Homebrew General /hbg/

Interesting. Well my system is an for RP so will generally have more complex rules.

ORE style is best. Hit, damage, hit location, and initiative/turn order in a single roll.

Skills have little writing space.
You don't need to announce that this is in fact a character sheet with such a giant caption.
You can gain more space if you unify the ending points of your equipment labels.
Spells and miscellaneous should start at same height.

Neither is preferable in a vacuum. You should however keep a reign on how many rolls it takes to resolve a simple attack action.

Cinematic ammo, yea or nay?

Explain?

I have no idea which direction to take my brew.

I know the feeling.

Got core mechanics mostly sorted out, never actually decided what kind of setting they're for. Maybe science fantasy, I dunno.

>clunky
My man, I think you mean elegant.

I've got a setting, but trying to decide scale for it. Either skirmish level or "platoon" size. Skirmish would be easier to balance and write for, but I always get hung up on the scale; there's big monsters regularly fielded in forces, I don't know if that'd be jarring, to go from 6 or 8 man-sized infantry to a giant or a griffon. Platoon takes care of that, but needs a lot more work and balancing.

How big are we talking?

A thick, strong man of 12 to 16ft could easily be considered a giant and a challenge for an 8 man squad. Or are these giants GIANT.

Perhaps the scale that needs attention isn't the scale of the players forces, but the scale of their challenges.

I'm wargame user from and I'm going for the 16-20~ foot range. My skirmish system is kinda glasscannon-y, a human can take 3 hits before being killed, while most big things can only take 1 or 2 more than that, but hit almosy twice as hard as a man-sized.

How's this?

Ugly, but a lot cleaner than mine (being clean turns out to be really important)

First of all, here are two things about me:
1) I'm a very good game designer, I make board games and they are epic.
2) I thought I could handle a RPG system but its quite overwhelming really, I don't really recommend.
3) I'm currently being DM (5 sessions so far) using my homebrew system for the first time, its full of flaws (again, remember number 1)

>Question: Should "To Hit" and "Damage" be separate or the same roll?
Depends how complicated/complex you want your system to be. If you are going for a simpler system, you can make them on the same roll and the damage is just the surplus from Attack minus Defense. If you want something more complex like D&D (which is currently what I am aiming for), I recommend separating both. The main reason why I like it, as the creator of the system, is that you can make different attacks/powers which plays with the fact they are separated. You can have high damage attack with low chance of hitting, or precise attacks with low damage. Its a fun mechanic to play around. (I even use it in some non-RPG board games I made)

pic related: you could replace your body picture by something like this (this is the one i use, but wasn't i who drew it). or you could look up in the internet for something else that pleases you. Gotta be honest with you, yours is ugly. If its just to play with your mates, no problem stealing better image from someone else

My nigga! I bust out boardgames left and right, but RPG mechanics just leave me lost.

My current project is a Mordheim heartbreaker. I fucking love mordheim yet it's so clunky and easily abused, yet no other system seems to scratch the itch it leaves just right. No one gets the mix of gritty fantasy, character levelling, multi-story skirmishing.

>Mordheim heartbreaker
I'm not familiar with that. What is it?

Mordheim? Really? That's...I actually gasped irl.
>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordheim
Basically it's WFB in skirmish mode. You'd build a warband of 3-15 guys, a mixed of heroes and henchmen. Heroes are individuals, while henchmen are bought in groups of 1-5 and gain exp and level up as a group.

The biggest defining feature about it (for me at least) was the use of multiple levels. It was set in a destroyed town, after a comet hit it. The idea was to litter the table in terrain of varying levels and states of destroyed. A gutted and ruined town. Every other skirmish game I've come across either ignores the use of levels (malifaux) has no campaign/advancement aspects (infinity) or both. Frostgrave kinda scratches it, but the fact that henchmen don't grow really irked me. In mordheim you're a group who came together to explore and make your fortunes, everyone there grows and develops, everything from bonus to stats and skills to injuries and even permanent crippling.

And I forgot the pic to emphasis a usual mordheim table

That sounds cool. I'm from a third world country so gaming is just starting to be a thing here. I've seen those kind of games one stores in Europe, but that is the sort of shit I have never seen here where I live.

From what you are saying, sounds a mixture of RPG and wargame, is that it? Even though I'm fluent in english, sometimes I lack the knowledge of specific terms, like "heartbreaker" or even "skirmish" (I know the words, but not necessarily their meaning as a term).

Both terrain levels and henchmen growth seems pretty badass. this also looks epic. I like a bit more complicated battles, using terrain, that is one reason why I used D&D combat system as a base for my homebrew. On the only encounter the PCs had so far, I made a small LEGO battleground, and even though it wasn't much, I think they enjoyed it.

Anyway, I would like to play games like this, but I can't get that sort of thing where I live, and even if I could, it would be expensive as shit and I wouldn't be able to afford it =( I would like to show you my stupid LEGO battleground, but I don't own a smartphone so taking pictures and sending them to my computer is too much a trouble.

btw, I have never made a board game like that you described, although I would like to one day. I'm usually more into using cards, and creating cooperative games

Oh? What country you from user? I'm australia here so even though we got it, they Gouge us on prices for everything.

"Heartbreaker" is a term that was coined for things that are DnD clones; something that's DnD BUT! Skirmish in this sense defines the scale of combat, where instead of an army say like warhammer you're working with a handful of guys.

Exactly, a good mix of RPG/Wargame. All models can gain exp, and will grow as you play more games. Each game consists of setting up, playing out the scenario, then post battle rolls (for level gain, loot rolls, paying upkeep on your warband, injury/death rolls, etc) before you move onto playing another game. So even only versing another player's warband you'll see a huge change from when they started; some heroes injured, others levelled up, maybe a henchman levelled up and became a hero model, some died, new weapons and armour, etc.

The terrain is a big gripe for me. I've watched about 100 or so bat reps of malifaux and almost instantly the two groups are at each other from word go. I mean that makes sense, you're there for the battle, but that's not how mordheim works. The idea is very thematic; your warband is here to collect loot and make money. The fact that you're getting into scuffs with other warbands is a consequence, not the reason. So most scenarios are designed so that warbands are spending time interacting with the board, which sees them come to blows as a consequence. Example, one scenario is find a cache of loot. You start exploring buildings, until someone finds it. From there, they have to escort the chest off the table, which means the first few turns are spent scrounging to find it, THEN the conflict really arises once one warband discovers it.

So for my game I'm designing, im trying to build it one part RPG one part Skirmish wargame. From there the second emphasis is on the ease of transition in levels of the terrain; making vertical position just as easy and important as horizontal. Finally, having the terrain itself be an integral aspect to he wargame, rather than a loosely tied in backdrop whose only use is to be pretty and block line of sight.

As for boardgames, most of the ones I made have been card based too. I made one which was a deck-builder based on positioning cards on a board, which was interesting and broken to hell and back by the 3rd play test Kek. I've stopped in recent years due to not having my gaming bro with me anymore ;_;7 and mostly talk boardgame design with others I know who make things of them.

Had three weeks of work hell, now is my second day off of what I hope to be another couple of weeks of doing nothing. On that note I should go back to making my fantasy heartbreaker.

I don't want to do spell lists. I fucking hate spell lists, I have never played a spellcaster, I feel like the entirely wrong person for this part of the job. I suspect I'll just leave the level 1 lists and tell a player who's interested to just give me his own list draft so I don't have to wade through source material again. Is this a cop out?

> "Heartbreaker" is a term that was coined for things that are DnD clones; something that's DnD BUT! Skirmish in this sense defines the scale of combat, where instead of an army say like warhammer you're working with a handful of guys
Thanks for explaining it! I wasn't sure about the skirmish one but now you said it, it does make sense, and I had no idea about the "Heartbreaker"

> So even only versing another player's warband you'll see a huge change from when they started; some heroes injured, others levelled up, maybe a henchman levelled up and became a hero model, some died, new weapons and armour, etc.
Something I'm still not sure about (and forgive me if its a stupid question) is... how many players do play that? Is it like DND that there are the players (controlling 1 hero and maybe henchmens) and the DM controlling enemies? Or is it a 1v1 pvp scenario? Also, does the miniatures itself have powers attached to them? Or you just use them as miniatures and make them character sheets or something? I know its really basic stuff I'm asking but I'm really not familiar with games of this genre!

Anytime user, happy to help.

If you're interested here's a link to everything mordheim. drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0B18J5DU-6cP_aEg2dHIxbGpaMlk
The game is designed to be played 1v1 where I have my warband (written up on a roster) and you have yours. We use minis to represent our guys and play in the terrain. From there, we play the game, move, fight, etc etc. it's like warhammer where the models represent a stateblock with rules and abilities, but played on a smaller scale and where they can gain exp. Mordheim was never meant to be taken as OH SO SERIOUS a game, and meant to be more beer and pretzels with buddies, who laugh when the dice give epic/epic fail moments. It had random charts out the wazoo and for me was part of its appeal. Even if you built the same warband every time, it would be almost impossible to have it be the same each time by even the 2nd or 3rd game. So much randomisation in loot, injuries, skills, deaths, etc etc. Another one which was like mordheim with random rolls for days was Path of Glory, where each player built a war party out of chaos models, where their main model was a Chaos Champion trying to ascend to demonhood

>most of the ones I made have been card based too
Dude, I have a thing for cards that I cannot explain. Once I sat down and said to myself "i will make a board game without using any cards on it". I made something like that Snakes & Ladders game. It had 7 cards.
.___.

I also made a card game like Magic the Gathering. Its pretty badass, and everyone that played it really liked it because its really simple to understand. Then I also playtested it with a friend of mine that is a really serious MtG player, and he said the game is really good for playing it hardcore. Its really awesome, and it is a bit different than most games of that genre out there.

Hmmm, something I still don't get is how the experience and growth works on a 1v1 type of game? By experience you mean, growing between matches, so the next time you play with your band they are stronger? If that is the case, what prevents players from just saying they have a max level band even though they never leveled them up?

That's awesome man! Would definitely love to see some of those.
Also Kek on the 7 cards. I once made a game that only used dice. Then I realised I made cards to explain the use of the dice matches.

Yea, they level up after the match depending on how they did during it. In mordheim you get 1 exp for taking someone out, another for surviving, another for doing x in the scenario, etc. So after the match you sit down and roll dice and see what happened after the battle.

As for that worry, there's really nothing. As I said it's a beer and pretzel sort of game, where you're meant to be there more for the experience and fun rather than the "I must win". Even so, there's rules for playing against a warband much stronger than yours, giving all your guys the underdog bonus; some more exp after the match to help boost you to their level.

I think he means only running out of ammo or having to reload wgen it's dramatic.

Or the Overwatch style where ammo isn't counted and it's assumed to always be there, unless otherwise specifically stated as such.
>"you break out of the prison, slicing the guards neck and stealing his gun. It has seven bullets"

> I once made a game that only used dice. Then I realised I made cards to explain the use of the dice matches.
I like dices, but I like dices more. But if you put both of them together, then you have something awesome :D just realized now that my top projects (4 different games), all use the combination of dices and cards! Even the MtG-like card game (which is one of the reasons why its not so similar to other card games).

> As for that worry, there's really nothing.
That is an odd thing, not sure how I feel about it. As a player, I totally get the spirit. But as a game designer, I'm afraid this in combination of bad public (people that do that sort of thing playing the game) could ruin the game. I asked this because I always felt like doing a MtG-like game where you could boost/level-up certain cards and make them stronger. I think its a cool mechanic but its hard to pull off (specially because I'm not really into digital games, as a game designer). So, does it really works? I mean, if you find out that someone random (idk, like a coworker) plays that, its totally not something that comes to your mind?

How you tell how much experience or equipments your guys have? Does each miniature has like a table that says "x experience = y attack, z defense, etc", or what? Is there a maximum level or something like that?

I made them the same roll. Saves time.

Making players count beans is a bad idea. Cinematic solves this.

> Cinematic solves this.
What you mean?

Also, I think its cool to have counted ammo, and even counted food or water. I think makes the game more realistic and can add a lot to it. But of course, you need to be sure everyone is on the same line and wanting to play that sort of game (sometimes, people just want to kick doors and slay orcs, than of course they won't want to count damn arrows).

This. It saves time, and also I've always hated situations where you roll a great hit but minimum damage. What that is supposed to mean, either a hit is great or not.

Btw, those are me and just noticed my name appears as "OP". I'm not OP. Sorry if that caused any confusion. (that was from a previous thread, didn't know I was using it).

It all depends on your interpretation. I mean, it does save time, but I don't think it saves that much time (specially because in my experience, most people are shit at math, so comparing a value then rolling a second value comes easier, than getting one value and subtract the other).

> I've always hated situations where you roll a great hit but minimum damage. What that is supposed to mean, either a hit is great or not.
That is pure interpretation. If you have a D&D scenario where you need to roll 14 or more to hit, you can see it as if you have 35% chance to hit. Maybe hitting with a 19 is not really a better hit than 14, it all just success hit. If you rolled with d100 instead of d20, maybe that interpretation would be more natural. (but well, d20 is nothing but d100 divided by 5).

Maybe in the end, the attack roll is just the binary % of hitting or not hitting, and the damage roll is actually how good your hit was. LIke I said, it all depends on your point of view.

>I think its cool to have counted ammo, and even counted food or water. I think makes the game more realistic
Stop.

Nobody plays games to get realistic experiences. Games are escapist fun, especially role-playing games, but even board games. Unless your game is specifically fixated around survival there's no reason to track (physical) resources.

Three things go into designing good games: Chekhov's Gun, Schroedinger's Cat, and Sakamoto's Principle.

Chekhov's Gun means don't assign value to things that aren't important.

Schroedinger's Cat means you shouldn't reveal whether the cat is alive or dead until it's important to. From a GMing perspective, this means not allowing your options to be limited so you can respond to player railroad busting.

Sakamoto's Principle means that if the players can see it, they should be able to reach even if it's not right now. Don't design enemies or systems into the game that aren't accessible to players.

I agree on it being interpretation, but to me it's also a question of what game I want to be playing. If I want to be playing D&D, I want that kind of nonsense gamey bullshit. If I'm playing something with a semblance of effort at verisimilitude, I play unisystem that has that sort of thing covered.

On a related note just throw both the tohit die and the damage die with the same hand movement, problem solved.

>Nobody plays games to get realistic experiences. Games are escapist fun, especially role-playing games, but even board games. Unless your game is specifically fixated around survival there's no reason to track (physical) resources.
Hoooold your horses, m8. You are inserting your opinion as if it was everyone else's opinion. I'm not even saying that this is the best approach, I'm just saying that I, as a player and DM, think its cool to have those things. It all depends on what type of game everyone wants to play.

On the game I'm playing I have noticed that the druid just simply love his spell of creating magical fruits. They don't heal or anything, they are just food that sprout instantly. If the game don't expect the characters to eat, his power would become useless, what would be really disappointing for him.

Also, about your comments:

> Chekhov's Gun means don't assign value to things that aren't important.
Those things can be important. Running out of ammo, food, water or any resource can be an important and interesting element.

> Schroedinger's Cat means you shouldn't reveal whether the cat is alive or dead until it's important to
I'm sorry to disagree, but I think its important to consider those things while the players are not lacking them, so they can feel it being spent and control it, instead of just come up one point and say "you are out of arrows". The ranger knows how many arrows he has.

> Sakamoto's Principle
Yeah, I agree with that. Just not sure how its related to this discussion specifically.

>Hoooold your horses, m8. You are inserting your opinion
No, I'm using the definition of a game.

Accept that you're wrong and move on. If you can internalize the reasons you're wrong, people may play your game someday.

Gosh, that was harsh.

> If you can internalize the reasons you're wrong, people may play your game someday.
Like I said previously, I make board games, and everyone already play them and really like them. I'm not saying that my friends and friends of friends like them. I'm saying EVERYONE like them.

Example of this: on 2016 I went to a small gaming event in my town, introduced my game to a group of strangers, they really liked it. Later on the same event, the came back asking to play it once again. Then, months afterwards, I went to the next edition of the same event, and that same group showed up asking to play that awesome game of mine once again. When strangers, that have no reason to try to please you, come looking for you wanting to play your game, maybe it is actually a good game.

> Accept that you're wrong and move on.
That sounds like a 13 yo that is full of himself. I'm not even saying that your way is wrong, since I don't think there's a wrong way to play roleplaying games. I'm just saying that I enjoy a bit of realism in my roleplaying games, and counting resources sometimes can lead to fun and exciting situations.

Is OP still there?

In that case, yeah. Unless the focus of the game is resource management or its something a limited number makes sense, like grenades or enchanted arrows, don't worry about the nitty gritty.

OP here. I'm also the guy that posted those crappy character sheets.

You mean, calculated from the same dice results? In that case, Anima: Beyond Fantasy has a system like that, in which you always need to see a combat table with ATK and DEF which calculate if the attack hits and how much damage it deals.

If you mean if you should throw the dices for ATK and DMG on the same roll, nah, it's just seconds.

Personally my system uses a rather complex system. Although it is a little simplified by all of the weapons doing a flat number of damage.

>Someone declares an attack
>Target rolls a Reflex throw
>On a failed Reflex throw, the attack is an automatic hit.
>On a Reflex success the target can either choose to dodge, block or parry (depending on the roll value).
>If the attack hits the target rolls an Armour save to reduce damage.

Is this too much hassle for one attack?

Should there be a To-Hit Roll and Reflex opposing dice throws?

>Nobody plays games to get realistic experiences.
... Are you sure? There's definately simulationist players out there, playing North Africa with their Italian Spaghetti Rations rules. It's not for everyone, but it's definitely what some people like.

I'd go with opposed, that way the attacker is involved. Right now, you have the attack is declared and then the defender resolves everything. Its not that satisfying when you are attacking.

Maybe I'll make reflex a stat that the attacker rolls against. One less roll and more action for the attacker.

Would appreciate feedback for my concept for a combat system.
>Each combatant has a dice pool that he draws from to perform actions
>Attacks have a minimum cost, maximum cost, and base damage dependent on the attacker's weapon and his attack skill.
>Attacker choose a number between minimum and maximum cost and rolls that many dice. Each success adds one damage to the attack.
>Defense rolls also have minimum and maximum costs based on the defender's skill and what he is using to defend himself.
>Defender chooses a number between minimum and maximum costs and rolls that many dice. Each success subtracts one damage from the attacker's attack.
>The attack's final damage is compared against the defender's damage threshold, which is determined by his armor and whatever he is using to defend himself. If damage exceeds the threshold, damage is dealt to the defender's HP. Otherwise, damage is dealt to the defender's dice pool.
>At the start of the next turn, combatants regain a static number of dice plus an amount equal to damage dealt and damage negated on the previous turn.

This system is intended for use in small-scale brawls where the object is to wear the opponent down to where you can take them out with a solid blow while also making sure you don't leave yourself defenseless. Fighting multiple opponents at the same time is meant to be highly dangerous.

Is this for an rpg or wargame? or something else...

I took your advice and made it a little prettier.

Attack - Defend = Magnitude (or some paraphrasing thereof) is the best girl of hit mechanics.

No wait here's a better one

up

niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice

I think this has improved a lot. Like I said, I also made my homebrew and have been testing it out with some friends, and one of the feedbacks I got is that the character sheet I made was too long (3 pages). So I personally think that the fact yours is just a single page is a really good thing.

pic related: some more precise suggestions I have for you.
> Gray lines: I think you overdid underlining. Most of those lines could be removed (the ones I grayed out). That is just my opinion, but I think it would help the character sheet to look cleaner.
> Purple lines: I think you could have some division there. Took me like 1~2 seconds to figure out that |___skills___| was related to those boxes underneath it, and the whole idea of a character sheet is to be some sort of character cheat sheet. So you want things to be as clear as possible
> Red lines: me being a dick. Ignore those.

This is what I have to say. I liked that you put a better looking human figure there, and also that you put some circular squares (wut1) for HP, EP (whatever that is) and for the character's portrait. Maybe I would also suggest using that for the info on the first row, replacing the |___________| stuff (which I think kind of looks ugly) with just an empty circular square (wut1)

wut1: I know "circular square" makes no sense but I don't know what that shit is called.

Why differentiate dodge/block/parry ? Any real significance? Also, I like damage-reducing armor (rather than increasing the % chance of dodging the attack, because that D&D idea is kek).

Just something I would like to point out: people like to roll dices. You are going for a different approach where players roll dices to dodge instead of to hit (compared to D&D and shit). I think that is really good. There's some psychological shit that makes it a lot more fun to roll dices, because you actually feel like you are trying to dodge. I made a board game that uses that mechanic and its one of the funs of the game (the players have a starship, so every turn you have to roll several dices trying not to get massively fucked by the enemy ships)

It makes the player goes from passive to active, which is good. At least when it comes to gaming (I don't mind about your preferences in bed).

One thing I would suggest though, and this is a daring suggestion because I have never made this in a RPG system, but players want to feel they control their character's actions and what happens to their characters. I would suggest that maybe you could make it that usually ONLY the player roll dices.

What the fuck I mean? Make it so that when attacking, the player roll dices to hit, like D&D. But when defending, they roll dices to dodge (like you are planning to). I believe this could have a great outcome, because (1) your players feel like they have control (they are the ones rolling the dices). (2) some people don't like the DM rolling dices behind the DM screen, so that's mostly gone (3) they will feel like they are really active in the battle

Also, if you have a defense value (I think you are calling it reflex?) and a attack value, its really easy to swap it. Think D&D again: I roll 1d20+attack against your 10+armor. The "10" is merely a passive roll (its approximately the average outcome of a d20), so to swap that would be that you roll 1d20+armor/reflex vs. 10+my attack

Honestly, sounds confusing...

I've been thinking about Hit and Damage a bit myself. I have a project that I'm mulling over those mechanics specifically.

Right now I have an Accuracy vs Evasion roll that determines quality of hit. If Evasion wins, its either Glancing (50%) or a Miss (0%). If tied or Accuracy wins, its either Normal (100%) or Critical (200%). With max investment in damage dice, you'll be rolling 10d6 or equivalent and hit one of 8 locations (determined by a d8 roll). Each hit location has its own (but equal) amount of health, and death happens after 3/8 locations are reduced to 0.

I've been wondering whether I should go with flat or rolled damage. Flat would speed up the game and make glancing/critical calcs much easier, but I think there's worth in rolling your damage, especially once you get to higher amounts of dice and how they trend towards the mean. I'm not even sure how much of a focus I want on combat. It'll evidently be a hefty amount of the game considering my current rules, but even among that I could make combat more or less involved.

I like what you're going for, but I think there's room for improvement. I'm assuming your pool is d6.

I don't think min/max costs are a good approach. You can make a devastating, deep and committed attack with a knife just as much as with a greatsword.

I would suggest instead the attacker picks how many points they want to use just to reflect how committed they are to the attack. If the system uses the same pool for both offense and defense, it has consequences. A committed attack leads you open, committing all of your pool and getting nothing but ones would result in a devastating counter, left with nothing to defend with.

Obviously you'd need to declare totals for both attacker and defender before anything is rolled.

Hitpoints should go straight in the dumpster.

Here's my suggestion for a replacement:
Attacker rolls damage based on how many points they put in the attack. If they succeeded on a 5 point roll, they roll 5dX for damage.

Defender gets a second defensive roll, representing desperate dodges, parries, or resisting damage through sheer toughness. Only this time each die they roll is a point of their pool burned, and no longer available until an extended rest. Allowing unspent defensive points to be rolled twice when burned could optionally be added.

If any damage is left after the defender has used all the rolls they're willing to burn, you roll on a grievous wound table with that damage as a modifier.

All together I think it facilitates the movie trope of hero vs waves of mooks fight like in Kill Bill, as well as the intense duels against bosses like Star Wars. I think the key is allowing cumulative successes and failures determine the commitment and pacing of the fight, and allowing the GM to act out the overconfidence of a character mechanically.

>One thing I would suggest though, and this is a daring suggestion because I have never made this in a RPG system, but players want to feel they control their character's actions and what happens to their characters. I would suggest that maybe you could make it that usually ONLY the player roll dices.
Numenera did this, and I steal this for every homebrew mine since then. Players have Attack/Defense Bonus that they add to the d20 rolled, enemies have Attack/Defense Scores that must be overcome for success. This way the player is more engaged in the fight instead of waiting the 12 kobolds attack, only to note how many hit points he lost for that.

So, it does work nicely? :) Just thinking about it, must feel a lot nicer to play a "tank" character in a system like that, while you actually do something instead of just watch the DM roll and miss you...

Holy shit I love the idea of not rolling dice as a GM
That is fucking great

As for the To Hit and Damage being separate, I like putting them together.

One of my projects has a target value of 10, and 20 on a d20. Rolling over 10 means you hit, and over 20 you Critical Hit.

Skill adds to the roll, showing your ability to hit the target.
>d20+3 over 10 or over 20

Weapons move the target values.
A relatively fast attack would move the to hit down from 10.
>d20 over 7, over 20

While relatively damaging attacks move the critical down.
>d20 over 10, over 18

And the targets armor lowers the roll.
>d20-2 over 10, over 20

The graphic of the character would be a great way to show where and how he has been wounded.

What happens when you hit? How much damage you deal? Also, what happens when you critical hit?

>d20+3 over 10 or over 20
>d20 over 7, over 20
>d20 over 10, over 18
>d20-2 over 10, over 20
Sounds a bit confusing. I think you should simplify it a bit. The way you described, I have to add my skill value and subtract it by your armor value, put that together with what I rolled, then compare it with my hitting/critical threshold. Even though 1d20+3-2 is technically an easy math, some people struggle with that. Trust me. I have a game of mine where the attack is 2d6+(attack)-(armor), where both values varies usually from 2 to 4, and sometimes I see people struggling with that. Some people just suck at math.

I actually meant to say something when I started writing this reply, but now I'm rethinking it. I see what you are doing (and it is quite clever) to change the threshold to hit or the threshold to crit depending on the type of the attack, but I think it might be a bit off. Give me a minute and I will reply later a more precise suggestion.

Haven't playtested it (forever alone), but if not more "fun", at least more attention the player must have on the actions described since he actively must avoid attacks, and less work on the GM who can focus on the narrative, not on the mechanics.

Also use a one roll mechanic, where weapons deal a fixed damage plus the difference between the roll and the score, so a good hit means better damage.

So, is this crunch, or can I lost with help for fluff?

Post even

>For a skirmish Wargame
Roll under
OR
Opposed rolls+stat

Oh, Weapons deal the number you rolled and double on a critical. I called it a project because I never finished much more than what I've already said. It ended up being very clunky, and I feel that it had too many modifiers in the end. I wanted to add dodge and that made it difficult.

If I opened it up to a d100 and could elaborate on the moving table system that it is, it would work a bit better but still be hyper crunchy.

I usually advocate opposed rolls, but depends on how much interaction the opponent would have otherwise. Like, Dark Age uses roll under, but tge opponent does the damage roll, so they are still apart of the resolution. Its when your opponent sits there while you handle everything that kinda sucks.
>Looking at you Warmahordes and KoW

> and I steal this for every homebrew mine since then
So you mean you have done this more than once but never got to test it ? That sucks, man. But also without much testing myself I think that is a good thing (the player rolling to dodge or something). The one roll or two rolls I think is more about what you and your players like :) not sure if there is a strict better way.

>Weapons deal the number you rolled
You mean that you deal the damage you ~rolled~ or whatever exceeds the attack - defense math? If I need 10 to hit, I roll 9 and have +3, how much damage am I doing?

About the crit, does that means that if I crit with 19 my damage is a bit lower than if I crit with 20? (if I can crit with 19, of course)

>If I opened it up to a d100 and could elaborate
I don't recommend it. Sometime ago I had a homebrew that used d100, but eventually I realized that was a mistake and had to divide everything by 5 and switch to d20. The d20 is nothing more but a simplified d100, where you get 5% precision instead of 1% precision. Kind of helps since you deal with smaller values.

Going back to the "d20 over X, over Y" thing, I still feel that you should not use the enemy's armor as -2. The reason is that your system says to the character "you need 7 to roll" but then you are like "aha! you get -2 so its actually 9". I will cont. this on a second post, wait a minute.

So, back to this. I just had a thought that is actually of relevance. One thing that I think its fairly okay to do in an RPG system is make an uneven set of rules. What the fuck I mean, you might ask. Well, that might just be me, but I don't think the same rules need to apply for the players and the DM's minions.

For instance, like I posted b4, the homebrew I'm using also have the whole body thing, and whenever the players take some serious damage, their body get seriously hurt (that sort of damage is a lot harder to heal). This is an interesting mechanic for the PC but would suck if I actually had to check that for every single minion. So basically, I ignore that part of the rules and I just consider the basic hit points, and whenever they are out, the minion dies. (PC just past out from normal damage, not death)

In your case, something I would recommend is that perhaps you could simply ignore critical hits when attacking the PCs. Its cool when the players get a critical hit, but sucks when they get hit by one. That is something I think you should consider :)

Also, I know this would screw your shit up, but my (game designer) guts just tell me you shouldn't use the -2 for enemy armor. Instead, I think the players should have +bonus and the "over 19 crit" thing, but the to "over 10" to hit should be entirely based on the enemy's armor. I know it loses a bit of the control you were going for, but I truly believe it would be a better approach.

You're missing the point. The way I broke it down was this:

The player skill, means they can not only land an attack more often, but also land a meaningful blow more often. Thus an addition to the roll.

Armor blocks damage, meaning it would lower critical threshold, but also blocks minor wounds. This is why it gives an overall subtraction. Because your 10 target value to "hit" is only to hit and deal meaningful damage. A hit from a small tossed stone probably wont deal damage to plate armor, get'it?

As for splitting player rules and dm rules i completely agree and use just that in a wound based cowboy system I wrote.

mundane ammo is infinite
special ammo is counted

mundane ammo is counted if it's a system where it's incredibly rare and every shot fired counts (like a STALKER style setting or something)

Yeah, actually I got the point in the middle of the other post (). Even though I think its cool, it might be a bit too complicated and that might slow things down. PLAYERS ARE DUMB. What is simple math for you might be annoying for others. In the end, what I meant is that maybe you should sacrifice some of that in exchange for simplicity...

There is a lot that goes on game mechanics besides pure logic. Your rules make perfect sense, but they players do not. When you say the enemy's armor is 15 and they need to overcome that, it feels like a challenge. If you give them -5 because of the enemy armor, means the enemy is fucking with them. It also harms progression - if the players keep getting more attack, but enemies more defense, they will feel like the progression is pointless. Now, if you give them + attack and the enemy has higher armor, they will feel like that they can only reach that much armor because they got their new awesome attack bonus. Even if the values are exact the same! The gaming experience varies from math/logic, its a tricky thing really.

I still feel like counting ammo, even mundane .__. I think its cool (as long as that don't get in the way of fun, of course)

My thoughts exactly. I'm working on my mordheim heartbreaker and I'm mulling over the base mechanics. I've always been a top down sort of thinker so I know what end goals I want. But I've had to reign myself in and make myself work from the ground up. Player interaction is something I want to incorporate, preferably so that the game feels back and forth, and not the "oh there's two warbands to go before me, I'll go get a drink" mentality.

So far I'm thinking a stat+opposed roll for melee, roll under for ranged and attribute tests

So we agree, good.

To quote my own post ()

> I called it a project because I never finished much more than what I've already said. It ended up being very clunky, and I feel that it had too many modifiers in the end.

I've been writing RPG's for about 7 years and I know how dumb players are, I've redone systems to accommodate players before.

Fuck right off. Dwindling resources while exploring a dangerous environment can be tense and exciting.

You're also lying through your teeth about Chekhov's Gun. The point of Chekhov's gun is that details should become important later.

>Schroedinger's Cat means you shouldn't reveal whether the cat is alive or dead until it's important to. From a GMing perspective, this means not allowing your options to be limited so you can respond to player railroad busting.
>He thinks Quantum Ogres are good DMing

How do you calculate the odds for the effects of bonuses and penalties in a roll and keep system?

Chill man.

Dwindling resources while exploring is great. Knowing your character only has 13 arrows for the next 4 weeks in game and you have to get through a cave is...
>important

Keeping track of the arrows a castle has on hand for its wall archers, 36,754, and getting in one fight that only used 400 of them, while marking them down every turn is a waste of time. You could say...
>It's not important

Chekhov's Gun means don't assign value to things that aren't important.

Its just that it never stops surprising me how dumb players can be .__. on my recently design (specially on board games), I spend a lot of effort in coming up with ways to teach the game so that players do smart things even if they are not smart. I try to make my games stupid-proof.

Back on the "over 10 over 20" thingy, my opinion is just that it might be tricky for dumb players :) I not only understood your idea, but I also thought it was very good. I tried to make attack/damage in a single roll, but didn't thought about this system to use the crit. % as a way to make more "hurtful" attacks. Its definitely a thing I might be considering for some game in the future. ^^'

By the way, why you decided to use twice the damage as critical hit? Have you considered something else, like a fixed damage bonus or something? I always thought that 2x critical hits are A LOT (currently, since I use damage roll, my crits are just the max damage the damage roll could do =( a bit boring but that is it) Also, I was curious whether a 19 critical hit does less damage than a 20 critical hit or not :)

Right? Not sure why that guy is so defensive about that. He even went full arrogant and said that shit:

>No, I'm using the definition of a game.
>Accept that you're wrong and move on. If you can internalize the reasons you're wrong, people may play your game someday.

What a dick, lol

>Dwindling resources while exploring is great. Knowing your character only has 13 arrows for the next 4 weeks in game and you have to get through a cave is...
>>important
>Keeping track of the arrows a castle has on hand for its wall archers, 36,754, and getting in one fight that only used 400 of them, while marking them down every turn is a waste of time. You could say...
>>It's not important
Very well put, user. Resources can be counted and can be an interesting and exciting element, but overdoing it (like counting the 36,754) is just a waste of time and boring rly)

^ in my opinion, THAT guy needs a chill.

>Chekhov's Gun means don't assign value to things that aren't important.
Do you know any where I can read more about the shit that guy said? I mean, by someone who actually knows how to put it reasonably.

Chekov's gun is always framed in the context of making sure that details come into play later. You are conflating this into "importance." With regards to tabletop RPG design, Chekov's gun is far closer to "make sure all of your game mechanics are relevant to the intended playstyle"

>Keeping track of the arrows a castle has on hand for its wall archers, 36,754, and getting in one fight that only used 400 of them, while marking them down every turn is a waste of time. You could say... it's not important

This is a nonsensical statement in that context because keeping track of thousands of arrows in a large-scale wargame is not an expected use case for mechanics designed around a party of 4-6 characters

My idea was to apply Everything, Weapon bonus, Armor, Skill, etc. Before the roll and then in one dice figure it all out. It proved to be too much at once.

The crits are double because I never planned on many weapons lowering the value. so yes, a 19 critical deals 38 damage and a 20 deals 40. That is still only a 5% or 10% chance of happening.

Ohhh, I see. Cool.

>My idea was to apply Everything, Weapon bonus, Armor, Skill, etc. Before the roll and then in one dice figure it all out. It proved to be too much at once.
I feel (but don't actually have much experience to back me up here) that if you make in a way that the player add that up beforehand, and have the total noted in his character sheet, its okay to use many variables :D what fuck things up is to expect people to add it all in every single attack.

> so yes, a 19 critical deals 38 damage and a 20 deals 40
Gosh I was having the idea all wrong. So you mean that if I need a 10 to hit, have a +2 and roll a 12, my total is 14 so I deal 14 damage? Not 4 (14-10) damage? That is unexpected! It is also interesting because the bonus (or the enemy's armor in the form of penalty) makes a huge difference, in every sense.

Btw, do you have expected values? How much attack bonus Average Joe would have? How much to hit, how much to crit? His armor? How much hit points? Having a "average" value so you can make the math around it really comes in hand!

You are right. "make sure all of your game mechanics are relevant to the intended playstyle" is what i was trying to say by calling the mechanic "Important".

Now if you have a party of 4-6 in a castle fight, do you count how many arrows your players are using when they can take some off the wall at any time?

I feel like in that case you can hand wave it. A lot of cinematic ammo is based on the game feel.

Apocalypse? Count every round.
Military rank and file where you restock every in-game day? Let it slide.

>ITT people who don't know shit about Chekhov's Gun

Chekhov's Gun is a rule for creative writing that means, in essence, if you describe something (i.e. assign it a value in a game) that you should make sure that it is relevant to the plot later.

This can easily be simplified to: don't assign things that aren't important a value.

For example, don't assign "concealability ratings" if you don't want that to be important to the game. And if you do assign them, you need to extrapolate and explain what happens when things can't be concealed successfully. The game has to be prepared for characters that completely fail to conceal their Walther PPK from the security guards because you've assigned concealability ratings.

user was absolutely right to call it out, and you absolutely should not be trying to design an RPG if you didn't understand what he meant.

Have any of you even run a game that isn't D&D?

>Now if you have a party of 4-6 in a castle fight, do you count how many arrows your players are using when they can take some off the wall at any time?

Yes. Because running out of arrows in their quiver in a given engagement is a distinct and interesting possibility. Do they go to a melee weapon and charge in? Do they back off and look for more ammo?

At the level of overall quantities for a castle siege, just spend as much or as little time as you (as a GM) want to come up with a workable ruling

Adding it all up before would help, but every fight you would have 2 or 3 types of armor and weapons on the enemies. That is a lot to add and keep track of.

Yep! You deal 14 damage on a 12+2!
Armor lowers the damage you deal, and your chance of a critical while Skill boosts both!

My plan was for an unarmed person, fighting an unarmored person, was d20 over 10 over 20.

I suggest you not to do your math using a unarmed person against a unarmored person, but do it using a regular armed person against a regular armored person. Basically, I recommending doing it with a lvl1 warrior on each side. (of course, it is interesting to sometimes look back at how the unarmed/unarmored scenario would, but its rarely the case so I don't think its that important)

>Adding it all up before would help, but every fight you would have 2 or 3 types of armor and weapons on the enemies
I think ideally, you should have 1 fixed attack value and 1 defense value for each combatant. In your case, what I would do is that I would "abolish" the attack bonus, in a way that you don't "have a +2 attack bonus", but just reduce your "to hit" and "to crit" chance both by 2. That way, your character has 2 attack values (to hit and to crit), and 1 defense value (that subtracts from both, when being attacked).

Example:

My elf barbarian has +1 skill when attacking with her bow, and the bow itself gives her +2 to hit. So I write this on her character sheet:
TO HIT [_ 7 _]
TO CRIT [_ 19 _]

The gnoll I'm attacking has 1 defense value, which is:

DEFENSE [_ 3 _]

So I roll the dice, and I get a 9. I know that normally I hit shit with 7, but maybe that gnoll has a decent hide. I think its entirely up to the DM at that point to either tell me the gnoll's defense or just make the math on his head and tell me whether I hit or not. Since I'm a clever boy, I know that if he has 3 defense, my "to hit" is now 10 and "to crit" is now 22 (which sucks for me lol)

Is this how you feel the flow would be?

up