/gdg/ Game Design General

pulled directly from stream of consciousness, while reading:
>isms? what isms?
>introduction has the tone of a Veeky Forums post, informal, seems forced despite this
>memesphere, turnoff
>Choose your alignment, I don't dislike alignments, but encountering it here reminds me of those used-D&D-for-incompatible-setting stories
>"Factions - who, where, why and what", no shit
>Light Magic, same style subcaption, now I'm thinking of "light magic for dummies"
>Shade magic, why the whimsy font change? reminds me of tumblr motivationals or it's inspirobot satire
>phyles... , reading this slang a second time, the forced dynamism doesn't get better. also this being on Veeky Forums thinking of pedophyles now
>...and the 6 genders, oh boy, am I in for something progressive now
>perking, so perks? reads like trying to preemptively write the forum slang right into the rules
>"gineering", I gotta gineer me a bottle before I'm through this, ain't I?
>succeeding on low rolls for antagonists only seems like an annoying, mental switch, mental note as houserule target if flippable
>DJ class, how uncool, but that is taste of course
>is there a point to allocating 10 or less points to core stats in the beginning?
>you have to deal the final blow to get the XP, hello killstealing!
>Is there an incentive to not have the lower two classes equal? If I have one lowest I can't use it as a modifier and cant switch either.
>It suggests up to three classes but leaves the option to get more, but if I choose four the rules become conflicting. Only highest two can be modifiers but one of the lower two can be a modifier if they are equal.
>Guardian 5 Warrior 3 example talks of adding +3 to guardian stats since it is less than the guardian class, but guardian and warrior stats don't overlap so it is irrelevant that it is less and the example doesn't tell me what would happen if they were to overlap.
>the part about magic leveling up reads kind of jumbled and I can't really make sense of it with certainty

Bump, at a doctors appt, gonna reply to when I get home.

Large monsters would have multiple engagement points that are better or worse to be in for specific attacks. Like the Wolfwyrm (a large scale covered wolf with a long ass tail and finned paws) might have this for melee actions:

Claw savage: Melee, 1d12 damage, 1d4 Penalty for front, 1d4 bonus for rear or mounted.

But it also has

Tail Entrapment: Melee/Close, 1d8, 1d8 penalty for rear, 1d4 penalty for flank, 1d6 bonus for front.

The bonuses or penalties applying from the PC's perspective. Each action can hit anything in range regardless of positioning, and players have to base what they want to do on what the Tells for the attacks are. Some attacks have one tell, some can have multiple and some may even cross over. Large monsters typically also have passives like:

Tail Cut: Dealing X damage to the tail will remove it completely, disabling Tail Entrapment and granting +1d4 to all rear attacks.
Hard to Pin Down: Must be engaged by 2 combatants or may act during the Unengaged Phase.

cont.
Factions, here we go
>Celestials, from "higher Bulk-space", sounds like the Angels are swole
>Manimals, doesn't sound awe inspiring, more like a product name of some megacorp
>Fay, elves in space should have that old dorky charm, but here it doesn't. But it is hard to do with the bare bones bullet points
>Tweak Underground, are those faction names all meant to be unimposing? And there is very little meat to all of them.
>I also can't bring myself to keep reading the hierarchy/ship name blocks
>Bioborgia, first name I kind of like
>Virch company, what is a Virch? And why does the first line describe them as Anti-virch? This paragraph is trying the hardest jet to spout what a bloody berk got to grok.
>Photosynths, plants, 'kay
>Turning Tree, why another plant name when you got a plant faction, goofy. Talking about "civs" makes me feel like reading something on gamefaqs
>why do all those guys have a unique chakra thingy? I would have anticipated whatever chakra actually is as a force of nature, where they is a set array, not something each faction can cook up.
>Shadow factions, demons orcs, pirates, goblins, necrons, can't be bothered to read so I just scrolled past. I question why these factions even have to be there at this grade of detail, they are just name piles meant to sound coolish glued together by spit and slang. This isn't something that needs to be nailed down. Just letting the GM make up a quick thing would serve the same purpose and I think the room would be better spent in laying down a sort of universe ground rules for a build your own system.

So positioning is very Theater of the mind for flunkies with only a few states of "engaged Melee" "engaged close" "engaged far" and "unengaged". While climactic battles have more meat to them.

To clarify, you don't have to worry about, "well I'm engaged to him close and far to him and unengaged with him and..." you are either engaged with a specific target or not. If two dudes are trying to jack your shit, you are engaged to 1 and the other has free reign, where as if you and a buddy are trying to jack one guys shit 1 of you is engaged and the other has free reign, barring special monsters that can multitask.

I don't feel like continuing in detail, but the tone of this is kind of all over the place. It is hard to pin down what style it wants to go for.
A sort of max rule of cool space cyber romp?
A parody?
A space fantasy retro thing?
Off brand guardians of galactic he-man wars meme peddling?
I'm playing a space mmo online and want to roleplay but am kind of embarrassed to, so I shove in jokes to retain plausible deniability?
It is a weird mixture in an unpleasant way, it almost reads like a Veeky Forums builds a setting thread made the whole thing. It all seems very surface level toss an idea and immediately abandon it.
Toss just a name even. And there is no time spent fusing the mix together.
It could all be a joke but it is not that satirical or funny. And the whole PDF for a joke would be a little too much effort.
Almost makes me feel bad now like I'm reading something some kid made trying to please his internet friends, primarily and the one or other Veeky Forums crowd specifically.
Uncanny. Maybe I just don't get it.

Now I'm almost obsessing over it.
It is like AWESOME! Internet pop culture has polluted some poor guys taste utterly and somewhere very very deep in there there is some unique mix of ideas and aspirations and it is just drowning and hardly visible by now.
Like the whole thing is being smothered by some other persons sense of "cool" ore jokes or both.

Some part of the melange has to go, but fuck I can't say which one.
Sorry for writing like an ass, but I just decided to go unfiltered thoughts this time.

Thanks so much for this critique, all of this is very helpful. I'll now try to respond to all your points:

>isms? what isms?

I really just meant ideologies, but I was going with the way Orion's Arm does it, by [trying to] sound futuristic, which means using a lot of "evolved" wordings. So, ism's instead of ideologies. This may not work in the end, and I may have to use vanilla terms for most of the game guide and the fluff words for well, the fluff sections. At the very least a glossary.

>introduction has the tone of a Veeky Forums post, informal, seems forced despite this

Yeah, I gotta fix this too.

>memesphere, turnoff

Another word they use in Orion's Arm, memetics literally shape the galaxy so it seemed approriate to say in a futuristic setting.

>Choose your alignment, I don't dislike alignments, but encountering it here reminds me of those used-D&D-for-incompatible-setting stories

Que? Explain further.

>Shade magic, why the whimsy font change? reminds me of tumblr motivationals or it's inspirobot satire

Yeah, gotten crit on this before, gonna chnage everything to a more standard, readable font.

>phyles... , reading this slang a second time, the forced dynamism doesn't get better. also this being on Veeky Forums thinking of pedophyles
now

cont.

ANother Orion's Arm term, just means "type", kind of like species, it comes from the word phylum

>...and the 6 genders, oh boy, am I in for something progressive now

Was mostly a joke to outright state it like that but there are at least 6 sexes you could choose from.

>perking, so perks? reads like trying to preemptively write the forum slang right into the rules

Got that slang from vidya so, still, may be worth it to reterm.

>"gineering", I gotta gineer me a bottle before I'm through this, ain't I?

Another future word. I need a glossary don't I?

>succeeding on low rolls for antagonists only seems like an annoying, mental switch, mental note as houserule target if flippable

This is something most players who've tried the system like.

>DJ class, how uncool, but that is taste of course

Basically a bard. Future bard.

>is there a point to allocating 10 or less points to core stats in the beginning?

No, if that's written somewhere it shouldn't be.

>you have to deal the final blow to get the XP, hello killstealing!

In game usually an assist/kill each party member that deals dmg to that enemy gets .5 kill xp

>Is there an incentive to not have the lower two classes equal? If I have one lowest I can't use it as a modifier and cant switch either.

You can always level up the "bottom" class as the game goes on.

>It suggests up to three classes but leaves the option to get more, but if I choose four the rules become conflicting. Only highest two can be modifiers but one of the lower two can be a modifier if they are equal.

I think the rules I have now say it's 3 classes MAX.

cont.

>Guardian 5 Warrior 3 example talks of adding +3 to guardian stats since it is less than the guardian class, but guardian and warrior stats don't overlap so it is irrelevant that it is less and the example doesn't tell me what would happen if they were to overlap.

I had this happen to a player once, and I'm sure I came up with a solution to it,. it might be written down in my current "revison" document.

>the part about magic leveling up reads kind of jumbled and I can't really make sense of it with certainty

Yeah I gotta fix that. What exactly makes it difficult to underrstand? ANything at all you can glean from it?

Factions, here we go

>Manimals, doesn't sound awe inspiring, more like a product name of some megacorp

They most certainly would be products of some megacorp turned huge political and expansionist body.

cont.

>Fay, elves in space should have that old dorky charm, but here it doesn't. But it is hard to do with the bare bones bullet points

I'll try to keep that in mind.

>Tweak Underground, are those faction names all meant to be unimposing? And there is very little meat to all of them.

I'll add some fluff then? Seems good enough incentive to write more sci fi as anything else.

>I also can't bring myself to keep reading the hierarchy/ship name blocks

So, put that table in for each faction or something, make it so you don't have to keep scrolling back?

>Virch company, what is a Virch? And why does the first line describe them as Anti-virch? This paragraph is trying the hardest jet to spout what a bloody berk got to grok.

Another Orion's Arm term I've "borrowed". Means virtual world. They are "anti-virch" because they have left their virches to live IRL. Thus, Virch Company

>Turning Tree, why another plant name when you got a plant faction, goofy. Talking about "civs" makes me feel like reading something on gamefaqs

Civs is more word streamlining again, Turning Tree is the name that alien faction collectively gave the Galaxy, something to band them together.

cont.

>why do all those guys have a unique chakra thingy? I would have anticipated whatever chakra actually is as a force of nature, where they is a set array, not something each faction can cook up.

Yeah, I gotta work on this concept better. I wanted the faction chakra proficiencies to either help your or hinder you in battle if you went up toe to toe or with one of these factions (depending on your galactic alignment (diff. than D&D alignments)

>Shadow factions, demons orcs, pirates, goblins, necrons, can't be bothered to read so I just scrolled past. I question why these factions even have to be there at this grade of detail, they are just name piles meant to sound coolish glued together by spit and slang. This isn't something that needs to be nailed down. Just letting the GM make up a quick thing would serve the same purpose and I think the room would be better spent in laying down a sort of universe ground rules for a build your own system.

Hmm, I wanted to give the setting a solid base, and I'm a creature designer/sci fi/alien lover at heart so it was just plain fun to come up with all of em, but I suppose I could try making each faction more different from each other

Well, I won't lie when I say I try and envision this project like that: no real unifying aesthetic. The point being that in the 71st century, there are so many different modes of life and kinds of people(read: posthumans and xenos) that all these different "uncanny" sci-fi styles live here simultaneously, sometimes working in harmony, sometimes not. That's my idealistic view of what I'm going for, which I know will be and is extremely hard to pull off successfuly, but I think it is a worthwhile goal to head for. Unless you have something to say that would convince me otherwise?

That's fine, like I said this "all different styles" thing may not work out in the end for the system/setting, but I'm gonna try and see where it takes me for now.

In addendum, there two other reasons I'm going for a "multi-style" setting: The game encourages people to write their own adventures and lore, my friends who have played have done exactly this, I think it makes the game more interesting.

Another reason is because if you saw the character creation page, you're encouraged to make pretty much anything you want as your character (within reason in an rpg). This in itself makes your parties cast varied and fits in with the "multi-style" theme.

my shitty little homebrew system, now better written
dnd-like with custom spell making, made with children and drunks in mind

extremely easy on the player, though very tough on the gm

rate it, steal anything you like

You can't really escape having a style to your game. Thing is, you are not having "no real unifying aesthetic", your overarching aesthetic will end up being "muddied mixture". In effect it is just working without a plan, you are just ignoring the control you have. You can't incorporate infinite possibilities because your mechanics already carry many assumptions.
You have a fixed amount of classes of some flavors, while other possible flavors aren't present. You have chakras, which is flavored, you have the heavy slant of Orion's Arm lingo. Ignoring that this is a style and assuming your game covers every possible flavor when it clearly marginalizes, ghettoizes and excludes others wont make your game better.
It isn't that you placed your elements at all that is the problem, it is you didn't make them fit. You neglect the bleedover, the blending where the styles meet.
And you didn't really include the things you included, you put up a bunch of facades. At least as the PDF presents itself as of yet.

It basically communicates:
"Yo my setting is the coolest it has got everything dude, but you have to do all the work for me and build whatever buzzword I throw at you! So rad!"

Maybe it would be better to scrub the system of the setting assumptions then?
I don't know why people should have to weather all the lingo when they won't even get a setting or coherent genre construct out of it.

ITT: D&D Fantasy Heartbreakers.

Where?

kekeronies neighborino, upvotelydiddely

But seriously, have you read anything in these threads? Of course you didn't, the fear of the d20 is pathological. And the most prolific babbies first homebrew games are 2d6 rules light.

>the fear of the d20 is pathological
And isn't it sad? I've actually heard people proudly explain they could never play a game that uses a d20 game again because D&D uses it.

Hey, if they want to deny themselves a useful tool.

I mean, I get where you're coming from, but you also gotta understand that I know that the game will have end up with a style either way. I just figure, why not try and cram all the things I like into a game that I'm making, see what works and what doesn't, and try and let my players have their fun too.

>I don't know why people should have to weather all the lingo when they won't even get a setting or coherent genre construct out of it.

So, you're saying I should build up as much lore and fluff as possible, perhaps even just lay it out simpler and more clearly, so players have a better idea of what goes on in this setting at least as far as my own canon for it goes? I definitely don't expect other players to do "all the work", I just thought it would be cool for them to personalize the world, literally leave their own mark on the galaxy I was working on if they wanted to, I'm open to that. It's not a requirement, players usually get enough kick out of being able to be whatever they want in an rpg so I'm glad I can give them that at least.

>Maybe it would be better to scrub the system of the setting assumptions then?
I don't know why people should have to weather all the lingo when they won't even get a setting or coherent genre construct out of it.

Wait, are you saying here to take away all the lore and fluff I've built and just say "Here, its in the future, make whatever you want using this system, and have at it?

Yes, GMs and players who want to throw stuff out and do their own thing will do so regardless.
All the others will get the additional benefit of a setting and a system tailored to it.
A universal system is best without too specific setting stuff baked in. Otherwise it would be the drawbacks of a setting bound system without the benefits of actually getting the setting to draw on.

Either take it away and make a generic system or actually do the legwork and put in the stuff you basically just named dropped in this iteration. It looks a bit like an assortment of links and the actual articles are still in your head. And you conflate and put it all together in your head, but we can't access that stuff. You have to put it actually in the game. A futuristic lingo snippet of vague descriptiveness isn't enough to establish a thing, it is just a namedrop of something the reader isn't clear of what it is or how it relates to the world. (I understand that takes time and can't be expected to be all there in a work in progress. But as of jet it is absent to a degree that it prevents the game from having a real discernible identity.)

>A universal system is best without too specific setting stuff baked in. Otherwise it would be the drawbacks of a setting bound system without the benefits of actually getting the setting to draw on.

Well, I definitelly want it to have a setting, I wasn't really planning on making a new GURPS, and I have a ton of lore in my head, maybe I just need to write it all out like you said. WHat's the best weay to do this though? Modules and quests? Because I have some of those written up, if you'd like to see them (it's just a scratch document, ignore the terrible formatting and any incompleteness)

I'm also a drawfag, so I plan on doing art for this (and have actually commissioned art for it in the past in the form of the faction battle classes)

>Your second response

Yeah, I think I will actually have to just double down and start really writing and brainstorming lore for this. But again, whats the best way to oresent this to the players, quests and modules? I KNOW I need a glossary now, at the very least.(but should it be at the front or the back ?(serious question))

my stupid ass forgot the file

Sorry to sound pushy but, any thoughts on what I've got here? I've got some setting fluff too if anyone wants that.

What's the prevailing aesthetic of your setting? for the most part that determines how you integrate lore into your game.

Dungeon crawl? most of the lore is contained within the spells and special ability description

Travelling/West Marches? most of the lore will be contained in descriptions of locations.

Kingmaker? descriptions of people. Get it?

So, what is the point of melee, close, far distinction if you don't have to remember it? Is it related to weapon type the PC is using?

I like what you have about multiple PC's engaging one enemy, but do you have a mechanic for when multiple enemies engage one PC?

I like everything you have about moss monsters, but, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't this not too disimilar to how DnD monsters work? Not that that's a bad thing, the stuff about engagement points and disabling parts of the monster sound legit.

I don't understand specific dice "penalties" enough to give you a good crit on that last bit. I always just use penalties as a subtraction modifier to my standard d100 roll, but my system is pretty light on the crunch.

Well, there is dungeon/bandit den/derelict space ship crawl, and I do have some lore for my magic skill trees.

There's travelling/exploring too, each world and system will be new and unique and various quests will bring you all across the galaxy.

If by kingmaker you mean something like make the PCs kings of the realm there would be stuff like that. Gaining rep like in Eclipse Phase (?) and doing important quests will turn the Galactic Net's eye on them, making hyper celebrities and legendary heroes, and even some hyper ascended posthuman gods of the PCs.

There is also loot, I'm in the process of making a hard loot table, with rollable loot. Lore would be found in the armor and weapons forund in there, as well as trinkets and mods.

Thats another thing. As a blatantly transhumanist setting, not only will players be able to mod their gear and weapons but their own bodies (like in Eclipse Phase). In fact, playersd are encouraged to upgrade their bodies as they continue the game, and can even change form completely with mind uploading. Not to mention the mechanic where if you die in game, you get resurrected at the nearest "halfskip world" (trade multiciv worlds in the middle of galactic warp jump lines) where your party will have to travel to and find you (and bring you all your stuff). But when you get rezzed there, you have the option of creating a new version of your old body for credits, using a randomized "used" body for free (like a sleeve from Eclipse Phase), or buying a brand new custom one for lots of credits.

It effects what type of action both the PC and the monster can be using, so if you're a sword dude, you can only use Melee actions, where a bow guy can only do close or far actions. Someone with a weapon like a whip or throwing weapons could probably hit at close range but not near or far. The distinction is mostly so you can effectively trap a ranged target in a melee combo, or keep a melee target at a distance.

So if two monsters are attacking one player, the player will have to decide which to focus on and that's the one he's engaged with. Imagine a line connecting those two characters, now that monster can only act if the player fails his roll on his turn (basically him making a mistake and leaving himself open). HOWEVER, and here is where proper tactics make a huge difference, if that other monster isn't engaged by the time the end of the turn order is reached for that round, he can just make an action against the player that automatically succeeds. So if it's two knife gobbos, that's a knife to the gut the player cant avoid because he's out-manuevered

There's is a bit of DnD in there, but it's mostly Monster Hunter and a sprinkle of other fantasy games.

So the standard roll is 1d12+(mod) vs 7. Penalties add dice to that 7(or subtract from the player's roll if that's easier for you), and bonuses add dice to the player's roll. So the 1d4 penalty will make the roll 1d12+(Mod) vs 7+1d4. I did it this way so that penalties never make something directly impossible. If something is impossible, you just can't try it or you have to find a way to make it possible first.

Penalties and bonuses are more a sliding scale than stacking, so if you have 2 d4 penalties that would just be 1d6. Or 1d6 bonus and 1d4 penalty is just a 1d4 bonus.

Did that clarify things pretty well?

>It effects what type of action both the PC and the monster can be using, so if you're a sword dude, you can only use Melee actions, where a bow guy can only do close or far actions.

So does your system have penalties for when a bow guy tries to shoot something at melee range? Wouldn't point blank be a super easy shot compared to close or far?

Hmm, does your system have grappling? I've seen or rather heard of systems trying to use it before, I dunno how succesfully though.

Huh, how far can it "slide"?

Depends on the specific weapon, here are "Hold Bows" and "Fencing Bows" which can be used close up with varying success, but typical bows you need to fall back before you can line up a shot, so either a small unarmed attack to open distance or getting an ally to swap targets with you.

There is, but it mostly just inflicts bonuses or penalties in melee combat at the cost of reduced damage, but it has a special place with large monsters to harry them or get better positioning.

It goes from 1d12>-1d12.

bump

Instead of bumping, try adding to the conversation, or dropping lore of other fluff.

Just a friendly bump mate, though I guess I could ask for more advice on my game .

I have a new combat mechanic that I'm still unsure of, called enemy dodging. It's a roll modifier that usually is between d100-5 and d100 +5 when utilized. If the enemy has a high dodge, when the PC engages in combat they get the roll penalty, if an enemy has a low dodge the PC will have a roll bonus. The roll itself is just for success on an attack, the damage dealt is specific to the weapon used and is always the same. Most/common enemies have a flat dodge of zero. Thoughts?

Also, alternatively, if anyone looked through my pdf and was curious about any of the lore presented and wanted me to expand on anything in particular I could give it my best shot.

Also also, does anyone have any advise for:

I usually just have set pieces at each travel point, things that make the world feel alive and add characterization moments. Like traveling through a jungle? Well tile 1 you find a small ruin to make camp in, in which grow beautiful smelling flowers, tile 2 you come across a stone face with a large hole in its mouth that seems to reach down forever, tile 3 there is just a nice clearing with strange nests, abandoned and full of egg shells.

Just little things that may or may not push the arc, but add a lot of character to the world. I also recommend encouraging camp scenes every now and then, the system I'm working on has it backed in and important to character improvement.

bump

I've been working on a system over in the /ssss/ thread, and I could use some feedback. I've never actually developed a game before, but I'm having a lot of fun doing it. It's pretty barebones at the moment, but the basic shape is in place.

Anyways, this is based off the webcomic Stand Still, Stay Silent. My goal here was to replicate the intricate balance between melancholic horror and camaraderie found in the source material, as well as allowing players to enjoy battling monstrous creatures without feeling like they're playing Call of Cthulu.

I'd appreciate any feedback you guys would care to give.

> “A man must be a good friend, both for himself
and for his friend.”

Pointing something out, or was that an accidental post?

I can wholeheartedly say, after quickly reading the entirety, that everything said so far about this is true.

There's no unifying organization in the pdf, let alone the game. There has been zero proofreading. All those rules, and yet I don't know what I'm doing, how I'm doing it, or why I'd want to do it. Its like somebody filled the kitchen sink, took all the dishes out, and then left me with just the dishwater. Like I'm supposed to know what to do with this indescribable horror.

This sounds neat, give examples

You're not supposed to respond to feedback here, you're supposed to fix your stuff so it doesn't turn people off.

Your feedback is the most hilarious shit I've seen on Veeky Forums all year.

Alright, so last thread I was brewing an Akido-esque combat mechanic where as your strength grows, so does your vulnerability to a counter attack. Here's what I've come up with since:

>Stats represent maximum power and vulnerability to counter attack(Martial, Magic, w/e)
>When you increase stats, you increase both Power and Vulnerability. (Stat of 3/3 increases to 4/4)
>Attacks combine your stat with enemies vulnerability (a/0 + 0/b).
>You choose (bid?) how much power (and therefore vulnerability) to use each attack.
>Enemies choose (bid?) how much power they counter attack with, same rules apply.
You can counter attack a counter attack
>After counter attacking (bidding) stops, only the last attack from each participant is rolled and damage is taken by each party respectively.
>You can (rarely) permanently reduce your vulnerability.

So essentially if you want to ante up, your ante is based on the opposition's most recent ante. Maximum ante is equal to your relevant stat. I'm also a big fan of the bidding aspect as it opens up the potential for mind games, making the ante more meaningful.

I'm thinking I'll want a few, broadly defined stats that can serve as archetypes. Whenever I think of the numbers, they're always in a range of 1-6, so it's most likely to be either d6, d6 dice pool, or d10 based.

Dude are you some kind of actual RPG system designer this feedback is quite tight

Did you read the quest scratch document? : Alternatively, what would you say I do specifically to improve upon this situation?

I'm going to make a simple system for a one shot campaign. Hopefully I can get it playable by Halloween, but I won't mention it to my players until I know I can get it done by then.

Here's the premise;

The player characters are from a non-magic medieval world. Players choose professions for their characters ranging from slave all the way up to Emperor. Worry not, they're all balanced (I'll get into that later). They also choose a character flaw and an item. Any back stories should be less than a page.

At the start of the campaign this group of people find themselves waking up in an alien world. There are ruins, animals and other people like themselves trapped here. There are also monsters (abominations with the faces of men) and horrors (undying serial killers that stalk the party). Their objective is to figure out where they are, how they got there and how to escape using only the skills they acquired in life and the tools they have on them. Death comes easily, but is fleeting. Still, it has a hidden cost.

>What the players don't know, but might learn in time
They are all murderers, they are all dead, this is purgatory and the memories of their victims have left their minds to take on physical forms (the horrors).

The players don't realize at character creation that they are choosing who they murdered (profession and background), why they committed the murder (their flaw) and how they did it (their special item).

They get back up after dying, but each time they do they become a bit more monstrous. The monsters are murderers who failed to find a way out. They're trapped forever.

I've yet to actually figure out how they should escape.

(cont...)

I don't have much time to post the system, coffee break is almost over.

The system would use a d6 pool. Pool size is based on the stat being tested, rerolls are gained by relevant skills and any tools being used. Dice succeed on a 4+, this is adjusted by morale. More successes = better results.

I'll be back to post More, answer questions and address comments when I go for lunch.

How long does a timeline have to be for an almost total miscegenation to occur yet still retaining the memory of past events?

I'm planning for a strain of elves to mix thoroughly with the human populace to completely replace humans, but also create half-elf as a separate race. I need to keep the old human culture half-intact so I'll have an empire of celtic half-elves larping as roman humans. Basically the romanization of Gaul, but on Reverse.

Not sure how relevant this is to your idea, but recently I played a non-magic fantasy campaign (we used DND, but DM said we could only pick martial classes), but obviously there were magical/supernatural shit going on. The idea itself is neat but I think to work better the DM should have enforced more the idea that its a non-magical world, have a few sessions without anything supernatural happening, and then introduce magical/supernatural elements (which would caught the players by surprise, since they were already used to the non-magical shit).

Players find hard to actually roleplay weird shit on RPG because they are already used to many fantasy/horror stories. If you first set up an environment that is non-magical/supernatural, and THEN breaks the reality, maybe then you can throw them off their feet.

So I'm working on one of those 'universal miniature skirmish games' (ie, those Osprey games, TnT, etc), that has a ruleset but should be using anybody's models. It's got a certain aesthetic which a few manufacurer models can fit.
I'm already asking by mail manufacturers of generic models if I can credit them, but what do we think about conversions? Like, if I greenstuff a new head and half the chest details on some larger company's model (who would never give permission for their use), would that be something I could get away with?

You'll get specific feedback when your problems are specific.

It's pretty relevant.

I was already planning on taking things a bit slower, but I think you may be right about holding off on the supernatural to start.

The problem with that is the whole "waking up in an unknown world" deal. It's pretty supernatural, but starting the game before the players die means starting with a split party.

Furthermore, I'd either have to skip the players dying or let them know they're dead and in some form of afterlife.

Then tell me what the overarching problems are, in your opinion. Saying "if you have to ask, you'll never know" isn't helpful here. And try not to just parrot what the other posters have said, if you read my pdfs tell me what YOU think. Thanks.

>How long does a timeline have to be for an almost total miscegenation to occur yet still retaining the memory of past events?

It only took Brazil 90~ years.

No, if you can't get premission from a company, do not use any part of their models for commercial images.

What if you begin the story as if it was something like Saw (the movie)?? Spend sometime in an environment that mislead the players to think they are dealing with a Saw situation (just one or more psycho trapping people and putting them through puzzles), but only after a while shit starts to get really freaky (supernatural).

That could work, couldn't it? You still have the advantage of "you all wake up somewhere with no memory of how ya'all got there", that premise fits the Saw idea (helping them to think that is it), and then you twist everything and go for the "this is hell, bitches" thingy, which was your original idea.

Are you still talking about my game in: If so, are you saying to start off the game guide pdf kinda like Eclipse Phase's, where theres a short story involving a character in the world before the formal introduction, or are you talking about one of the quests I wrote? Or are you responding to the wrong post in general?

I don't think you responded to the correct post, but I get what you're saying.

While I was thinking of movies like The Descent and various slasher flicks, Saw hadn't occurred to me. It does fit the initial premise fairly well.

No, sorry, replied tot he wrong post. It was supposed to go for . My bad

Not sure I know The Descent, but I still think its a great twit to introduce your players to a non-supernatural setting, spend a few sessions this way, THEN twist it up and introduce supernatural elements. Its also a plus if you left a few clues behind on the "non-supernatural" part that only makes sense after they learn about the supernatural part. (but must be subtle so they don't go all like "there's something unnatural about this shit")

Aaaalso, have you seen the movie From Dusk 'til Down? If not, download it now and watch it tonight, without even reading what is it about or watching any trailers. Just do it.

I remember that one. A totally mundane buildup to a supernatural scenario.

I'm thinking of presenting the Horrors before the Monsters. They'd seem like normal, though insane, humans in the first encounter. Each time they show up again they're slightly less natural.

Its not exactly mundane. It introduce two brothers which are criminals, travelling with a hostage, one of them being psycho. The point is, it gives plenty interesting stuff for watchers to think that is the real plot. That is an important point: if the "pre-plot" is too normal, people might think of it as an introduction to something else, while if its already has its hooks and charms, people might honestly think that is already the main thing :)

True, you can almost always tell something big is gonna happen because the beginning of the story will just be their mundane life, I mean, that's a very basic tenant behind the Hero's Journey, but still, the more mundane the beginning of the story the bigger the change can be.

I meant mundane in the "nothing supernatural" way.

You already have a lot of feedback to work on. If you can't listen to them, why would you listen to me? Plus, I'm one of the other posters

Fair enough, I do have a good amount of useful crit now, I'll go hole myself away for a little while to work out the kinks then present it back to you guys. Thanks.

How many miniatures do you need? Heroforge is a website that lets you design and order custom minis, and they're usually pretty cool about letting you use their product for commercial services (they were originally set up to allow kickstarters to prototype cheaply). Pricey, though... $15 for rubbery Nylon Plastic, $30 for the usual GW quality plastic, so you'd want to keep your numbers down.

Question to the assembled game-makers:

What do you think is the ROLEPLAYING game with the best vehicle rules? I mean, not wargame-y stuff (no miniatures) but the best action-oriented, player-involving, dramatic, exciting, interesting, some-crunch-but-not-too-much rules. Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Alright, number 1 thing you need to do is type out the entire word. No one wants to try to parse your contrived abbreviations.

>Doesn't want miniatures.
>Wants vehicle rules.

The dichotomy is typically simulation and role-playing. When you are asking for vehicle rules, you're specifically asking for a certain rule for simulating vehicles. When you also then explicitly ask for a role-playing focused game without miniatures, you create a very difficult to answer inquiry.

Palladium, unironically. Look for the Ninjas and Superpies RPG in Da Archive.

bump

Whoa it's been a while GDG.

I have a nearly playable game, I just need to figure out the skill system.

Do I have a set amount of skills that can be leveled individually with EXP?

Maybe just clone the D&D 5e skill system.

Plz halp, literally any kind of system. Any suggestions. Throw them at me and maybe I'll try test them in game.

It's been so long... I started working on Misfortune about a year ago, and it's still not ready.

I posted Misfortune first time on Veeky Forums on 19th October last year as a one-sheeter. I hate to say it, but it still isn't ready, even though I've had a year to work on a game of under 7000 words, 20 pages or so. And this isn't by the way some dillydallying, I've probably worked my ass off for a thousand or so hours for this tiny, tiny game.

Still need to run it through an editor and get my artist to finish the art that's long overdue. But maybe I will get to release it this year.

Locational wound systems were a mistake.

Can't tell what your game is about or how the ability scores / stats work. Or experience points, for that matter.

Anyway, individual skills with experience points sounds pretty decent, unless you also have a leveling system. It's not good to have competing systems in place.

A set skill list might work, but I personally prefer occupational skills, where skills are much broader than "stealth", for example. It's like "burglar", "smith", "soldier" etc.

But, I can't really say because I don't know the specifics of how your game works.

>x were a mistake
Most of these statements are too broad to be true. I admit that most games with locational wounds do have problems, but there are games that do something interesting with it.

Having crunchy rules for locational wounds usually makes things too complicated. But they're not always complicated. One could really easily homebrew locational wounds for 5e, where crits always hit a certain body part, and Constitution save against I dunno, 20 if the attack took more than half of your hit points, 15 if it didn't to see whether you get a locational wound.

Wounds give disadvantage to ability rolls / attacks if it requires said body part. And the mechanic is still pretty simple.

Anyway, there are also games that do it right from the beginning, like Legends of the Wulin, where locational wounds, respect and hate all work with the same parameters, as Chi Conditions.

I can kinda agree, but I think it depends I know in my rulset there is just gonna be a general wound pool after Hp get knocked out that puts a -1 to everything but,I can see merits in locations wounds too.

Hi everyone. I'm toying with the random idea of setting up a forum game with one major difference. Instead of using a number generator, you can just make up the number you wished to roll. But every successful "roll" adds the difference between it and what was needed to a count. And when the count is full, your wish roll is ignored and you are handed a 2 on d20. (I let them know that they got a 2, no guessing there.) Trying to pre-trigger the 2 with meaningless actions results in me granting the action without a roll. What do you think of the general idea? Will the players rebel?

It could work but why not make it so the players have a given amount of Gimmes and once they're burned through they need to roll? For that matter will there be stats and such?

>Open Magic Set Editor/Word Doc
>Start typing rules/Looking for Art
>Not even one card done/page written
>Close application
How do I get past this?

You keep pushing against it. Seriously there's a merit to bashing your head against a wall. Put some music on. Get s cup of coffee and don't budge till you get some preset goal done

To expand, say you want art, make it so you gotta find art for all your lands today. Or maybe all your red instant. Once that's done tomorrow you sit down and write the rules for them rinse and repeat.

Placeholders. Replace specific rules with a general idea, replace art with a shitty MS Paint scratching. That will remind you what isn't done yet, once the number of cards grows large. And that's an ideal time to come back to those cards, to fix things, merge two ideas into one card, separate one idea into two cards. It can even be good not to throw out cards that you know are bad but simply to draw a red X over the card so that you have a note and example of how the idea would not work, lest you forget and try to remake a failed idea. Saves time.

Write like a computer sorts, when I'm working on a new project I do constantly write short sentences for several components at once and constantly expand each rule by a sentence in turn, my games go from freeform to ruleslite to PbtA to D&D, each pass adds complexity.

I only feel this way about games that I know I'm my brain are boring and not worth finishing

Consider writing an essay about why your game is necessary first. If you can do that well, return to your project.

Hey all. here again.

>The dichotomy is typically simulation and role-playing.
Well yeah, simulation versus roleplay/speed/fun is almost always a concern, no matter the kind of RPG you're making.
>When you explicitly ask for a role-playing focused game without miniatures, you create a very difficult to answer inquiry.
Uh-huh. Well, that’s why I’m asking the smart, imaginative, creative people here. Very difficult =/= impossible.

>Palladium, unironically. Look for the Ninjas and Superpies RPG in Da Archive.
An unexpected answer! Appreciated, and I just did based on your recommendation. I thhhhhink the vehicle play rules in Palladium are a little underthought? I mean, their rules for movement seem to be virtually nonexistent… I could be wrong, though. Any reasons why you recommended this?

I’m curious to see others’ comments. So guys, any other ideas on the ROLEPLAYING game with the best vehicle rules? No miniatures — just action-oriented, player-involving, dramatic, exciting, interesting, moderate-cruch rules. Please share your recommendations!

>I mean, their rules for movement seem to be virtually nonexistent… I could be wrong, though. Any reasons why you recommended this?

because tracking exact movement sets you on the road to car wars. abstracting that out enables you to focus on the action part. in particular the maneuvers and shaking off pursuers. and the PCs' role in all of that.

Check out FFG's Star Wars RPG. Those vehicle rules meld hard crunch with narrative dice.