"All work and no play makes jack a dull boy" Edition
A place for full-on game designers and homebrewers alike. Feel free to share your games, ideas and problems, comment to other designers' ideas and give advice to those that need it.
Try to keep discussion as civilized as possible, avoid non-constructive criticism, and try not to drop your entire PDF unless you're asking for specifics, it's near completion or you're asked to.
>Thread Topic: What are some interesting ways of handling outside modifiers without adding/substracting a bunch of numbers with each roll, in the nature of things such as D&D 5e's Advantage/Disadvantage?
Kind of an odd topic, since usually the focus is on the mechanics, but any advice on naming a game? It's hard to come up with something that's snappy, evocative and not just generic.
Caleb Rivera
I think advantage/disadvantage is really nice because it doesn't modify the range, but allows player to have higher chance of getting better results (without completely negating chance of bad roll). ... it is probably why I stole it for my homebrew of sort.
And talking about homebrew, I've been trying to make sort of light system for my setting. Hopefully I can make rather simple core and expand there with character-building material, but there are still few nitpicks that I still wonder about. Particularly about hitpoints/wound track. The current way feels kinda awkward to design damage for. Maybe I should just make a hit-point based system or completely wound-based system, rather than try to mix two. I do like point of having penalties for wounded characters and ability to avoid actual damage (hitpoints) being refreshable.
Then there is EV/DR, maybe DR should be dice instead etc.
Grayson Thomas
when all else fails, take a name from the OP of a card game/mecha anime
Cameron Hall
I want to make a system to support my setting, but the problem is I have multiple setting ideas and can't pick just one. My plan is to develop a basic set of "core rules", then iterate on them to meet the specific demands of each individual setting. Once one variant is done, I'll start playtesting and fold what I learn back into the core, to influence future derivatives. Basically a "universal" system the diverges into multiple unique variants sharing certain assumptions, such as a grounding philosophy, core mechanic, health and item systems, but allowed to be pulled further into unique directions because they do not have to be truly compatible.
I realize this is pretty similar to the d20 scheme of old, but these were always limited by adapting a very heavy ruleset built with a specific genre in mind, unable to take the variants far enough to really capture their potential. My system works from a generic, rules-light core that isn't afraid of making big changes to meet a genre within the context of a greater roleplaying philosophy.
Is this a solid plan or not?
Bentley Turner
So a few threads ago, I received some criticism for my Line of Sight rules. I've tried to clean them up, but I honestly don't know how to get it any more clean without overly changing how it works. Would anyone mind reading over them and pointing out anything that could be changed or clarified?
>To determine if a model can see another model, draw a line from any part of the model's base to the base of the target. A model may attempt to draw Line of Sight at any time needed, with in reason; players may not use it to purposefully slow down play. If the target is within the front 180 degrees of the model's base, and you can draw a line that does not cross over any part of the base of any model or piece of terrain with the same Size or larger than the target, the model has Line of Sight.
>A model can still be seen if the base is fully blocked by intervening terrain or models, so long as you can draw a line over any that do not have an equal or larger Size. If any line can be drawn from the model's base to the target that does cross over another model's base (larger, smaller or equal in Size) or a piece of terrain, and is still in Line of Sight, the target is considered to be in Cover.
>If the model or target are at an elevated level, their Size is determined by adding the Size of the elevated terrain to their own. The play surface always counts as Size 0.
Colton Howard
You can probably rephrase the paragraphs and a few of the longer sentences for clarity. Something like:
>To determine Line of Sight, draw a line from the front half of one model's base to another. If the line is blocked by terrain or a model's base that is equal to or larger than the target or source, the source has no Line of Sight. If the line crosses terrain or a model's base that is smaller than the target or source, the target has Cover. If a model is on elevated terrain, add the terrain and model's sizes together to calculate the elevated model's size. Players can draw Line of Sight at any time, but cannot do so to intentionally slow down play.
I think that covers all your bases in about half the words. I find that people most easily understand and remember small, commanding statements.
Logan Rogers
I already miss-stepped. The LoS rule (second sentence) should swap the negative from "has no LoS" to "not blocked by terrain or a model's base...". Might also need a small blurb about having no LoS after the Cover rules. Speaking of Cover, the Cover rules should read "that is smaller than the target /and/ source," to properly cover the logic.
It might also help if the rules are formatted in a flowchart style. You don't need flowchart graphics, but being able to see, htink, and remember: >Is LoS blocked? If no, then LoS. If yes, then: >If by bigger objects, then no LoS. >If smaller, then LoS+Cover." because that's really all that's there along with the size clarification and quip about not abusing information gathering. Pretty straightforward once its internalized.
Ryder Baker
This really is one of the greatest challenges of game design.
A good name must meet these parameters:
>Sum up the game and what its about >Be easy to remember >Be unique (no copyright infringement and ideally the only search result) >Be good enough that people want to play it based purely on the name and cover art
Its not easy and sometimes coming up with a good name is the hardest part.
For games based on historical conflicts or events, its also good to reference the period and maybe slip in a pun if you can.
The best name I ever came up with was pic related; sums up the conflict, short and snappy, unique, references the conflict, includes a pun, includes a hind pun.
I believe this game wouldn't have sold anywhere near as well (over 100 copies) with a different, less impacting name
Hunter Taylor
It'll work but historically what happened is people conglomerate towards a single setting, that setting then becomes the unofficial official setting of your system and anything published that doesn't advance that setting upsets a large portion of the player base.
