0.2 as a playtest packet!

The playtest packet will include the changed Test system, alongside some quick advice for GMs on how to play with the more nuanced results it provides. It'll also include the first draft of the Stress and Conditions system, which is likely to go through a bit of changes and work.

Link expired!

Huh, it was supposed to be a permanent one. Here you go: discord.gg/JEgJWRH

Cheers, thanks.

No problem! Thank you for the interest!

Nice!

...

live

Friendly reminder to stack your damage items and orbments on the loli.

Working on the patch! While it probably won't be perfect, I'm hoping it'll be done by the end of today!

Hey, it doesn't have to be perfect. It's all an iterative process.

In fact, imperfect's probably better in the long run than only smaller safer changes. It gives us a stronger idea of where the boundaries of the core concepts really are.

(sorry, that pic was the only witchy thing I have)

Agreed! Luckily I don't have a lot of changes I want to make to the core of the system, so it'll be easy to iterate them.

Nothing to properly contribute, but I wanted to say that .01 looked hype as fuck to me as a GM and my group, lovin' your work, m8. Looking forward to the next version, too.

Have a (probably) relevant image.

Thank you so much, kind user! I really appreciate it.

I'm finishing up the 'damage' system for the game. I've decided to cut Stress for now, as it was a needless addition alongside Conditions - they were just competing for space alongside each other. For now, I'm just going to use Conditions alone. That should be more than enough.

In regards to the thoughts about splitting "schools" differently, I'd caution that on some level the possible permutations and categorizations are endless.

Rules imply fluff and fluff implies rules; when homebrewing I find trying to chase a completely inclusive "generic system" that would apply to all games of X genre is very difficult, because those specific details are what separate different franchises within a larger genre, like LWA vs. Harry Potter.

I feel it's better to go with your gut - make the rules based on the setting and idea you've got in your head; some archetypes will not work as a casualty of course but that's the price you pay for rules that feel tangible and grounded.

Right. For now, the schools are staying the same because I like them this way, and other anons have said they like them this way too. Any alterations to schools will only result if playtesting shows the current schools aren't fun enough.

What do you mean by fun? Everyone's fun, player's fun, GM's fun? What kind of fun? Fun from balance, fun from awesome, fun from struggle?

Well, if someone says they aren't fun, I'll look into what fun they mean, and try to address it.

Playtest packet nearly done! Will be up within the hour.

Hot off the presses, it's the Academagia playtest packet!

This is just a first and rough iteration I completed over yesterday and today, and so far the only eyes that have seen it are me and like, two people in Discord. So please, I'd love any and all critique you guys have!

Are any parts unclear or confusing? Ask away, and we'll try to figure out how to make it clearer.

Now, to work on updating the rest of the book!

This looks extremely good, I like it a lot.

I am a real sucker for this kind of "roleplaying damage" rather than just a HP stat.

Now with the discord up these threads will be REAL slow per usual when discords come up

Noic.

>Oh look, a game for little witch academia! That should be neat!
>Shitty dungeon world style game with about as much mechanical depth and crunch as a piece of soggy bread.

I'd say "at least you tried" but you clearly didn't.

The naming of the schools should have been an indication of the lack of quality from the beginning.

Fucking "Pyrothurgy"

>Fucking "Pyrothurgy"

>I did a stupid thing, and got a bad result
>rather than fix the bad result, I'll just explain why I did it

Just fix it. And while you're at it, ditch the ephemeral nothing that is this system. I realize attempting to create a magic system with freedom is difficult to do in a more stat'd system, but this shit of gm "Moves" is retarded. The reason so many people dislike Apocalypse world and its derivatives is because they're needlessly constraining on the actions of the GM. They work well for people who don't know what they're doing because it forces them to act in specific ways, but for any GM that has some experience, it turns the game from one of limitless possibility to one of "Well, time to choose from one of these 10 options for the 500th time."

I don't even understand why you'd do this when your system is so buttfuck simple. Just throw in a few stats, keep the schools (with better names) and the tests as is, while removing all the needless constraints that AW saddles you with.

Well he could do some freeform magic system. Just ripoff Ars Magica which honestly is miles ahead of this homebrew

>Tried to have suffixes shared throughout college
>College of elemental magics
>GeoMANCY and pyroMANCY are already existing magical concepts.
>Use Thurgy instead.

It's okay to want different things--but that doesn't mean you should be a bellend about it. If you dislike it you should probably just find something you DO like instead of getting angry about it.

>"Well, time to choose from one of these 10 options for the 500th time."
You're looking at it backwards. It's not "I choose from this list", it's "I decide what's going to start happening; this one from the list codifies it"
Think of it more like a skill system in an RPG, but working top-down throughout the narrative.

>Just throw in a few stats
Such as?

> "I decide what's going to start happening; this one from the list codifies it"

And when what you want to happen isn't well codified by a list of 12 possible choices? I mean, fuck, lets look at the most simple of possible actions. A monster appears. What does that go under?

Well, its not a condition. It doesn't bring them together or separate them. It might put innocents at risk but it might not. Nothing to do with recklessness and its not a sign of an approaching threat or future because it is literally happening right now. Its not really an "unwelcome truth" and it might not fit their abilities or relationships, or be a downside of them. It might be an opportunity for something, but thats such vague wording almost anything could be fit into it. It doesn't tell them who they are or should be, nor remind them of obligations.

So we have a few that it could be clunkily shoved into and none that it actually fits in perfectly.

And this is the inherent problem with this fucking AW system: You literally do not need this layer of narrative abstraction or interaction. It's useless. Tear it out and use nothing but the existing schools and 2d6 curve resolution and you lose fucking nothing. And that's the problem with "Narrative focused" games; any system can be narrative focused if the GM wants it to be. The attempt to "Systemize" that focus results in games that are awkward and clunky to GM or where the GM's actions begin reflecting the system more than their desires such that they can more easily run the game. Me sitting here for 5 minutes thinking about what my desired action should go under as a move doesn't make a game any better.

>Such as?
Depends on how in depth you want to go. As an user said above, Ars Magica is a really good freeform magic system. It would be easy to just reskin and cut that down a bit.

That wasn't me. I admit that the names are silly and stupid... they're kinda meant to be. I made them to be funny. If they're too stupid and not funny, sorry.

I think I'm missing what your critique is. The idea is that Elemental Magics covers the 'energy' types - fire, ice, and electric - while Natural Magics covers the 'matter' types - water, earth, and wind. I agree that 'Elemental Magics' might be a poor name. Maybe 'Energy Magics'?

I wanted the names of classes alone to be indicative of what school they're from, which is why I used pyroturgy instead of pyromancy. To be clear, even "geomancy" and "pyromancy" are wrong in a pedantic sense... "mancy" means "to divinate", while "urgy" means "to work". So "pyroturgy" is meant to be "to work fire", while "geomancy" is meant to be "to divinate through earth". If I was to be true to the concept of the magic in the system, even geomancy, hydromancy, and aeromancy would need new names. :P

The system was meant to be very lightweight and a good introduction to RPGs. This means it's not going to have the crunch or mechanical depth to satisfy many gamers, and that's honestly fine with me. It was built for beer & preztels, me and my friends, and now a few other anons. I'm not making it to please everybody, just myself.

There are technically stats present in the system. The Grades in your Subjects are meant to serve as stats. For example, your Extracurriculars are literally tied to one of four options - Fitness, Dexterity, Wisdom, and Character. Those are basically stats.

The Classes are also 'stats', but they're specifically magical stats. As a system oriented directly towards spellcasters, I knew I needed to divide magic into multiple areas, to prevent homogenity of characters. So the Classes are basically statistics for a specific kind of spellcasting.

(Continued...)

So, the GM Moves are just guidelines. A few people in the Discord were concerned that the trinary results system - "flying colors", "scraping by", and "failing" - would be too arbitrary. I included the GM moves to show that there is a structure to these results, since GMs should be sticking to a balance between soft and hard moves, they should be following the fiction, etc.

The GM moves are basically all things that GMs are ALREADY doing in their games. If you're an experienced GM, just ignore them and go with your gut, if you like. You'll likely be producing these moves with every choice you make.

>It doesn't bring them together or separate them. It might put innocents at risk but it might not. Nothing to do with recklessness and its not a sign of an approaching threat or future because it is literally happening right now. Its not really an "unwelcome truth"

My apologies, I knew I should have included more explicit clarification of the GM Moves in the playtest packet.

A monster appearing is almost the perfect example of "a sign of an approaching threat or future". If a Cerberus appears before your party, that's certainly a "sign of an approaching threat" - the threat is that it can bite your head off!

"Threat" isn't just an entity, it's an OUTCOME, an EVENT. An enemy wizard raising his want is a "sign of an approaching threat"... a rival witch striding through the halls towards you, with an enraged expression, is a "sign of an approaching threat"... and so on.

I thought that'd be clear, but I will clarify it in the future. It'll definitely be clarified in 0.2.

In addition, a monster appearing can easily do other stuff as well. For example:

>A hydra's head erupts from the ground between you guys. Akko, you're stuck in front of it, while Lotte and Sucy are behind it.

(Continued...)

>The system was meant to be very lightweight and a good introduction to RPGs. This means it's not going to have the crunch or mechanical depth to satisfy many gamers, and that's honestly fine with me. It was built for beer & preztels, me and my friends, and now a few other anons. I'm not making it to please everybody, just myself.
>70 page long document
>Beer and pretzels

If you just want a quick and easy system for this why even bother with all this fluff and malarky? You could replicate or even do better with literally half a page of rules and a single d6.

>Oof, that reckless spell you cast in this area lights up the cavern, and you can hear growling in the distance. Maybe casting a light spell in a dark ecosystem was a bad idea... you've just told everything here that there's fresh dinner.

>You thought you were alone in this room, but you hear the jangling of chains in the distance, echoing down the halls of the abandoned dormitory...

(Revealing an unwelcome truth)

>A goblin steps out of a tunnel, looking around. Nina, you're hiding in the alcoves, so it doesn't see you!

(An opportunity that fits her abilities - Nina has the Path "Mystic Ninja")

>A goblin steps out of a tunnel, sniffing in the air. It immediately smells the fumes from your potions, Sucy!

(A downside of the "Alchemist" class... your stuff is smelly!)

>The statues lining the halls groan, stone moving against stone, as they step in your way. Normally, you'd be all about fighting monsters... but you're gonna be late for class if you don't take care of these monsters, and fast!

(Remind them of their obligations and responsibilities)

The key is that if a monster just appears, but doesn't signal any danger (a threat), any outcome (a future), or put any characters or plans at risk, then what's the point of it appearing?

I do admit the GM Moves in this playtest packet are very generic and broad, by the way. They're just playtest moves, after all. The goal is that through refining them, I can create a set of moves that helps GMs produce adventures that feel uniquely suited to Academagia. And again, it's only a helping tool... it's really easy to just ignore them. They're called BASIC moves for a reason! They're not the ONLY things you can do as a GM! It's just that a lot of your actions are going to fall under one of those categories anyway.

(Continued...)

Alright, point conceded, that was dumb wording on my part!

Actually playing the system is super fast and lightweight. That's what I meant by 'beer and pretzels'. There's very little to consult, very little math, and very little complexity. It can be done drunk. And you're right, it can be done with basically a single page and 2d6... the Study Guide proves that.

Why bother with all the fluff and malarky? Honestly, because I thought it was fun to write a bunch of fluff and malarky. I made this system for a campaign with my friends, since Ars Magica and other systems didn't really appeal to me, and it was fun for us. The fluff and malarky was me both getting carried away, and my friends wanting a bit of a setting to start with. Others seem to like it, so I'm keeping it.

You do haev an excellent point though. I should post an 'abbreviated Academagia' as well, that consists of just the bare essentials needed to play the game, a la the Study Guide. I like that idea a lot!

You're still looking at it backwards. The relevancy of the monster is decided on by the GM, ideally *before* it shows up and not after as they wonder, "So what does the monster do to the story?"

The moves are there to enforce the meaningful developments. If a monster just shows up and there's nothing really special about it in its introduction or how it relates to anything else in the scene it's introduced, then the monster mostly just shows up. Describe it, and there you go.
It's the same as if it starts raining without anything special attached to that: you would just describe that it's raining, you don't need mechanics to prop that up.

So what do you actually want to accomplish in introducing a monster to a scene?
Do you want to stress that it's a really scary monster or introduced in a shocking, startling way? Inflict a condition (Fear).
Is it supposed to be a hectic scene and you want to show things are getting out of hand? Put innocents at risk; or separate them, as the party gets split up in the chaos.
Do you want to feature someones Paladin-esque path? Remind them of responsibilities or obligations.
Is it a harbinger of more monsters? Signs of approaching threat.

>Ars Magica is a really good freeform magic system. It would be easy to just reskin and cut that down a bit.
Then just play this type of campaign in Ars Magica. Why reinvent the wheel?

>The relevancy of the monster is decided on by the GM, ideally *before* it shows u

You mean that thing GM's ALREADY do? Which again brings me to the question of "What is the purpose of this?"

Because it seems to have none.

It was explained a few posts above you. Read the fucking thread.

>It's only a helping tool... it's really easy to just ignore them. They're called BASIC moves for a reason! They're not the ONLY things you can do as a GM! It's just that a lot of your actions are going to fall under one of those categories anyway.

If you're an experienced GM, of course they're things you already do. But lots of GMs are new, or want to learn how to GM better. That's what guidelines and advice like this are for.

Do you spaz out whenever an RPG system includes a section explaining what an RPG is to new players, or when they explain what "2d6" means, or give advice to GMs in the "How to GM"?

No? If so, why are you doing it now?

Yes? Then stop being such a fucking autist and get some empathy for newbies in the hobby. Jesus christ.

These are common complaints about PBTA systems, and you know, we're probably not gonna be convincing anybody in this thread.

If you don't like what I'm making, that's alright. Play another system or make your own. Feel free to use anything I've made if you want to, or just ignore it all.

But you're not gonna convince me that this system isn't working - I've played as a GM and player in plenty of PBTA systems, and I've enjoyed them greatly on both sides. I'm sticking to my guns here and continuing to be inspired by PBTA. Sorry, you're not gonna sway me much from this design decision.

I really don't want this thread to become a retread of every Dungeon World or Apocalypse World thread, where nothing productive occurs because everybody is futilely trying to convince each other of a viewpoint they'll never concede to.

However, while I'm not budging on GM moves or the trinary result system, I will happily budge on other aspects of the system. I understand a lot of people are finding names like 'pyroturgy' a bit dumb, so if you have better suggestions, I'm all ears. I could just standardize and make everything 'mancy', if I have to. I just wanted to give each school a little individual flair in their names. If the flair is actively annoying a majority of players, though... then it doesn't do its job, right? :)

>get some empathy for newbies in the hobby
My very first experience with RPGS was homebrewing a system for a game that ran for 4 years.

Learn shit by doing.

So because you didn't want it or need it, tutorials or advice shouldn't exist, because they require you to use your brain and think critically about what to read?

bump

I appreciate that people want example spells, but I think the ideal situation would be grade descriptions not unlike what we have now, with a a couple of examples of spell names there could be under that grade accompanying it.

I think the Curve mechanic's a new way to generate the target number on a sliding scale, but there's something a bit unclear to me:
The curve is the difference between your grade and the task's, and you have to beat, not tie. So if you're a B student and it's an A-rank task, that'd be rolling 2 or more to beat it.

It's only an effortless/Easy Action if you're a higher grade--but if you're the same grade the difference is zero, isn't it? Would 1 still be considered below the curve in that case?

>a new way
Absolute brainfart; supposed to be "neat way".

...

Sure. I can try both and see which one has a better response from audiences and playtesters, how about that? For now, since I already have pretty okay Grade descriptions, I'm gonna try Example Spells and see how that goes.

The Example Spells help solve some other problems - such as the repetition in a few Schools, like Potions & Herbology - but they also have their own problems - such as people taking them RAW and thinking there's no freeform magic, or them taking up a lot more space in the book.

If you have suggestions on updated Grade descriptions for schools, I'd love to hear them!

I've actually been wondering this myself! Right now, the system works by having the Curve of the test be the number you have to beat. So yes, actions on the same grade would be Easy Actions. The current rules have a small typo in them, you are right - it should be an EQUAL OR HIGHER Grade that results in an Easy Action as, logically, there should be no reason to roll if you're trying to get a "1 or better", aka, anything. I'll fix that ASAP.

However, I have been wondering if it might be better to have Tests for same Grade actions. In that case, there's a few possibilities:

1.) The default difficulty is 1, and a Curve adds to that difficulty. So an A Grade Student attempting an action with Difficulty Grade A would have to roll a (1+0) or better, thus, needing to roll better than a 2. That makes all actions tougher. In addition, this makes F->A+ impossible, as you'd need to beat a 6.

2.) The default difficulty is 1, and a Curve adds to the difficulty, etc... however, you can TIE in this case. Now probabilities remain closer, but same-grade actions have to roll. This also means every number on the die is covered, which is nice.

I think I prefer 2, but 1 has its merits.

I just realized I should really call the Natural Magics, MATERIAL Magics, so they aren't confused with Shamanism.

I dunno, I kinda like "Natural Magics". And besides, concerning Aeromancy, does air even count as a "material"?

desu I think the Shamanism college needs a name change; it feels a little redundant to have the Shamanism College AND the Traditional Shamanism class.

Agreed. Any suggestions?

Hrmmmmm... College of "Primal Lore"? "Druidic Practice"? "Pre-Orthodox Magic" (suggesting that these particular types of casting are a type of ur-magic that predates formalised arcane study)? Not sure if any of those are any good, but maybe it'll prompt some ideas.

How about The College of Animism?

Simple and to the point. Neato~