/gdg/ - Game Design General - where

You know what niche isn't filled right now?

Near future sci fi wargame. It's all either historical stuff, modern, fantasy, or far future like 40k and Beyond The Gates of Antares

Actually working on one... sorta. Its near future, but with a Hellgate: London/DOOM slant.

People don't want to play a game that'll be outdated tomorrow

>1. What's more important--the feel of a game or the balance of a game?

I would have thought the two were complimentary. I guess it depends on what you're referring to when you say "feel".

>2. What are (You) best at? Writing? Art? System design? How does this affect you game?

Of those three I'm best I writing, but that's not saying much. I don't really try at art. If I could pay someone to sit with me and teach me that would be marvelous.

>3. What are you currently most proud of in your game?

I'm really liking the way that everything ties together in simple ways, all while using just a d10. The challenge is whether or not I can keep things simple while providing a robust system that lets players and GMs do a whole lot.

/gdg/ is normally bi-monthly. This is a recent surge, rather than a recent lull.

Hexes or pixel?
I have a 401x401 hexes map I occasionally chip away at.

Hmm.

1. I think balance is more crucial at the design level. "Feel" seems like something you can adjust through the setting or modification of the base system.
2. I have multiple talents but few that I nurture. Making sure things are fair is very important to me and I'm proud of the abstractions I've made. However, I'm generally better at writing than anything else.
3. I have a lot of pride in the way the character sheet will "flow" and will not require a lot of backtracking to find or apply rules.
Won't know for sure until it's done and tested.

I spent a gorillion hours making a cheeky website for my s.t.a.l.k.e.r campaign and players instead of working on the rules.
Still woundering if it was worth it.

stlk.mysupertech.org

How do you playtest a new project? How do YOU playtest a new project? What things should you focus on and look out for? How often should you playtest? Gonna playtest my second game next week, trying to prepare. Testing is probably my weakest skill as a designer

Bump

>dat gif
lewd

Not really, there's plenty of stuff outdated that people still play.

>1. What's more important--the feel of a game or the balance of a game?
Feel. I mean they're both interconnected to a point but if you don't nail the feeling you're going for with the system you've failed even if you've achieved perfect balance.

>2. What are (You) best at? Writing? Art? System design? How does this affect you game?
Oh geez I'm not super confident, let's say design. I'm certainly no artist and my writing is either blunt or cheesy so process of elimination rules the day.

3. What are you currently most proud of in your game?
I'm pretty happy with my resource system, though I don't know how well it would port to a more serious game.

I'll run a couple quick scenarios alone to see if it works at all, then go through a tiny adventure with my wife, then I'm planning on just releasing it for Veeky Forums to rip apart once the formatting isn't a complete shitshow.

For those of you with multispecies settings, how do you choose the races for your game, and how do you know when you have enough/too many?

Races in my game are differentiated by size class and some passive racial trait and I'm uncertain if 5 is enough or if I should bump it up to 7 for more choices. They currently range from size 3 Goblins to size 7 Ogres with each size category being roughly double the mass of the previous. I've considered bumping Ogres to 8 and adding Trollkin at 7 as well as a size 1 or 2 Fairy/Sprite but have some (untested) concerns about how playable such extreme sizes will be especially when size changing spells come into the picture.

I wouldn't worry about pure number while being below 10. Just consider that it might shift the tone. In general you are having too much when differences between races get too small, you struggle to come up with traits or you find yourself using templates.

I suppose that's fair. When it comes down to it my main issue is probably coming up with new racial traits, especially for the largest races. Coming up with Ogres was really easy - they're really big, strong, and sometimes eat people. Now if I want to add something like Trollkin how do I differentiate them from Ogres? They're also big, strong, and sometimes eat people. There's regeneration, which is nice but not quite enough, and if they turn to stone when exposed to sunlight that makes them pretty worthless as PCs. I dunno, I'll come up with something, I did already merge Goblins with Ratlings and Elves with Halflings so I can probably find something to mix Trolls with.

That was definitely worth it; it inspires me to make a proper site or wiki to support all the people, events, and maps.

For role-playing games what is everyone's....
>favorite dice or resolution mechanics
>above, but systems that are more than pass/fail
>above but also free to use or

I'm looking for something that's like Star Wars narrative dice but
>don't cost $20 a person
>aren't proprietary/legal minefield
>won't go out of production if Fantasy Flight HQ gets hit with a meteorite

*or OGL/SRD/Creative Commons

Pic related: it's me when my phone dicks up my post

>favorite dice or resolution mechanics
contested d20 with degrees of success
>above, but systems that are more than pass/fail
contested d20 with degrees of success
>above but also free to use or OGL/SRD/Creative Commons
contested d20 with degrees of success

Its what I'm using for my own game. Materials are familiar, my math is easy (you can get more complicated and creative with how you determine your degrees), and its comparatively unused.

So I have a sci fi setting that's like Firefly but with Joss Wheton replaced by Quinton Tarantino and the wild west replaced with Miami Vice mixed with Cowboy Bebop.

My question is basic, which of three option should i pursue for a core rule book with the other two as add ons

Spaceships in spaaaaace
>pros: most generic, be a crew of a space ship and have some
>cons: literally just another generic sci fi setting

Cyberpunk amd corporate fun times in a contained urban setting
>pros: untapped market for modern and crunch heavy cyberpunk setting that doesn't involve ELVES
>cons: doesn't lend itself to anything other than 1st world gritty cityscapes, why even have space

Soldiers of fortune mercenaries
>pros: it's the A-Team in space! Also a bit of Only War or possibly MGSV
>cons: blandest of the options, especially if the "build your own private military company" option doesn't get used

If all three were next to each other, which one would you pick up?

What pray tell is your initiative system?

It's probably not actually that great, but it's what I started with while developing my system and so it's the most developed and pleasing part of it.

The basis is a phased initiative system like older fantasy RPGs and wargames. Actions are declared at the start of the turn by everyone, and resolved in order based on the type of action.

So a turn progresses like this:
>Declare Actions
>Missiles resolve (arrows, ballista, catapults, javelins, slings, etc)
>Movement resolves
>Melee resolves
>Magic resolves

Aside from melee + movement, it's one action per turn.

However, you can break out of the sequence by expending a limited Initiative resource (stamina or something, refreshes during rests and maybe a few points at the end of a combat). You can break out of sequence at any point during the turn (even preemptively at "Declare Actions"). It involves expending an Initiative point and making an Initiative check to break sequence. You lose the point whether you succeed or not.

For example, if you know an archer is targeting you, you can expend Initiative and attempt to run to cover before they fire at you. If a wounded warrior attempts to swing at you while you're on the defensive, you can expend Initiative for a chance at finishing him off first (there are more rules for this one). You can even expend Initiative to attempt to rush a spell before the end of the turn, once I actually build a workable magic system and a magical mishap table.

I'm considering adding in bonuses and penalties for breaking Initiative at certain times, but I'm not sure yet.

That's the gist of it. Phased initiative with a mechanism for breaking the sequence using a limited resource.

"I should've slept hours ago" bump

Sounds like you should probably put your strongest foot forwards and go with spaceships.

I like it! Though I can understand why having it go away in favor of the initiative roll has happened, because I can see your initiative system as prioritizing certain actions over others; and with each player playing a character, they might not see their character in action as much as others.

For example, the archer would see their characters shoot projectiles all the time, but the mage would be less likely to see theirs in action due to their spells going last, and if the battle is resolved beforehand, then there was no action by them.

Not that devanon but that has implications for balance. Spells can have significantly more powerful effects than missile weapons on average if they always go last (without burning a point) especially since he's planning on magical mishaps being a consequence of a failed rushed spell.

Good point, though I do want to hear that devanon give his response to my point too.

So, how do you handle encumbrance in your system, if at all? Mine's fairly simple since I tie almost everything into a character's size category, if they have some sort of condition that would weigh them down (fat, carrying a lot, and enemy has latched onto them, etc.) then they gain at least 1 stage of encumbrance. This reduces their effective size class for determining movement range and gives an avoidance penalty of 1 per stage. At stage 4 (or when their effective size drops to 0 or less) they become immobilized (can't move or dodge), and at stage 6 helpless (can't perform any actions).

Sometimes I wonder if this general should be merged with /wipg/. Questions pop up more than bimonthly but the thread doesn't seem to be able to sustain itself weekly.

Interesting idea. Put it to a vote: After this thread shall we stop posting here, and instead look for each other over in Work In Progress?

Yea/Nay

Veeky Forums isn't a democracy, and /wipg/ is not nearly the same material as /gdg/. There's a reason they, along with /wbg/ are separate.

Fair points, Veeky Forums is mob rule and /wipg/ is about making physical objects where /gdg/ is rules and settings. That said, both are creative pursuits so merging isn't completely out of the question if enough people decide keeping a drowning general afloat or making individual threads for each question are unacceptable.

As you work with size, do you have size influencing health points?

Yessir. It also plays into avoidance, the type of grapple that results from a successful attempt, and a few other systems.

I don't have any yet, but I'm definitely considering adding some. There are a few directions I can still go with some mechanics still in development, but I'd probably nick something similar to LotFP's encumbrance. Other options I've thought of are a Diablo style grid or LoZ: BotW style slots with frequent turnover. The more I think about two of my three projects, the more I feel like I should just merge them.

What I like about your encumbrance system is that it lends itself well to gravity-based magic. All an effect might be is to increase or decrease stages in encumbrance and you have a useful and relevant effect. You could also add it to other spell effects, like casting Armor of Earth for extra protection while also increasing your encumbrance. I'll have to keep that in mind as those spells would fit perfectly in my own game.

I'm always interested in systems dealing with size. I'm trying to work size into my own system. Right now it only works in very big steps, sadly.

It's really nice, I wanted to have a lot of interactions that could be modified by size changing spells and the like.

Mine has each size category being very roughly double the mass of the one before it. Size 0 is too small to care exactly how big it is, 1 is maybe an action figure or doll, 2 is a house cat, 3 a dog or small child, 4 early teen, 5 adult human, etc. The largest thing I have stats for atm is a Giant which I'm putting somewhere between 10 and 12.

I'm working of a health system that is split between minor, medium and mayor wounds. When you fight other size categories damage gets bumped up or down a wound level. It would be nice to get more granularity than the resulting 5 steps though.

I've gone in the other direction and merged health,stamina, and mana into a single resource pool that's calculated with size, class level, and endurance. There's two other sliding scales that most attacks damage that determine when you actually lose health and how much.

The other user captured what I was going for. Magic is intended to have large impacts on the battle, with equally large consequences if things go wrong.

I see what you're saying as far as the prioritization goes, but I'm not sure if the disparity will be as prominent as you've suggested. Because the turn is intended to be limited to one action per combatant per turn (with the exception being melee, which may have a short move attached), it's unlikely the entire battle would be resolved before the fourth phase of the turn, unless it was a 1:1 ratio of giant rats to adventurers or something. It'll be something to watch out for during playtesting though, for sure.

I'm playing with the idea of going more skill-based than class-based, so a magic-user is not necessarily useless when he's not slinging magic missiles.

The idea is to encourage the party to approach encounters more strategically. The magic-user shouldn't be whipping together a big ball of death if there are good odds the fight will be over before he casts his spell. The chance that the mage might also be attacked before finishing his spell if he's left unprotected in a battle where he's needed should also lend itself to combats more focused on teamplay and managing the battle strategically rather than everyone tossing out their wombo-combos on their respective turns.

Of course, the success of this design ethos is dependent on how the rest of the system ends up coming together, but that's the idea in a nutshell.

How annoying would it be to compare a roll to two different stats to determine if you hit AND wound.

Gonna need a better explanation than that

Forgot name.

I'm spitballing resolution ideas to cut down on dice and number of rolls. This idea is you roll a die, adding your offensive modifiers relevant, and the opponent does the same, with defensive modifiers. You compare the roll and if you beat the opponent's roll, you hit. At the same time, if you match the armor stat, it wounds. The concept is you roll, trying to match the armor stat, but the opponent is rolling to negate the hit.

I'm not quite sure I get it, throw some arbitrary numbers at me. Something like def armor stat is 30, attacker tries to roll a 30, defender just wants to roll higher than attacker?

Presenting some examples of my core mechanic in action. What is better:

>natural-language prose explanations of what happens, like paragraphs from a novel
>a script that shows exactly what is said and done at the table, line-by-line
>codified pidgin examples (i.e. "Trigger: Character attacks; Roll: 3d6" etc etc)

Yeah, that's the badic idea.

I'd probably end up going something like "Roll Xd12's and choose the highest" for the rolls. So let's say the basic stats are plain rolls for the dice and an armor of '8'. Both the attacker and defender roll 2d12, attacker gets 8 and 4, while defender gets a 9 and 7, final scores are an 8 against 9. The attacker would wound, but because the defender rolled higher, the attack missed.

A few outside things I have to consider is I'm trying to develop is for the idea of grouped combat where multiple combatants can gang up on bigger things. The thought there is to keep modifiers on basic stuff low, and work similar to how Warmachine does combined attacks, each guy forfeits their attack to add to the attacking models score. In my example, if two guys were contributing, they'd add 2 to the attack roll, making it 10 instead of 8.

Another factor would be the difference in power of the blow versus skill. I've got 2 idea for that. First is a set dice pool of like 2 or 3 each roll, the attack is modified by the attacking model's skill and range penalties, while the target's armor is modified by the power of the attack. The second idea is the attack and defense skill is how many dice you roll, range penalties are bonuses to the defense roll, and the attack's power is added to the roll. A lot more abstract on that one, but slightly more mechanically smooth, so long as the pools are kept in line.

Seems far more difficult to land a wounding blow than to defend, and it makes low armor values far more valuable than high which is a touch unintuitive. Maybe go with roll x die keep y die instead of forcing keep highest? It just sounds a bit frustrating as is.

>it makes low armor values far more valuable than high
How so?

If the attacker has to hit a number and the defender just has to go higher than the attacker then if the defender had say 3 armor the defender just has to beat a 3 every time to never get hit.

He'd still have to beat the attacker's roll. If the armor is 3, and the attacker still rolls a 9, the defender still needs to beat a 9. Lower armor just means that low spikes can still have a chance of wounding. Rolling only a 5 still beats the 3 armor over an armor of 8.

The biggest concern that I just realized is how to handle spikes. I think the best way to handle that is looking at cost effectiveness of combining attacks. 4 guys grouping up to attack gives a hefty +3 which would take a big gap in rolls to beat, but at the same time, that's 4 actions to cause 1 wound. I'll have to play with defense modifiers with this idea, though.

Ah, well then you explained it poorly
>if you match the armor stat, it wounds
Implies the attacker has to hit the number, not meet or exceed.

Sorry. Yes, I meant meet or exceed the armor.

Hey senpai,

So I made a hack of Lasers & Feelings for a one-shot game with strangers that I am running this weekend, with the theme being Superheroes.

Critiques welcome (pls roast gently). Also, to answer discussion:

1. Both. Balance for both is best, but worst case scenario, go for feel and houserule the fails

2. I guess I am more of a writer/system guy, but I tend to think in pretty pictures, not in pretty words. I do wish I could draw better.

3. I am most proud when I achieve my answer in #1. Too bad most of my games are half finished. We should have a GDG Finish the damn thing Edition.

Here ya go, Veeky Forums. Play nice.

bumpity bump

Bump before bed.

I keep switching between ragtags murder hobos in deadly dungeons and heroes fighting evil with courage as the scope of my game. I have ideas for both styles but can't focus on one or another.

>1. What's more important--the feel of a game or the balance of a game?
Depends 100% on what you're going for. If it's co-op, or mainly for friendly BnP and simulations, balance matters very little. If you're making a game aimed at the competitive set and tournament play, then balance is Job 1.

>2. What are (You) best at? Writing? Art? System design? How does this affect you game?
Probably system design, and if I was smart enough to go about things intelligently, it would mean that fluff would always follow rules.

>3. What are you currently most proud of in your game?
The ongoing (mostly successful) efforts to keep it simple, and keep my simulationist tendencies under control. It also plays very fast, which was a major design goal.

>cybernetic qualities
I tend to cut those into two categories - those that make you better at something you could already do (robot arm with enhanced strength, robot eye with enhanced vision) and those that grant you an entirely new ability (robot arm that shoots lasers, robot eye that shoots lasers).

The former class can usually be handled with the same stats and balancing as any other buff to that same category. The later group should usually be treated using the same model you use for weapons / equipment (possibly with some penalties since they can't be taken away).

How near we talking about? Dropzone Commander kinda fits this (although less so once you bring in dropfleet since the practicality of interstellar exploration is still a question mark)... basically all the tech used by the human factions in ground based forces is stuff we already have now or will probably have in the next century.

>People don't want to play a game that'll be outdated tomorrow
Doesn't really matter. Some of my favorite post-apoc settings had the world end on dates that are now decades past.

FATE for me. Superficially simple, but really it's all an RPG needs. Proprietary dice (although you can use regular D6's) and the core rules are free.

I tend to go for much more math-intensive systems for wargames though.

Fallout

I'm making a game that uses phases (short, action specific rounds) in the hopes of keeping players constantly engaged with the game. I'd like some feedback on a recent epiphany I've had on my movement phase.

Initially the turn order in the movement phase was based on speed with faster characters moving first. This is obvious and makes sense, but it means slower characters get to react to the faster ones and can just move away on their turn in the phase. It's a situation where despite being slower, they will never be caught.

I considered a couple different rules that would allow faster characters to act again, or react in response to slower ones, but that's when it hit me.

Is it counter intuitive to make the slowest character act first in a movement phase, with the fastest going last? I think it is, but is it a bad idea?

You could've been any guy, so why did you choose to be that guy?

Thinking more on the matter, I suppose I could do both.

The movement phase could go: Fastest to slowest to fastest, anyone that didn't use all their movement the first time can spend move when it swings back to them.

Sometimes asking the question is all you need to find the answer.

I like the idea. But, without knowing anything else about your system, it seems being really fast is almost op. Please tell me it doesn't let you attack first too.

How to call HP in a way that doesn't represent meat points?

I've wanted to call it Stamina, "spend" (lost) avoiding blows. But then a poisoned weapon don't work until Stamina hits 0 and a "true" hit occur. The same applies to slashing/piercing/blunt or elemental attacks.

But I also wanted to make it Willpower, so it isn't only about physical endurance, but mental one, the will to keep fighting, so psychic attacks also drain "Stamina" (Willpower).

I shouldn't use two HP "bars" (Stamina and Willpower) because it adds bookkeeping. And I can't find a good name for Stamina + Willpower that isn't abstract to the point if promotes confusion (like hit points).

I use Life Force, it's everything from stamina to mana to health to willpower and more all wrapped up into a single resource.

But then the term is not suited for undead and constructs.

Neither do Stamina, called Integrity if non-living corporeal things (golem, zombie or a wooden door) or Willpower if non-corporeal (ghost), in my alpha build

They just have negative values

What a twist! I liked it.

No, other games I can't name off the top of my head have done it. I actually like the idea of the quickest reactions going last for the exact reasons of being able to react. Those games generally had players declare their actions slowest to fastest, but then resolved the actions fastest to slowest. When explained in those terms, I think it would be perfectly intuitive to a new player. And, if you don't have declare-resolve phases, then you can make the split between movement and actions, so the fastest would still be able to move in and immediately attack.

HP already doesn't represent meat points?

Stop using euphemisms and just call it what it is: Plot Armor

Yeah, it doesn't. But anyone who ever looked at any D&D thread here or in any forum will see that it is misunderstood quite often.

Could work, albeit enemies shouldn't have plot armor.

On a side note, which would be better "magic" schools for a SCIENCE! (a.k.a. magic) class?

1 - Pressure
2 - Gravity
3 - Radiation
4 - Temperature
5 - Magnetism
6 - Electricity
7 - Corrosion

1 - Botany
2 - Zoology
3 - Microbiology
4 - Biomechanics
5 - ?
6 - ?
7 - ?

1 - Genetics
2 - Biochemistry (Toxic/Poison/Asphyxiation)
3 - Ecology
4 - Pharmacology
5 - Paleontology
6 - Physiology
7 - Homeostasis (Pathology)

I like the way Fate refers to it as narrative stress--you come close to getting screwed but some inconvenience will protect your character, and then this stress becomes exhausted upon use.

I don't really know what's going on here but the fact botany and other biology disciplines are separate from genetics are separate makes it weird.

Is there a grid?

Experience tells me the faster character will catch up to the slower one due to the former being able to move more "squares" per round.

If you use a d100 roll under with margin of success, what are the probabilities in a contested roll?

To explain the system shortly: you throw a d100 with a skill of 50%, your opponent do the same with a skill of 60%. You both get a 40, but you have a margin of success of 10, and he has a margin of success of 20, so he wins.

I'm not good at math, and I'm bad with troll and anydice, so some help would be very welcome.

Describe it as an abstraction of the expected survivability of a given character under attack.

SP- survivability points
CP- combat points

bump

How much "advancement" do you think is necessary for a long-term/campaign game?

In my game right now, PC stats don't advance over time and instead they gain more and more special abilities that circumstantially modify their stats up to a maximum of five, as well as more varied and powerful items. Is this enough?

I'd personally be fine with small increments, especially if the setting doesn't support PCs becoming godlike.

Instead of numerically getting better, being more prepared per encounter (through player experience) is more my speed.

What are some cool dicepool systems that don't end up in literal dice-buckets ?

Dogs in the Vineyard
Legends of the Wulin

Roll and keep is generally more light on the dice than a pure pool.

So I had an idea for a game, but thats about as far as it goes

The concept is, the players take the role of a party of characters, who are currently standing before the final battle of their campaign. The meat and potatoes of the idea is the players, before they fight the final battle, must build their characters, their adventure, and their enemy at that moment, as if they are flashing back across their adventure. This would be done via drawing cards, possibly from different kinds of decks, each card filling in a piece of the story (like, you draw a card and it says "Your character fought a valiant battle against a great demon, they won, but lost a limb in the battle. Add X levels to your character. Add "Lost limb" to injuries. Add "Great Demon Sword" to treasury") And each player does this, building the complete journey, and each of their characters, as well as what enemy they are facing, until a specific 'time limit' where the group reaches the starting point (ie the final battle) with their constructed characters and the final battle, and then they get into the "Final Battle Phase" where they have active combat, and possible event cards to show how the battle goes.

It was a basic concept I had, and I was wondering if it would make an interesting game

I think you can leave some blank spaces. A player draws a card from the "Quest" deck that reads:
>once you fought your way through the goblin mines. You rescued (person), but lost (treasure) while doing so

Players all draw one card each from the person deck and the treasure deck, and use this cards to fill the blanks. After x many rounds they fight the BBEG. The more rounds drawing cards they play, the harder the BBEG becomes, but better they could become.

Its a nice concept, user. Work it up, it can become wither a hardcore game or a beer and pretzels one.

Yeah. I think there would be a few decks "Character/Hero" "Treasure/Item" "Event/Quest" "Foe" and each round could be Character Draw, Event Draw, and the treasure deck is only accessed via the other two decks, and once each player is done, they draw a Foe card, which could be anything from a random encounter they faced, an event starring enemies, the foe gaining some kind of power or treasure, or the final boss gaining something, as there would be cards that dictate the final battle (example "Ancient Ruins Rise: Place this card in the Final Battle Location spot. Any treasure obtained by the Final Foe gains +1 on all effects")

And as you said, each character, and the Final Foe would have spots to fill, and determine their abilities, which could be anything from "You grew up under the tutelage of a great scholar. Add "Scholars Mind" character card to your Background" to "Your hero has died, but he did not fall in vain. Their child takes up their father's weapons, armor, and continues in their place with determined resolution. Discard all Backgrounds from this character. Add +2 to every base state." Or something like that.

I think it could also be a game concept that can have different themes. Like, you could play a medieval fantasy adventure, or another version could have a Sci-fi adventure. Or even a version where the characters are all villains fighting a great hero.