/gdg/ Game Design General

My problem seems to be more that I try to keep it too slim to the point that it doesn't really make sense. I've settled on a L5R r/k base for most of the mechanics

>tfw wrote out a setting for a board/card game
>realized I don't know how to make games

Well shit

You're a lot further than some people believe it or not. If you couldn't even realize your limitation you would have probably described to us that your super original game uses 2d6 and three stats.

Funny thing is, I already have armor cards. They don't do anything, but if they're drawn as damage they have a high probability of going back into the deck.

I have considered replacing the random draw with a roll, but given the variation in deck sizes finding a quick and simple rolling mechanic is proving difficult.

Don't feel guilty; disclose your system as a hack for Legends of the Wulin and keep going.

I mean, it's more of an issue of whether the system you're hacking will provide what you want or not.

Hmmm, now that I think about it you have a better point than I initially thought. I might be able to have my cake and eat it too.

Damage could be drawn from the unrevealed cards, which would make it random, or from the revealed cards, which would be targeted. This would encourage players to keep those really powerful/important cards under wraps until the moment is right.

It would also create more card types like Scanners that can forcibly reveal cards or Jammers that could toss them back into the face down pile.

>Have you had a "less is more" realization while designing your current game?
I've actually come to the complete opposite realization, my game began with the philosophy "less is more" and moved towards Shadowrun level of crunchiness. I don't know what the correct terminology is but I've started called my new approach "selectionism"; combat has two completely different rules sets, one against mooks uses a narrativist approach and the other a strategic ruleset to use against BBEG's.

>combat has two completely different rules sets, one against mooks uses a narrativist approach and the other a strategic ruleset to use against BBEG's

That actually sounds really interesting. A lot of games can get bogged down with mook battles and having them be more narrative is a great idea.

I've been working on making them both internally consistent, especially when it comes down to damage, I'm thinking of every ability having a static damage and a roll damage to further increase the speed at which mook battles resolve but I can't decide on how to typeset it to avoid bias, example: 3(1d6) or 1d6(3), or to hell with being terse and going with "deals 3 damage or 1d6 damage".

1d6/3

Megaphones. Cheating or Power ups?

Final boss

I'm just a random DM, where's a good resource for making battle-maps for my game? I currently use campaign cartographer, but it's a bulky and annoying system.

>want to make a game with a 2d6 core mechanic
>want to have the 10-average ability score numbers of D&D
>tfw aesthetics is getting in the way of making something actually good
>tfw see something actually good and don't like it because the states feel weird
This is what triggers me about Barbarians of Lemuria, for example. I'm sure it's a good game but the stats "averaging" at 1, and 0 being like an 8 in D&D, just triggers me for some reason. It feels wrong. feels like the average stat should be 0 or 10 or some sort of "round" number.

Also I thought of a d100 system where each time you roll "doubles" on your skill check, you improved. Or maybe only when you roll 00 on your check. Thoughts? I'd probably have to modify it for combat seeing as you make way more attack rolls than anything else. But maybe people would want combat to level up faster. It'd be really really slow advancement but it could be kinda fun for a "realistic" game. I used to hate %-dice-based systems but now I feel like trying to design one for some reason.

Call of Cthulhu is a d100% system with incremental skill increases.

Whenever you roll under your skill you succeed. Higher skill means more successes. Whenever you succeed you fill in a little box next to that skill. Up to three of these boxes can be filled in at a time.

Whenever you have down time you can test that skill, clearing a little box with each test. Rolling over your skill increases it by 1.

Thus, the more skilled you are the more likely you are to succeed, but the harder it is to improve. The less skilled you are the easier it is to fail, but when you do succeed you are more likely to learn and get better.

As for average stats being 10, I've always preferred the idea that the average should be 0. Positive numbers mean you're above average, negative numbers mean you're a scrub.

I now that feel. Especially with derived stats.

>primary stat is clean
>derived stat is clean
>derivation formula is simple, logical and balanced
pick two

So cards or dice.

I feel like there's a third option, but I can't imagine what

Cards and Dice

dominoes
coins
mikados
tangram set
throwing bones

>Mecha Game
>defend against and fight your opponent with dominoes

This could work

Every D100% system I've looked at character advancement was ridiculously fast, you could often completely master a skill within a single session. I think it was Mythras solved this by introducing exp and requiring you to spend it to give you a chance of raising a skill%.

Don't forget these!

>it's best to actually start the game without character creation. The game has a mechanic for retroactively changing or adding traits and stats.
I like this but isn't your game rules-lite? I couldn't imagine this approach working for something with the complexity of 3.5e.

Another approach is how traveller handled character creation by making it a fun mini-game onto itself.

what do you use in its stead?

>primary stat is clean
>derivation formula is simple, logical and balanced
picked

>d100
>you could often completely master a skill within a single session
which other d100 systems have you looked at, i dont know any. neither CoC, nor Harnmaster, nor Warhammer work like that. not even Rolemaster.

oy vey

Well, I meant to familiarize to my game's systems. It wouldn't work in other games, of course.

>i dont know any
Wasn't this a issue in earlier editions of RuneQuest? if you got lucky and rolled a bunch of successful advancement checks you could accidentally catapult ahead of the party.

I've always thought about having multiple ways of chargen, one a classic D&D style of going down a checklist and the other inspired by Numenera's "I am a [Learned] [Wizard] who [Exists partially Out of Phase]".

bump.

I always drop in here looking for exotic game aspects. This thread has had a few. Does anyone have any other exotic ideas? Methods, mechanics, orders of play, gameplay mediums?

...

Children's board games spinners are also under appreciated.

Anybody have any experience with a strict day-by-day game flow that requires players to ration their free time?

Also It's a shame theses threads aren't sustainable, they're among my favourite on Veeky Forums.

In my game I break free time into:
Short Rest: from 2 up to 6 hours.
Long Rest: from 6 up to 12 hours.
Short Downtime: from 1 up to 3 days.
Long Downtime: from 1 week up to 1 month.
Time-Skip: More than 2 months, but is equivalent to 3 Long Downtimes mechanic-wise.

Players can use that time to "gather resources" and "train skills" off-scene (if their characters use the free time to just enjoy life they also must get something that will help in the next adventure or some amount of meta-currency)

Always going to be a niche thread. At least the last one did hit the bump limit, though.

I'm looking to make a game that is heavily (obviously) influenced by the following, and would like to know if there's a system(s) that is pretty close to this:

Magic: Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e
> Magic is volatile
> can choose to overcast
> No spell slots / limits per day. Balanced by chance of chaos occurring with failed spells.

Combat: Sword & Scoundrel / Blade of the Iron Throne
> Tactical
> Straightforward but with plenty of options
> Gritty and based in realism

Social Conflict: Song of Fire & Ice RPG
> Detailed, structured
> Defined goals and can be approached tactically similar to combat

Theme: Flash Gordon / John Carter / He-Man / Sword & Planet

Player agency / worldbuilding similar to things like Circles and Weather Watcher from Burning Wheel / Mouseguard

Any suggestions or direction for something in this vein?

I'm working on something like that. I've been stealing ideas from places like AngryDM and West Marches as I uncover more about the new direction I'm taking my brew. They all either mention or allude to monitoring the passage of time as being necessary to the style of game that they're running/talking about. Fortunately for me, I already had a scaling system originally built for freeform magic which I can take advantage of and apply it to the passage of time.

The gist is; magic is made by adding effects and metamagic changes to create the final result of a spell. Each spell was what you could reasonably accomplish in 1 round's worth of time, therefore the the complexity or meatiness of the spell was limited by MP. Outside of combat, a spells only cost would be in time, using new units of time to replace the MP pricing. A spell that lasts minutes or instantly affects your party might take hours to cast. A spell affecting a small kingdom might cast in decades worth of time, and a spell that affects a universe might take millennia. As you can see, the time costs grow exponentially with time in addition to the exponential growth of aoe metamagics, so aoe buff or damage spells start getting out of hand quickly. You're required to spend unbroken, full concentration to cast a spell, so the scaling places a lot of spells outside the abilities of natural humans (no eating, sleeping, falling over allowed).

contd.

So with that out of the way, lets make it topic relevant: We do the same thing in real life in regards to travel or whatnot. We'll describe walks in terms of minutes or plane rides in terms of hours. Actions will take up slices of time depending on the scope of those actions. If you're dungeon crawling, then increments of 10mins sounds pretty good. Actions can either be instantaneous or take 10mins. Once everyone has declared a 10min action, you can resolve those actions and increment the dungeon accordingly. Travel between villages or hunting might happen in increments of 30mins. Travel between kingdoms might happen in increments of hours or days. Often these things exist in current games (3.5 comes to mind with many never used tables), but the system isn't built around the passage of time being concrete. My system will do that, so all these numbers will have actionable meaning. Resource management becomes important as each small or large increment reduces rations, or potentially adds exhaustion. Hunting can allow you to avoid using your rations, but it will make the journey take longer. Even the quintessential Wandering Monster becomes relevant as after every large increment you can roll to see what kind of encounter happens.

Such a system is easily hackable into your game of choice, but since I'm in the business of creating games for my own enjoyment, I can afford to bake this system into the core of the game from the beginning.

Also, I don't know exactly how much relevance it has to your question, but I'm sure there's something you can use

that particular combo is probably unique.

Do you prefer numbers dividable by 6 or by 10?

>Write up a quick summary of what the body of my dream system would be
>Surprised that it *kind of* already exists
>Love it's system of body part dismemberment and reattachment to your own
>Love the the dead world, taken over by pesudo-zombise aesthetic - minus the obvious taboo
>Love that it's got a memory system that helps build character story
>Hate that it had to be fucking Nechronica.

Like, honestly, it has everything I want in a fucking RPG and I normally don't mind anime systems.

But fucking lord almighty, Dead Zombie Dolls aren't what I was going for.

Are there any good alternatives to use for reference before I attempt to base my hack?

Chits system, like dirtside by gzg uses

I love the cards damage system, limits the number of models on the table but it's a great idea though

Depends on what you want to do. 60 is a great number because it has so many common divisions: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, etc. Obviously works well with units of time, so you can decide for yourself whether you want 10 rounds a minute or 10 second rounds.

You probably don't want to read this but I seriously wouldn't recommend this style of magic, it's only enjoyable for a couple of sessions, nearly everybody that tries DCC gets really annoyed at the wild magic effects after a short while.

That's what my gut is telling me as I'm writing this system out, but my mind is telling me nothing is unique.

I absolutely do want to read it! That's interesting though. It's weird because as long as I've been online, the general public opinion is that "wild magic" is usually less than desirable, yet every table I've played at typically enjoys those mechanics either in one-shots or the handful of long campaigns I've run and played. I appreciate the input though.

Don't forget to give Ryuutama a read over, it's a really good travel-time based system that doesn't rely on units of time as much as a natural progression of activities to give the players a sense of time.

I believe the difference in attitudes is that people online are way more confident in role-playing so they naturally gravitate towards more serious campaign settings, people that aren't confident or are heavily influenced by podcasts gravitate towards humorous campaign settings, DCC rewards the latter and makes the former next to impossible because the second your Wizard starts casting a spell butterflies fly out of his ass and fields of talking corn starts growing.

Do you think it's the nature of the tables and their effects or is it the random chance of unintended consequences (IE something min-maxers hate it).

As for the former, I was planning on sticking with serious or realistic effects similar to WHFRP's Chaos manifestation or even something like this: lastgaspgrimoire.com/do-not-take-me-for-some-turner-of-cheap-tricks/

I like to think of myself as a roleplayer first, and I dislike it because most characters would never use it.
Thing is these wild magic things are always balanced with the players in mind. Balanced for the session.
But the risk gets unrealistic for characters and you start asking yourself why the mages don't have killed themselves during the required practice in the first place or are curse riddled bundles of awkwardness from the get go.

>Do you think it's the nature of the tables and their effects or is it the random chance of unintended consequences
Both, the random nature of unintended consequences feeds into the nature of tables.

Sorry, I meant the tone / theme of the tables themselves. I hate the "caster spews bubbles whenever they try to speak for 1 minute' as much as the next guy, but I like the more horrific / nightmarish type stuff like "Your jaw dislocates and your throat dangles like a crop. Your jaw now hinges on over-elasticised tendons and your throat can stretch and swell like that of a pelican or frog."

>"Your jaw dislocates and your throat dangles like a crop. Your jaw now hinges on over-elasticised tendons and your throat can stretch and swell like that of a pelican or frog."
They'll play it like we're running a evil dead campaign. This is why you see rape, child murder and other overly villainous stuff pop up all the time in campaigns and fantasy novels, because It's the only way to get modern western players to take anything seriously because those topics are very difficult to take humorously.

Never heard of anything close.
I agree with the love/hate of the aesthetic.
Just hack Nechronica and judiciously refluff.

How about typesetting it [1d6 | 3] ?

This desu.

There was a game released that was just 5e with pugs or some shit. And it made money.

You should be alright.

>That actually sounds really interesting. A lot of games can get bogged down with mook battles and having them be more narrative is a great idea.

I like that idea a lot actually. I wonder how players would react to big boss fights that feature an objective, a major threat (in the form of a big monster), and mooks/minions.

Wanting to take an action to activate / deactivate / interact with the objective? Make the appropriate roll. Want to square up against the big bad? Make your combat roll. Want to deal with the mooks and minions? Make a roll to see how many you fell, or however you want to deal with them. I feel like that can deal with the artificial difficulty of including them in the "boss" battle in the first place.

Looking for ideas. My system has 4 stats; Strength, Dexterity, Mind, and Willpower. Aside from their passive combat bonuses, they all have an active use in combat ASIDE from attacking or defending.

Dexterity is used to Move; engaging or disengaging from enemies, getting into cover, dodging incoming attacks, and so on.

Mind is used to Recall; remembering or noticing facts about an enemy to get combat bonuses against them for a short while.

Willpower is used to Shrug Off; ending ongoing status effects that harm your character.

What should Strength do? It has to be something that's widely applicable and is as useful as repositioning in battle, learning enemy powers, or ending negative conditions.

>brute force through a defense
>modify the battlefield
>pin the enemy

ignore the deendeefag. the warhammer system is quite popular, as evidenced by the 40K RPGs. I'd look at Rogue Trader or Deathwatch though, which feature a much updated and improved version compared to Warhammer 2E/Dark Heresy 1E.

What exactly do they do differently or could you direct me to a pdf or snapshot of those rules specifically?

>the warhammer system is quite popular
I'm a huge fan of WHRP but to pretend It's popular ain't right, in fact its the literal exact opposite of popular, especially fantasy.

Strength is used to Overpower opponents or obstacles? Force them into opposed tests or something.

I like the 'modify the battlefield' idea, and the brute force you and bring up. I'll try and see if that can work.

you roll d100 versus Willpower plus 5xPsy Rating as bonus. you have 3 options for casting: Fettered, Unfettered, Push.
Unfettered is standard. when you roll doubles you have to roll d100 on Psychic Phenomenon table. if you roll really high on that, you land on the much worse Perils of the Warp table.
Fettered is save to cast but Psy Ratingl is halved (Power Level also affects damage, range, etc.)
Pushed means Psy Rating plus 3 but also a definite Psychic Phenomenon table roll.

very advanced Psykers get best of 2 on Psychic Phenomena table, making it MUCH safer. and them much more powerful. lower risk = you can afford to Push more.

it's one of the major rpg systems out there. it has its two generals on Veeky Forums, /wfg/ and /40kg/. when someone asks here for alternatives to D&D, it's always among the first answers. in spite of being dead for years (and being revived via zweihänder).

>it's one of the major rpg systems out there
Yeah, you don't know shit, at least put in a bit of research. Dark Heresy and WHRP sold so poorly FFG didn't renew their license so GW had to literally beg the guys who publish the Doctor Who Roleplaying Game to make a upcoming fourth edition.

>icv2.com/articles/games/view/15715/top-q2-2009-rpgs
>icv2.com/articles/games/view/17571/top-five-rpgs-q1-2010
>icv2.com/articles/games/view/17571/top-five-rpgs-q1-2010
literally 60 seconds research.

>Dark Heresy and WHRP sold so poorly FFG didn't renew their license so GW had to literally beg the guys who publish the Doctor Who Roleplaying Game to make a upcoming fourth edition.
>games that sell poorly at the end of their edition lifecycle are not major games!
sigh. also, FFG was bought by a competitor of GW, Asmodee. that prompted the non-renewal of license.

Although this isn't technically a game aspect I'm going to go ahead and blog because the thread needs a bump.

I know many of you never package your game for distribution but something that's cool some Asian games do is having the first 2/3rd of the book being a game transcript called a replay; not enough western developers explain how they personally run their table.

If Dexterity is moving yourself (probably reactively), then surely Strength is the ability to move other objects, right?

This is a nice addition. Even if its just quick rundowns on specific sections of the rules. Its pretty common in miniatures games, usually a section has some pictures and diagrams showing how the rules work. But that's because they have physical items to do that with.

Beep beep super serious game design coming through

So in a system I'm playing I want to convert d6 roll to a d20 roll (so that more situational modifiers can be applied). I'm garbage at math, so I don't even know how to google the right answer. Can someone help me here?

Current rolls:
>Dangerous Area d6 every 20 minutes with 1 in 6 chance of encounter
>Less Dangerous Area d6 every 60 minutes with with 1 in 6 chance of encounter.

The desired rolls can be rolled at any increment of 10 minutes, so long as it's a d20. This probably won't transfer cleanly so if you're rounding, round in favor on no encounter.

1/6 = x/20
x=20/6
x=3+1/3

Has anyone used roll and keep dice for a homebrew? It's a very strong part of L5R and I'm always tempted to crib it.

I'm working on a medium-crunch game with interchangeable fighters/stats ala Persona. I want to keep it relatively simple with probably 4 tiers of power level (correlating to Page, Knight, Queen, King of Tarot lore), but more lateral progression from customising and fusing towards useful combinations. Fighter tiers cap the power levels of abilities learned, but there is slight room for improvement as dice rolled can go above dice kept to represent strong and narrowly-skilled characters (as skills cost points, which are taken from a pool determined by tier as well, therefore giving you less points for other abilities). It's a nice, soft way to differentiate power levels without implementing an ungainly amount of math.

I accidentally used the word "skill" and "ability" interchangeably here. I have no skill system to speak of.

literally Numenera. in Numenera the GM sets a difficulty between 1 and 10. the DC is 3x that number. roll d20 (plus some modifiers) and beat that to pass. (in fact some have called Numenera a glorified d6 system.)

so 3 in 20 is the way to go.

survival bump.

How does /gdg/ feel about sports based games?

>tfw ausfag
>will never get a good australian football board game
I was thinking a Command & Colours system might work

i like bloodbowl. but generally sport games is more the domain of /v/

Tfw my game uses 1d6 and 3 stats

how much difference is there to freeform?

Wouldn't be the first time I've seen RL voice factor into in-game mechanics. There's a tabletop for a wizard-school where the incantations are in Korean, and the main mechanic is using a voice-recognition app to see if you correctly pronounced the words. If you did, the spell succeeds.

Hey /gdg/, been a while since I've visited. Been making great headway in my game, had a very successful weekly playtest game over the Summer. I have most of my skeleton pretty well set and am now in the process of plotting out what all I need to fill it. I'm currently wrestling with two separate issues which you might be able to provide some insight on:

1. Armor is a pain in the butt. My system involves three different physical damage types (slashing, bashing, piercing) and the idea was that different armors could have different defensive values for each of these (armor=DR). However, I am not much of a history buff and knew very little about how armor actually functioned. This led me to do a bunch of research and make which while informative, gave a lot of conflicting information (people can't agree on how maille fairs against piercing, no one knows how lightning hitting armor works, etc.). Ultimately, my game is high-fantasy and realism doesn't matter too much as long as it makes sense on a surface-level. Balance, however, IS very important to me. One of my main take-aways from that thread was that realistically, armor does not impede movement in combat very much, but it is very tiring to wear for long periods. I'm debating if I want an Anima-style "Use Armor" skill which addresses this, such that individuals who want superior armor will need to invest in a skill to be able to use such efficiently. Or should everyone be able to use every armor, as long as you can lift it? Or do I simply increase the in-combat movement penalties to balance heavier armor, realism be damned?

(cont)

2. My system features four distinct supernatural systems, each of which encompasses a number of individual disciplines (IE Sorcery includes Energy, Force, Light and Matter, atm). I'm trying to decide how many disciplines per system, and how many abilities I should have for each of these disciplines. My plan was to have "full disciplines" which characters could enter at character creation and, if desired, continue progressing all the way through graduation (think base-class equivalent). Meanwhile "half disciplines" would be more specialized and have more requirements, and as such be a bit more potent within their limited scope, with only enough support to fill a portion of a character's progression (prestige-class equivalent). My game features 12 "quarters," where courses (which grant abilities) are picked each quarter.

My initial idea had been to have 18 courses for full disciplines, 9 courses for half-disciplines, and a total of 4 full and 4 halves for each of the 4 supernatural systems. These course numbers would allow, for example, one course from a Full discipline every quarter while only taking 2/3rds of offered courses, meaning there was still a fair amount of choice involved. However, this comes out to... (18*4+9*4)*4=432 unique courses.

I'm considering toning this down to 12 courses and 6 courses respectively, which reduces the course count to 288, which seems far more manageable. The down-side is that it makes mono-type characters less viable, due to having a smaller selection within a single specialty.

>(slashing, bashing, piercing) and the idea was that different armors could have different defensive values for each of these (armor=DR). However, I am not much of a history buff and knew very little about how armor actually functioned.
literally harnmaster. upper right. blunt/edge/pierce.

Thanks for the added data, I've actually dug through Harnmaster and Anima as part of the inspiration for this system. My conundrum in point one, however, was less the individual values but rather how best to balance heavier armor.

I think balancing defense in general is more difficult than offense. It cant be too good or the game turns into a slog where no one can do anything to each other. If its too weak then it becomes pointless to invest in and you're left with rocket tag.

Have you considered going with a purely rock paper scissors approach? Instead of having one superior armor that requires skill points or has a movement penalty you could make all your armor types equally defensive but only work against a specific damage type.

That said, this approach compounds your issues with monotype characters since it increases the importance of being able to attack with different damage types.

There's a lot of Goldilocksing here- trying to figure out the sweet spots as far as overall armor effectiveness versus incoming damage, figuring out how much I want to stress damage types, and so forth.

On the topic of rock-paper-scissors, there are two extremes:
1. All armors have flat defenses for all damage types. This means that you can basically use any weapon type against the vast majority of enemies and it'll work the same. Players pick the weapon that does the most damage or looks the coolest.
2. All armors have wildly varying highs and lows of defense. This means players will likely carry a weapon for each damage type, or seek out weapons which can flexibly attack with multiple damage types. Using a single weapon would be very disadvantageous.

I'm definitely aiming for some sort of middleground here.

I think I /do/ want the concept of heavier and lighter armors, simply because they feed into my vision of the game world (Hulking knights, agile rogues, etc.). It makes sense for heavier armor to be more protective. The question is what the drawback is.

fantasy means armor from different historical eras which, frankly, are of different quality. so you have to decide whether you want to get along with this standard fantasy trope or not. if you do, you need to dispense with realism somewhat. what form of unrealistic balancing factors you introduce is largely a matter of taste.

>This means players will likely carry a weapon for each damage type
not if proficiency in multiple weapons is expensive and subtracts from other shit like buying cool combat maneuvers, etc.

mine uses 3d6 and 3stats, shit's cash tho for my table and players
50%/50%, or 85%/15% if RAW.
Fantastic, love the idea.

Do it as simple as possible with as little steps as possible. Easiest way to do this is +AC (I've fucked around with DR and +HP, while it can be debated that they're more realistic and flavorful, and AC is still the simplicity and speedking). Even Warhammer kinda does it like this (STR>Toughness to inflict damage/wound), with different weapons having a higher chance of "penetrating armor (overcoming AC)".

You have a bigger question looming at "how effective is armor compared to everything" and "how much power and potential are the players willing to barter for armor". My answer is +max HP +AC for armor, but it limits your Initiative bonus, making light armor characters capable of playing fast and playing first, and the heavier tanky characters of playing second or last and maybe taking hits or suffering an enemy's attack (which doesn't need to be damaging to fuck your player up, it's easier to trip, hold and tie a knight down than swing at him).

If Initiative, which is a very important meta-stat that affects action economy, is being bartered, the armor must better well be worth it.

On the question of how effective it is, determine if elemental damage just bypasses it (which is a quick and dirty solution) or affects armored chars differently; and if you're using DR, you're in for a big-ass party because it's a nightmare to balance. 5DR on a 1d6 damage enemy is godlike, 5DR on 4d6 is 50% effective, but 5DR on a 50 damage enemy is almost nonexistant. Determine if armored characters lose reflex/will bonuses, determine if they, if grappling, get an advantage due to weight or a disadvantage due to CO2 mounting up in the helmet and fatigue. You've a lot to ponder with armors, even if the setting is unrealistic.

I dislike this, seems too complex, but good luck you might make it.