Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2023/04/20 20:47:26
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
I have been plugging away on an updated version of my own game for a bit. And while it is nowhere near done the core system is there and I think at a point where I would appreciate some feedback. I know there are a few designers in here. Your feedback is especially welcome.
So the gist is this. It's a medium crunch d10 dice pool system I am currently calling D10 Momentum. I am building and testing it with a medieval fantasy setting, but this could be used to cover other genre and settings as well. I have done some light testing on some sci-fi and mech type stuff.
It will have Stats and Skills along with Traits (features that have a cost you can buy into for little perks and such to customize your character). The "race/class" features will mostly be discounts or increased capabilities. Not a flat bonus. I will explain this more in a sec.
Folk The races (I am calling Folk) will comprise 4 bits.
-Traits (natural abilities of the Folk that can give them a buy in cost for playing that Folk. This means Folk don't have to be balanced in what they give you so long as they are balanced in cost).
-A activate-able ability unique to that Folk
-A favored attribute. In character creation attributes can be raised to 4. A favored attribute can be raised to 5. If multiple things give you the same favored attribute the effects stack and can be raised to 6-7 etc etc..
-Cultural skill options. I am going to give 3 skill options and the players can pick 2 to be favored skills. The idea is something like... if there is a Mongol like horse rider/archer people then their skills would be Animal Handling (Horse), Marksmanship, Survival (Plains). In character creation a skill can be raised to 1. A favored skill can be raised to 3. If multiple sources give you the same favored skill you can raise it 1 higher for each additional instance of favored skill (Folk and Profession give you Survival Plains you could raise it to 4). In this way you can have different groups of humans or elves or dwarves or whatever and differentiate them with different cultural skill options.
-A list of favored Talents (work-shopping other names)
Talents will grant the activate-able abilities of the game. Things you can specialize into and use. Being favored gives them a lower cost, but anyone can buy into anything. Just costs more.
Characters will start with 16 points to spend with each needing at least 1. Constitution + Resolve = Health. Health is track in a number of boxes split in half vertically. [ I ] [ I ] [ I ] [ I ] [ I ] [ I ] (6 Health).
Armor has 2 values. Soak and Reduction (Working on a better name) recorded as S / R. Soak flat out negates damage and happens first. Reduction reduces lethal damage to non-lethal and non-lethal to soaked. So for example leather armor would be a 1/2. Chain 1/5. Plate a 3/3. Non-lethal damage fills in the left half a health box. Lethal fills in both halves. If all boxes fill with non-lethal it starts refilling with lethal.
Skills Skills will either be a basic skill that does it's one thing or be a Type Skill (indicated with a (T). When you take a Type Skill you choose which Type you are taking. Examples: Survival (Plains) or Survival (Tundra). You can use a Type skill when it doesn't directly apply. But doing so will come with a penalty depending on how different they are. Survival Plains used in a Forest might have a -2. In a Desert it could be a -6. Melee (Sword) used to swing an axe a -2 or -3. A spear -6.
The System Alright... so here is how this works. Stat + Skill roll that many D10s 8+ is a success. On a 10 you gain 1 Momentum, the games meta-currency which fuels all the games abilities.
In combat you can make 3 actions a turn no penalty. Actions are broken down into types.
-Active Actions (moving, attacking, manipulating objects) -Reactive Actions (Dodge, Parry, Block) -Free: Free actions cannot generate momentum and momentum cannot be spent on them.
You may make additional Reactive Actions. But each Reactive Action you make beyond your 3 actions has a cumulative -2 penalty. If you drop to 0 or less dice you still roll 1 chance die.
First success on a attack deals the weapons base damage. Each additional success is +1 damage. Ties go to the defender.
Players have Maneuvers.
Maneuvers have a few features you record on your sheet. There is a pretty decent list of maneuvers that everyone can use by default. Just the basic combat maneuvers. And then Talents will open up new or more powerful maneuvers that cost momentum to use. Further, the basic maneuvers all have a secondary ability that can be activated using momentum (listed after (M)). Active actions also list their initiative (Fast/Normal/Slow - listed in the maneuver as (F)/(N)/(S)).
So for example, the basic melee combat maneuvers are Swing and Stab.
Swing: Str + Melee (N) (M) Power Attack: Add your Strength to the weapons base damage.
Stab: Agi + Melee (N) (M) Between The Plates: Each success negates armor first reducing soak to reduction and then canceling out reduction.
Some of the Reactions are Dodge, Parry, and Block
Dodge: Agi + Move (R) (M) Reposition: Make a Free Move Action
Parry: Agi + Melee (R) (M) Riposte: Make a Free Active Action.
Block: Str + Melee (R) (M) Take The Hit: On a failed Block each success is additional Reduction absorbing the damage.
This isn't just a question of where are your stat+skill highest any more. Now it's also a question of what kind of secondary action do you want to make if you win? If I have reach on someone, I would want to dodge and reposition so that when I attack they cannot Parry/Riposte. Even if my Dodge or Block rolls more dice. The secondary ability may be more advantageous and worth the risk. Further, circling back to the initiative of the maneuvers, that makes all of combat happen in up to 3 waves.
The way Initiative works is the GM asks the table "Intentions?" Everyone says what maneuvers they plan to do (eating up their actions now in saying they intend to do them). Everyone action is (F) will act now. Rolling their actions and resolving them with any damage being done happening simultaneously. Then (N), then (S). Taking a Move action will Slow you by 1 step. in the initiative. Talents can help smooth this out.
Talent Maneuver: Charge
(M) Charge (N): Move as though a Move Action. Make a Free Swing or Stab Action.
Well, thats the bare bone basics I am looking for some feedback on. The idea here is to make the game fast paced and punchy. Lots of quickly resolved rolls. Building momentum and spending it. Lots of depth of choice. It's not as simple as rolling the most dice. When do you act? What can you get out of action you chose? combat can be very tactical.
Thoughts? Poke holes? Questions?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/04/20 21:09:06
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2023/04/21 01:45:11
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
What would a typical session in this system be like?
Something I appreciate about a lot of different game systems, and what really brings the good ones out compared to the bad ones, is a clear look on what a session of play should be like with rules that support that.
I think that is really going to depend on the specific game built on the core system.
So I have this idea that the "PHB" or "Core Book" would comprise of setting information basic mechanics and player options for that genre and such.
The GM book would then start with GM facing lore information, rules/tips for running the game, a introductory adventure, and then mostly be made up of advice and random generation tables for creating your own content. I recognize that most GMs create their own world, or at least their own version of a games world. So why not support that? I talked about how civilizations would give 3 skills and let players pick 2. So I will provide a list of "typical" real world historical civilizations and potential skills for them and guidelines for how the GM can make their own. I will provide a list of Folk Talents not used in the main book and guides for how to create your own. Explain how a adventure should be written and run and then provide tables for getting the wheels turning and generating your own.
But, I had a tester ask how I would go about doing a heist with this, and I walked them through that. A Blades in the Dark style game about crime and whatever can be designed with different character creation for modern day real world crime/spy stuff.
I mentioned that I tested some sci fi mech stuff. But that doesn't mean much on it's own. Is it a anime voltron thing or a more series horrors of war story?
I have mechanics for travel and exploration for the fantasy game. Resources and survival elements. That sets a tone for the type of game play that should occur in the fantasy one. But getting that far into it is a little outside the scope of this small bit of it. The basic resolution and Momentum mechanics.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2023/04/25 14:53:10
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
I would need to play it out further, BUT the bones seem good. The devil is in the details of what you offer as skills, talents, and Maneuvers though.
I like systems with dice pools, but keep the limit to under 10 d10.
You mention Momentum as a meta-currency, but the rules you thumbnailed above leave it a bit under baked. It looks like it is mostly used to trigger maneuvers, but I think you will want to broaden it even further.
Does the F/N/S related to an initiative order or is your game using more of a "narrative" combat and less grid/time based?
I think you could go with 4 attributes instead of 6. However, that is a personal preference.
Lastly, you give us a pretty good example with combat and how that will work. However, I find that in RPGs 90% of it really in the non-combat details that matter. Show us how that will work?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/25 14:53:44
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2023/04/25 16:08:52
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
Easy E wrote: I would need to play it out further, BUT the bones seem good. The devil is in the details of what you offer as skills, talents, and Maneuvers though.
100% Agreed. I am still refining bits of this and fleshing out the talents. What I am presenting here really is just the bones. The underlying system on which all the nuance will be built and adjusted for different games/themes. When I was presenting this to a friend who has only played D20 based games I explained to them that what they were testing was the equivalent of "You swing a sword. Roll D20, add bonus, did you beat their AC? You try to pick a lock, roll D20, add bonus, did you beat the DC?" This is the system at it's most basic core.
I like systems with dice pools, but keep the limit to under 10 d10.
It can be possible for the pool to hit 11-12 MAYBE even 13 dice in rare extreme cases. But I think mostly the game should be sitting in the 5-8 range.
You mention Momentum as a meta-currency, but the rules you thumbnailed above leave it a bit under baked. It looks like it is mostly used to trigger maneuvers, but I think you will want to broaden it even further.
There is a small set of completely generic ways in which Momentum can be used. Like adding 3 dice to any roll. Or narrative perks and such. I didn't want to dig too far into all the ways in which it can be used here yet because it is still a little underdeveloped. I have added and taken things off that list multiple times over the past month.
Does the F/N/S related to an initiative order or is your game using more of a "narrative" combat and less grid/time based?
F/N/S IS initiative. I am not pausing the game to roll initiative. And players are not locked into an initiative step each round after it has been determined. The maneuvers you choose determine your initiative step in the round. This both adds a layer of tactical depth to the combat and gives me some extra design space for making and balancing new maneuvers in the talents. I could, for example, have something very similar to the power attack that costs 1 Momentum straight up to do, but is F instead of N. Not that that is one, just an example of how the initiative steps gives me design space. If something seems too powerful I can make it S so that everyone else would act before it. This can also make things really narratively interesting. A dragons Flame Breath is a S maneuver. I can describe how the dragon is rearing up as a glow emanates from within it's mouth and the players now have their F and N actions before the flame is unleashed. F/N/S is about determining when actions resolve, in a way that is both clear cut for everyone at the table, and a choice the players are making for themselves. They have complete agency in when they act in the round knowing what actions they are taking.
Definitely not using a grid. Zone/Narrative for distance/location.
I think you could go with 4 attributes instead of 6. However, that is a personal preference.
There was a version of this where it was 4. But there are things I can do with the 6 that I like. Perception as an attribute (experienced in the Unisystem games) allows for things like Marksmanship + Perception to aim. Perception + Notice to detect someone sneaking up on you. Wits and Notice to search a room. Resolve being the constitution of the mind allows for things like Endurance + Resolve for resisting torture. Con + Endurance for resisting disease. If at some point the costs outweigh the benefits I will trim them back down. But right now I am in a net positive having these 6 attributes.
(Example maneuvers since I mentioned Aim.
Aim: F // Perception + Marksmanship // Successes are a bonus to a Free Shot at S M: Rapid Shot: Free Shot at N instead
Shot: F // Agility + Marksmanship // Dmg = Weapon M: Shot on the Run: Free Move action with Shot)
Lastly, you give us a pretty good example with combat and how that will work. However, I find that in RPGs 90% of it really in the non-combat details that matter. Show us how that will work?
I mentioned before that Momentum will have some generic uses like boosting dice pools which can also be used outside of combat. Another I am considering is passing on success. Spend a momentum and each success on your roll is a bonus you can hand to another players roll. Think of a good cop/bad cop situation where the successes from one can be passed to the other to boost their roll and the players can feed off each others successes to overcome the challenge. (Examples like these really make me think Momentum is the perfect name for the system/mechanic/currency. You are literally building on the momentum of your actions to achieve bigger outcomes.)
There is an intention to have little perks for each skill or at least guidelines for situations. Some narrative perks you can spend it on. Spending a momentum to add a negative to a opponent. Like you are running away trying to escape and you spend a momentum to create a hazard (narratively knocking over the trashcans to slow down your pursuers). That momentum is now a negative on their roll chasing you. If you were hunting or foraging using Momentum to enhance the effects of success (bigger game, gathering more).
Finally I want to have a thing where the players can spend a momentum for a fortuitous circumstance or some such. They can't piece together the clues or find the thing so they spend a momentum and the narrative gives them a nudge that gets them going in the right direction or gives them an opportunity to get out of a jam that wasn't there the first time.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2023/04/25 19:42:41
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2023/04/26 15:06:52
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
Sounds solid to me as a base. I would only caution that stripped down games are "better" in my opinion than jam packed games. The more doodads and shiny, the more likely it is to break. Personal preference and all that. Be warned though, stripped down games can be much harder to design than crunchy games because you have to constantly axe your babies.
My last question is, what is the GM doing while PCs are making these types of decisions on Maneuvers and Momentum?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2023/04/26 18:25:32
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
Easy E wrote: Sounds solid to me as a base. I would only caution that stripped down games are "better" in my opinion than jam packed games. The more doodads and shiny, the more likely it is to break. Personal preference and all that.
Yeah, I have some hard and fast rules I set for myself (no rerolls) and some softer rules I am adhering to in designing the abilities to keep things within a manageable level. I want things to be interesting, but interesting cannot come at the cost of depth by creating illusion of choice. It's part of the reason I am not ready to show some of the class/folk/general abilities. Because I am making sure they are tweaked right before I do.
Be warned though, stripped down games can be much harder to design than crunchy games because you have to constantly axe your babies.
I got no problem axing a thing I like if it makes the game better. The game is my baby. The individual systems either serve the game or they don't.
My last question is, what is the GM doing while PCs are making these types of decisions on Maneuvers and Momentum?
The GM also has momentum. I have kind of classified NPCs into a few categories at the moment.
Some do not generate or spend momentum. Some can spend momentum, but do not generate it. Some both generate and spend. All subject to change in testing.
The idea being that if the GM needs a random mook or whatever (some faceless badguys to get plowed through) they can send the guys who don't generate or spend. They probably have flat values of success for combat. More a target number for the players to beat (relatively low. 2-3) and some basic manuevers at their disposal. In a bigger conflict these guys are there to eat actions from the players. Tied into a kind of action economy of an encounter if the GM wanted to run that kind of game or it was that kind of an encounter. These are easily deployed and dealt with.
The second kind are more foot soliders around important NPCs. They don't generate Momentum, but they act as vectors for the GM to spend momentum. Putting pressure where it is needed for dramatic purposes.
The 3rd kind is mostly named guys or otherwise "strong guys". With the idea that probably at least 1 of these should be in any given conflict to keep the momentum growing on the NPC side.Signature moves of monsters and such will cost Momentum as well (the aforementioned dragons breath).
Outside of "combat" GM momentum can be spent for chucking wrenches into plans. A guard patrol. Trigger a trap. Have a fireball cause some structural damage in response to a player action. Little and big narrative pushes. GMs will have some passive Momentum build up. Maybe time based. Or each time the players enter a new hex the GM gains a momentum. I need to tweak and balance the GM momentum generation rates when I get to testing full sessions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/26 18:40:43
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2023/04/26 18:45:30
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
I think the GM should be spending their time focusing on Momentum, the pacing, and the adventure itself and less on stat blocks.
Have you considered not having the GM roll dice? Only interpret the results of player dice rolls?
I love opposed roles in wargames, but not in RPGs. Is there a way to instead have the players roll the dice and the GM just sets challenges. It feels like this system can make that adjustment.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2023/04/26 18:53:01
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
I think the GM should be spending their time focusing on Momentum, the pacing, and the adventure itself and less on stat blocks.
Have you considered not having the GM roll dice? Only interpret the results of player dice rolls?
I love opposed roles in wargames, but not in RPGs. Is there a way to instead have the players roll the dice and the GM just sets challenges. It feels like this system can make that adjustment.
In those weakest versions of NPCs that is already present. The NPC has a fixed number of successes. a "Combat Score" a "Social Score" that represents their roll.
But, I am of the opinion that the GM is also a player and needs their own Game Play. Whatever that means. They shouldn't JUST be crafting and refereeing over the experience the other players experience. They should be playing the game with them and the whole table should be crafting a story together.
The GM is an asymmetrical player, but they are a player. Their game play deserves as much consideration as the PCs.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2023/04/26 19:52:46
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
I am probably an outlier as a GM, but I find that dice rolling actually bogs me down and makes it less fun for me. However, I have enjoyed using Meta-Currency instead.
I am sure that varies a LOT by GMs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/26 19:53:15
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2023/04/28 20:11:22
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
I AM interested in alternative ideas of what that could look like though.
Meta Currency being an option with the Momentum, but the GM needs a way to generate it. Or have it generated for them.
The GM needs ways to nudge the story, not just present it. To move things forward mechanically. Not purely fiat and whim. I want the GM to PLAY and I want that play to reinforce and enhance what the players are doing. This should be a feedback loop. The players and GMs game play working together to create the output.
If you have ideas I am all ears.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2023/05/03 18:59:49
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
Here are some thoughts on Momentum generation for the GM.
1. They start with a pool based on player choices. So, the player could choose X abilities/attributes/classes but it also gives the GM Y Momentum to start the game.
2. If success generates Momentum, then failure could too.
3. Momentum for the GM could be generated whenever a PC generates of uses it too
4. PC actions generate Momentum for the GM
I find this a bit odd, as initially you convinced me that meta-currency was a useful GM tool. I am more of a GM fiat type of guy. Then, when I played around with using it in some designs, I kind of liked it as a way for the GM to influence things without actually rolling any dice. Now, I am hooked on the GM never rolling as opposed to everything being opposed dice rolls.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2023/05/04 22:51:25
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
Easy E wrote: Here are some thoughts on Momentum generation for the GM.
1. They start with a pool based on player choices. So, the player could choose X abilities/attributes/classes but it also gives the GM Y Momentum to start the game.
2. If success generates Momentum, then failure could too.
3. Momentum for the GM could be generated whenever a PC generates of uses it too
4. PC actions generate Momentum for the GM
I find this a bit odd, as initially you convinced me that meta-currency was a useful GM tool. I am more of a GM fiat type of guy. Then, when I played around with using it in some designs, I kind of liked it as a way for the GM to influence things without actually rolling any dice. Now, I am hooked on the GM never rolling as opposed to everything being opposed dice rolls.
Haha. There is definitely games out there where the GM never rolls. Symbaroum as an example has the players with attributes for active/offensive actions and reactive/defensive actions. Monster attacks don't have bonuses and such. They have target numbers. The players ALWAYS roll. They either roll to avoid or defend against a monsters attack or roll to hit against the monsters defenses.
It's definitely a system with merit.
Like I said though, my interest isn't so much in making the GM rolls dice, it's making sure the GM has Gameplay. I don't want to forget that the GM is a gamer too. I don't want the GM to be bogged down in the minutia of running a game and never getting to play the game.
Hmmm... There is maybe a potential in there of Monsters having attacks that generate Momentum and attacks that cost Momentum. Smaller weaker foes might act as batteries for the bigger monsters. The Players do all the rolls. The GM just makes tactical and strategic decisions in combat. Out of combat can be addressed separately.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Two folders down is a sub forum devoted to game design that you may want to utilize as well.
Yes. I will start a thread down there when I have a little more of the system ready to present. Thanks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/04 22:52:09
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2023/05/05 01:54:46
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
Keep your d10s instead of his d6s. You could use the same conditions / triggers. Results of 8+ add momentum for the gm.
This is really interesting.
It would require a modification of the system. But the idea that player actions or general in game time passing gives the GM choices between adding dice to a pool or rolling that pool to then generate their own momentum. Which can then be spent at any time on "complications" or to fuel enemy abilities. It creates a kind of side game the GM is playing which the players are passively contributing to. There is a lot to explore here. Thank you for this suggestion.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2023/05/07 14:58:17
Subject: Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
So I am still thinking and fleshing it out, but this is what I am considering in a somewhat organized order.
-The GM does not roll dice ala monsters and such.
The PCs actions will drive adding dice to the GM dice pool and every time a die is added to the GM dice pool the GM will roll their dice pool.
-The players spend x time traveling: +1 dice
-The players fail a roll (no successes): +1 dice
-The players move plot forward/resolve quest: +1 dice
-At the start of each round of combat: +1 dice
-Other things I am still thinking over
Things like that. Many of these (entering new hexes, advancing story) would also reward Exp to the PCs.
When the GM pool is rolled 8+ generates a momentum for the GM and removes that die from the pool. As such, every die IS 1 momentum. It's just a question of when it becomes a momentum. (I also considered that *+ generates momentum but a 10 removes the die/resets the pool. I will need to test how much is coming to the GM how often to figure out whats best).
This means the players actions and/or the situations they find themselves in drive the GMs resources. Also important, this isn't actually game play yet. The GM isn't making any decisions by generating resources. This is just the mechanic by which they gain them.
GM Momentum Spending. (THIS is their game play)
Monsters/Combat:
Monsters will have scores (Combat, Strength, Brains, Social) that are their number of successes by default. The players roll their offensive and defensive maneuvers to beat the monsters scores. The GM can choose the types of maneuvers the monsters are using but doesn't roll for them.
2 momentum: Boost the maneuvers successes by 1 (turning a 2 to a 3 combat score for that action).
1 Momentum: Activate the secondary ability on a maneuver (just like the players)
Varies Momentum: Activate unique Maneuvers of the creatures (fire breath on a dragon for example).
In addition adventures should have small tables of "complications" with non-threatening/light complications costing 1 Momentum. Threatening/Medium complications costing 2. And Dangerous/Heavy complications costing 3. For 1 more momentum you don't roll on the table you pick the one you want to happen.
This can help break up monotony or drive plot or offer risk/reward scenarios. I feel like I would create the criteria or standards for each kind, provide a generic list of them, a specific list of them, and any "adventures" would come with options for the locations/adventure at hand.
In Forbidden Lands the players travel through hexes for over land travel and if the players spend a more than 1/4 day sitting in a hex or when entering a new hex the GM can decide to roll on a table of possible events (including having no event). In this, the GM would simply spend his Momentum for the scale of event and an extra one if they wanted a particular event instead of rolling.
You can trigger traps. Change the weather. Have that guy show up. Reinforcements. Etc...
This should always be built in such a way that it prompts an action from the PCs, not in a way that shuts them down. It's more of a "Yes, and..." mechanic for facilitating story telling. The PCs do stuff, the GM gets resources, and the GM inserts their own "Yes, ands..." into the session.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2023/07/06 23:01:20
Subject: Re:Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
Okay. I have enough of this done that I can basically walk everyone through a character creation at this point using a conversion of the game Forbidden Lands into my system. Still expanding options and whatever but here it goes.
The first step would be picking your Folk and Culture. For the sake of this I am using Human Ailander.
Now. As a human they have a favored attribute (Resolve) and a Talent: Adaptability. Their culture Ailander gives them a list of 3 skills and they can choose 2 to be favored skills. For this character I chose Insight and Might.
Spoiler:
Human Humans came to Ravenland as intruders. Yet, you have earned the respect of the other kin by showing them what organization and skill can do. While some fear or dislike you, the more open- minded among the native kin should understand that humans are a blessing, if only they could see past their prejudices – while also giving up some land and gold, of course.
Some of your ancestors came with the armies from Alderland to fight against elves, dwarves, and orcs. Others sought sanctuary from the war as refugees and settlers. You came from across the southern mountains or rode from Aslene in the west, and stayed after the din of battle faded, the roads were closed, and demons feasted on whatever remained.
When the Blood Mist fell like a shroud across Ravenland, your ancestors were forced to huddle together for ten generations, till the soil, and simply try to survive. But now the Mist has lifted, and the world has opened up again. You have exchanged the plow for a sword. You were born here, and you will take what you want, whether those who stand in your way be other humans or even stranger beings.
Favored Attribute Resolve
Talent Adaptable When making a skill roll that would take a penalty due to circumstance or improvisation, spend 1 Momentum to negate any penalty to the roll for the scene. For example, trying to climb while the surface is wet or using a table leg as a club. Each use of this talent gives the GM 1 Tension.
Cultures Aslene The Aslenes have a more colorful physical appearance than the Alderlanders. They have various skin tones, always with a healthy luster. Their hair is always vibrant, regardless of color. Usually Aslenes braid their hair, with both men and women having artful hair styles. Their clothes are equally colorful, consisting of earth tones decorated with fields and patterns of various colors. They prefer gold and bronze jewelry to silver. The Aslenes are shorter but stouter than Alderlanders, who believe that the riders lack both beauty and culture.
QUARDS: The Quards are a rider clan from Aslene. They made contact with the Ailanders of Ravenland through Shadowgate Pass some six hundred years ago and chose to emigrate from the harsh clan wars that threatened to wipe them out. The clans of Aslene are wise in the ways of war and more ambitious than the Ailanders, and adhere to strict hierarchies. They soon rose to positions of power, built fortresses and pushed further into Ravenland, against the will of the elves and dwarves. In time, they had mated and mixed their blood with that of the Ailanders, so that all sorts of variations existed among the two cultures. Like all Aslene, the Quards strongly believe in honor and loyalty among friends. They are no longer a nomadic people, but their former lifestyle has given them an air of mystery and long years of living in the wild is part of their upbringing since the Blood Mist lifted. Skill in the saddle and with a blade are held as the highest expressions of their cultural heritage. The Aslene worship the fire god, Horn, whose physical manifestation is a volcano in their homeland. Lately, many Quards have flocked to the banner of the sorcerer Zertorme, since a prophet has identified him as Horn’s chosen savior.
GALDANES: The parts of Aslene that lie to the west of the Forbidden Lands were ravaged in 875 AS by demonic hordes sent by Zygofer. The Galdane clan fled this catastrophe and pushed into Ravenland where the few hundred that survived ended up in Margelda, where Zertome gave them land and let them stay in exchange for their promise to defend the land.
These newcomers find it hard to assimilate to their new surroundings. They are nomadic and despise farmers for using fences and walls to divide the land the Galdanes believe should belong to everyone. The Galdanes were the enemies of the Quards while the clans were still in Aslene, and their enmity lives on in songs and stories even if they are forced to put their conflicts aside now.
The Galdanes also do not trust Alderlanders, who are their traditional blood enemies after many wars. Above all, they hate Zygofer and anything that looks demonic, including wolfkin. They dream of vengeance and about one day being able to return to the Ashen Vale to rebuild their homeland. They tend to drink too much and to go back and forth between wanting to fight for their honor and weeping and singing sad songs about their fate. Their appearance is more similar to that of the original Aslene than to the Quards, since the latter have mixed their blood with that of the Alderlanders for centuries.
Alderlander Alderland is inaccessible, hidden behind the Iron Lock to the south. That’s the origin of the Alderlanders, even though most of them have been born in the Forbidden Lands and have never seen Alderland. Newcomers from Alderland sometimes appear north of the wall: criminals, banished and, in a few cases, missionaries and other people who have left of their own free will. These newcomers are received with open arms since they often carry news from the homeland, and perhaps can sing some of the old sad songs. There is a melancholy among Alderlanders as they reminisce about what has been lost, or a defiance and will to forget what has been, so that they may build something new.
Alderlanders make up the majority of the villagers in the northern lands. Some remained after the Alder Wars, some deserted and some made their way east to Margelda. A few are Frailer sorcerers, half-elves seldom looked kindly upon by the Elvenspring, their blood relatives in the Forbidden Lands. Others have joined bands of marauders that ravaged Margelda during Zygofer’s glory days and now eke out a living raiding or as militia for the villages.
The heraldry of Alderland takes the appearance of swords and branches from the alder tree. Alderlanders honor the alder tree as sacred and decorate themselves with branches from the tree during celebrations and festivals.
Favored Skills Endurance Influence Notice
Ailander The Ailanders were the first group of humans who found their way north to Ravenland from Alderland. They fled religious persecution seven hundred years ago. The Ailanders worship the Protector under the name Raven and were led during their exodus by the priesthood of the Raven Sisters. Many Alderlanders believe Ailanders in general and Raven Sisters in particular are heretics and traitors since the Rust Brothers claim the raven worshippers, backed by the elves and dwarves, tried to take control of Ravenland using trickery. The Ailanders keep a low profile and often want to live simple lives in peace with others. They have the same appearance as Alderlanders, but deviate when it comes to equality, striving for peace and living in accordance with the will of the gods. Many of them have fled east to the coastal plains of the Forbidden Lands, but rumors speak of the hidden village of Koracia, supposedly housing a shrine honoring the Raven god.
There is a murderous sect of fanatics among the Ailanders called the Reapenters. The sect blames the misery of the world on the treachery of humankind. When the Alderlanders defied the Shift and pushed across the the Divide into Ravenland, they incurred the wrath of the Raven God. The Reapenters say the curse will end only when the last human, dead or alive, has left the Forbidden Lands. And that it is their duty to kill anyone who does not understand this.
Next we select the profession which is like a class. I am picking a Champion. A lot like a "Paladin" but minus the divine connection. This character is intended to be a Champion of the Raven and is fighting against his peoples oppression and trying to protect others from the Rust church of Alderland. Your profession choice gives you another favored attribute (possibly a second instance of the one from Folk) 5 favored skills and 3 favored profession talents. Buying profession talents is more expensive then normal talents. Your favored talents bring them down to the normal cost of the general talents everyone can buy into. You will also get 1 free rank in a favored talent in character creation.
Spoiler:
Champion You have promised your sword to a higher power. You exist to serve your cause and fight for it without hesitation. All obstacles you face are tests of your dedication and only by overcoming them will you receive your just reward. Your holy vow is everything to you, it is the very core of your soul. You are a Champion.
A Champion is a warrior who has sworn allegiance to a god, demon, person, or even a location. Your dedication to your oath grants drives you forward and guides your actions.
Next we choose a background. This is a formative component of the characters history. It gives... you guessed it. A favored attribute and 2 favored skills.
Our Champion is a Fighter.
Spoiler:
Fighter You learned early on that you were talented with weapons. Soon, you were taken on by a warrior who taught you the mysteries of battle. You trained hard and long, and in time you became your master’s equal.
Next you pick a Problem. (I need a better name for these). Your problem is a tool for the GM to use. The Meta currency of the GM is Tension and as time goes on and player actions take place the GM will build tension which they can spend to trigger things. The guiding principle of Tension uses is "Yes, and...". Tension will never be used to stop a players actions. But can be used to throw wrenches into the story and move things forward when the players lag. The GM also will not roll dice for NPCs they will have scores and tension can be spent to boost their scores or activate their abilities like a PCs Momentum would. New problems can be gained for individuals or the group as the game goes on.
Our Champion has an Obligation to the Reapenters. A militaristic guerilla force of Ailanders who are trying to take the fight to the rust church.
Spoiler:
Obligation Some rights are accompanied by duties. An Obligation must be followed. This is not as simple as being a member of a congregation or fulfilling a contract. This obligation comes as part of an organization whose expectations come with very real consequences. In game terms the GM may spend a Tension to have the source of the character’s obligation appear within the current situation and make demands that are counter to, or complicate the situation at hand. In this case these are often not demands that can be negotiated away (but, with some luck a middle ground may still be found). The character will need to choose between their obligation and the circumstances at hand. Betraying their obligation can and will have consequences.
From here the character gets 10 attribute points to spend. Attributes start at 1 and can be raised to 3. They can be raised 1 higher for each rank of favored. (Our champion can have up to 5 Constitution and 4 Resolve).
They get 12 Skill Points. Skills can be raised to 1 and can be raised 1 rank higher for each rank of favored they have.
They get 1 free rank in a talent and 2 additional talent ranks they can spend 1 of which can be used for a second rank in a profession talent if they want.
For options there are currently... 3 profession talents for each of 9 professions each with 3 ranks. 47 general talents all with 3 ranks. 7 Folk talents. Each folk has between 1 and 5 cultures (this is for the forbidden lands area. For my own world I am making 3 of each and guidelines for creating more).
Lets give them some of their equipment and fill out those maneuvers.
Spoiler:
Path of Protection
You live to protect others from danger.
✥ RANK 1: In combat, you can spend a Momentum at any time to throw yourself in front of someone or something within NEAR distance that is being attacked and suffer the attack instead of them. Doing so allows you to use your actions to defend yourself, but you can't dodge the initial attack (Parry and Block are allowed). If the opponent continues to attack this round their focus is changed to you instead. Activating the talent doesn’t count as an action.
✥ RANK 2: Spend a Momentum to select a target in combat. Any Reactions used to protect that target or actions spent against those trying to harm the target gain a +1 bonus for a number of rounds equal to your rank in this talent. Activating this talent doesn’t count as an action.
✥ RANK 3: (M) Get Behind Me! (F) Agility + Move // Near On your turn spend a Momentum to select a target person or object within NEAR distance. You may move the target and take their place putting them at NEAR to anyone they were previously within CLOSE of and placing yourself in CLOSE instead.
Path of the Vow
You have made a vow to serve a cause. Regardless of what power you serve or what your goal is, you draw strength from the vow you once made.
✥ RANK 1: If you make a roll for an action that is a direct consequence of your vow or that clearly leads you towards your goal, you can spend a Momentum to gain a +2 bonus to the roll, before rolling. Activating the talent doesn’t count as an action.
✥ RANK 2: As rank 1, but spending a Momentum gives you a +3 Bonus.
✥ RANK 3: As rank 1, but spending a Momentum gives you a +4 Bonus.
So, fundamental question here: what is your goal for this game? What is the selling point where I, as a potential player, want to play it instead of one of the countless existing RPG systems that are already available? What are you doing better, or at least differently, than the alternatives? Give me your one-sentence elevator pitch, and then your short paragraph explanation.
I ask this not to shut down your idea and tell you to give up, but to help you clarify your concepts and give you a framework for improving the system. Right now you have some resolution mechanics for the obvious things a typical fantasy RPG needs to cover but it's not clear what your goals are. For example, I could give you feedback that your skill system is too complicated given one set of goals, or that it's too simple/shallow given a different set of goals, or even that it's absolutely perfect as-is given a third set of goals.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: So, fundamental question here: what is your goal for this game? What is the selling point where I, as a potential player, want to play it instead of one of the countless existing RPG systems that are already available? What are you doing better, or at least differently, than the alternatives? Give me your one-sentence elevator pitch, and then your short paragraph explanation.
I ask this not to shut down your idea and tell you to give up, but to help you clarify your concepts and give you a framework for improving the system. Right now you have some resolution mechanics for the obvious things a typical fantasy RPG needs to cover but it's not clear what your goals are. For example, I could give you feedback that your skill system is too complicated given one set of goals, or that it's too simple/shallow given a different set of goals, or even that it's absolutely perfect as-is given a third set of goals.
I am building a simple to play and to run TTRPG with medium crunch and depth of game play with an understanding that the GM is also a player.
Thats the 1 sentence. Here is the paragraph.
My goals are thus.
PCs can build characters with options that add actual depth to their decision points while cutting down on down time and creating a more engaging narrative focused experience. The PCs game play loops and mechanics will feed into the GMs game play loops and mechanics which will feed back into the PCs. What this system is doing that most if not all current systems fail to do is include the GM as anything other than an afterthought in the game play if they acknowledge the GM as a player at all. By integrating the GMs game play from the core underlying mechanics as this feedback loop of narrative driving mechanics it creates a more collaborative story telling experience in which the whole table plays the game to build the narrative together. Not because a GM is left to their own devices to "figure it out" but because the game play itself results in it.
From the PCs side of things, most games have a ton of illusion of choice and/or lots of down time. Engagement drops and combats can drag out into slogs. In this system, there is a very real difference between dodging or parrying or blocking with a shield because the secondary effects (costing Momentum) offer wildly different advantages that have impacts beyond the simple number of which one lets me roll the most dice. There is a risk/reward of rolling less dice to try to reposition versus a parry with a chance to counter attack versus a block with a chance to negate more damage then you would be able to otherwise. Coupled with a simple 3 initiative steps that allow players to handle their actions simultaneously you get many quickly resolving actions that keep everyone at the table engaged. Outside of combat the same systems of building momentum and spending it to handle social conflicts, investigations, or travel scenarios help keep the whole party invested.
From the GMs side of things removing the GM rolling into a asymmetrical game of accumulating Tension and spending it to nudge and shape the narrative gives the GM a gamification of setting scenes and adding conflicts. The PCs respond to the situations and the GM shapes the narrative back. This can both cut down on prep times, help even out the output of GMs regardless of their experience in the role, and allow for the individual "adventure", the campaign, and the PCs individual personal stories to grow organically from the game play itself.
Importantly, while I have a fantasy rpg skin stretched over these mechanics right now, it's a set of mechanics that works for anything you want to be slightly lethal and faster paced. With some small additions to the basic maneuvers and a different equipment list this is a modern game with fire arms. You could run Vampire the Masquerade. You could climb into mechs and wage war. The Forbidden Lands skin is how I am play testing it. I am simultaneously building out the Equipment/Folk/Culture/Talent lists of my own setting and a sci fi/mech version once any core mechanical kinks have been worked out. The rate at which Tension is built and costs for it spending need to be balanced right. I won't know that for sure until it's put into action.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2023/07/07 06:05:46
Subject: Re:Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
Lance845 wrote: I am building a simple to play and to run TTRPG with medium crunch and depth of game play with an understanding that the GM is also a player.
Got it, I think. It's getting at the concept I was asking about but let me give an example of an elevator pitch that really gets at the heart of the game. Consider the Star Wars: Shatterpoint game from AMG:
"The Clone Wars cartoon on the tabletop."
Seven simple words that declare the vital core of the identity of the game. Everything about the game is in service to that concept, every mechanic is evaluated by asking how it brings the game closer to that goal. It's actually a game I personally dislike (and I will grant I am not the target audience) but the clarity of purpose is impressive. And the people who hear that elevator pitch and say "yes please" seem to love the game, AMG delivered exactly their perfect game.
Getting back to your elevator pitch I think you were getting a bit ahead of yourself talking about mechanics and depth. Level of mechanics complexity is a means to an end, it isn't really a design goal on its own. It exists in service to goals like "accessible to newbies" or "perfect simulation of rapier duels" that define the heart of the game. It's all the fiddly bits that game designers spend lots of time debating but exists below the surface for most players, especially on a first impression. Reading through your more extended notes it sounds like your most concise elevator pitch would be something like this:
"Fast-paced action with the DM as an active player."
Is that correct? The DM being an active and fully engaged player, rather than being the last thing mentioned in your original one-sentence summary, is actually the core idea of the game and the thing that everything else should serve?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And an example question, to explain why I'm asking you these things: if "simple to play" and "the GM is also a player", two items in your short summary, are in conflict which one of them wins?
(Either answer is potentially valid.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/07 06:11:28
Lance845 wrote: I am building a simple to play and to run TTRPG with medium crunch and depth of game play with an understanding that the GM is also a player.
Got it, I think. It's getting at the concept I was asking about but let me give an example of an elevator pitch that really gets at the heart of the game. Consider the Star Wars: Shatterpoint game from AMG:
"The Clone Wars cartoon on the tabletop."
Seven simple words that declare the vital core of the identity of the game. Everything about the game is in service to that concept, every mechanic is evaluated by asking how it brings the game closer to that goal. It's actually a game I personally dislike (and I will grant I am not the target audience) but the clarity of purpose is impressive. And the people who hear that elevator pitch and say "yes please" seem to love the game, AMG delivered exactly their perfect game.
Getting back to your elevator pitch I think you were getting a bit ahead of yourself talking about mechanics and depth. Level of mechanics complexity is a means to an end, it isn't really a design goal on its own. It exists in service to goals like "accessible to newbies" or "perfect simulation of rapier duels" that define the heart of the game. It's all the fiddly bits that game designers spend lots of time debating but exists below the surface for most players, especially on a first impression. Reading through your more extended notes it sounds like your most concise elevator pitch would be something like this:
"Fast-paced action with the DM as an active player."
Is that correct? The DM being an active and fully engaged player, rather than being the last thing mentioned in your original one-sentence summary, is actually the core idea of the game and the thing that everything else should serve?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And an example question, to explain why I'm asking you these things: if "simple to play" and "the GM is also a player", two items in your short summary, are in conflict which one of them wins?
(Either answer is potentially valid.)
A statement such as "The Clone Wars cartoon on the tabletop." is more of a Elevator Pitch for Starfinder as opposed to Pathfinder. Or Coriolis instead Tales from the Loop. Where I am at at the moment is less designing an individual game in which all the components get shifted and geared towards a single purpose such as that and more like I am designing "D20" or "The Year Zero Engine". Thats why its Forbidden Lands converted into the underlying system instead of me marketing my own game..I am not designing the Star Wars TTRPG by Fantasy Flights right now. I am designing the Genesys system.
This in and of itself is not the end product I would put on the shelf. It's the frame work on which I intend to build products.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2023/07/07 07:47:34
Subject: Re:Looking for some feedback on a system I am designing.
Lance845 wrote: A statement such as "The Clone Wars cartoon on the tabletop." is more of a Elevator Pitch for Starfinder as opposed to Pathfinder. Or Coriolis instead Tales from the Loop. Where I am at at the moment is less designing an individual game in which all the components get shifted and geared towards a single purpose such as that and more like I am designing "D20" or "The Year Zero Engine". Thats why its Forbidden Lands converted into the underlying system instead of me marketing my own game..I am not designing the Star Wars TTRPG by Fantasy Flights right now. I am designing the Genesys system.
This in and of itself is not the end product I would put on the shelf. It's the frame work on which I intend to build products.
Yeah, I get that you're not doing a setting focus. The idea with the Shatterpoint example is the conciseness and focus of the elevator pitch, getting right to the core of the game and leaving out all the irrelevant stuff. It happens to be the case that Shatterpoint is a game where the core of what matters is tied directly to theme and setting but that isn't necessarily the case. That's why my suggested elevator pitch interpretation of your ideas is focused on a gameplay experience independent of setting:
"Fast-paced action with the DM as an active player."
That, and the example question of whether you'd prioritize "simple to play" or "GM is also a player" apply equally well to any setting you like. In fact, something I'd probably add to the paragraph-length version of your concept is the idea that the game is setting-agnostic and capable of supporting a wide range of products. But based on what you've described so far it sounds like the core of what matters, the absolute #1 priority, is the fast pace of play and high level of engagement for both players and DM.
"Fast-paced action with the DM as an active player."
That, and the example question of whether you'd prioritize "simple to play" or "GM is also a player" apply equally well to any setting you like. In fact, something I'd probably add to the paragraph-length version of your concept is the idea that the game is setting-agnostic and capable of supporting a wide range of products. But based on what you've described so far it sounds like the core of what matters, the absolute #1 priority, is the fast pace of play and high level of engagement for both players and DM.
I can mostly agree with this.
That statement works. Actions are all resolved with a single roll. PCs make choices in both offense and defense in combat that matter. Actions outside of combat fuel narrative to keep things moving.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
