|
Having failed at sourcing an ant picture for the cover of my Ant book, I'm nearly done painting my own. Ehh, not great, but first attempt with acrylics and tubed media. No reason not to start on my layout now. Scribus, here I come. Angrymog fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jan 4, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
I'm behind schedule myself but I guess that's ok as long as the work's proceeding. I wish there was an actually decent program to write with. LibreOffice is so goddamn lovely and every other option i've looked at is poo poo too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
I just use the Google Drive online text editor when I need to write poo poo down. It's fast, it has the options I need and I can access my poo poo where I want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Siivola posted:I just use the Google Drive online text editor when I need to write poo poo down. It's fast, it has the options I need and I can access my poo poo where I want. A million times this. I have it on my phone and computer, so I can work on stuff anywhere...and then pretty it up later on computer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I'm behind schedule myself but I guess that's ok as long as the work's proceeding.  Today I wrote up the combat and chargen rules for my game on a piece of looseleaf to give to one of my DMs to look over. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
I write my stuff on a physical notepad then transcribe to notepad+ when I have the chance before I finally sit down and format it properly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
TK-31 posted:I write my stuff on a physical notepad then transcribe to notepad+ when I have the chance before I finally sit down and format it properly. Paper notes own, gently caress haters. I still have stacks of notepads, notebooks, and post it notes from before I had an Android phone and Drive. I still keep a moleskine and pen on me out of habit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Paper notes own, gently caress haters. I still have stacks of notepads, notebooks, and post it notes from before I had an Android phone and Drive. I still keep a moleskine and pen on me out of habit. I do all my prep work on yellow legal pads with a mechanical pencil. I've been working like that for over thirty years of gaming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
I do everything in Notepad+ and have been moving things to Evernote when they get more complex than a flat text file. It's mainly because I do most of my writing at work. (Also I found another project I had started and want to finish. The cycle never ends.  )
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Does anyone think that there might be a market for a modular setting book? I've got this game that I'd been working on for a while and have been adding more to the setting lately, including lots of unusual monsters, set pieces, odd artifacts and cities and whatnot and I was thinking that if you tried fitting everything into the base game it would make it sort of a clusterfuck of over-detailed nonsense. What I had in mind was maybe putting out a game that had the basic system in place and a few default locations that are assumed to be in any game world, but have lots of optional content that players could pick and choose from at their leisure to include in their particular game sessions. A big part of the game was going to be exploration based, with sort of a colonial/age of sail feel, so I thought having lots of weird civilizations to encounter, strange animals, ancient ruins and the like would be fun. I wanted to make a game where the world wasn't set up like the Forgotten Realms or any other fantasy setting where there are maps of everything, but more of a wide open world that the players would have to explore and map on their own, with resources such as premade cultures for the GM to plunk down anywhere if they thought they sounded interesting or weren't able to think up their own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Well, I'm working on a "modular" adventure, where there's the base dungeon and then the GM picks which of the provided "subplots" are actually happening, so I'd be interested. The advantage of a modular setting would be a wider base of appeal, I think. Especially if the choices you give people let them adjust the tone of the setting. "Here's the islands of living dead; these give you more of a horror vibe. Here's the flying city, this is more high-fantasy."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Well, I'm working on a "modular" adventure, where there's the base dungeon and then the GM picks which of the provided "subplots" are actually happening, so I'd be interested. Modular dungeons sound like a pretty fantastic idea since it gives the GM a lot more wiggle room in an adventure, especially if it allows for adjustments made on the fly. I usually try to be pretty flexible when I run a game and sometimes go in without much of a plan but its pretty tricky to do that in a more numbers intensive game, so having a sort of choose-your-own adventure modularity within a module sounds clever and fun. I'm hoping that the adjust-ability of the setting would allow prospective GM's of the game to more easily get into making the setting their own. D&D sort of soured me on metaplot heavy worlds chock full of super important high level NPC's doing things in the background and having the whole world connected by this huge spergy 10,000 year long history. I wanted to take it a bit far, where there is really only one default assumed starting city (which is kind of a big cosmopolitan hub of the known world sort of place where the adventure begins) and then the PC's would make their character and decide where they are from and maybe even make up a bit about their country/town of origin (or they can just be from the city itself), and then let the world grow and be explored as the game goes on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Modular dungeons sound like a pretty fantastic idea since it gives the GM a lot more wiggle room in an adventure, especially if it allows for adjustments made on the fly. I usually try to be pretty flexible when I run a game and sometimes go in without much of a plan but its pretty tricky to do that in a more numbers intensive game, so having a sort of choose-your-own adventure modularity within a module sounds clever and fun. Then I came up with other subplots, and instead of trying to jam them all together into one big mess I decided to set the module up so that each subplot can stand alone, and will be presented as options to the GM. So they can choose New Gods, cult worshiping the cracked energy core, insane AI assimilating the planet, or mix and match the provided ideas so the New Gods show up just as they're about to finish off the mutant cult. Then I can use the same map for everything, and each "scenario" would have tweaks to the rooms. "The safety door to the reactor core is sealed shut and can't be opened. If you're doing the Insane Mutant Cult, then there's a large crack in the doors from the crash." "The production room is empty and silent, the machines shut down. If the AI is insane then it will be active and building warbots." That kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
EM, finish your Barrier Peaks adventure. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
I've been thinking of creating my own RPG system for the longest time. Didn't intend to sell it, just for the use of me and my friends. See, the problem is that I have a group of people I play RPGs over the net with. We've tried all kinds of thigns from Deathwatch to DnD 4E, a bit of werewolf, and lately I've been eyeing to introduce them to Eclipse Phase, too. The issue here is that some of our players are more or less new to RPGs in general.. so yeah, trying to teach them one game system is a task in and of itself (not that there's anything wrong with being new, we all were at some point). Hopping between systems and games? Makes it even more of a pain in the rear end. So I've been thinking of setting up a modular, universal game system of my own. (Fuuuck, it's another GURPS/D20 heartbreaker, I hear you saying) Newp. The aim is a game system that's simple enough to learn quickly, but has enough crunch to entertain after you've played it a bit, flexible enough to function under multiple eras and settings - so you could use the same engine with different gear and monsters and stuff and hop from, say, viking fantasy to Wild West to science fiction with minimal fuss. The point isn't to make a Rifts-style mixup with EVERYTHING IN ONE SETTING, but simply have the game itself support different types of play and setting depending on the individual group's likes and whims. Level-less, semi-class-less, with mechanics that stay mostly the same between settings but are utilized in slightly different ways and balances between settings (modern combat relies more on firearms than axe-wielding vikings would on ranged combat, example). (It's going to have 20 different statistics and 60 classes and a fuckton of d% tables, I hear you thinking) Nope. Player characters (NPCs and monsters are going to be fairly simplified - the aim is to have everything they need compact enough to fit on a card about the size of a Magic card) have 4 basic (point-buy) statistics, rated from 0 (crippled) to 5 (maximum human capability - superhuman statistics go up to 10 but generally, most critters and characters will be in the 1 to 5 ballpark). Respectively, they're Physical Action (a combination of physical strength and manual dexterity), Physical Reaction (a combination of toughness and reflexes), Mental Action (a combination of cognitive intelligence and charisma) and Mental Reaction (senses, willpower, that sort of shizz). Health, fate points, skill points, initiative rating, that kind of stuff are calculated based on these. The basic resolve mechanic is a dynamic D6 pool system - if you're familiar with the old Fantasy Flight Games RPG 'Fireborn', it's based on that. Figure out whatever statistic an action falls under, roll that many D6, 4+ succeeds, count successes and see if you hit the task treshold. (I might put in a fumble mechanic that prematurely ends your turn if you roll no successes and over half of the roll comes up as ones). If your statistic is above 5 you roll 5 dice and get the rest as automatic successes (so a stat of 8 is 5d6 and 3 automatic successes) - this both cuts down on dice rolling and makes higher stats more reliable. (If the fumble mechanic is in use, having automatic successes means you're incapable of fumbling with that stat - you're just that good!) In opposed tests the contestants both roll, whoever gets more successes wins - if the task has a treshold, only results above that count. For extended tasks (things that take more time than a single turn, basically) the task has a 'length' measured in successes, sort of like hit points - you roll, count your successes, take that many points off the task, when points hit zero you're done. Tasks that aren't hard but just tedious have no treshold, more difficult extended tasks only count rolls of x or more successes. (The 'even a monkey could do it' type roll should mainly be used if you're trying to get an extended task done in a hurry, otherwise a GM can just ballpark it and say it takes so-and-so many minutes and you're done). The 'dynamic' part and the gimmick of the system comes when you factor in skills. Skills are rated from 0 (untrained) to 5 (grandmaster, the best expert ever, etc). Instead of being flat stat+skill, however, skills allow you to use 'stances' to temporarily move points from one statistic to another. (Some of you are going 'Say what?' right now.) It's not as difficult as it sounds. Basically, once per turn, you can choose one skill - say, Melee, Drive/Ride, whatever - and one of your four stats and move up to that many points from your other statistics to the chosen statistic, for bonus dice on tests relevant to that skill. So for example, say you're in a car chase scene. You have Physical action (PA) 4, Physical Reaction (PR) 3, Mental Action (MA) 2, and Mental Reaction (MR) 3. You also have Drive 3, and decide you're putting it all in - you really don't want to lose this guy. Driving is a physical action (it takes fast reflexes and good coordination) and you're actively trying to catch him while he's trying to shake you. So at the start of your turn, you do a stance change and move up to 3 points from other statistics to Physical Action. You decide to go all-out, take one point from PR and two from MR to boost your PA. Therefore, until the start of your next turn (when you can reset your stance and do a new stance change if you want) you're rolling 7 dice instead of 4 when it comes to driving stunts. The downside is, until then you're only rolling 2 dice for Physical Reaction and 1 for Mental Reaction - which means that you're rolling more poorly when it comes to, say, noticing your target's buddy who's following you, or dodging if he decides to start taking potshots at you. Marking stance changes will probably be done by giving each statistics a box big enough on the character sheet to fit a bunch of small dice or glass beads or whatever - write down the basic stats, put down your markers, then physically move them from one box to the other on stance changes. At any one time you shouldn't end up rolling more than 10d6 in one go - this is to make the results slightly more reliable at higher levels of play (via automatic successes) and because, let's face it, rolling a bucketful of dice is fun on the first go but when you're doing it five times a turn.... As for character builds, the talent system. You know how in Skyrim, each skill has this miniature talent tree associated with it? Basically here, each statistic has a small (I'm thinking 5 to 6) list of talents associated with it. Talents can be active (special things you do) and passive (makes you better at some things) Players can pick from these freely - they're not reliant on one another, so you can pick them in which order you like, they simply scale with the associated statistic. One makes you move faster, another lets you take more damage before you go down, another lets you move a little if somebody takes a shot/swing at you and misses/flubs the damage, etc). In essence every character has the same 20 basic talents available, they simply scale differently depending on their stats. In addition, each character can pick one 'path' - this is a sort-of-a-class, a concept like 'scoundrel' or 'fighty dude' or 'cyber knight' or 'scientist' or whatever, that comes with one passive buff and a number (I think five to 10) of themed talents. These, again, aren't reliant on each other so you can pick and choose the talents you like, mixing and matching them with your basic talents to make up your character build. I'm thinking that in settings with multiple races, you could plug in those with simply using appropriate paths - a 'dwarf warrior' path for example would have some fighty talents and some dwarf-y talents. The idea is that the 20 basic talents are all the same regardless of setting - broad and nonspecific enough to fit everything - and you'll use the path system to specialize your character towards a specific role and concept. Paths will be specific to the setting, of course, so that viking fantasy setting would have things like 'shield master', 'berserker', 'warsinger' and so on, while the wild west setting would have things like 'gunslinger' etc. This also should avoid things like caster supremacy since everyone has the same amount of talents that (in theory) are balanced with one another - a mage has an active talent that makes him fart fire, a fighter can use an active talent to slam somebody straight on their rear end, a trained soldier can go all SUPPRESSIVE FIRE with a big gun, and so on. Edit: Fate points. Each character has a resource of 'fate points' (generic name, they can represent anything from ki to mana to power cell charge to divine favor or whatever depending on the setting) - a pool of points that can be used to get rerolls on dice OR to fuel active talents. They refresh slowly out of combat, and ideally each path should have some way of actively regaining them - probably with a special maneuver that'll set you aside from other characters. Drake_263 fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
Fireborn is actually a pretty neat system, I owned a copy for a while and even though the game as a whole was sort of on the "eh" side the mechanics had a lot of potential, so it's cool to see somebody experimenting with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
Sure the system had its ehhhh points, but some of the ideas it had were seriously cool. I did like the resolutions system basically because it's a balancing act, in a way, plus there's the whole 'redirecting energy' thing (that would actually make a lot of sense for a sci-fi setting with robot characters). Also, it helps to simplify the system - shunting points from your other stats into whatever you want to do at the time basically bakes in combat penalties and stuff into the game by itself. No need to figure out a huge amount of circumstance penalties for some maneuvers and stuff, if you want to make sure you Get A Thing Done you're directly taking stuff away from your ability to Get Some Other Stuff Done. Drake_263 fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Does anyone think that there might be a market for a modular setting book? *yes I know there are setting books that say this, but it's usually one line in the "how to use this book" section and then promptly ignored for the next 300 pages. e: Angrymog posted:Having failed at sourcing an ant picture for the cover of my Ant book, I'm nearly done painting my own. Splicer fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Yes. I like premade settings because they take a lot of the work out of starting a campaign or running a session when you just don't have the time to lovingly craft your own unique world, but most established settings are written in such a way that everything written down is assumed to be there unless explicitly stated otherwise. Even something that was just presented as the opposite (nothing written here is assumed to be present unless explicitly stated,and some of it is even mutually exclusive) would be awesome*, but if the effort was put in to make it actually work (here is the Blah of the Blah, here is how to foreshadow it if you know it's going to be there, here is how to throw it in last minute if you didn't,here's possible ways it could affect the main world and a few other major modules etc) it could be amazing. Thats encouraging to hear. Now the question is whether people will want this particular modular setting book since its turning into sort of a bizarre kitchen sink of science fantasy nonsense with the occasional hopefully unique idea. I'm going to do it either way though- I've had ideas for this thing jumbling around in my head for years now and its about time that I actually do something with them now that I have time to work on it freely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Ok, I am going to throw my hat into the ring. I have been working on my RPG Blood & Gears for over a year now and it is time to get it ready for some system playtesting with my regular group before I start setting mechanics in concrete. So, the aim is to have it ready for that by the 15th of February for the first round of alpha testing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I like this ant. It is a good ant. My plan is to try and do layout next week. (this week I am finishing off some videos)
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
I've been working on a d12 system for a while now, because I want a d12 system to exist, and I enjoy the motto "Be the change you want to see in the world." That change involves a d12 pro wrestling tabletop experience, and I want your opinions! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NiKqwtFcGXLVmLEeMd7CrkZaRnFscMkV2fOoQeGpKvQ/edit?usp=sharing Right now the formatting is not the best, and the tone is conversational because I just wanted to get my thoughts down in a concrete form, but this is what I have for now. Is it too complicated? Too simple? Just confusing as all hell? Let me know. My group will probably be playtesting this soon, but if you beat us to it, I'd be happy for you to share your thoughts and observations. edit: Upon a quick overview I realize this might be a bit too steeped in wrestling terminology, and certain things may not exactly be clear. I tried to explain things as best as possible, but if there's a term you don't understand, please let me know. I don't expect someone who isn't a wrestling fan to get into this, but I would like it to be clear to them so they can judge the system on its own merits. Nucular Carmul fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jan 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
What's up, Goons? I'd like the folks with a knack for Pathfinder mechanics to take a look at my class, the Abstract Thief. Basicaly it's a "mage-thief" base class for the Pathfinder Role-Playing Game. It takes some inspiration from 3rd Edition's Beguiler and adds some unique abilities. Basically the shtick is that the Abstract Thief is a magically-inclined scoundrel whose understanding of certain aspects of reality better allow them to "steal" the essence of creation. Stealing one's knowledge is like a "brain drain" attack, stealing one's life is a save or die, et cetera. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sgv3PbyvsyxZrKg9kHrFWz26lFUu5c-dMfnPhob1E54/edit?usp=sharing Please give me your feedback. Libertad! fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Nucular Carmul posted:I've been working on a d12 system for a while now, because I want a d12 system to exist, and I enjoy the motto "Be the change you want to see in the world." That change involves a d12 pro wrestling tabletop experience, and I want your opinions! Can't really comment on the details of the system, but overall, it doesn't seem like a good fit as a roleplaying game. It's designed for only two players to be doing anything at a given time (and for a significant amount of time, by the looks of things), there's nothing about doing things outside the ring (aside from advancement), and the rules don't have any purpose for a GM. It seems a lot more akin to Blood Bowl or the Strat-O-Matic games: a board game supporting persistence and suitable for playing matches over time among a group of players. That's not a complaint, but rather advice on how you might be better served framing the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Just wanted to chime in and say d12 is The Coolest Die, and what I default to when I want to think of a die mechanic because it's neat and fun to roll. So major props to you, Nucular Carmul, for using The Neatest Little Die. You've done your country proud. That is all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:Can't really comment on the details of the system, but overall, it doesn't seem like a good fit as a roleplaying game. It's designed for only two players to be doing anything at a given time (and for a significant amount of time, by the looks of things), there's nothing about doing things outside the ring (aside from advancement), and the rules don't have any purpose for a GM. It seems a lot more akin to Blood Bowl or the Strat-O-Matic games: a board game supporting persistence and suitable for playing matches over time among a group of players. That's not a complaint, but rather advice on how you might be better served framing the game. I see what you're saying, and this is actually something I will take to heart (and look at the other games you mentioned to get a firmer grasp on how I might adapt it). I was thinking about doing up a section with sample wrestlers to give a potential GM some stuff to work with, but I defintely think you're on the right track; this is something I dreamed up for a few people to gently caress around with when the main group is understaffed because people are busy. It could also be something plugged into another system or campaign, maybe the DM of a D&D game wants to toss his players into a wrestling arena for a session, so he could potentially use this stuff (and for some reason the players latch onto it and it becomes the driving focus of a campaign for multiple sessions, at least, this is my experience with my players)
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Write games, all games, any games. And finish games. Certainly you can consider these things, but it's worth finishing a working prototype.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:Write games, all games, any games. And finish games. Certainly you can consider these things, but it's worth finishing a working prototype. This should be in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
What's some good (preferably free) software for making dungeon maps?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Anyone with stat knowledge able to give me the odds on any two dice coming up with a 1 when rolling 3d6, 4d6, 5d6 and 6d6? Neither Google nor Wolfram Alpha could help, and I don't know how to phrase it with AnyDice. I'm working on a d6-based system* where PCs have Hits (basically endurance, and most of the time even if you avoid serious damage you still lose points because I hate drawn-out fights) and Wounds (meat). In combat, rolling a successful dodge with double 1s means you don't lose any Hits either, but since stronger enemies use more dice I realised this probably means it's actually harder to avoid wearing yourself down when fighting weak, 2d6 enemies! (Because the odds of rolling at least two 1s rise the more dice you have.) I'm wondering if I should make it work if you succeed with any double rather than specifically 1s. *To succeed at any task, you have to roll 10 or less, but the harder the challenge the more dice you roll.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Anyone with stat knowledge able to give me the odds on any two dice coming up with a 1 when rolling 3d6, 4d6, 5d6 and 6d6? Neither Google nor Wolfram Alpha could help, and I don't know how to phrase it with AnyDice. The odds of NOT coming up with a 1 are (5/6)N where N is the number of dice. Exactly 1 1 is (5/6)N-1(1/6)N. Two or more 1s is everything else. pre:No 1 One 1 More 1s 3d6: 57.9% 34.7% 7.4% 4d6: 48.2% 38.6% 13.2% 5d6: 40.2% 40.2% 19.6% 6d6: 33.5% 40.2% 26.3%
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
In anydice, that could be handled as code:And you just look at the odds of getting a 2. You could add other outputs with different numbers of dice if you wanted to compare them. You could also ask it for lowest 3 and look at the odds of getting a 3, if you wanted to know the odds of triple ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Payndz posted:In combat, rolling a successful dodge
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Thanks! Having looked at the odds, I think I'll make it so that you have to succeed while having rolled a 6 in order to get the superior result. (That makes it technically impossible to do so at 6d6, but the system allows players to spend points to reduce the number of dice rolled.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
You could turn it the other way around, and make it so that you only lose fatigue on a doubles. So if you're rolling vs a 2d6 guy, you only have a 1 in 6 chance of losing fatigue as you contemptuously fend off their pathetic slaps. Meanwhile if a 5d6 ninja is throwing his thousand-strike technique at your face you're probably going to get tired from all the backflips and table vaulting. You'd have to reduce fatigue totals and I don't know what that would do to the rest of the system but hey, it's an idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
So I am almost ready to release a simple version of a system I have been toying with for a few months that is basically Final Fantasy Tactics the tabletop roleplaying system. I have hit a major roadblock on how I want to do classes. One of the major design ideas behind the system is to keep math flattened and simple. The way resolution works is similar to Attack Wing/X-Wing but with D6's. You roll an amount of D6 equal to your attack stat, keep anything that is 3+, opponent does the same with the necessary defense stat, then you see who has the most dice. If the opponent rolls a 6 at all, they get to use a Reaction skill if applicable to the situation. If the attacker rolls a 6 and it gets through, they get to use an Advantage skill if they have one that can be used. Any unblocked attacker dice count as a wound on the defender. I have classes figured out, and the skill system and stats, but I am debating on how to implement classes to the player. As much as I would love to just allow people to switch classes at the start of each session as they see fit and have all the classes abilities opened up for use, I could see this making play that is supposed to go quick slog as people sit there and try to choose which Advantage to use out of their list of 30. My idea is to allow people to switch classes at the start of each session, but give each class a Core ability (think Charge, White Magic, Black Magic, etc), and then each class has 5 Reactions and 5 Advantages associated with it. Tier the cost of the Advantages and Reactions based on how good they are, so players are limited based on how many XP points they get at the end of each session. My concern is I am wondering if I should go the route Tactics goes and make certain classes only obtainable if you master so many things in previous classes, or if I should just open the floodgates and let people go hog wild. If I go with for example, unlocking Ninja after spending 250 XP in Theif and Fighter, then I can give people incentive to move up the ladder and focus on only certain classes. If I decide to go with the all available at the start, I think a good option would be to limit the amount of classes you can have assigned to a character, maybe 4 max. Thoughts? Most of my planning is in a giant spiral notebook and I need to get it on text so I can have the whole system laid out for people to see  .
Dr. Doji Suave fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jan 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:Write games, all games, any games. And finish games. Certainly you can consider these things, but it's worth finishing a working prototype. 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. Maybe I'm just in a sour sort of mood today, but making games without the intention to put in work to promote them seems like farting in the wind. If you're not enthusiastic about your game, nobody else will be either, so why finish it? As I said, I'm in a sour mood so I'd probably be able to answer my own question simply by waiting a few days and rethinking, but I'm interested hearing other responses too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Maybe I'm just in a sour sort of mood today, but making games without the intention to put in work to promote them seems like farting in the wind. 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.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Finishing stuff sometimes also gives you bragging rights. Heck, even I finished a thing to my satisfaction once. Beyond the whole doing stuff for enjoyment thing, finishing stuff is good because it puts you in a place where you can actually step back and see what you did right and what you should have done differently. It's harder to judge something that's still a work in progress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
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. Also, finishing games owns even if you don't promote them. It's valuable design experience. A good game designer should be constantly practicing and designing, even if they don't sell everything they write. 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.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:06
|
|