|
Mikan posted:On top of what Winson_Paine said, Rulebook Heavily's post was in response to someone worrying about whether something was appropriate for a roleplaying game. It has nothing to do with exerting effort or being enthusiastic, just not worrying about meaningless descriptors like "is an RPG" or "is a board game" during the design process and instead finishing the design you've made. It's pointless to trash a cool design because it doesn't fit neatly into an arbitrary marketing designation. I took it at face value because the idea of not finding worth in creative projects without some end result other than the creation of something you find interesting or beautiful or useful to be really bothersome. The idea that "man no one will ever read this so why bother finishing it" is stinkin' thinkin' and not something I am prone to encourage in general. There are already thousands of reasons your poo poo might go unfinished already without cutting yourself off at the knees because you don't think it will be loving economically viable.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:People write stories and poems and paint pictures all the time with no intention of publishing or promoting them. As another form of human creative endeavor, games are no different. There are all kinds of reasons someone would want to do that; to satisfy some internal need, to practice, to prove to themselves that they can, anything. But certainly people have been engaging in the creative process without needing to seek the approval of others afterwards since the beginning of human endeavor. Do you bang on the door of the bathroom and admonish people for singing in the shower? Mostly I don't understand being so negative in a space nominally dedicated to finishing creative projects. Sometimes the very act of doing something is enough of a reward in and of itself, and being able to do things like that without seeking the approval of others is the mark of a more complete human being. Well I'm in the tough slog part of one of my projects right now (x-com inspired cover-based shooty thing). If it's just singing in the shower, I'd have more fun starting a new project instead of finishing this one. When I sing in the shower I'll sing a couple of verses but I certainly wouldn't be concerned about whether or not I sang the whole song from start to finish. Rather than see it as me being negative, maybe it's better to look at it as me inviting others to say something encouraging to people stuck in the hard part of finishing a game. That's where I am, and I'm feeling like I'm at a tipping point - I'll either scrap the project or push through and finish it. I'm just not sure which way I'm going to go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:I took it at face value because the idea of not finding worth in creative projects without some end result other than the creation of something you find interesting or beautiful or useful to be really bothersome. The idea that "man no one will ever read this so why bother finishing it" is stinkin' thinkin' and not something I am prone to encourage in general. There are already thousands of reasons your poo poo might go unfinished already without cutting yourself off at the knees because you don't think it will be loving economically viable. Oh, I agree with this too - and that's as someone who releases new games to buy food and pay bills. I make all kinds of games I never release, and I finish projects that I know will probably never sell. Sometimes it's cool to make a thing just because you enjoy it or because it's fun to practice or because you want to see it happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Mikan posted:Jimbozig none of what you are arguing against was actually in Rulebook Heavily's post. You made a bunch of dumb assumptions about the message. I'm really not looking for an argument. I'm just asking why finishing is better than just working on something else I'd enjoy more? I know I can complete a game. I have done three times. In none of those cases was the low point this low - I always had more momentum to carry me through.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Well I'm in the tough slog part of one of my projects right now (x-com inspired cover-based shooty thing). If it's just singing in the shower, I'd have more fun starting a new project instead of finishing this one. When I sing in the shower I'll sing a couple of verses but I certainly wouldn't be concerned about whether or not I sang the whole song from start to finish. Wait, X-Com inspired cover-shooty? And you don't think there's demand for that? I have been craving an X-Com based game with mechanics that encourage tactics and cover usage since XCOM came out. One of my best friends took a shot at it last year and came up with nothing. Hell, I took a brainstorm at it and couldn't figure it out. (I wanted to support multiple roles on the battlefield - make being Command, tied back at a distant base, a viable class, and the same for playing as a fighter-pilot.) If you're worried about commercial viability, I want to assure you that, done well, your game could fill a currently empty niche. A niche in my heart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I'm really not looking for an argument. I'm just asking why finishing is better than just working on something else I'd enjoy more? I know I can complete a game. I have done three times. In none of those cases was the low point this low - I always had more momentum to carry me through. Have you considered posting what you mean, then, instead of posting something entirely different and then having to reinterpret your original post after people respond to what you actually wrote instead of what you meant Finishing a game is difficult, especially when you've lost momentum. But sometimes you have to finish it anyway. Anybody can finish a game while riding momentum. If you want to be legit, no-poo poo, verifiably Good at this you have to learn how to work past that. There's nothing necessarily wrong with moving on to another project (and there's merit to knowing when to scrap a project, but that's a different topic and not really the point of this thread) but it's also a great way to perpetually put off finishing something. That last 10% of designing something is hell and people need help to get past it. That's what this thread is for. The goal isn't to discourage people from finishing something, it's to help people get motivated and get hype and complete projects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Mimir posted:If you're worried about commercial viability, I want to assure you that, done well, your game could fill a currently empty niche. A niche in my heart. You are my new favorite poster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Dr. Doji Suave posted:Final Fantasy Tactics the tabletop roleplaying system. First of all, this is an awesome idea. Secondly, what if you grouped the classes around functional axes? Like Support Magic, Attack Magic, Melee Attackers, etc. Allow players to switch to any class in their particular 'axis' before a session, and use JP as the resource used to jump to a different 'axis' entirely after a session?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Mikan posted:It has nothing to do with exerting effort or being enthusiastic, just not worrying about meaningless descriptors like "is an RPG" or "is a board game" during the design process and instead finishing the design you've made. It's pointless to trash a cool design because it doesn't fit neatly into an arbitrary marketing designation. It's not meaningless, and I certainly don't believe I "trashed" his design. It's important to understand the context the game will be played in when designing it. How many players, the kind of interaction they'll have with each other (PvE vs PvP, GM or no GM), what expectations they will have on playstyle (mechanics-driven vs narrative-driven). Maybe the context a designer has in mind doesn't fit neatly into the generally well-known categories of "board game" and "RPG", and is some kind of middle ground, but then that should be understood and communicated as well. They're not just marketing designations. They're terms for meaningful concepts. The game was clearly presented with the design intention of being a traditional RPG. In that play context, It is clearly a bad game. Having the majority of players sitting around with nothing meaningful to do while a lengthy PvP combat plays out simply sucks. But it has a lot of promise in the context of a board game with persistence (which is, actually, something of a board-game/RPG hybrid). And it is helpful to refocus that end-goal during design, as early as possible. If he decided that, no, he really wanted it to be a traditional RPG, then he'd have a lot of work to do fixing fundamental design flaws. As it turns out, it looks like his design is on the right track; just the presentation should be tweaked. Now, I'd still say playtest it as a prototype, as planned. I didn't say not to. There's lots of things to be tried out irrespective of RPG vs. board game considerations. I don't view Rulebook Heavily's response as any kind of contradiction of my own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:It's not meaningless, and I certainly don't believe I "trashed" his design. "Trash" a design as in stop working on it, throw it in the trash, not trash as in say mean things. And no, during the design process it's pointless to worry about whether something is "really" an RPG. RPG encompasses everything from D&D to Fiasco to freeform message board posts. The things you point out, like players sitting out during combat, are design issues to consider but that has nothing to do with whatever term you use to market your game. Worrying about that during the design process only serves to constrain your design tools and options. You should consider the context of play, absolutely, but that has nothing to do with whether your game is really an RPG or really a board game or whatever else. And I can confirm Rulebook Heavily's post was meant as a contradiction to what you stated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Mikan posted:And I can confirm Rulebook Heavily's post was meant as a contradiction to what you stated. I believe that the only way this issue can be solved is with a Rulebook Heavily Official Statement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Mikan posted:"Trash" a design as in stop working on it, throw it in the trash, not trash as in say mean things. Who suggested he stop working on it? quote:And no, during the design process it's pointless to worry about whether something is "really" an RPG. RPG encompasses everything from D&D to Fiasco to freeform message board posts. The things you point out, like players sitting out during combat, are design issues to consider but that has nothing to do with whatever term you use to market your game. Worrying about that during the design process only serves to constrain your design tools and options. I wasn't talking about marketing. I wasn't talking about whether it's "really" an RPG or board game or anything of the sort. I was talking about context of play, and using "RPG" and "board game" as well known terms for different kinds of play contexts. They largely represent the different "ends" of the range of tabletop games, and are thus useful terms. I'm not excluding other things in the middle. In fact, I recommended thinking about it as a hybrid, something that's not strictly an RPG or board-game in the traditional senses. quote:And I can confirm Rulebook Heavily's post was meant as a contradiction to what you stated. I was quite clear on what he meant. That doesn't mean there is a contradiction. The only contradiction is with what was apparently imagined I said. I said nothing about starting over, about major design overhauls, about not testing as planned, about not continuing. I suggested re-thinking a design goal, and defining it clearly. That's all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Why? If you finish a game and just post it online with no other effort, odds are that literally nobody will ever play it. If it requires any materials or effort on their part the odds only get worse. Because the greatest impediment to finishing games, regardless of whether you want to publish, is finishing them. It's a barrier in your mind. The same applies to any aspect of creative writing, and it's the reason NaNoWriMo exists. Every single project hits the point where it starts getting hard, or becomes a slog, or where stuff simply needs to be written down. The only thing for it is to write to the finish because every other thing you'll do will simply cause the project to lie on a shelf, impeding your progress on further projects. And if no one enjoys it later, who cares? You finished. Now you know you can do it to other projects, maybe even tackle larger ones. Libertad! posted:I believe that the only way this issue can be solved is with a Rulebook Heavily Official Statement. Pfff Yeah Mikan had the right of it. If at any point your marketing terminology is holding your design back and preventing you from finishing, you should stop thinking about marketing. You're not a triple-A games studio beholden to the shareholders of a publishing company, you're some person writing a thing that you thought was cool. And if nothing else, it's easy as hell to say "X with RPG elements" if that's how you end up feeling about what you have. For your very first project that you bring to the finish, finish it first and only then start tearing it apart. It helps to have clear design goals from the start, but it's easier to pick things apart later than to change mid-stream, and if your project is as I've advised a fairly small one you can inflict tons of core design changes on it pretty easily in post. The number one thing is learning to finish. Rulebook Heavily fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
UNRELATEDLY I wasn't going to start on this until after the twentieth so I could worry about real life responsibilities first, but that's the problem with inspiration. And it's not even fresh inspiration. My new to-be-done project is a boardgame project with Legacy mechanics, meaning mechanics which after every playthrough change the game depending on the results of play. The current working title is Dungeon: Legacy, because I am shameless in my inspiration. The high concept is "bands of adventurers enter a dungeon, retrieve loot, use it to build a community". This is very much in the vein of what inspired it, a little web game called Dungeon Robber which is itself based on the AD&D appendices where you can randomly roll up a dungeon on the fly. My original concept was "that game, but not poo poo with pointless things in it", so you know I'm off to an excellent start. I've also done a basic design document. The idea is that players start play in Town, and then enter the Dungeon after equipping and outfitting themselves. The Dungeon is a randomized entity, currently imagined to be a flowchart which can change over time and which brings you to new rooms, encounters, dangers and treasure. As a deckbuilding game, each "character" is a little unique deck you start with and as you gain treasure, take wounds or find unusual things your deck starts bloating up, "weighing" you down. There is no end condition built into the game other than "get loot and get out alive", at least to start with. Loot brought back to town can then be spent on changing the town. Maybe your character opens a tavern. Maybe there's a poorhouse which will lower property values and attract slobs who will work for cheap. Maybe a church is founded. Maybe a menace in the dungeon arises, creating a boss monster encounter and sallying forth from the dungeon to raze a building you already built. This is where the Legacy stuff comes into play, changing the face of the game by opening up and possibly later closing your character options, changing the game's victory conditions and generally mucking up the board. I'm expecting development of this to take a few months, give or take, and this will be something I'm letting the peanut gallery be merciless with. I know I can finish games. Can I finish games under public pressure, in my own thread where I tell everyone else to finish games, in face of criticism and whatnot? That's the real test. Every new race to the finish is about beating old records, because that's the way to improve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind is working on some Dungeon World stuff and posting about it here so I'm assuming it's fair game to post about other stuff that isn't a full-fledged brand new game but, like, supplemental material for currently existing games. If not whoops, I'm doing it here anyway because I desire feedback and don't want to feel like I'm hijacking the Dungeon World thread with constant demands for attention. Instead I'll demand attention here. So someone in the "90s Xtreme Dungeon Crawlz" game in TGR wanted to know if there was a Vampire playbook for Dungeon World and that planted a bug in my head which resulted in a spontaneous 24 hour fit of inspiration during which I hashed out an entire playbook in one sitting. This is how my creative process tends to work...long periods of idling followed by brief periods of acceleration...which is why I'm kind of a lovely gameswriter. The Warlord playbook I wrote a while ago was my first attempt at making anything DW-related and it showed, even after copious feedback, but it was a learning experience. This playbook, though, came to me a lot more naturally and I feel like at some point I might actually want to take it from rough draft to polished copy and maybe even try my hand at publishing it. The playbook in its current state is here. It's currently in a 99% complete state with a full assortment of advance moves from levels 2-10, it uses Drives and Backgrounds as is the "in thing" with DW playbooks these days, and currently only lacks a Death Move (mainly because I can't quite get one to solidify in my head). My design goals for the playbook, in no particular order, were: -Give players the tools to make multiple types of vampires within the confines of a playbook format. One of the most disappointing classes in D&D4E was the Vampire because it was an extremely limited and on-rails expression of a fantasy monster that has a million different variations across novels and movies and games. One person wants to play his vampire as a darkly seductive manipulator, another person wants to play hers as a ravenous monster whose predatory urges are barely held in check, etc. -Vampires, whether they're struggling valiantly against their darker nature or embracing the monster inside of them, should be off-putting and their powers should be selfish, harmful, or otherwise not simply the sort of thing that a vampire can blithely go around using without incurring some sort of cost, some reminder that something about them is fundamentally monstrous and destructive. This isn't meant to punish the player so much as drive the story forward in the sort of direction that you'd typically expect a story involving a vampire to go in. -Take the lessons of my last attempt at creating a playbook to heart, crafting better moves that fit Dungeon World's style while also making each one as interesting and potentially fun as possible. Then, if I'm actually going to take a stab at turning this sucker into a no-fooling actual publication I'm going to need to do a few things to make that into a reality: 1). I need to schedule myself some time on a computer that isn't old and doesn't suck, i.e. pretty much any computer that isn't my own. If I want to actually do any sort of professional layout on this thing then I need to do so on a computer that doesn't start chugging whenever I so much as access Google Drive or open Acrobat Reader. 2). Then I need to actually sit down and figure out how to do all the layout stuff that people like Gnome whip out like it ain't no thing. There are resources in the DW thread for that, some playbook templates, so I don't imagine this should be too difficult but again, this relies upon me getting some time on a better computer to make that sort of work actually feasible. 3). And I also need to unfuck my Paypal account if I want to pay someone for a piece of art or if I want to actually make it possible to receive payment in more than DTRPG credit. A short while back Paypal told me they were freezing my account due to "suspicious activity," which given that I haven't really used Paypal for anything in 3+ years and two bank accounts ago I'm rather confused over the whole thing. I've been lazy about this because, y'know, I don't really use Paypal but I guess if I want to actually take a stab at this I'll need to straighten the whole mess out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:The number one thing is learning to finish. Winson_Paine posted:[...] you don't think it will be loving economically viable. Since that was my major block, these following two points were very helpful. Winson_Paine posted:The idea that "man no one will ever read this so why bother finishing it" is stinkin' thinkin' Mimir posted:I want to assure you that, done well, your game could fill a currently empty niche. A niche in my heart. Also helpful was your all getting a bit upset with my negativity so that I decided I'd rather go work on my cruddy game than keep talking about it here. Thanks, thread! I put in an hour on it last night and maybe I can regain a bit of momentum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
I've been pondering ideas for a mecha game based around shows like Robotech and Gundam. The basic thing I want to accomplish is fast and frenetic cinematic mecha dog fights. The basic resolution mechanic is similar to cortex+: traits are rated from 1d4 - 1d12; these traits make up a roll and keep dice pool where the best two results are added together and compared to a target number. The first part that I am struggling with are the movement mechanics. Typically in an rpg you would be a person who is running around, so rolling for movement doesn't make sense - but in this game you a person who is operating a machine; one that is potentially speeding through ruined cityscapes or slaloming through asteroid fields. Here I'm pondering whether movement from point a to b should require a roll, or if that should be reserved specifically for action sequences and movement/positioning be kept entirely abstract to speed up gameplay. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of something akin to Marvel Heroic Roleplaying where you roll to outmaneuver an enemy mech and if successful, your third highest result is an "effect die" that is added to the pool for your attack roll. The other part I am struggling with is the basic action dice. These are divided into three categories: Aggressive, Defensive and Covert rated from d6 to d10. At first, I was considering a kind of rochambeau mechanic where: covert>aggressive>defensive>covert - which I think fits the idea of mecha dog fights but I don't really know how to leverage mechanically. The idea I have now is that characters assign dice to Aggressive, Defensive, Covert at the beginning of each round. Anyway I would be interested to hear feedback from the community, and see if there's anything I might be forgetting, or if there are any games out there I can compare my own ideas to. Thanks
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:UNRELATEDLY This sounds like an awesome game. The self generating episodic nature where one play through generates a whole new set of conditions for the next play through sounds truly awesome. I and many others would by the poo poo out of that game. Shout out if you get bogged down and need a hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:The idea is that players start play in Town, and then enter the Dungeon after equipping and outfitting themselves. The Dungeon is a randomized entity, currently imagined to be a flowchart which can change over time and which brings you to new rooms, encounters, dangers and treasure. As a deckbuilding game, each "character" is a little unique deck you start with and as you gain treasure, take wounds or find unusual things your deck starts bloating up, "weighing" you down. There is no end condition built into the game other than "get loot and get out alive", at least to start with. This sounds pretty sweet. We need more games with townbuilding-style mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
The toughest part of putting a game together for me has been organizing it. Deciding where information should appear and in what order to present it is a lot harder than knowing what to put in the game. Right now my outline organizes the book into five parts: Mechanical information: The introduction, which has the basics of what the game is and some basic setting info to understand the rest of the book, the conflict system, character creation, and a world-generation system I'm working on. Useful appendices: This is mostly character creation options: merits and flaws for characters, the list of magic powers, the list of magical devices, and tables and lists for world generation. The latter might get scrapped, it's still in very preliminary stages, and I'm not sure how fun or useful it will turn out to be. Setting information - An overview of the world, a guide to various races and factions, a guide to important places, and a history section. Player guidelines - Since the game is rules-light and depends a lot on everyone cooperating, and I want it to be accessible to those who have never played an RPG before, guidelines about how the game is intended to work are important. This section covers roleplaying, some advice on character creation, how to share the spotlight, and sections about solving in- and out-of-character conflicts. GM guidelines - Advice for the GM on how to use the material in the book, make the setting their own, play NPCs, manage a campaign, resolve conflicts, and have a player-driven game. Again, being rules-light it depends a lot on the GM and players understanding how the game should be played, since there's not a lot of mechanical limitations on either of them. My biggest concern is the second section. I wanted to put all the lists of character creation options in their own section, since I figured players will be referring to that section the most, and I didn't want other mechanical information to get lost in the character options. Should I put all this info in the character creation portion of section one, or keep it on its own? Any other organization advice?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
I have a game basically designed enough where people can do... something with it. My hangup is that my monitor died on my PC and I can't be arsed to bang out a rulebook on this tablet. Also when I bring it up to my gaming groups, I can almost hear their sphincters puckering in terror. Even the players who bitch about how terrible our 3.5 game is. tl;Dr I need to buy a new computer so I can type things into Google docs and hope goons will play it over IRC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:So someone in the "90s Xtreme Dungeon Crawlz" game in TGR wanted to know if there was a Vampire playbook for Dungeon World and that planted a bug in my head which resulted in a spontaneous 24 hour fit of inspiration during which I hashed out an entire playbook in one sitting. That was me. I really dig the playbook, if it had been around when that game started recruiting I would have played it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:UNRELATEDLY Please be more Risk: Legacy than Rogue Legacy, and actually require the player to physically destroy elements of the game from time to time, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
I've already planned an event where a big new menace rises in the dungeon, rides into town and burns down something you've built, and you have to rip up all the options associated with that building. And you don't get it back even if you defeat the menace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:I've already planned an event where a big new menace rises in the dungeon, rides into town and burns down something you've built, and you have to rip up all the options associated with that building. And you don't get it back even if you defeat the menace. I don't know if this fucks with the players too much, but having some sort of thing where certain groups of spells just stop working, or one of the gods that the cleric / paladin characters draw upon changes its nature entirely would be interesting. Would new classes be unlocked through buildings or other events?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Yep! And it would be based both on finding things in the dungeon and on decision made at home. If you build certain buildings, others might be locked out permanently. If you rescue a prominent Elf in the dungeon, a community of them moves in and people get Elf things. If a relic is recovered, depending on what you do with it you found a new order of Paladins OR Blackguards, and so on. New areas of the dungeon might open up, unlocking sections like The Caves with a fresh set of dangers and potential treasures, or maybe the caves later collapse to reveal The Netherworld. This mode of gameplay and design involves a lot of discrete content creation and planning, but it's also really fascinating what you can do with just a few cards, a sticker and an envelope to transform the face of a game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Hey writing thread, can I get some feedback on some writing? I've got a few pages of the terse version (i.e. brief explanations and no examples) of my heartbreaker done and I'd love to have feedback on how clear the writing is and how well I get the rules across (as opposed to a mechanical critique of the draft rules). If you can't get the gist with a quick scan then I've probably got to clean it up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:My biggest concern is the second section. I wanted to put all the lists of character creation options in their own section, since I figured players will be referring to that section the most, and I didn't want other mechanical information to get lost in the character options. Should I put all this info in the character creation portion of section one, or keep it on its own? Any other organization advice? Place them where they're relevant, near the magic or item or power section, so you can see how the more general rules work out in practice. But also have them as their own separate pdf/GM screen/google doc that can be referenced quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Update for Blood & Gears: Still writing in the basic skill descriptions and examples. They are only 1-2 lines each but I have a lot of skills to do. I an intentionally doing the boring stuff now as I have a habit of putting it off for the more fun structural bits and developing mechanics. Should have this step done within the next few days, then on to filling out some more instructions on how to handle skills for more simplified gameplay. This is especially important as it is a fairly crunchy skills based game. I will have a preview doc available to peruse once I am at alpha testing stage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
FewtureMD posted:First of all, this is an awesome idea. Secondly, what if you grouped the classes around functional axes? Like Support Magic, Attack Magic, Melee Attackers, etc. Allow players to switch to any class in their particular 'axis' before a session, and use JP as the resource used to jump to a different 'axis' entirely after a session? I was thinking something like this in terms of class switching, taking a page out of FF3 and every session the DM grants every player a certain amount of points for job switches. The Axis thing could take it a whole extra step, maybe increase the cost based on how many axis you need to jump to get to the new class?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Inspired by the chat over in the Dungeon World thread I've decided to take a crack at doing my version of a PbtA Superhero game. I'm shooting for something like early Marvel Comics in tone, a little goofy and a little melodramatic with lots of weird. This is my first attempt at something like this but I figure it should be a fun learning experience, even if the hack doesn't turn out super great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
After much hand-wringing and procrastinating, I finally typed up my D&D clone/heartbreaker into Google docs. I still have to type up feats and maybe roles, but chrome crashed a dozen times in addition to my usual touchscreen problem spazzing out, so gently caress it for right now. Any advice on maths or formatting or anything at all is much appreciated. Link. Edit: and skills. I'll write more before Monday. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:After much hand-wringing and procrastinating, I finally typed up my D&D clone/heartbreaker into Google docs. I still have to type up feats and maybe roles, but chrome crashed a dozen times in addition to my usual touchscreen problem spazzing out, so gently caress it for right now. Not sure if you intended it this way but it's making me request access to the doc before I can view it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Xaander posted:Not sure if you intended it this way but it's making me request access to the doc before I can view it. I'm really bad at doing internets. Try it now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Any advice on maths or formatting or anything at all is much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:This reads as a concise summary of a simple, combat-focused game. Most of the choices seemed to be front-loaded in character creation with combat being mostly about choosing the applicable defense that gives you the biggest die. I'd say any formatting is better than no formatting, so at least put some emphasis on your section headings. Yeah, I started typing it in the mobile version of Google docs page, hence no bolding or underlines. But I found everything in the rules is interconnected so I wasn't sure how to break the sections up; instead, I just wrote about something whenever writing about something else made me think of it. The funny thing is, it's actually as front loaded as you want it to be. It's possible to modularize the rules and strip out pieces. The "powers" could be ignored wholesale, items aside from your weapon slots can be left out, hell you could even ditch levelling. Should I work explanations for how to do this into the applicable sections, or do it as one big appendix? Edit: wrote up the feats P.d0t fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
So I've been looking at various Open Source artwork, and Rulebook Heavily mentioned earlier in the thread how he used the Prismatic Art Collection for Dungeon World playbooks. I looked over at the website, and found that a lot of the stuff is under Creative Commons License. And one of the pieces I wanted to use has already been put in a gaming product. I had the impression that Creative Commons were non-profit, but the ones here allow one to appropriate it for commercial purposes. So is it fine to take a Creative Commons work which has already been used in a board game?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:So is it fine to take a Creative Commons work which has already been used in a board game? There are many different Creative Commons licenses, so it depends on the Creative Commons license. Some CC licenses are Non-Commercial. Assuming the one you're looking at doesn't use this clause (you'd see an -NC suffix in the little CC license icon if it did), you should be fine here. Another thing you might need to be careful about, though, is No Derivatives and Share Alike CC licenses. I'm not clear on whether, say, simply putting a piece of artwork on the cover of an RPG book makes that entire book count as a derivative work for these purposes. If so, under No Derivatives, you simply couldn't do that. Under Share Alike, you'd have to license your book under the same license that art used.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
This is the artwork in question. It says here that it can be used for commercial purposes. But it's Share Alike.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
Libertad! posted:This is the artwork in question. What other people have done with the art has no bearing on what you can do with it; the particulars of their chosen Cc license is what you need to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 00:06
|
|
