|
Been workin' on a PBTA hack, and I gotta ask everyone: how do you do your GM moves? As actual when-you-do-a-thing moves, or just "inflict harm" text snippets that the GM can use whenever? I'm at a bit of a loss right now for how best to do this thing.
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
There's a discussion of initiative / combat ordering schemes in the 5e thread, but since my post has nothing to do with 5e I thought I'd ask here: I played around with combat initiative in my homebrew such that everyone has a number of action points (AP) which scale off highest attribute, and every action you can take in combat costs some number of AP. At the start of combat, roll initiative. Each round consists of characters taking one action at a time in order of initiative, going through the initiative order repeatedly until everyone's AP is exhausted. So a character might first run up to the NPC, who will have the opportunity to e.g. do a melee attack, then the character gets another opportunity to act presuming he still has AP. More powerful characters get to do more actions by virtue of having more AP, but actions are interwoven. I'd like to see how other games have done similar systems, but I don't know how to phrase it to Google and my RPG experience is largely D&D and retroclones. Does the basic idea--one action at a time, cycling through until all action points are spent--sound familiar? The Fallout PnP game uses action points, but you spend them all at once when it's your turn.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:There's a discussion of initiative / combat ordering schemes in the 5e thread, but since my post has nothing to do with 5e I thought I'd ask here: Also I know I've heard of a game that where if you have 3 actions and initiative Y you get an action at (Y), (2Y/3), and (Y/3) which sounds similar to what you're talking about, but for the life of me I can't think of what it was. I'm helping! e: General AP-based-game thing: Have something that unspent AP automatically goes into. Not enough for someone to consider deliberately not spending AP, but enough such that if someone has 1 or 2AP left and spending it is impractical it's not entirely wasted. Fallout 1&2 for example dump unused AP into your AC. AC is a d100 so realistically that extra 1-2% isn't going to do anything but it's got feelgood factor. Splicer fucked around with this message at 19:38 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I haven't really played much shadowrun so I can't really comment on its goodness, but to my understanding if you have multiple actions in shadowrun you only get to use one of them per initiative pass, and you keep doing intitiative passes until you run out. There's a decent explanation here. I've heard the main problem with it is the usual problem with multiple actions (in that they're nearly impossible to balance and usually result in the best builds being the ones with the most actions) Thanks! https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/16361/how-do-initiative-passes-and-multiple-actions-work makes it sound like the "initiative passes" stuff works very much like my system, the difference being that the number of passes you get depends on what you do in each pass. As mine's written right now, you could theoretically use all your AP in the first pass running as far away as you can, maybe there should be a limitation on how much AP you can expend on movement per pass. As for putting unspent AP into things, I haven't codified it but yeah my thought was that you could carry over unspent AP as additional defense dice in the next round or the remainder of the current round. Whether or not they should simply be dumped into the very next incoming attack or doled out at the player's discretion, I don't know. It would have a much bigger effect than Fallout's system, to the extent that I could absolutely see someone tanking pretty effectively by simply hunkering down each turn to get the extra defense dice... I'm not 100% sure that's what I want but it doesn't sound unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I haven't really played much shadowrun so I can't really comment on its goodness, but to my understanding if you have multiple actions in shadowrun you only get to use one of them per initiative pass, and you keep doing intitiative passes until you run out. There's a decent explanation here. I've heard the main problem with it is the usual problem with multiple actions (in that they're nearly impossible to balance and usually result in the best builds being the ones with the most actions) Unisystem handles multiple actions by giving increasing penalties to every action after the first
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:Unisystem handles multiple actions by giving increasing penalties to every action after the first
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Shadowrun 3e X/X-10/X-20/X-30
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Additional actions are a huge force multiplier, especially if they're open to any of the normal action types like attacking, moving, casting a spell, using an item or a skill, etc. 5e is an ok place to look for cues. Fighter bonus attacks only happen if the fighter makes an Attack Action on his turn. He can't cast Shocking Grasp (the Cast a Spell Action or whatever, a likely scenario since one of the fighter paths would let him do this) and sneak in a sword whack with his bonus attack. Same if he took the Defend or Aid actions or used a skill and so on. The 5e Rogue gets Cunning Action, where he can Dash (add [speed] to your movement for this turn) Disengage (your movement this turn does not provoke attacks of opportunity) or Hide (as in, use the skill) as a Bonus Action on his turn. So the Rogue could Move(move your speed), Dash and Attack in the same round, Move, Dash, Dash for x3 speed or Disengage and do any other movement/action combo. If they're lucky, there will be some way for them to Hide (they actually need obscurement and cover, you know). So, both of those classes get powerful extra action options, but they are intentionally limited in scope. As another D&D example, look at big boss monsters between 3e and 4-5e. Every dragon encounter I ran in 3e that didn't involve swarms of the dragon's minions swamping the party down lasted 1-3 rounds of combat, often with one of those rounds involving the dragon fleeing. Why? A typical party of 4-5 players has a huge action advantage on the dragon. Sure, it might have piles of attacks once it gets stuck in melee after shooting out some elemental damage, but it only has 1 move and 1 attack action to react to player's movements. Cue a pinned and nullified monster beatdown in short order. Worse, most of the hurt a monster like that could bring to bear would be focused on one or two PCs. Since monsters and PCs were built the same, this means you tended to turn the party meatshield into a blood fountain while everyone else did the curbstomp. 4e added extra actions to big boss dudes. Attacks that got thrown out at health thresholds. Stuff that focused on hitting more PCs rather than hitting harder, etc. Basically MMO boss raid mechanics. 5e simplified that back down a bit to legendary actions, with the additional punishment of lair actions for taking a boss on in its home turf. It feels p good. Note that it's only the big mega bads in 5e that have extra action shenanigans. Part of that is for GM sanity. If you're going to do extra actions for stuff, err in favor of the players and try to keep the GM side simple and uncluttered. Reserve the PCesque mechanics for big bads and important dudes. That's my brief take on actions.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I explained that poorly. It was some system where if you had, say, three attacks, and initiative 12, you'd act at 12, 8, and 4. If you had two attacks it was 12 and 6. I thought it was tri-stat but apparently not, and it's killing me that I can't remember what it was. That sounds a lot like Champions. In that game, you could have a Speed score between 1 and 12. Speed was one of the most expensive things to upgrade, because that number is how many turns you get each round. Someone with 11 Speed acts on turns 1-11, only skipping turn 12. Someone with 3 Speed only took a turn on turns 4, 8, and 12. Needless to say, Speed-focused characters in Champions are completely ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:Shadowrun 3e As Pvt.Scott said, more actions is always better. Since your highest stat dictates how many actions you have, players will stack their highest stat as high as possible. If everyone's going to do that anyway, why not just give everyone 12 (or whatever) AP a round? You could still differentiate players by how much actions cost, e.g. punching costs 3AP for a brawler type and 4AP for everyone else. 2AP spent by Nimble McDriveBy on movement nets 3AP of everyone else's movement etc.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Splicer posted:As Pvt.Scott said, more actions is always better. Since your highest stat dictates how many actions you have, players will stack their highest stat as high as possible. If everyone's going to do that anyway, why not just give everyone 12 (or whatever) AP a round? You could still differentiate players by how much actions cost, e.g. punching costs 3AP for a brawler type and 4AP for everyone else. 2AP spent by Nimble McDriveBy on movement nets 3AP of everyone else's movement etc. That's worth looking at. I have AP scaled based on highest stat because the AP stuff was largely inspired by the Fallout system, which gave AP scaled to your dexterity attribute. As currently written, you can only raise a stat to 3 (out of 5) at character creation, with the intent that every few levels you'd get one additional point to put in a stat of your choice; as you point out, they'll probably dump it in the high stat right off, because the extra 2 AP you get in raising a stat from 3 to 4 or 4 to 5 would mean getting in an additional pistol shot. My hope for balancing it was that putting everything into one stat would mean you're not very good at the skills which key off the other three stats... oh, and I almost forgot, your defense roll is based on your lowest stat. But if I let unspent AP translate into additional defense dice... well, that kind of de-fangs the second penalty. Figuring out the interactions for all this poo poo is a pain in the rear end  I did a lot of playing around with that dice roll modeling website whose URL I forget, but at some point I might need to start loving around with spreadsheets some more.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Here's a question: if I decide that something in a game I've already put out totally blows and I didn't realize it until after the game is out, should I a.) Just release errata D&D style in later books, because I'm already knee deep in writing another book? b.) "Patch" the old one, and send out E-mails so everybody that got the PDF can get the updated version? Obviously that screws anyone that purchased the print version, since I can't, like, edit the physical book they already have in their hands.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Lunatic Sledge posted:Here's a question: if I decide that something in a game I've already put out totally blows and I didn't realize it until after the game is out, should I  How big a change is it? Are we talking "This feat is lovely use this one" or "OK so forget dice, everything is card based now".
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Release as version 1.5 and charge everyone again There's a few wording changes I'd like to implement, but the big one: the game currently has a death spiral mechanic. You take a penalty to rolls for how damaged you are. I liked it originally because it made fights more dramatic, and helped balance how powerful the PCs are mechanically (every class but one has a default way to either mitigate damage or heal it). I've since realized that the mechanic is stupid, and most importantly, my game is based on anime stereotypes. Death spirals are Not Very Anime. After a few long talks about it with some of my players, I'm actually inclined to swing it the other way, and give a bonus to combat checks as the player winds down--sort of a last stand kind of thing, let dying characters go out in a blaze of glory or claw their way back up from the edge of death. It's not a MASSIVE change to the game, but it is a change that would affect everybody playing it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Lunatic Sledge posted:There's a few wording changes I'd like to implement, but the big one: the game currently has a death spiral mechanic. You take a penalty to rolls for how damaged you are. I liked it originally because it made fights more dramatic, and helped balance how powerful the PCs are mechanically (every class but one has a default way to either mitigate damage or heal it). I'd upload a version to DTRPG with your new rules, but keep the old version for people to download - as it's quite a significant change people may want to keep playing with the old version, and you want to make that easy for them.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
As my design of Let Thrones Beware progresses, I find myself doing things that I never thought I'd do - such as totally scrapping ability scores and modifiers. Having done that, I realize that the current pre-combat initiative system (roll +mod) is also terminally boring, so I replaced it with the following. Does it make sense? Is it readable? New Initiative System posted:
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Hey folks, long time no see. So the good news is that I finished my first draft of my Tome of Battle Style 5th Edition sourcebook. It's a bit long (82 pages), albeit most of that are special moves (called 'techniques' in this) and such. If anybody here is adept in 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons mechanics, I'd appreciate your input. My ideal goal is to have a class which can do more stuff in combat than say, the Barbarian/Fighter/non-UE Ranger in the form of more damage, affliction of various Conditions, etc. The techniques (which are the special moves like 3.X maneuvers) are based off of a short rest refreshment period. I don't know of a good Tier System for 5e, but I'd like my Martial Disciple class to be above Barbarians/Fighters, ideally hover around warlocks, and probably less OP than a Moon Druid and other easily broken stuff. Google Doc link is here. Libertad! fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Jun 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
slap me and kiss me posted:As my design of Let Thrones Beware progresses, I find myself doing things that I never thought I'd do - such as totally scrapping ability scores and modifiers. What if there is a draw? And there are four heroes, yet both stacks are made up of five attacks - is that intentional?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:What if there is a draw? And there are four heroes, yet both stacks are made up of five attacks - is that intentional? Good questions! In the event of a tie, both sides put a combatant into the initiative order (player side first). The size of stacks is intentional - I was trying to illustrate that players can exhaust as many powers as they want to try and secure top billing in init order. I'll add some clarifying text around both questions, because I can see them being asked frequently. Thanks for the feedback!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Fantasy Samurai Jidaigeki PBtA Hack Draft So, I kinda descended into a fugue state last weekend and wrote this monstrosity. This is a Fantasy Samurai Jidaigeki PBtA hack with a lot of rough edges that I'm going to be running as a filler game while I work on a larger campaign for m usual table. If anyone wants to take a look and offer me any critique, I'd certainly appreciate it. I'd ask that you not spread this around, I don't want it to be representative of my work, just a quickie. Full disclosure: I'm not deeply experienced with PBtA. There is a bunch of un-credited Google Image search art. A fair amount of this is written just for me and my table, so it's even odds if I forgot to include, or didn't want to spend the time writing something that's missing. Last, I am a white guy that watches anime and Samurai movies. I straight up do not have the authority to write this. It is appropriative as hell. If you should object on those grounds, I completely respect that. I'm going to offer this same disclaimer before running the game. I won't offer any more justification, I respect that this means the work has indelible problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
So, here's kind of an odd one: I've got an idea for a modular roleplaying game. Like, I release the base rules, and then once or twice week I put out a new class, monster, dungeon, or whatever on the same website. The reason I'm thinking about doing this is: I can get real time feedback, comments, and requests as the content is coming out. If something's dumb, I can change it. If people want to see stats for something in particular or pitch me a neat idea, I can post that the following week and not have to, like, put out a whole book or anything. The whole thing would be totally free, though I'd probably try to monetize ad space on the site itself. My question is this: should I put this straight up on a website, like on a wiki or a blog, or should I host printable PDFs and just use a site to link them? I feel like having the content on the website itself would make it easier to browse and compare stuff, but I'm not sure what people are more likely to use at their tables--a phone opened to a website, or a phone opened to a PDF. I'm also kind of curious if something like this has been tried before, and if there's any hurdles I'm not considering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
So, I was reading a dude's RPG blog post. He complained about how rock-paper-scissors element design can lead to a lack of real choices. Like, when something's weak against scissors, your only real choice is to use rock if you have it. It's not terribly satisfying. Of course, this guy's solution was to turn it into an Adventure Game where players have to use every spell, attack, and magic item they have until they find the random weakness the enemy has, which is lovely. I wrote a response. The relevant bit is that I started thinking of ways you could introduce weird weaknesses, but actually give players enough information to solve them. Like, maybe they skeletons are dry and dusty, giving a clue that they're on fire. Maybe they have glowing sigils you have to hit to make them stay down. Now I"m thinking of maybe making a product that's basically a set of templates you can use to give monsters new weaknesses or resistances, but also give clues to help players figure them out. So, start off with a list of how these rules might interact, defining what normal attacks do (normal damage, half damage, no damage, monster gets back up after a minute), to what the weakness does (normal damage, double damage, instant-kill, or special effect [slowed, on fire, confused, etc.]). Then I'd go through a bunch of potential weaknesses, with some fluff descriptions to help players figure them out. Does that sound like a product anyone would be interested in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
JackMann posted:So, I was reading a dude's RPG blog post. He complained about how rock-paper-scissors element design can lead to a lack of real choices. Like, when something's weak against scissors, your only real choice is to use rock if you have it. It's not terribly satisfying. I'd be in for that. Two potential paths are a system neutral book, maybe with limited mechanics examples/ideas for the more popular systems and guidance on adapting the ideas presented (5e/Pathfinder/OSR, Traveller, Basic Roleplaying System /Choasium Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, whatever you feel like) a single system book (just 5e). I'm already excited by your idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Planning on going fairly system neutral, with the mechanics being more broad-stroke so they can be implemented in a variety of games. Here's what I have so far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
Lunatic Sledge posted:So, here's kind of an odd one: I've got an idea for a modular roleplaying game. Like, I release the base rules, and then once or twice week I put out a new class, monster, dungeon, or whatever on the same website. The reason I'm thinking about doing this is: I can get real time feedback, comments, and requests as the content is coming out. If something's dumb, I can change it. If people want to see stats for something in particular or pitch me a neat idea, I can post that the following week and not have to, like, put out a whole book or anything. The whole thing would be totally free, though I'd probably try to monetize ad space on the site itself. Speaking for myself, I use pdfs over websites at the table. Given the set-up you're talking about here, that might get messy having so many pdfs, so a wiki-style resource seems to make more sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
So, I've been working on a tactical combat, medium crunch mecha game for some time now. I've been lucky enough to get some great playtesting in, I'm confident in my basic mechanics and where most of the numbers fit at this point, and I even have some great art assets to use. However, when it comes to actually organizing the How to Play, Crunch, and Setting information into a manuscript, I find myself at a loss. Can anyone recommend a good strategy for how to organize an RPG book's chapters and content?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
LeSquide posted:So, I've been working on a tactical combat, medium crunch mecha game for some time now. I've been lucky enough to get some great playtesting in, I'm confident in my basic mechanics and where most of the numbers fit at this point, and I even have some great art assets to use. However, when it comes to actually organizing the How to Play, Crunch, and Setting information into a manuscript, I find myself at a loss. Can anyone recommend a good strategy for how to organize an RPG book's chapters and content? I'd try to put summary information on setting and gameplay first, then how to play, then crunch, then setting. The order of crunch and setting doesn't matter so much, so long as they're clearly seperate and easy to reference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
LeSquide posted:So, I've been working on a tactical combat, medium crunch mecha game for some time now. I've been lucky enough to get some great playtesting in, I'm confident in my basic mechanics and where most of the numbers fit at this point, and I even have some great art assets to use. However, when it comes to actually organizing the How to Play, Crunch, and Setting information into a manuscript, I find myself at a loss. Can anyone recommend a good strategy for how to organize an RPG book's chapters and content? Read several books from Mongoose Publishing, and don't do whatever it is they do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Anyone here remember Friendship, Effort, Victory? The Battle Manga Powered by the Apocalypse game I was working on? Well, I finally remembered it existed and made a new draft. I plan on this being the near final draft. Like, it's been in development for too long. Anyway, I really, really would appreciate any criticism you guys might have. Anything I missed, anything you think I should tweak, anything. So, first off, what is FEV?
Once again, any comments are appreciated. Covok fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Jul 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
Hello all, I'd very much appreciate some input on a design problem I'm having. I'm taking the lead in designing and running what is essentially a lightweight strategy boardgame for a LARP group I'm part of, where the outcomes of battles are decided by our games out on the field. In the current version, winning or losing is an all-or-nothing proposition, much like Risk - either your team runs out of respawns, or their team does, no intermediate results. The problem is, this results in a lot of pressure in the field games, which isn't making people happy. If you lose a battle, it means falling behind the other players at best, and at worst it can put you at a serious and possibly unrecoverable disadvantage. Since the game is being played at a rate of one turn per month, it's not something like Kemet where you shrug off bad luck in one game because, no worries, you can play multiple games in an evening - the results of your loss are going to stick with you for an extended period of time. We're seven turns in (started playing at the beginning of the year) and several players have dropped out, and I suspect the pressure to win is what made them not enjoy it. What I'd like to do is redesign the system so that winning gives you some benefit, but that you don't have to win to accomplish your goals. If winning is meaningless, the game is meaningless, so it needs to have some impact on results, but not enough that losing is a huge deal. There are several main types of battle in the game: - PvE with the goal of conquering a map tile that is unoccupied by a player (fighting against an encounter generated from a table) - PvP with the goal of stealing resources from another player (raiding). - PvP with the goal of conquering a tile owned by another player I want to turn the PvE battles from "win or lose" to "winning to different degrees." I want to encourage the "raiding" type of PvP battle while discouraging (but not eliminating) conquering tiles owned by other players, preferably without making it too negative on the player getting raided. Basically, I want to make losing not suck, because losing discourages people and makes them drop out of the game, so everyone's experience suffers. The game doesn't have a specific end goal, there's no fixed objective like "control X tiles" or "conquer all other players." If anyone has any suggestions or can think of any games that have similar mechanics that I can steal from, I'd be very grateful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Kylaer posted:Hello all, I'd very much appreciate some input on a design problem I'm having. I'm taking the lead in designing and running what is essentially a lightweight strategy boardgame for a LARP group I'm part of, where the outcomes of battles are decided by our games out on the field. In the current version, winning or losing is an all-or-nothing proposition, much like Risk - either your team runs out of respawns, or their team does, no intermediate results. Raids are about getting in, accomplishing a task, and getting out. If we're talking about ancient cattle raids, priority 1 is getting the goods out safely and quickly. Priority 2 is getting the raiders home safely, so you'll want to avoid conflict where possible. Priority 3 is humiliating the enemy by besting them in combat and/or taunting them during the withdrawal. Defenders want to get as much back as they can, take prisoners for ransom, and humiliate the raiders by besting them handily in one-on-one combat. Prisoners can be ransomed back for other prisoners, trade goods, some of the cattle that just got stolen, brides for marriage, etc. None of this is expected by either side to be particularly lethal, as raids and counter-raids happen all of the time and act as a sort of troop training and occupies wild youngin's who might otherwise look for trouble at home. Think of it as a competitive sport that occasionally gets out of hand, with small pitched battles and maybe a handful of KIAs and serious injuries. This raiding might even go on between otherwise good relations or even allies. Bragging rights are a big deal at meetings of multiple factions, so telling the story of how you owned the poo poo out of the ambassador's son during three separate raids is sure to be a crowd pleaser. So, the defenders might lose a heap of cattle, but capture a couple raiders and get a low-level political marriage and some valuable goods out of the deal. With more advanced and technological settings, raids get more organized, more deadly and far less fraternal. I guess knowing the type of setting or theme could help with suggesting ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
It's very generic swords-and-sorcery fantasy, people can describe their character and faction however they want. Conflicts such as you describe is definitely a good way to look at it. I tend to think of the early Greek city-states, where they'd settle disputes by marching their army over to the enemy city and burning their olive groves until they came out to fight, then go home again after the battle was over. The mechanics of the game itself aren't extremely complicated because I'm doing all the recordkeeping in a map program and an Excel spreadsheet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
Crosspostin' from the PBTA thread:Fuego Fish posted:I've been working on a hack called Dragon Ball Parallels, which is specifically to emulate everyone's favourite punchmans soap opera. So, ha ha, there's no chance this will ever be for sale or even produced in a professional capacity, but I'm taking what I've learned here and putting it towards future projects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Working on a micro-RPG. I haven't mathed it out yet, so I'm not sure how well it'll go in practice, but here's what I have so far:quote:Clever Little Kobolds EDIT: Made some changes, added in some narrative stuff. JackMann fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
The muse punched me in the skull last night, so I made a game. Urban fantasy with totally not the Warhamster chaos gods as the supernatural bit, system loosely based on Lasers & Feelings & Star Force. Against the Ruinous Powers It's 3,500 words, so I won't paste it in the thread. Feel free to kick the tyres and tell me what's wrong with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
I made and finished a game project
|
Weaknesses Currently have all the common RPG weaknesses I could think of, each with three potential "tells" and a special effect that they could inflict. Also added in some advice for more unique weaknesses and how to structure a mini-adventure around them. Thoughts? Anything else I might add to the write-up, or areas that should be expanded?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Playtest 006: Domain Management, Mass Combat, Mythic Foes August has arrived, and with it, the 6th revision of the Let Thrones Beware Playtest. This iterative build refines the campaign cycle, adds preliminary domain management and mass combat, provides additional adversaries, and introduces new, uniquely dangerous mythic foes. Playtest 006 Updates: GM Options Non-Combat Challenges Non-combat challenges have been provided more depth with the addition of background and foreground components and blockers. These components will make resolving non-combat challenges much more interesting, as heroes have to contend with a variety of new complicating factors. Domain Management Domain management is a new way for players to make their mark on Ceyenus. The heroes success or failure at resolving adventures manifests as changes in the campaign track; advances along the track allow the heroes to construct new enhancements (e.g. basic buildings such as a smithy or a stable at the adventurer tier). These enhancements provide additional resources to the heroes whenever they undertake a new adventure, and will allow the heroes to field a larger army when it comes to the ultimate battle between good and evil. Mass Combat Mass combat is the capstone of the campaign cycle. Depending on how well the heroes advanced the campaign track, the nefarious villain behind everything may launch an invasion. The heroes will assemble an army of allies based on how well they performed, and the pitched battle that results will determine the fate of the Deep Wood. Adversaries Two new adversaries have been added - one another faction in opposition to the heroes, and one something new entirely. Mythic Foes While most of the foes heroes face are surmountable with grit and determination, there are some opponents that cannot be defeated by mere force. These mythic foes pose significant danger, and can only be defeated by the heroes with significant preparation. In fact, if the heroes confront these foes without research and adequate preparation, they will quickly find themselves in an unwinnable situation. Cult of Man There exist secretive groups that seeks to discover the vile magics harnessed by the Kingdom to further their own goals. Venerating relics, unholy artifacts, and the bones of the dead, the Cult of Man seeks to uncover ancient secrets that hint at unleashing untold power. The Cult comes with a full compliment of adversaries of all types. Playtest 006 Updates: Player Options While 006 doesn't include a significant change to heroes, it does add one new item. Much like how each class has a special feature that provides additional utility in combat, each background now comes with an ability useable in non-combat challenges. This will help differentiate the different backgrounds from each other and will help make background selection even more of a meaningful choice. Downloads
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Well folks, I finished another one, and I'm proud of the work I put into it. The Martial Disciple is a 3rd party 5th Edition D&D book inspired by Path of War, the Witcher (well one school), and other cinematic examples of fantasy fighters in media. It was an idea back in 2015 but got backlogged by other projects. I sought to grant a versatile assortment of fighting styles and moves in 5th Edition in a similar style to what Dreamscarred Press has done. As of now it's my second-longest work and I feel both excited and anxious now that it's up on the market. This makes it my 3rd "fighter sourcebook" for D&D games and retroclones. This seems to be my niche.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
I got inspiration to write an RPG. It's about playing social activists trying to advance the rights of mythos creatures. Any suggestion on what system would work best for this sort of game?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 17:27
|
|
