|
SirPhoebos posted:So I was brainstorming what table-top version of Final Fantasy would really look like (I know I know, stop me if you've heard this before), and I came up with this idea for the general structure: I like the idea, but what does the third point look like? I don't think I have a lot of exposure to the sort of games you're referencing, so a few examples wouldn't hurt.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:So I was brainstorming what table-top version of Final Fantasy would really look like (I know I know, stop me if you've heard this before), and I came up with this idea for the general structure: Interesting timing! I'm getting close to having the gameplay handbook part of my own FF tabletop/boardgame hammered out. This is a game I've been designing because I've got friends who want to play an RPG, but want to get into the actual playing of it quickly, and get varying degrees of drunk while doing so. The reason why I based it off of FF was because FF was something they were all familiar with, so it was a very easy way to have something appear in the game without having to explain what it is or the ramifications of its appearance. It more or less functions like simplified tabletop FFV, with interchangeable job ability shenanigans being a key part of the appeal. Characters are built from various cards for their job classes, special command abilities, items they buy, treasures found, etc. The dice mechanic behind it is a very simple 1d6, and numbers are kept quite low in an effort to make for fast and easy math. I've opted to have level-ups be objective-based occurrences (restoring a crystal, getting an airship) rather than making a group try to track their experience, since this helps minimize having to write anything down outside of tracking current Hp. Originally as a part of the same book, I'd intended to feature a stock world with a selection of quests with randomized objectives and dungeons. It turns out that randomizing stuff causes things to balloon immensely, so I've set this part of the game aside for now to focus on getting it in a playable state even with just a static overworld. Almost all of the features of the stock world (Challenge World Gaia, CWG) are automated/defined in terms allowing all the participating players to actually play a PC and only one of them nominated to dictate the results of the randomness rather than being a full-blown GM (a role optionally intended to rotate between the players as chapters were progressed through). In terms of character-derived plot, I've messed around with a lot of ideas. The one idea currently in the lead focuses on a character selecting a few more building-block cards representing personalities, a past aspect, and a desire, through which more interesting and in-depth objectives could be pursued. I've pursued "cutscenes" as a sort of little card game, using character aspects to assert control over the scene and engage in narration that allows for more cinematic things to be performed and handled without having to obey the normal video-gamey structure of the game. But I haven't progressed much further on this cutscene front since CWG was set aside to hash out the game's core gameplay. I'm just about done with the core rulebook, which is about 10000 words of mostly describing how Final Fantasy works (rows, defending, status ailments, changing jobs, etc.). Next up is pre-generated (non-boss) encounters, of which there are 6 encounters per level for each type of terrain (of which there are 15 different kinds), which makes for 900 different encounters. This is so that monsters can easily scale with the party no matter what level they are or where they go. I mention it mostly because its also a good example of how when trying to accommodate all sorts of random values, how quickly the work volume of involved can really ramp up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:I like the idea, but what does the third point look like? I don't think I have a lot of exposure to the sort of games you're referencing, so a few examples wouldn't hurt. That's where I don't really have the experience to properly flesh my framework out. The idea would be that between dungeon areas, the players and GM are establishing the world, the story, how the PCs are connected to the main story, what the side story is, who the antagonists are, etc. The problem is that this is pretty free-form, but I want to also define it enough that there are definite objectives or benchmarks that the game can say "okay, you achieved so-and-so, you're now going to be better at fighting monsters or you can put Zandetsuken in the next dungeon." Also there's the question of if there's a failure state. This is not just "the protagonists encounter additional adversity" because like a "someone hates you" drawback this just gives the players more things to hit. Instead, I would define failing a story session as "somehow we had the equivalent of an anime filler episode."
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
So, I've got kind of a sticky decision I'm trying to make and hopefully folks'll have some feedback: My game is Badass Kung Fu Demigods, which is designed around anime-esque Power Levels where players (and many NPCs) are capable of escalating their abilities by several orders of magnitude. For instance, the standard power levels are Heroic (action movie hero), Awakened (going hand-to-hand with tanks), Monstrous (wrecking buildings), Unleashed (natural disaster level) and potentially Limitless (planet-busting). Anyway, my question revolves around how health is handled. Currently I use a simple wound system where characters can take 5 points of Damage before being KO'd. Simple enough. The complexity comes from the fact that when you Power Up (which can be done largely at will), you automatically wipe out all Damage you've suffered at a lower power level. You can even choose to Power Up if you've been KO'd (either getting back up if you've been KO'd a while or just choosing to no-sell the KOing and go up in Power). As an example: Tim is at Heroic Power Level and gets shot by some rear end in a top hat, taking 3 points of Damage. He decides to Power Up to Awakened which immediately wipes out that Damage and lets him start over fresh. That rear end in a top hat turns out to have a few attack helicopters on standby which pepper Tim with machine-gun fire and inflict another point of Damage, but since Tim is at a new Power Level he'll be able to take 4 more Damage before KOing or having to Power Up again. The combat between two such characters can be pretty well summed up here:  Although it's worth noting that not all (or even most) opponents will be able to change their Power Levels, but all PCs are. However, I'm considering an alternative in the form of a persistent, expanding damage track. The basics are similar except instead of simply purging any Damage taken Powering Up adds extra "boxes" to your damage track. The track would start at 3 points for Heroic, increase to 5 at Awakened, 7 at Monstrous, 9 at Unleashed and 12 at Limitless. You can still Power up whenever you like and can Power Up to recover from KO, but this doesn't get rid of damage, it just expands your capacity to absorb damage. So, for example: Tim at Heroic Power Level gets shot by some rear end in a top hat, taking 3 points of Damage. This fills up his Damage Meter (xxx) so he must either Power Up or accept the KO. He decides to Power Up to Awakened which expands his damage meter by two, but he's still taken the 3 points of Damage (xxxoo). When the rear end in a top hat's attack helicopter shoot up Tim that brings him to a total of 4 Damage (xxxxo). So...why the change? The original system more or less does what I wanted it to do (provide distinct, escalating power levels, emulating what you see in anime, fighting games, etc), but the new system has some distinct advantages: *Fights get taken more seriously in general. Since Damage taken at lower Power Levels now matters even when you Power Up there's a good reason to power up to match your opponents rather than going into the fight weak in order to soak up damage which can just be discarded. *Makes it easier to provide consistent healing rules. Since damage persists players can't just full-heal outside of combat by Powering Up and you aren't left with the question of what happens after a high powered character gets done being knocked around by ICBMs to the face and then they power back down to Heroic. *Shorter fights between Badass Kung Fu Demigods as fights no longer necessarily stretch from the lowest Power Level all the way to the highest in a constant KO->Power UP-> KO -> Power Up between both sides. So...any thoughts on this. Does the first system seem like the best fit? Or is the expanding damage meter too complicated? Etc. Etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
oriongates posted:So...any thoughts on this. Does the first system seem like the best fit? Or is the expanding damage meter too complicated? Etc. Etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Splicer posted:The expanding damage meter sounds pretty straightforward, but it means you've removed the only (listed) incentive not to immediately power up to max and kerb stomp your opponent (Panel 1, then panel 3 a couple of times, then straight to the last pane). You might want to replace health refresh with refreshing something else, like super attacks or something. Or give a power boost to the first attack made after powering up based on how hurt you seemed to be before you unleashed your true power. Well, what is not mentioned here is that there's a corruption mechanic in the game that kinda discourages you from powering up too much because corruption can permakill your character (by turning you into a mindless monster-thing). But yes, I sort of fail to see why this would solve the issue of always powering up to the max. It just means you cannot do those cool tricks of tanking a blow with your less powered up self before powering up, and makes it so that you gain a little less effective HP as you power up. It does not solve the actual problem (which is not really even a problem, per se), which is that how far fights escalate is still a GM driven narrative choice. Obviously, NPC's have an easier time about powering up than PC's do, since while players don't want to over-corrupt their characters, the GM is unlikely to have such compunctions about the fate of NPC's. But players don't want to lose fights either, so if the Bad Guy powers up then the player basically has to power up too to not lose. But the players have the corruption meter to worry about too, and going all the way up multiple times is a good way to kill your character. Basically, if the Bad Guys always choose to go for broke (and there is nothing in the mechanics preventing them from doing this, it has to be narrative driven somehow), the players literally cannot win in the long run. Either they will die of corruption or have to surrender to the Bad Guy in order to not die of corruption. But other than that, I do feel it is a fairly good mechanic for the other reasons listed. It just does not solve the power escalation thing mechanically. But as I said before, I would claim it does not need to be solved mechanically. Players already have a lot of incentive to keep their power level as low as possible whilst still being capable of doing their job (at least, almost nobody in our playtesting group did that without good reason), which is exactly as things should be imo. It means the corruption mechanic is fairly well balanced since people don't want to power up for trivial reasons, but are not afraid to do it if the situation calls for it. The Bad Guys don't need such incentive, or mechanics to keep them from powering up, since the GM can just, you know, make them surrender after they are beaten at, say, Inhuman. And I mean, really, since this is supposed to be all anime and such aesthetics-wise, only the BBEG of the season should go all the way to the top levels where we all jump to the moon and make a new set of craters for people to gaze at 
Theantero fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Thanks, that's really good feedback and it matches what others have told me, so I think I'll stick with my original system. I'm currently working on another draft of the system and I've been at it for quite a while and I think sometimes I have the urge to tinker with things whether or not they really need the tinkering. Seems like my original design is still the best here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
My custom system had it's first 'basic play' test to see how combat rolled out and the players involved had a good time. However I feel that the basic dice mechanic for the game is too restrictive. -The long and short is you roll a number of D6 equal to the points in the ability (Either Physical or Magical), and your opponent rolls 3D6. -Any rolls on both sides that are 4,5, or 6 are a 'Pass' -Passes cancel each other out, 6's being cancelled out last. -For every Pass left the Attacker has the target takes 1 damage, with 6's dealing 2 and triggering special abilities based on the Class. -If the Defender has any Passes left and the Attacker is in melee, or the Defender has a special trait that allows them to hit ranged creatures, they deal 1 damage for every remaining 6. Most monsters the players face have between 3 - 5 Hit Points, while players have 10 starting + Armor gives Armor Tokens which are just HP buffers. Players have abilities which can give Bonus Attack or Defense Tokens that when used, go away to give extra D6. The biggest concern I have I think is just holdups from playing years of D&D, which is the numbers on the character sheet in my game cap out quickly, while unique abilities and other non-number aspects take over. So instead of a level 10 Fighter having a +20 to attack or whatever like in D&D, a level 10 would have 5D6 max (At level 5), but would have more passive and active abilities they can do at a stronger level of effectiveness based on the points they placed in the appropriate school. My overall design goal is to make it to where no character can be 'hosed up' if they place their points wrong in the late game, something I seen time and time again in other systems, but I know people love seeing BIG NUMBERS and it makes you feel more epic. I guess my main question is has anyone else felt this way? You work on something and then look at it and suddenly you think of how other games 'feel' and while you know that's not your endgame result, you wonder if you are loving up? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Dr. Doji Suave posted:[snip] Sure. Getting the right "feel" for the mechanics and the game you wish to achieve can be among the hardest parts of what you do, as you might have something specific in mind, but that doesnīt mean that it will come out like that. D&Disms can be hard to shake, and big numbers can be epic, but so can small numbers, as long as you understand the difference between them. In D&D, getting +40 or +41 to your attack roll doesnīt mean all that much anymore. Its just more of the same. The unique flavor is long gone and sometime ago the game became an exercise in math instead. In games with only very small numbers or smaller dice pools, getting a +1 or +2 can be a huge deal. But you, as the designer, have to communicate this switch within your design. And I suppose, wondering whether we gently caress is just natural. Itīs great that your guys had a good time. But for designīs sake, ask yourself, did they have fun due to the design, or in spite of it? That can give some very important hints as to where a design can restrict/limit or support a certain kind of fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Whenever you're writing your game (or really any other project) you'll probably have at least one or two times where you think "this is poo poo isn't it?" It certainly happens to me several times. I find it's often best at that point to step away for a few days as it's probably a sign that I'm getting a bit burnt out on working on it. This can also give you time to come up with solutions to sticky problems and so on. Just come back later and you'll probably find your confidence is a bit more renewed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Dr. Doji Suave posted:I guess my main question is has anyone else felt this way? You work on something and then look at it and suddenly you think of how other games 'feel' and while you know that's not your endgame result, you wonder if you are loving up? Sup bro?  Yeah, it's often a balancing act between "I don't want to make the mechanical mistakes of other games" and "I want to produce the same feel of those games but without the same mechanics of those games." Best thing to do is come up with mechanics and test them; if they feel good, then take the ball and run with it. If not, think of some other mechanics, and do the process again, until you find something that fits. Mixing +numbers mechanics as well as broadening the scope of characters' abilities is a good idea, but maybe make sure they're both interspersed throughout levels? Like, don't have 1-5 just be "+math each level" and have 6-10 be where you get more actual abilities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Mr.Misfit posted:Itīs great that your guys had a good time. But for designīs sake, ask yourself, did they have fun due to the design, or in spite of it? That can give some very important hints as to where a design can restrict/limit or support a certain kind of fun. The test went very well, the major issues were funny enough related to the realm of choice that Pathfinder (most commonly compared to) 'allowed' (No Ability Scores, no named spells, only 4 classes playable right now since it's a test). The only straight up mechanic issue people had was that when you roll to see if you do something, you are rolling to see how much time it takes versus if you can even attempt it. The Thief gets a +1 Pass to Lockpicking, so the player only needed to roll 3 Passes on 5D6 to keep from adding time to the Encounter Counter (working title). One player had a HUGE issue with this, because it was 'unrealistic' since you always passed. Thankfully another player pointed out that their character could summon forth a wall of their design made of electricity, which gave everyone a chuckle. One rose concern about the need for tokens, which he said made it feel 'boardgamey' which I can understand, although it is a purposeful design choice since people do better with something they can visibility hold and see versus written on a page in a sea of numbers. oriongates posted:This can also give you time to come up with solutions to sticky problems and so on. Just come back later and you'll probably find your confidence is a bit more renewed. This has been a work in progress for two years for being so simple because of constantly walking away to clear my head. The more RPGs I play that are outside of the D&D line, the more ideas I have. It has helped my confidence though because it did show me how other games do things such as Skill Tests, and how combat can be tactical without being number hell. P.d0t posted:Sup bro? The only number bonus a character can get is when they get their '6's deal 2 damage' checkbox. Otherwise it is all ability based, either giving or receiving tokens in various categories for use in or out of combat. I think that is what is keeping me so 'held down' in my mind, is because I am used to D&D/PF where +whatever is added from levels. I probably should find an extra group to TTRPG with to help broaden my TTRPG knowledge and experiences  Also P.D0T I brought up a few months ago trying out your custom 5E to my normal group and they all called me a Grognard (They always get this wrong, so much so at GenCon they bought me a Grognard badge) and a 5E hater. Maybe my online group would be willing to run it. I know I mentioned wanting to try it almost a year ago in some IRC channel but wanted to let you know I have not forgotten about it.Thanks for the feedback everyone, it has helped renew my confidence. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
I was typing up a problem I had and as I was typing it a few things came together and I now have a solution. Thanks thread!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
A new record!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
I've been working on a Phoenix Command retroclone for the past few years, and at the moment it's pretty close to having a complete set of core rules. However, Phoenix Command was barely more than a tabletop wargame with roleplaying game applications, so as a ruleset what I have feels kind of sparse. There's little my system can do that isn't different ways of brutally killing other human beings, and I think that a loving celebration of 1980's hardcore simulationism could benefit from slightly more than just ways to kill other human beings. Or, at least, even more interesting ways to end the life of some poor fucker defending his home country and fighting for what he believes in. In short, I'm looking for ideas for how to supplement the game with systems for players to do stuff. I could try to describe everything the system covers, but, eh, I'll just link the draft. It's kinda sans tables at the moment, but it should give you an idea of what is and isn't in the game: SAN loss: 1d6/1d20
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
I got bored and wrote the skeleton of a cyberpunk game. It popped up in the industry thread, and I've revised it since then. Still needs work, but I'm not sure how many fucks I can give. It's all about how capitalist excess in the form of being able to afford the best stuff is the key to success. Meat is Murder
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
So here's a thought I'm interested in feedback on: I was writing a superhero RPG from scratch, and last night I realised that Fate Core pretty much does everything I want it to do as a base. So far, so good. Then I realised that Venture City (one of the Fate Worlds) does considerably more of what I want already (superpowers, mostly) and the relevant parts are all open content as part of the Fate SRD. So: Do I write a game which requires only familiarity with Fare Core but reproduces a vast swathe of Venture City as content? (Pro: Everything in one place. Cons: Possibly charging people for material they already have; feels like taking the piss.) Or do I write a hack which requires that players then slope off and buy Venture City in order to make it run? (Pro: Shorter, easier for me. Con: VC isn't free; people don't like unexpected dependencies.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
potatocubed posted:So here's a thought I'm interested in feedback on: I suppose the possibly charging people for stuff they already have concern can be dealt with by not factoring that pagecount into your asking price? That could be a bit more difficult for print products, but it shouldn't make a vast difference. As for reprinting the content feeling like taking the piss, isn't that at least theoretically the point of an SRD? To allow others to take your work and build on it? If it feels a bit icky to you, maybe contact the Venture City authors and see what their opinion is - you don't have anything to lose, as I don't think they can revoke SRD licensing on already-published content, and it's quite possible they'd be happy for you to use it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
I've been working on the tenth draft. One of the biggest things I added was annotations explaining how to use the basic and battle moves to their fullest effect. I'm wondering if this is useful or not. You can find them under Basic Moves and Battle moves on the table of contents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Cross-posting this for the d20 fans:P.d0t posted:New blogpost is up for The Next Project. This time, talking about the mechanical niches of class dice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Once upon a time I started working on a heartbreaker based on the principles of D&D 4e. Well, as it does, life got in the way before I got too far into it. I've since found time to pick it up again, and have started on a new adventure to introduce people to the system. I have most of the technical explanation done, and am about halfway through the rpg adventure itself. My intent with this new edition of the adventure is to more clearly separate the mechanics from the adventure portion, and provide more choices to the players (and explain why the choices are good choices or bad ones). http://www.letthronesbeware.com/download/intro-adventure-test/ Let me know what y'all think (especially whether the new choices layout and explanation works, and whether the separation between mechanic and rpg is effective or not)!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
The bag of death and city guard sting seem kinda gotcha-ey examples. One or the other would be fine, but both right next to each other makes it seem like the bad kind of old school. I'd suggest replacing the death bag with something a bit more straightforward, or at least separate them a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
Splicer posted:The bag of death and city guard sting seem kinda gotcha-ey examples. One or the other would be fine, but both right next to each other makes it seem like the bad kind of old school. I'd suggest replacing the death bag with something a bit more straightforward, or at least separate them a bit. Yeah, I think you're right. It's not my intention for this to come across as a return to the old-school death lurking under every rock style of play, and if that's the sort of message it's conveying, it needs a rework. Thanks very much, Splicer!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:New blogpost is up, for The Next Project. Crosspostin'. Gonna try and blog 3x per month; just missed getting a 3rd post in in September, so I'm gonna try and do 4 this month.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Crosspostin'. Neat. What sort of power sources are you going to include?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
slap me and kiss me posted:Neat. What sort of power sources are you going to include? Remember 4th Edition? It'll be like that*, but without Psionics.  Plans are to have a slate of martial/divine, arcane/shadow, and primal (which I guess is sorta martial-y cuz Rangers and Barbarians will be in there, but yeah)*subject to change, if/when I have any "eureka" moments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Remember 4th Edition? It'll be like that*, but without Psionics. I like it. Having read your blog, I'm super into the idea that some classes have could have a hybrid power source. That seems like a natural evolution of things from 4e. A wild crosspost appears! slap me and kiss me posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
slap me and kiss me posted:I like it. Having read your blog, I'm super into the idea that some classes have could have a hybrid power source. That seems like a natural evolution of things from 4e. What ho, good sir? I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.  Are you still working on this thing? Also, let's be pen-pals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:What ho, good sir? I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Yeah, still working on it. The wheels came off for a while and motivation tanked, but I seem to be back in the saddle. My short-term goal is to finish up the rogue adventure, get layout done, and cast about for some better-than amateur artwork. Longer-term, I aim to have a series of adventures like this one, exploring the different classes and backgrounds and races while tackling additional mechanics and concepts (like advantage and edge, power overrides, blah blah, etc) that didn't make the cut. The end result, fingers crossed, will be a free series of adventures that someone can play through on their own to learn everything there is to know about playing the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
slap me and kiss me posted:Yeah, still working on it. The wheels came off for a while and motivation tanked, but I seem to be back in the saddle. My short-term goal is to finish up the rogue adventure, get layout done, and cast about for some better-than amateur artwork. Longer-term, I aim to have a series of adventures like this one, exploring the different classes and backgrounds and races while tackling additional mechanics and concepts (like advantage and edge, power overrides, blah blah, etc) that didn't make the cut. The end result, fingers crossed, will be a free series of adventures that someone can play through on their own to learn everything there is to know about playing the game. I have delusions of getting a starter set/basic adventure type thing ready in time for the next Free RPG day (even if only on a local scale)  But yeah, I've been working on my thing off and on (mostly off) for just over 2 years. Hoping to hunker down this winter and make some real headway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Poking my head in to say hello. I'm working on an espionage driven Pen & Paper tabletop and have finally come to a point where I can sit down and pound out some mechanics. I've decided that it is very much going to be more on the free-form side of things, only really implementing crunch where success or failure comes down to what a player does, not what they say or pick up on from the narrative. As of right now the biggest roadblock is that mechanic though. I'm trying to work out a system which uses a standard deck of playing cards in lieu of dice, I'll keep you all posted on what I have so far when I have access to an actual keyboard and streamline the wording.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Alright, so I have a draft of the rules for The Next Project done up well enough that I want to share it for critique. Here's a link to the document. If there's anything that is unclearly worded or could be rearranged, feel free to mark up the doc and leave comments. I'll try and get some sample characters ready in the next couple days, for anyone who needs that missing context.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
Some thoughts - I feel as though introducing someone new to the system would be a bit easier if you start with the most rudimentary of building blocks - in this case, the basic roll, or something else that describes the underlying mechanic of d20 vs. target In a few cases, (like expertise), you go back and forth on using numbers vs. words. I'd suggest always using numbers for die results, and words for the number of dice, unless you're writing out 2d6 or something similar. eg. "any 1s that come up as part of that roll can instead be treated as the maximum value of that die." "If you have both Advantage and Disadvantage on a particular roll, you only roll one die. Generally speaking, you will only roll a maximum of two of the same dice to resolve any action." You've also got a typo in 'basic abilitie skillsets' Beyond those minor quibbles, I think that writing up a class and giving a couple examples of play would really make things shine - it's one thing to read a system, it's another for how it plays to be explained by the designer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
I've got most of the core features of FBHQ down, but over the last few days the unwieldliness of the targeted shot mechanic annoyed me, so I wrote an Excel spreadsheet to handle every calculation. In its current incarnation it takes an accuracy rating (8-35), an aim point (none, head, heart, stomach, legs), and a facing (front, oblique, side) as three separate radio-button inputs, and a double-click to a check-box, and returns a randomly rolled hit location complete with damage, wound penalty, survival roll, critical period, healing time, and whether it caused a disabling wound, and if so, to which limb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:I've got most of the core features of FBHQ down, but over the last few days the unwieldliness of the targeted shot mechanic annoyed me, so I wrote an Excel spreadsheet to handle every calculation. In its current incarnation it takes an accuracy rating (8-35), an aim point (none, head, heart, stomach, legs), and a facing (front, oblique, side) as three separate radio-button inputs, and a double-click to a check-box, and returns a randomly rolled hit location complete with damage, wound penalty, survival roll, critical period, healing time, and whether it caused a disabling wound, and if so, to which limb. That seems like a good way to simplify things. Could you turn it into an html page powered by javascript? That might make it more portable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
slap me and kiss me posted:That seems like a good way to simplify things. Could you turn it into an html page powered by javascript? That might make it more portable. I don't have the skills to do that yet, but I've programmed in Python, C++, and Java before, so I could probably learn how to do it. I'm planning to make it web-accessible. There's lots of fun in the detail of Phoenix Command, and with the modern proliferation of smartphones, tablets, and laptop computers lots of people can get access to that fun without also having to chore through the tables - even if I'm providing those too because I'm fundamentally making a pen-and-paper
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
slap me and kiss me posted:I feel as though introducing someone new to the system would be a bit easier if you start with the most rudimentary of building blocks - in this case, the basic roll, or something else that describes the underlying mechanic of d20 vs. target  I can definitely move "Basic Roll" up, I just kinda wanted it to go Maximum Value/Stacking->Basic Roll->HP, since the HP section references all those. slap me and kiss me posted:In a few cases, (like expertise), you go back and forth on using numbers vs. words. I'd suggest always using numbers for die results, and words for the number of dice, unless you're writing out 2d6 or something similar. slap me and kiss me posted:You've also got a typo in 'basic abilitie skillsets'  spell-check turns up nothing, and I'm not seeing it on my ownslap me and kiss me posted:Beyond those minor quibbles, I think that writing up a class and giving a couple examples of play would really make things shine - it's one thing to read a system, it's another for how it plays to be explained by the designer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I figured beginning with the d20 rolls and DCs did this? It might be a labelling issue then. When I saw 'basic roll,' I assumed that it was the underlying mechanic, and it was confusing that I didn't learn about it first. P.d0t posted:
It's not in the text itself, but if you turn on chapters, you'll see it on the left-hand sidebar. P.d0t posted:I'll try and have the sample classes up before Thursday (maybe as early as tonight, if I'm feeling inspired) and then maybe some example play in another week..? That would be great. Maybe start with one sample class so you can get to examples of play quickly, then fill in a few more classes afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
I also realized I completely left out the initiative rules  so that has been hurriedly added in.The previous draft had a bunch of convoluted poo poo pertaining to that, but ehhhh I don't love it. (I might have to fix/change a couple class abilities due to ripping this out) e: Initiative rules from the previous draft are here, in case you're curious. Basically, the rule is that combat starts when an Exploration or Social encounter turns violent; whatever you were doing at that time informs the skill check you make to determine your initiative count. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
P.d0t posted:Alright, so I have a draft of the rules for The Next Project done up well enough that I want to share it for critique. I sat down and read through this, and thought it was clear and understandable. I'd almost certainly want to write a quick-reference for myself if I were to run it, but I can easily the grasp the concept of Class Die, Advantage, Disadvantage, Trade-Off, Stacking, and Expertise
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 06:03
|
|
