/gdg/ Game Design General

Frankensteining

I don't avoid saying "it's how y does it" because I don't intend to publish anything

How about making it "roll twice choose better result once per combat" kinda feat or something? Those +1 to action feats get to be a chore really quickly, feats should unlock abilities and options before going the Weapon Focus route.

I had an idea for my luck stat. Basically each player starts with the same number of "luck tokens" (6) and whenever luck is rolled (1d8), whether succeeding or not, the player gets a token taken away. They replenish at the end of the day.

So similar to most Luck/Fate/Edge/Whatever stats? I've always liked that feature, as it doesn't rely on uber-high stats to make PCs special, they're mostly average joes with Lady Luck on their side.

That's pretty nifty. Cybernetic trans-humanism is probably a lot easier to pull off (or at least, its much more common) than fantasy trans-humanism, which is what I'm trying to do. Its also pretty thematic with the call to binary, though the specifics of the success system might need more heft to them. While a one succeeds, there's no context for the success yet.

Same for me as , thanks for the anydice code!

After pouring through the results, I'm deeply in love with the mechanic. It takes advantage of and combines two basic tenets of dice probabilities; More dice tend to beat fewer, and more dice tend towards the mean. To recap, the idea is: Player A contributes A number of dice and Player B contributes B number of dice to a pool. Add one extra dice (A+B+1) and roll. Player A removes A number of the lowest dice and Player B removes B number of the highest. The remaining die is the result. 1..3 B wins, 4..6 A wins. If anyone's more curious, here's the anydice link. anydice.com/program/ce63

Lets also assume that "crits" can happen on a result of 1 (fail) or 6 (win). AB=1 and AB=6 both have the same change to result in A or B winning (50%), but the potential for critical outcomes for AB=1 are 7.4% while AB=6 is 0.24. In addition, the better you are (higher your pool contribution), the more likely you are to win even if you contribute less than your opponent. A1B3 (difference of 2) has just under 19% chance to win, but with A4B6 (also difference of 2), A has a ~ 27.5% chance. Conversely, A1B3's chance for B to crit is 19.5% while A4B6's is 2.5%. Crits will obviously be more likely if you're winning, but a competent opponent is less likely to trounce another competent opponent. Frankly, its beautiful, and I can't wait to start really incorporating it into a few ideas I've had. I just needed to see the raw stats before I really went to work and I can't code anydice for beans.

Game balance doesn't need any books. At the core it's a very simple idea of economics, balance referring to cost equals benefit. There are other subtopics of balance like rock-paper-scissor dynamic, tic-tac-toe, basic probabilities and statistics, game theory / prisoner dilemma.
In most cases just using a spreadsheet will enable you to balance most of your game. It's the number one cutting edge leading technology used in all big name commercial games which purport balance.

My idea is to keep the game technically numberless, so the best you can have is if you overclock a memory you have software for. So 4 dice is a hard cap.

Also, each zero gives negatives if there isn't a larger amount of 1s. So
2bd = 1/1 is a success with negative outcome
3db, 1/2 is a success with a negative outcome
4db, 1/3 and 2/2 are successes with negative outcome

You do get a limited amount of Memories and Software, and Hardware doesn't add dice... So I think it will be kept in check, more or less.

Corrupted dice are like normal binary dice, but one of the 0s is corrupted.

No problem. If anyone else has problems with Anydice, I can try to help.

Oh yeah, but when you roll corruption when dying, I'm looking it as your self fighting against corruption, so all zeroes are counted as data corruption.

The corruption escalates like this:
1 = software corruption
2 = memory corruption
3 = minor personality corruptio
4 = major personality corruption
5 = critical data corruption, recovery impossible

(This new game's name is ReBuild, saying it to avoid confusion, because I might talk about several games in one thread: the other games are Misfortune and Fairytale)

I was wondering if I could steal one of the most amazing things about Nier:Automata, that being that you need to have separate chips for your OS and HUD that take space. You can remove HUD chips to make space for more software, but it just means that you might lack some important insight about your own state or objectives.

I'm thinking about doing something like this with the character sheet and dice rolls, but it's not as intuitive in tabletop, because then the GM has to take care of them, adding to the workload of the GM.

I'm also thinking about things like being able to see the GM's rolls as a separate software (with an in-game explanation for it, of course). Any ideas for insane things like this?

Never recreate what you can steal.

I ahve named all the difficluties ,classes and levels thematically, but i don't know how mechanics themselves can be flavored

Also since I have mostly finished my Stalker system, and having looked over it a million times, can't for the love of me see if I'm missing anything vital. My player's aren't much help either. Perhaps it's just time for the final polish, and moving on to the GM guide? (rough draft drive.google.com/open?id=0BzNtCcGwlddscDA4QnRYektGZE0)

just to clear things up, can I copy game mechanics freely? as far as I know, only IP can be copyrighted, mechanics can't.

It's largely unproven in court, but it definitely tilts massively towards yes. However like you said "IP" can be copyrighted, so no beholders or mind flayers.

>do something completely new
This is nearly impossible. If you think you have something completely new that stands apart, you most likely haven't done enough research.

But to answer your question: I have an idea what my game is meant to achieve in GNS terms, something no other game has been able to quite deliver for me. While i have straight preferences on some issues (d100 as base dice) that only come down to personal taste, most of my game design is based on tailoring it towards the experience i want to deliver. I do that mostly by drawing on my somewhat extensive knowledge of a fair variety of systems. In addition to that i look into the PDFs of systems that I am not familiar with to see if there is anything in it that is more suitable to delivering the experience I seek than what I already got.

Always recreate. You need to fully understand what you're incorporating in all its implications.

You probably can but if you piss of the publisher and they have more resources than you, their legal team can probably bury you.
And you mean that only a given expression of an idea can be copyrighted, in this case the rules text, not the underlying concepts.

I mean only simple mechanics (like how do you distribute the next dungeon tiles when coming to a junction) not mechanics text (for example copying BS, WS, etc from GWs rulebooks)

Yes. Its why so many card games have the mechanic of turning a card sideways to show it did something, but not calling it "Tapping".

Just don't go around C&P from other books and you should be fine.

I see, thank you!

I make new things up, but I'm aware of the influences which brought the system along. If I need to explain something with "It's kind of like how in X you can Y", I'm usually unsatisfied with it. My games are not groundbreaking (although one could argue something of the like with Misfortune, but I won't), but I'm trying to make them holistically sound. Something many many games lack.

If I find a mechanic that's already in another game, though, I won't erase it just because. Even if a mechanic was word for word same in two games, the other mechanics change the context of the mechanic in a way that they are two completely different mechanics. I usually read the other game that has said mechanic and compare how it works in my game and that game. Often times the result is "Quite differently".

That's why I would say is wrong. Unless you really think that some mechanic fits word for word in your system better than anything you can come up with, it's not a good idea to outright steal. The game as a whole will become disjointed if the design comes from taking something cool another game does just because it works well in that game. It might not work so well in yours.

is both right and wrong. Making something completely new is pretty much impossible, but making something novel isn't. If you make a game that does ONE thing in a novel way, it's already novel, even if the rest of the game isn't completely new. You could say that every mechanic has been done, but combining them in novel ways is much more important than making something never seen before.

Otherwise user is right, design should always be incorporating elements that fit the idea of what kind of experience you want the players and GM to have. Making the game is a holistic exercise in some ways. If the mechanics don't interconnect (which is a sad reality with many frankensteined games), some things about the game might feel off.

>Always recreate. You need to fully understand what you're incorporating in all its implications.
The greatest waste of time. You don't need to smelt and tool a driveshaft to understand how one will work in a vehicle. You can understand a mechanic by reading it. Rule books expect even that.

It depends on how you define novel. If novel can be the description that accompanies a mechanic then you might be right. If novel is about a numeric system then you're probably wrong. I don't think there are any math formulas/graphs in games that can be called novel.

You could also substitute arbitration mechanics with a minigame but the game is likely not new, likely detracts, and adds little that can't be accomplished normally.

>Making something completely new is pretty much impossible, but making something novel isn't.
To be fair, I tried to to imply that with the paragraph on the experience that my game tries to deliver.

Yeah, recreating a rule isn't as complicated as smelting and retooling a driveshaft. You're recreating a rule in order to understand the implications/cascading effects of a mechanic. Caveat: I am talking about central game mechanics here, not the completely situational use of fluffy background skill X. You can steal those after a quick sanity check.

A single mechanic can be novel, if the method the system utilizes it is novel. But in the end, one novel thing in a game doesn't last long, but theoretically it is still novel.

When I played FFG Star Wars, and was introduced to the idea of free turn structure, where players and opponents have their turns, but they are not assigned to singular characters, I thought it was a single mechanic that was novel enough to call it novel. To me at least. There might have been a game that did it before, but I don't know any, so I will call it novel.

Originality is overrated, but novel concepts can come in all sizes. Even a unique way of handling the interaction between two mechanics can be novel.

Sorry, I might have jumped the gun there in that case. But nevertheless, you are right in the fact that originality is nigh impossible, and is not generally a good starting point. The more you study things, the more you understand why things are the way they are.

So in short, for all game designers. If you want to make something unique, read more. Making something unique comes from combining possible factors in a way that it speaks to the players, not from some celestial insight on something never seen before.

Are there any traditional tabletop rpgs that don't use hit points but still offer robust combat mechanics?

Not sure what you mean by robust but plenty systems do. For example, Harnmaster is a d100-based system in which each wound applies -1d10 or -1d10+10 or -1d10+20 to all rolls (plus various other effects like shock, amputation, instant death).

So I'm trying to dream up a card game where each player controls a group of travelers that arrive in a city of religious worship, a pilgrimage of sorts. The core idea is for all the characters have interlocking agendas which must be completed (perhaps in segments) until a certain foretold religious event takes place to receive their blessings. Characters shall play their strengths and fight their fears to maintain the course to salvation. This is done through variety of location cards, persons cards, event cards etc.
But I'm running into some problems and doubts:
- the idea seems like its bound to lead into multiplayer solitaire. I want a healthy spirit of competition to be there too. How do I intensify player interaction without introducing violence mechanics? If possible, I'd like to avoid things like HP or DMG entirely.
- could the players feel alienated, perhaps even annoyed, to fulfil the agendas of imaginary persons instead of their own? This is a core idea, I want the cards that aren't just "X/X, does Y" with a fancy picture, but have real personality and personal style, but I fear that this might backfire horribly
- is it a mistake to rely entirely on cards? To confess, I really dislike board games with actual big, chunk boards filled with counter clutter and shit ton of token to represent every fart. Ideally, I'd like to have as little stuff as possible and the city to exist within shared imagination.

Hey all, I'm that guy from the last thread with the stamina dice pool based d6 rpg.

For a high lethality game, what is a good way of handling crits? 2x damage? Automatic maximum damage? Critical hit chart?

I've been thinking of implementing a D66 chart for crits (think the Chaos Space Marines mutation table) but I worry it would cause a lot of standstill to roll the dice and flip to the chart every time a crit is scored. But I am a big fan of an unpredictable element to combat which keeps players on their toes knowing one bad hit could potentially lop off a finger or cause the character to get bowled over. What are your thoughts for adding that x element to combats and critical hits?

Remember to keep a leash on your variety autism. SImpler is always better. Even if yoou want to implement the crit effect table, keep it small and meaningfull.

Perhaps condensing it to a 2d6 crit table would be more efficient? 12 base effects with a few more past 12 for consistent crits or added modifiers? Anything 13+ would be incredibly devastating.

Just make sure it is streamlined and fast. One roll, doesn't matter what dice, and the effects visible on a single page/piece of paper/stone tablet to be discerned at a single glance. Max damage/double damage can even be a part of it.

Is it possible to make a setting / system that's both high fantasy and features powerful magic (IE magic items, floating islands, powerful summoning) but also with a sense of realism and danger (permanent injury, risk of death even at high levels)?

My first idea is to put a limit on the way magic works, especially in terms of healing. I really like the WHFRP 3 system for magic, but would definitely cap limits oflife energy in a way to keep healing virtually nonexistent, and necromancy rare / mysterious / powerful.

Thoughts or suggestions?

All the high magic/floating islands were done in the golden age prior, and the knowledge is lost. Now all that is left are work arounds.

Honestly, I don't think It's possible to balance, either high fantasy powerful magic turns your game into a happy meal or you slide so far into grimdark territory you become the next Lawrence.

Giving it a skim, well done. Take a look at Call of Pripyat's artefacts for maybe a different take, I think you're using the SotC artifacts.
I think you should take a bit of liberty and have weirder artefacts that suppress hunger or something.

I dislike the skills and d20 in general, but that's my pet peeve you most likely wanted them done that way. Maybe condense climbing and running into athletics, jumping and balance into acrobatics? Hide and Move Silently into Stealth?

There is very little here that hasn't been done before, but your presentation is great and everything looks great. Good luck user.

I like that, and I think I have a few ideas already in place to set it apart from something like Numenara.
I don't get the happy meal thing, and I don't know who Lawrence is.

I'm just trying to build a world where summoning a dragon tier threat is possible, but so is your soul getting torn to shreds if you mess up. Heroically jumping across a 30 ft chasm is possible for a legendary fighter, but so is falling and ending your story right there.

Being a high level is earned and respected because it's completely possible that you could have died at any point.

Thanks. The premise was to keep close to SOC thematically. I know DND skills are one big controvesy, and thought about pathfinderisation, but I am monitoring what is used/not used in the campaign so far.
The wounders that an active campaign does to your developement. It's a great feel.

You just have to make the need cards spread out among the players+any other source you might have. If supply is limited, the competition will come naturally.

What exactly you use for crits doesn't matter. Your damage system as a whole is more impactful at creating the lethality you want. Just don't make it to easy to fully one shot a player (100-0). High lethality is fun because you survive by the skin of your teeth, not because you vaporize on exposure.

Thread died before I could save it, but this is good.

It's not possible, high fantasy magic relies on suspension of disbelief which is a contrary goal to realism. You can shift between the two states but they can't coexist in the same instance.

To shift you need to answer the question why if all powerful magic exists does it not get used to solve all problems. You can heavily restrict casting of magic but then have to explain why if magic is so hard is there an abundance of permanent magic items and floating islands. Most of the time it leads to some facetious post-apocalyptic explanation.

A similar but not the same problem is with describing wishes. The tradition is understanding that the wish will be grants within reason, using what seems like normal means, tho often to the detriment of the wisher. They wish to be rich (to help their family), nothing happens so they go to bed that night, the next morning they've inherited a fortune because their entire family died of a freak accident.

My intent is to have a player potentially be able to be felled by a few good hits, but give them all sorts of measures of counter play.

The game is primarily about stamina management, and you may spend it for offensive or defensive actions. From attacking on your turn to attempting to parry dodge or block and attack on your opponents turn, your stamina management is the most important part. If you want to swing all out on your turn, you can, but if that doesn't kill, or if there's more enemies, you'll be a sitting duck of a target to get whomped.

A great sword attack can easily chunk a players life total down, but they can spend stamina reserves to circumvent getting cleaved into two pieces. Clever positioning and team play is also key.

But yes I do want to evoke the feeling to the players that any one wrong move could be their last. I want players to play smart and to respect the violence of combat.

That's not an entirely correct way of looking at it.

user explained in their post that what they want is high magic with high variance.
>I'm just trying to build a world where summoning a dragon tier threat is possible, but so is your soul getting torn to shreds if you mess up. Heroically jumping across a 30 ft chasm is possible for a legendary fighter, but so is falling and ending your story right there.

That is easily attainable. Lets make a theoretical: d20 is often seen as a high variance die so lets use that. Lets also make our core mechanic d20+mod. The key to high variance is high random spread with low mod impact. Now, because characters need to be heroic, the tangible difference between each skill will be great. Lets say that our greentext Hero has a jump skill of 10, which means he can jump at 20ft at any time (2ft per Jump skill). The d20 itself roll adds 1ft for every point. So, greentext hero has 50% chance to jump a 30ft chasm. Likewise, greentext caster needs to make a Spellcraft check to cast any spell. The DC for a spellcraft check is 10+Spell Level (1-10). Greentext caster has a Spellcraft skill of 10, so summoning a dragon (level 10 spell) is also 50%. High power, high variance.

Note that it has little inherent to do with the mechanics. Its all about how you value each tier of progression. The greater the gaps between power levels, the higher power you can get. The more numbers on a die, the more variance you can get. The lower the mods, the less they impact the final result. The rest is fluff.

>Most of the time it leads to some facetious post-apocalyptic explanation.

I don't know about that. In my head I'm picturing a world that does have high level, reality warping, cosmic entity summoning, unstable Chaos type magic.

After enough time, civilizations are bound to get wiped out on accident, destroyed in wars, and constantly pulling itself down like a proverbial bucket of crabs.

That's what I'm meaning when there's always a chance for death and grievous harm, but still in a world that has veritable amounts of raw magic energy woven through it.

That's some great insight user!

I was thinking of going the old WHFRP route (which this was partially influenced by) and using a d100, and going with increments of 5/10 for easy math.

It's so easily attainable that if you just want a system as user described then simply write it down. In which case the question wouldn't even need an answer since user already explained what it is.

As for your explanation consider that a d20 doesn't produce a lot of variance at all. Using modifiers as how your explained further limits the impact of the roll, a 10 as you suggested would account for half the maximum output of a d20. For a mod 0 character the opposing check would need to be 10 for a fair chance, for the mod 10 character the opposing check would need to be 20 to be evenly fair. If the check is fair the the mod 10 character then it is impossible for the mod 0 character, if the check is fair for the mod 0 character then it is trivial for the mod 10 character. Systems like that as you know are highly predictable and either lend to overcoming by overleveling or fishing for critical success/failure.

If the user wanted such a system then it would definitely be a non question they posted. I personally happen to believe that user did have a question which was concerned about realism with high fantasy magic, which I answered correctly and factually.

You can dream up any kind of world you like, maybe a world where the power of magic per day is defined by how many babies burp after sunrise. So the power wanes during the winter and after times of depopulation.

It wont be realistic however, you can't reconcile realism with reality warping magic. Reality warping is by definition not realistic, notice it's the same word real.

See, now this is here I feel like we're starting to have some semantic differences. I wholly believe that a high fantasy / high magic world can coincide in a system or universe where wilderness survival, death being a real possibility in each combat, and long recovery periods are almost mandatory for recovering health.

Magic is unknown and unwieldy. The focus of the system is high risk = high reward.

It can exist in such a universe but as I said before you then have to answer those questions. Why in a world of harsh environments and untamed wilderness is magic not an easy solution?

Why hunt and forage instead of summoning food and water?
Why make came instead of summoning a mansion?
Why do armies fight if mages can destroy them?
Why do countries train armies of warriors instead of mages?
Why can't magic be used for all healing?

All of those questions that follow and many more. You have to drum up a reason why magic is not the number 1 dominant skill and solution for all problems.

There is also no real world example of a thing which is so unknown and unwieldy but at the same time is used to great effect. That's where the post apocalyptic descriptions usually come in, the ancients yadda yadda, magic, and then the gods, but humanity is great, and then forbidden lore from the olde ones playpen.

I appreciate all the help and will have to do some soul searching / question answering. This is definitely gonna help me build this world out. I always struggle between balancing between game designing and world building though.

As far as the system goes, I am using the WHFRP magic as a Base, which involves rolling a number of d10 up to your magic skill to beat a target number, with negative effects on doubles/triples.

I'm actually using the same mechanic for martial combat, where extra benefits occur on doubles / triples. The idea being that most mundane action and choices are always more consistent, while more fantastical elements (like magic and aforementioned green text hero's epic leap) coming with a higher risk.

You should read up on how some other settings handled the issues and how some systems tried to balance realism with high magic. D&D is the benchmark so you should look into it's history with magic.

Dragonlance: I think didn't have clerical magic because the gods left. In other words an apocalypse style explanation.

Dark Sun: gave negative effects to arcane magic for destroying nature. The gods left, and clerical magic was given by dragon kings that were basically tyrants in a dying world with high risks. In other words an apocalypse style explanation.

Ravenloft: had limits placed by the dark lords that ruled a specific domain. For the Gothic Earth supplement casting magic would make power checks and possibly lead the character to becoming a monster or inviting horror. A mystic explanation.

Forgotten realms: had an apocalyptic event where old magic failed because a mage became a god and went mad. Magic is then tightly controlled which leads to the "weave" and so on.

In comparison to current editions of D&D you can also look at AD&D 2e which had more checks and balances than any other system I know.
1. Base int score determines both the max spells learned, and "chance" to successfully learn a spell. The chance is only rolled once, failing means you can't learn it.
2. Starting spells were also suggested to be assigned randomly.
3. Experience progression for wizard was much slower.
4. Rare and expensive components in order to be cast. Some spells would cost time or years of your life.
5. Magic item creation checks were iffy and would also result in permanent loss of ability points.
6. Vancian system and the need for a spell books (heavy, flammable) with a few spells each.

If you want magic to feel different then don't focus too much on dice, focus on how it impacts people living in the world, the utility it does/doesn't have and why. If only summoning magic works the reason is brokering/controlling other world entities, for example.

Don't worry thread, I'll save you:

Stat him (in your system)

I feel like a lot of standard fantasy kinda handwaves all that because it's kinda superfluous.

It's [magic] is either limited in who can use it, limited in who can master it, or limited in its ability to do those things in such a controlled manner.

As far as real world example, magic in the form of technology is very rare in large parts of the world, and I'm just referring to luxury items like internet and cell phones. Just having potable water, shelter, and sustenance is still a major problem in large parts of the world, and we're hundreds of years past where generic fantasy (that often features even trivial magic) simulates.

See, you're making assumptions about what magic can and can't do.

What if magic can't summon food and water?
What if magic can't summon a mansion?
How predictably can mages destroy armies?
How easy is it to train different kinds of troops?
What if magic can't heal?

Magic can be incredibly powerful, and it's not a new idea to think that magic might also be hard to control. Many, many people will opt for a lesser, more predictable outcome than fish for crits, assuming the risks are appropriate. I could go into some sports statistics supporting that very idea, but I imagine the full impact would be lost. If there's no risk or no opportunity cost, then yes, crit fishing is a quick solution. But what if the penalty for failure is usually death? All that time and effort spent getting to whatever level you attain is lost just because you wanted to conjure up some oatmeal. There's no reason magic has to replace all the mundane problems of society. In fact, were I designing this idea, I'd jump straight past the drudgery and into the higher level stuff immediately. Maximized Fireball is a 1st level spell. If you succeed, that's great, but failure makes you the spell's target. Such a spell caster might never get past level 5, just like our lord Gygax intended.

Thief archetype, investment into Power, Accuracy, and Magic Defense.

Not everyone sees the same things. What might be an easy answer for me won't be the same for someone else.

Also, 50% isn't necessarily fair. Las Vegas has done various studies about chance and perception, and they've determined the ideal range is a 60%-80% winrate. Less is too hard, more is too easy. Something worth remembering when you're calculating statistics and averages.

You're talking about the psychology of chance versus the numerical reality. The numbers in a system are things you can put in a formula or graph out. The number of tests of dice per game are usually frequent enough that each possible result will be represented multiple times in a single session.

The psychology of it all is interesting in how it can alter a player's behavior, for example with risk aversion.

There is no technology that is persistently rare yet invaluable. In fact in Africa they are having a so called smart phone revolution. You must consider that unchecked magic would necessitate a smart phone revolution all it's own.

If magic can't do things which are useful it begs a world builder the question, what magic then can do and why is it to be considered very powerful. If you can heal plants or mend broken items, why not seal a wound?

The example I give later gives a valid reason to these sorts of questions. If magic is limited to only summoning other worldly beings then it is either by their power or will that things can or cannot happen.

If you wish to make a system high fantasy high magic with abundance of magic items then I'm not making any unique assumptions other than you're using general ideas common in such systems. If you cast often, which is common in high magic settings, then you will roll frequently enough that a d10 or d20 is not random but had a level of expectancy. If your setting on the other hand is rare magic (not high fantasy/magic) then the "risk" argument becomes valid as a single spell cast per session on a d20 roll is certainly random, and if a lot is riding on the spell the tension could be dramatic.

the psychology was just an additional tidbit that was more useful for the whole thread, but still relevant to the discussion.

Now that I've thought about it more thoroughly...

Does being a game mechanic expert sound like something that would work as freelancer work? I recently put up my own company up, so I'm thinking of making some side money with my passion, crunch (or the lack thereof). As a kind of mechanics editor in a sense.

I'm quite eager here on /gdg/ to help other people with their mechanics, and I'm pretty comfortable about working out and fixing mechanics. And I've helped quite a lot of people here on /gdg/ in my years here.

So could I make money with this? I know many people think that they know what they're doing with games, but many games, even professional ones, are quite cryptic and horrifying.

Have a 90% complete game that I'd appreciate some feedback on.

Setting is basically the aftermath of conventional cyberpunk, the corporations are starting to collapse and you have a first Mad Max movie pre-apocalyptic sort of vibe. The solar system is getting colonized but no FTL, just advanced rockets giving transit times measured in weeks.

Mechanics are fairly basic, dice+attribute against DC. Used 3d20 take middle in order to round out the probability curve a little, also allowed me to throw in a few mechanics related to multiple dice. Hit and damage are combined into one roll.

I mean, people can already DM professionally. But just like monetizing our own games; you can make money, but I wouldn't quit my job for it.

Point. But I already founded my own company, so I'm not backing down now. Although, I live in a European welfare country, meaning I won't die even if it doesn't work out. I'm still a student, too, and in a country where degrees are free, so I have very little to lose on this.

I do have a fair bit of trust in myself and my capabilities, so I'll probably try to stay on this course.

>High power, high variance.
high risk, high player caution. they will simply not take that jump and seek another way around. a fly spell for example. simply put: if you introduce great risk, the players will choose simply less epic courses of actions unless you railroad them into it.

>d100

That depends entirely on other factors. Fly spells existing, character creation being slow and tedious, harsh (usually meta) penalties for dying...

Would it work in 3.5? Poorly. Would it work in other systems? Maybe. Could it work in a game specifically designed around it? Absolutely.

>Does being a game mechanic expert sound like something that would work as freelancer work

Oh Misfortunate, unless your a expert in deep throat there isn't any demand for systems designers.

Your best bet is producing a commercial product and earn beer money from sales.

>so I have very little to lose on this.
That's only true if intend on never trying again if you fail the first time, publishing a product that fails makes it that much harder for anybody to take you seriously the second time around.

To continue with this line of thought a good bet is adapting books and franchises with a medium cult following while keeping shoestring budgets.

It's damn depressing when you google the name of the author of a module your playing and find literally nothing about them.

>using a d100, and going with increments of 5/10 for easy math.
That's just the same as rolling a d20 though.

Don't know how to put this shit, but here it goes...
Arks of Humankind traveling through Noo-sphere, making an Exodus throughout the imaginary and unstable worlds, built on psyches of every living creature that ever lived. A dangerous world, to be sure. Lead by so-called "Messengers", people somehow gifted both aptitude to technology and divination, flocked people to themselves, showing both wonders and terrors of the Noo-sphere. The infinite resourses and infinite horrors, straight from their nightmares. When Noo-sphere fully invaded Earth, the Great Exodus movement arrived and locked the gate from Sphere to Earth, finding the promised land.

But that was thousand years ago. Choirs of indoctrinated people sing psalms of salvation, while the energy curciuts of their ancient Arks recharge for making another corridor to another nighmare world.

That was certainly unbearable to some people, and rebellion soon after followed. The Harkback movement set their goal on long-closed gate to Earth, rushing throught the collapsed ruins of broken worlds. The Commitee of Truth that overthrown the lying "Messengers" rules through democracy, a foolish step in the realm where feelings are material and nightmarish.

Some were fueled with lust for power and material gain and still remembered the promise of eternal satiation of resources and build the Empire of Sponge, as they could carve Noo-sphere as they see fit. But to combat feel-fueled monsters, they undergone mandatory cyborgisation, devoid of souls in the name of prosperity.

That was the lore, the crunch is envisioned like this:
A wargame, using d10s or d6s,(i'm inclined toward d10) where now the leadership is subtracted for every action, to represent the psychosis people endure while walking through dream-like realms. If the leadership or psychology stat is set to zero, they either stop for a rebreather or go batshit and rogue. They are ways to protect your mind, but outside the safety of Arks, they will eventually go mad.

Somebody has been reading to much Cherryh.

No close combat whatsoever. Any tests and rolls will be for shooting, psychology and taking hits, no saves of any kind (only in special equipments). The "magic" users are strictly bend on manipulation of the realm itself. As in they affect the terrain or summon the "Sense Scourge" the animalistic creatures, hostile to all sides, even the summoner. Buffing are only through terrain itself.

While the health points will be depleted with no armor saves, the medics and repairmen will be a priority in the field.

Also i'm taking a consideration for quasi-static warfare, Mobile units will be quite limited, but stationary turrets and artillery will be always available.

Objectives of the wargame will not be a total annihilation of enemy player, it will avail nothing in the end. But more along lines to building something or acquiring sufficient energy, capturing the territory or destruction of most Scourge.

Honestly, i don't know who the hell that is. If it has the horde of literal nightmares, that would be interesting.

Well, I was more like thinking about a service like what happens here on /gdg/, but on a professional level, not necessarily as a full-fledged system designer.

More like a game debugger in a sense, that I would go through a game and debug the fuck out of it.

I mean, you gotta keep making games until you strike gold. It's not like every game is meant for success. If you keep making them, most of the time at least one of them gains some kind of acknowledgement. If every game I make is at least decent and doesn't raise negative controversy, having made games that didn't succeed doesn't really devalue the ones that succeed.

No need to be so goddamn cynical about it. I'm making games on a real shoestring budget in case that something gets recognition and I can make a game with slightly higher budget, and the next one with slightly higher budget and so on. Hopefully something would catch enough that I could live off of it, but that's just a bonus.

And I really don't have anything to lose. I'm a student in my early 20s, with next to no loans and I live in a country where you can get welfare even if you have a company. And that's actual welfare, not some loan. If my company releases a game that doesn't sell, it doesn't matter. The development costs are next to none, mostly costing my free time.

Is it over complicated to have dice pools that grow in die size and number of die as you level up and progress? Everything starts at a d6, but as you get better at say melee weapons, your die grow. As you progress as a character, you're able to spend more die, etc

Do you mean like both ascending die type and pool size?

Depends on what you want to do with it. Entirely.

If there's some significance on why you want to do this mechanic (like have attributes raise the die type and skills raise the amount of dice, or vice versa) then go for it, if you can make it work without it breaking or making some playstyles unviable.

But know this: The central resolution mechanic is not a good place to start a game from. You can keep it in mind while you design the rest, but if something starts conflicting and you can't figure it out, the central resolution mechanic is usually the thing you should fix.

Not necessarily, it largely depends on how large your dice pools become, also don't forget most people only have a couple of large dice above d6 and are entirely unsuited to buckets.

If your mathematically oriented dice stepping can be used to to prevent the buckets scenario but it would get very tricky when difficulty checks come into play, It'd work a treat for damage numbers though.

Buckets?

Also, atm I'm working with a hard cap on how many can be rolled at once (right now it's four). The die also act like an energy reserve, so you might have 8, but negative effects can make you lose dice.

In some dice pool systems you can be literally throwing
15+ dice in a single roll, hence a bucket load of dice.

>but negative effects can make you lose dice.
Here's a personal opinion because I'm determined to keep the threat above page 7: I'm completely against subtracting from dice pools, it can result in a unwinnable scenarios where you neither have enough dice to attack or defend properly on the same turn.

Bump

>Wah~ I hate Class-based systems
>Switch to a point buy system that uses a complex system of requirements and defaults to replicate the exact same builds they could have chosen as a class
>Wow that's much better
How long do you think it'll take for them to figure out I've given them false choices?

But why?

Because you can either have point buy freedom edition or you can have game balance.

in a point-buy system i am not shaped by existing classes. i am looking at the setting and decide what i want to play in it. then i use the point-buy to build the character i want to play.

let's say i want to play a trader. what do i choose in D&D 5E PHB?

it is very easy for a GURPS GM to decline any specific build. why? because you don't have any class structure with fixed special abilities at fixed levels. or you can easily state that two advantages don't stack. sorry, dude.

balance-by-fiat > balance-by-design (which doesnt really work anyway)

I'm for a point buy system, but that example is stupid. Pick whatever class you want, background of guild artisan (or call it trader), and move on from there. Go trade stuff.

so my trader can go frenzy now? or cast spells? or wear heavy armour and use all kinds of weapons?

nah, the shoe-horning you proposed is extremely awkward. the example above is entirely valid.

Chael sonnen is a real estate agent, prominent podcaster, and a world class mixed martial artist. Are you saying that one aspect of someone's life restricts all their abilities to that single thing?

A barbarian can be designated to trade with other tribes or even in the city by his clan. A wizard can be an entrepreneur and sell his own enchanted wares. Being a trader doesn't restrict you from punching someone in the face.

That depends on what is being bought with the points. If you're just shelling out raw numeric advantages for points like D&D, then it will either be an unbalanced puzzle for the character creating player to figure out, or will be so perfectly balanced that it doesn't matter what points you choose.

But if points buy something non-numeric, like a noncombatant NPC friend, it's a different dynamic. The DM must flex his creative chops to flesh it out, and the player has to make his proposed actions plausible if he wants to use that to get an advantage. The way GURPS handled point buy for NPCs was like this.

i don't want to be any of this. i want to be a straight trader.

This.

Turning this to a game design related view, there are things that should be interconnected with a character and things that shouldn't. Not everything has to be related to a singular aspect, whether on the character sheet or in the design space. A Trader Barbarian is a different character to Sailor Barbarian, who is different from a Shamanistic Barbarian. Same range of options to deal with combat, but different experiences offered for the game as a whole. Likewise, not every option needs to be viscerally supported. If your game is about combat more than it is about earning money, then being a trader is not the focus of the game anyway, to keep using 5e as an example. Now, if we're playing Rogue Trader then the dynamics change. Now you're playing a game where being a Trader matters. Making Trader an equivalent class option in DnD is not following their design goals, and supporting such would be less than optimal design. If you want to play an idea then you're free to play a system that supports that idea, but the designer shouldn't be expected to support ideas that don't fulfill their design goals.