/gdg/ - Game Design General

A thread dedicated to discussion and feedback of games and homebrews made by Veeky Forums regarding anything from minor elements to entire systems, as well as inviting people to playtest your games online.

Try to keep discussion as civilized as possible, avoid non-constructive criticism, and try not to drop your entire PDF unless you're asking for specifics, it's near completion or you're asked to.

>/gdg/ Resources (OP Stuff, Design Tools, Project List)
drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8nGH3G9Z0D8eDM5X25UZ055eTg

>#dev on Veeky Forums's discord:
discord.gg/3bRxgTr

Other urls found in this thread:

therpgsite.com/showthread.php?21479-Design-Alternatives-Analysis-Archive/page2
adventuresinpowercity.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/technological-aspect-generator-alpha-1-5/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I guess I'll just start again then. Turns out d100 roll-under didn't fit the gameplay and feel I envisioned at all, so I guess it's just back to square 1 now.

Yaaaay.

I know this pdf is full of delusional rambling, but a man can dream.

Why didn't it fit the gameplay?

Skill progression was pretty wonky, it didn't allow power levels to go very high or have an impactful difference, the flat chances made it swingy as all hells and thus the success rates suffered greatly. Maybe I approached it the wrong way, but having to hard-cap everything and juggle with values to have a decent time with it wasn't fun at all. Not to mention that after a while so many things started to pile up that it started to feel less like a game and more like taxes.

I wanna try to get deep mechanics with simple approaches from now on, so I can have all the mechanical autism I want without overburdening the players or the system. It's gonna be tricky, but I'll eventually get there, hopefully.

by the way, I'd love to hear criticism about the new OP format, I kept the old header pasta but put the op images, design tools, project list and op pasta all in one google drive folder

the pasta document also includes >Old Thread and >Thread Topic, but I couldn't find the old thread to link it and I forgot about thread topics until after i posted it whoops

>Thread Topic:
What are some creative for the lesser-used dice in resolution systems: d4, d8 and d12?

something i observed the other day was that 2d8 has a perfect spread of 15 numbers (2-16) but i don't know what to do with that knowledge

>Dice
I briefly considered using a mechanic where player stats corresponded to die types (1=d4, 2=d6, etc) and skills to how many dice the player would roll.

For example; Got 3 strength and sword skill of 2? Roll 2d8 when attacking with your sword.

The idea was that you'd take the highest die rolled as the result. Thus, stats (die type) determine a character's maximum potential and skills (# of die rolled) determine the likely hood of achieving that potential.

Fun thing: As needed, a d12 can be a D2, D3, D4, or D6, so you can do pretty well with running a whole game on D12s.

wouldn't that be kind of a slog? i've thought about it too but it's not exactly the kinda thing you feel like calculating on the table, specially if you already have d4s and d6s around

Feedback requested on these preliminary ideas for a Stand User Micro Template For Chronicles Of Darkness. I'm trying to find a alance between customizationd broadness, as well as making the Ephemeral Being traits more balanced for player use.

dividing 12 evenly is super quick though, so while you might have d4 and d6s on hand, it shouldn't cause problems for anyone who is beyond 2nd grade math

it's not a matter of how easy it is to do it, but how practical it is at the table
sure i can mentally think "1-2-3,4-5-6,7-8-9,10-11-12 for a d4" or "8 means 3" after rolling in less than a second like anyone would do, but in that same time i've already rolled a d4 and got my result

it's like big numbers and modifiers, basic math is simple because 36+24+7-6 is gonna be 61 but at the table and at every roll that's just not fun yknow

Ill read it in a few, just taking this opportunity to bump

Despite that you can, you shouldn't, because you're specifically avoiding using dedicated dice for other common sizes. It's something that's good to know in a pinch, like if you're playing shadowrun and just need one more d6.

What's more relevant is that d12s are super satisfying to roll but have a smaller range than a d20, so if you can work out a good system numerically using d12s people will enjoy it just a little bit more than they would systems using dice that are less satisfying. Game design is probably more about the psychology than the math, the math just needs to be good enough that it doesn't create a bad vibe.

Why aren't we just maintaining a PDF with all the links and shit in it and a header image for the first page? You could do it via gdocs so anyone can find/post it/suggest additions

gdg needs to git gud at collaboration

dealing with OP PDFs is always a disorganized mess unless there's a lot of people paying attention to it, and /gdg/ shows up "whenever" and a lot of times it doesn't even have the pasta unless someone posts it in a reply

I've fallen in love with D12's.

d12s roll nicely, but the chances aren't exactly the greatest to calculate around

Question for you gentlemen:

For those of you who have worked on a system that allowed for additional actions if the actor had additional limbs, how did you balance them?

I'm considering simply making additional limbs a respectably expensive trait. Not sure how much though.

Hey, you still plan on giving it a read?

Bump

What do you have so far for limbs? It just so happens I'm working on limbs for my system too.

Sorry mate ill check it tomorrow if the thread is still up

Additional attacks have a stacking accuracy penalty, also having redundant bits can be a liability against abilities that target a certain number of X bodypart within a radius. I might actually need to buff additional limbs since a lot of the other traits a character can potentially choose on level/gen are more powerful while not making you a bigger target.

It's terrible
I ordered 4DF on D12s

0% regrets

Okay Veeky Forums what do you think of my idea?

>character points system like GURPS but the point numbers are smaller so less granular
>few if any drawbacks/flaws, no role play flaws for points, if you want to RP a flawed character do it because it's fun not because it lets you level up your strength
>2d6 or d12 for core mechanic, depends whether I have stat plus skills or not
>probably will work similar to GURPS in terms of how skill levels will be determined (i.e. DX+3)
>toughness system like savage worlds

Also considering ripping off savage worlds skill & attribute system, but with #s 1- 5 instead of dice d4 to d12. So basically you figure your attributes first, then skills. Each skill point costs 1 point up to the related attribute level but 2 points each past that. So for Dex of 3 (a bit above average), Guns 1 would cost 1, Guns 2 would cost 2, Guns 3 would cost 3, Guns 4 would cost 5, Guns 5 would cost 7, and so on.

Also damage versus toughness would work similarly. Weapons and strength would add a static amount, MoS on to hit roll might also add direct to damage like in traveller but that might be too Kathy. No exploding . Toughness and damage will be carefully calibrated to make sense. No more crazy exploding d4s and other shit. Critical hits will be a thing though.

Thoughts?

In principle that sounds like a good idea.
is your system going to be generic and universal or part of a world/setting?

Only speedrunners care about fractions of a second in gaming, and I have yet to see anyone speedrun a homebrewed game. If you really want to save time, there are far more impactful areas to increase your efficiency.

The math's not that clean, but that's part of why I like it. It has a good level of granularity that's not too small and the math isn't very straight forward, so it doesn't feel too flat when determining the weight of things, both from a designer's eye and when a player is weighing their options.

What are some creative uses of the d12 then? What kind of range or system would be supported by it easily?

I'm trying to play around with how time is handled during combat turns to allow for parallel actions to take place if needed

Does this make any sense to you? Are there any things that look straight up wrong or that would fuck up the game flow? Basically the next character begins his actions after the last character's turn ends, but is aware of his surroundings and the actions happening around them as they happen, and not afterwards.

The most robust way I've seen this handled is in Exalted. Your initiative roll determines your placement on the wheel, lower being better. Then, you go clockwise resolving turns. The kicker is, different actions have different speeds, which determines how far you get pushed forward on the wheel after taking said action. For instance, making a quick Athletics action may have a speed 3, which if you went on a 1, would put you on a 4, giving you another turn before the next round of combat.

Depending on your GM, you can hold and take reactions against action that would "pass over" you on the wheel. That's the best I got.

That helps, action times is something i've considered as well, specially on things like rushing from one end of the battlefield to the other

Does it ever get convoluted, the way Exalted handles it?

Not really. Sometimes you have everybody going on the same tick of initiative, at which point stats will dictate turn order if the GM doesn't.

Things go pretty quickly, which surprised me the first time I played it. The nice thing about getting a good initiative roll at the start of combat is that if you're enough ticks ahead, you can bust out some quick actions before you attack.

Has anyone ever figured out a way to play a hidden information game with no intermediary or record system? I.E. a game you cna play in your head like chess, but with hidden information?
Or is it just impossible like I think it is?

check out the battlestar galactica boardgame
the game revolves around maintaining the ship in course and solving crisis

players are given cards, one of those cards tells them whether or not they're a robot infiltrator who, as opposed to the rest of the players, they must try to fuck up the ship and crew as much as they can

every character has a certain amount of cards they can draw out of 5 different categories, each with a different color and a numeric value - these cards have actions that can be used during your turn, an event, or used as currency to avoid crisis

at the end of every turn, a crisis (an event with negative consequences that can be averted) is revealed, which has a numeric value that must be met and a few colors than can help out. characters must pay with their cards facing down, and after everyone who chooses to has paid up, the cards are revealed: matching colors add, non-matching colors substract, and the crisis is averted or takes place depending on whether they reached the numeric value or not

in this situation, the robot infiltrator can pay up with non-matching colors to try to fuck over the players with crisis, as well as using card-scrying actions to try and find the worst crisis out of the ones they're allowed to see to give the other players a hard time

it's very easy to play that way, and part of the fun of being a robot infiltrator is being able to fuck everyone over without them noticing (you can reveal yourself and do other shit but that's not what you were asking for)

tl;dr use cards

Do you work first on the crunch alone, or on the fluff first?

Taking D&D, for example:
You first calculate a base HP, AC, attack bonus and average damage, the base % to hit, how many hits to kill someone, then how many round to have the necessary hits, and then you build upon this (fighter having +X this, rogue +Y that).
Or you work on the fluff first, applying the crunch to them?

You treat the game design as pure math first, fluff later, or you biuld the crunch around the fluff you want?

forgot to point it out, but the only thing that tells you that you're the robot fucker is the card you're given at the start of the round - you peek once to see if you're human or not and the rest is just you machinating (kek) against the other players however you choose to do so

depends on the type of game, but i generally like to nail down a narrative concept first and then try to mechanize it without destroying what i'm trying to achieve

So that's a no, then. I thought cards were the easiest solution, but the problem is I want a more "tactical" game than most/any cardgames. The ability to play a wargame with hidden information and no referees would be the endgoal. Maybe having cards represent unit types, some of which aren't real, or are different sizes than they appear. Like an ace of spades appears as an infantry platoon but it's actually just one guy, or a king of hearts as a tank squad that appears to be a group of APCs. Cards could be revealed by scouting. So at the start you'd arrange your units like normal, but most/all of them could be wrong or nonexistant and there's no way to tell unless you check.

you could use generic tokens to represent that "something is there" but only relate these generic tokens to a unit type that only the strategist can see through cards

say triangle tokens move in a formation, but you choose what those triangles represent: you attach a triangle token to the unit card but its true form is unrevealed to the other player until you use it or he finds out through scouting or whatever

What if i attack someone who acts right next to me, and his turn start during the time taken by my attack? Does he react? Do I roll for damage only after he acts and the attack hits? Do i damage him during my action and he's unable to do shit about it?

Generic like savage worlds. I want to "fix" some of what I don't like about the savage worlds system and make it a bit more serious.

My game have the following defenses:
>deflection
>dodge
>willpower
>fortitude

Some attacks focus on one defense, like a mental blast vs willpower or poison vs fortitude. Most of the time the player can choose which use to defend, so a rogue will use dodge while a warrior will use deflection. But how to I attack deflection in a suitable way the player isn't allowed to use dodge instead?

Pin them down, render them unable to move, make the attack faster than they can move, make sneak attacks default to fortitude, dont allow dazed characters to dodge, dont allow dodge at point blank projectiles, etc

Basically rule out anything where the character shouldnt be able to dodge the attack in the first place

The only way this could work is if it was possible to retroactively verify the game record somehow. Example would be Stratego - at the start of the game the opponent's pieces are hidden, but they are all revealed at the end, you can see all the moves, and there's no random element. So you can work backwards from the end that the game was played correctly. Definitely an interesting exercise though.

Out of curiousity, what is it about the math of D12's that's "not that clean"? The math on any single roll of any die is basically identical - for a dice with S sides, the chance of a specific result is 1/S and the chance of an equal-or-less than X result is X/S. Doesn't make any difference if it's a d6 or a d37, all that changes is the granularity.

Dice math doesn't really get messy until you start adding multiple results, dependent rolls, or rerolls into the picture.

>But how to I attack deflection in a suitable way the player isn't allowed to use dodge instead?
Dodging is slower than deflecting. You have to move your whole body if you want to dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge. You only have to move your weapon/shield to deflect. So any really fast attack you will only be able to deflect, never dodge. Whereas any really strong attack, you'll be able to dodge but not deflect. Your rogue will be able to dance circles around a big, slow ogre swinging a big, slow club. But if some little guy comes at him with a rapier or someone shoots an arrow at him, he'll have to try to deflect or facetank it with his fortitude (or hope they just miss), because he won't have time to get out of the way.

The problem with that is verification is time-consuming and potentially very difficult. The goal therefore would be to make THAT the game, where the verification process itself WAS how you played, guaranteeing correctness of play, but avoiding repetition.

d6s usage doesn't lie in mathematical perfection, but in how common six sided die are - you can get a gorillion of them much easier and cheaper than you would d8s, for example

d12s have an 8.33 chance per face, while d20 has 5% and d10 has 10%, which is why d20 and d10 are used much more commonly - d10s can also be used for d100 seeing as you get a 0-99 range and you count 00 as 100, etc - it's the same reason d8s with their 12.50 chance per side isn't used as much - it has the same issues of swinginess as flat die AND it's harder to balance chances around because they're either too small or too big of a step to work around

d4s would be an outlier here because they're underused despite their perfect 25% chance, but that's because 25% in itself is a big fucking chance and the chance range is too small to be worked with unless you're doing a super minimalistic system

do you understand now?

arise!

also, thoughts on this simple system: you have a stat, let's call it Fortitude. let's say your Fortitude is 8. damage is all dealt with 1-5 d4s. you can resist up to 8 wounds and 8 severe wounds. every time your wounds hit 8 you're given 1 severe wound, which means a -1 to all your rolls. technically this works pretty much exactly as HP, but affects your chances directly

thoughts? should there be a base value? what should the average value for Fortitude be to avoid constant death?

why are these threads always so dead

Personally I'm using the range in a margin of success system, since it easily breaks into smaller chunks; 2, 3, 4, and 6. Its like the idea of using the D12 for a D3/D4/D6 in a way.

Extremely niche subject that takes a lot of time to work on.

How do you deal with simultaneous actions and counterattacks without isolating two characters forever and without the actions being a total clusterfuck?

It used to be a "gib feeback plz" circlejerk without anyone actually giving feedback. Tons of people were around but nothing ever happened. Since then, quite a few namestays have left but we're much better about giving useful feedback so now we don't have enough new content to comment on and the current developers aren't getting new concerns fast enough.

And, there are a few anons who have actually finished projects, like Ops and Tactics user that popped into a different thread and Knights and Knaves user who finished a pretty quality game. The rest of the namefags I remember have all left other than Aegeos, and he's one of the few people doing wargames.

/gdg/ (and /hbg/ before it) threads are the #1 reason I browse Veeky Forums to begin with. I remember them being the most popular back when they used the Wii's Homebrew Channel OP, but again that was when feedback was scarce to come by unless you happened to be the "system of the day". It was also a time when we were more similar to /wbg/ in content and /wbg/ was suffering.

That being said, I've got 3 projects I can info dump if people want some stuff to comment on. I watch /gdg/ threads anytime I'm not sleeping or working.

I have a question; do you name your systems (other than "current project #3567.docx"), and if so, how?

I just nail down the main theme until I can find something more suitable. Sometimes I just stick to my terrible name.

I go by "Name - Version Number"
I'm on 1.8

1 for the massive overhaul of everything I did around two years ago and 8 for the number of editions with various major changes I've made.

Not creative, but it works

>ruled out dice pools
>ruled out roll-under
>need more than one dice but no more than 5 at any one time

god damn it what the fuck else is there

I just gave up on dice.

I'm using 54 card decks now.

Resolution mechanics aren't as important as Veeky Forums makes them out to be. The question is, what sort of game are you trying to make?

That doesn't seem too hard.

Also provides a limit, doesn't it? Stat being the max possible and skill being your chances to get it.

i was thinking of a similar system, but using d10 pools based on your stats and the limit being a roll-under for your skills, but it's kinda hard for me to really balance it or make it fun
like, how would you deal with difficulty, take away limits or dice? would it be based on how many hits you got, and if so would there be anything to negate it? what if i want something to feel very powerful with that many dice and only a 10-number scale? balancing that shit is hard

> Resolution mechanics aren't as important as Veeky Forums makes them out to be.
I finally created a resolution mechanic that I'm perfectly happy with, where every plus matters and nothing ever falls off the RNG, yet stacked mods have diminishing returns, and it's dead simple to roll.

And, you know what? It's like 10% better than if I did the whole thing with d20+mods.

tell me your secrets user, i swear i won't steal them

Does anyone have any good resources for kingdom building mechanics? RPGs that do it well, boardgames worth cribbing from, blogs?

I'm looking to take players from their first keep (or other holding) to a kingdom the size of Ireland. It doesn't need to handle finer grain detail than that (can fall back to a standard RPG), and I'm okay with the system to get clunky when it gets larger than that (that's a pretty big scale change already and I'm willing to introduce a third system if it goes bigger).

Not a secret, I just didn't explain because it's contrary to the point - that even the best mechanic is only a small improvement.

The best mechanic is also specific to your goals, so pic related might not actually be as amazing for what you're trying to accomplish.

lmao stolen

what's the resolution mechanic? hits? result+mods? roll-under? i really like it, it's smart and simple and can be accomodated to many values and dice

(3+|X|)d6, keep highest 3 if X is positive, keep lowest 3 if X is negative. Your modifiers go into X. Roll above target difficulty, or roll above opposed roll.

>deep mechanics with simple gameplay

What did he mean by this.

I want to use a roll & keep system like old 7th Sea, where the player can theoretically have a high skill, to maximize his number of successes. But I also was wanting to use a TN dice pool like Shadowrun or ST. Is it okay to mix them? Are there better systems?

I want to have fine-tuned high levels of autistic customization and other oddly specific stuff without the granularity that generally comes with it

Interesting mission
Be careful all those customization bonus/malus don't add up and push you into "granular"

Death by a thousand cuts, in a way

Roll X number of dice (d6 perhaps but it doesn't matter). You choose WHEN to use each. Sometimes it's good to have high. Sometimes it's good to have low. Sometimes you want middle values. But you have to use all the dice before you can re roll unless you have a special event/ability.

I call it the Pullman Perfection method.

I like it.

You're decades late on that train, but its not like there are a ton of passengers.

Ascending dice types and roll-overs exist still, although the latter needs to be thematic in some way (It can be a little weird to handle I guess?).

Ascending dice types are a pet system of mine, I just kind of abandoned them when I started trying to reduce all the baggage to make my ultralight system ultralight. My previous system had them though.

I used to frequent / frequently OP these threads, but I've been on a serious depression / lethargy roll so I haven't been that active on Veeky Forums, instead just shitposting on other boards. My own game would honestly be in the final stages (like, I need another playtest to finalize my combat system's specifics), I would just need to push Pilgrim for the art and pay him a little more so I could get over with it.

Now that I think about it... Kind of funny, my Plancrafter / Six Stories system is literally almost ready (It honestly just needs playtesting and balancing), but once I started making my ultralight (Misfortune), I completely forgot it. Hmm, maybe I should reread it and see if I could actually salvage it, or parts of it.

It wasn't a bad system by any means, my ultralight was just more complete thematically, I guess.

Ahh, rereading it feels so weird, because I made so baffling design decisions, which, in reality, aren't THAT baffling, but I can just see how my design philosophy has made a complete 180, and it hasn't even been a year since!

>therpgsite.com/showthread.php?21479-Design-Alternatives-Analysis-Archive/page2
Have fun

Hmm...

Does pic related (My new sheet for my game, obviously) have too much air? I wanted to make a horizontal sheet, but the final result looks a little too open and airy, like there's a lot of wasted space...

How bad does it look? Asking mostly about the layout.

For context, the game is actually an ultralight system, so that's the whole thing.

Crunch, fluff is harder to write

I'd like to know where this was originally done and if this particular approach has a name

Sorry for spamming these latest posts out.

If you look at the probabilities in fractions instead in decimal percents, d12s and d6s become a much more "beautiful" numerically, especially compared to d10s.

d12s have a perfect scaling with d4s and d6s, being perfect thirds and halves. I don't remember encountering a game that takes advantage of this fact (such as having a d12 system where you can use 2d6 or 3d4 as alternative methods when your skills increase, for example).

d6s have similarly perfect scaling upwards when counting dozenal, and using them makes it theoretically possible to use fractions while counting them. In dozenal system, d6 dice pools scale as 1/6 (1/2 division of 10), 1/30 (1/4 division of 100), 1/160 (1/8 of 1000), and 1/900 (1/14 (16th in decimal) of 10000). Progression is beautifully linear, and best of all, they're extremely divisible numbers, too.

If d5s were common, they would have similar linear pattern in decimal system, 1/2 of 10, 1/4 of 100, 1/8 of 1000 and so on, but because we use d6s, I made the point in dozenal. Also, because it is a perfect cube, this is just one of the reasons why we should use goddamn dozenal systems instead of decimal.

Decimal system sucks, that's what.

/rant

>do you understand now?
Actually, no. I think I'm more confused now than I was when you started. =/

I got these two points:
1) D6's are common and readily available
2) Granularity increases with number of sides.

Agreed on both counts. The rest of it went over my head.

>The problem with that is verification is time-consuming and potentially very difficult.
Well, that's one of the challenges of the design, yeah. The Stratego method was that most or all of the hidden info gets revealed over the course of the game anyway - sooner or later all the pieces are revealed, and you can remember which ones used special moves or actions, so it's easy to verify.

I think that's what you're looking for - some kind of structure where playing the game out slowly reveals all the hidden info.

>Resolution mechanics aren't as important as Veeky Forums makes them out to be. The question is, what sort of game are you trying to make?
>The best mechanic is also specific to your goals, so pic related might not actually be as amazing for what you're trying to accomplish.
Resolution mechanics ARE important, but they should probably be the last thing you design in your game. At the end of the day, they're all ways to do the same thing.

Resolution mechanics are not important by themselves, but they are important in contextualizing play. Whjle optimally they should be last to be completely designed, prototyping them is an important part of the game's design, and a resolution system can design parts of the game for you.

A good resolution system can make a game, like the how the Lake in Legends of the Wulin really changes the game's flow fundamentally.

I understood it because I'm math savvy. How would you explain it in prose?

Looks really nice and different.

Not that user, obviously, but I would just explain it as stacking advantage and disadvantage dice.

Most people at least know how DnD 5e plays, so they know how advantage works --> they realize that if you roll 3d12 with one advantage die, you roll 4d12 and take highest 3.

That's how I did it in my own 2d6-based system that works similarly.

In this case, they could be called positive or negative modifier dice, but the point stands.

I kinda made something, a sort of Game Design Idea Generator. I'm hoping to use it for this Isekai inspired OSR Campaign Supplement I have in mind.

Please tell me what you think or if ideas should be ordered differently.

adventuresinpowercity.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/technological-aspect-generator-alpha-1-5/

I'm not math savy and understood perfectly

>3d6 roll-over to pass checks
>modifiers can range from -3 to +3
>regardless of +/-, each modifier adds a die to
>take highest 3 during advantage, take lowest 3 during disadvantage

what I don't get is what happens to other modifiers? -3 to +3 is a bit too simple and it's still left for the roll, what if the character is specialized on a particular area? is the modifier simply a mechanic that is unaffected by the player (as a difficulty or a challenge set by the gm) and the roll adds the player's relevant stats, or do the players only have the +1 to +3 advantages in their favor? i like it in concept, specially if it's something simple like an OSR dungeon crawler and i love the simplicity of it, but i feel like there's something i'm missing here

I think the layout is a little weak, maybe also either program a random generator or make roll tables or something. Veeky Forums loves roll tables.

In it's current it's just options to choose from in a pretty cluttered format.

Let's answer to the thread topic...

I said it before, but d12 can be divided into 2d6 or 3d4, and you could use them as a dice-type progression, like if you do riskier rolls you need to roll d12 but when you do something meticulously you can roll 2d6 or 3d4.

Another possibility would be to make a system that incorporates both d12s and d6s, because they are directly compatible. I could see a system that uses 2d6 and 1d12, maybe to use them in a more clever way than simply adding up. Having two distinct sets (1d12 and 2d6) makes it possible to take higher, lower of the dice, take more risks etc.

If the system is more open-ended, the -3 to +3 mechanic might work fine as is (I can double this because I've made and playtested one that has a similar mechanic). If there are multiple modifiers like stat bonuses, skill levels and the like, it might become iffy... The mechanic does have diminishing returns, however, so that probably eases it up a little, at least.

what are some dice system types that can accomodate to a moderate and fair low level but still increase to really powerful shit

i wanted to use dice pools, but those are either super limited or get out of hand really fast

read Pages 2, 3, and 12 are all about rolling mechanics

real gamers use a 76 card french tarot

is this thread only about RPG systems, or do you guys design board game / card games too?

Using metacurrency to activate character abilities: yay or nay?

My thinking is pretty much every other method is some ridiculous game contrivance with a tenuous explanation anyway. 4E's AEDU, Vancian casting, or just flat out "You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to..." are all basically metacurrencies.

Note: This is a science fantasy game wherein all the players have not!Force powers.

we've had wargames in the past here, so there's not really a limit on what you can post, as long as it's Veeky Forums game design

Usually with powers, I think it's better to have a rising difficulty after straining yourself.

A nice way I found to do it is to make a roll for using the powers, and have an aspect that determines whether you can use a power "freely" or do you need to "strain" to use it. If you strain, you either get a point of fatigue or lose metacurrency and so forth. Fatigue (or mental fatigue, whatever) works well because in my game, every time you roll, you check against your fatigue, basically, so it becomes kind of an tactical element with very little work.

I would love if the 4e Fighter used Healing Surges for his E powers, Rogue's about triggers and so on.

My game have mages using HP for casting spells, meaning the physical stress of using magic.

Look Iron Heroes, a d20 system that heavily uses tokens for techniques.

Can you explain this differently/again? You say it uses d6s here But the chart says d12
& PEMDAS says to add three to x & roll that many d6s, keeping three of the highest or lowest depending if x was a positive or negative
Is this ^ correct?