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.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 English Assassin wrote:
This is all rather meaningless as it is. If you want feedback on a game system, you're going to have to write one.

To start with, think about how you're going to resolve actions. You could have players roll under the relevant stat, or roll die+stat vs TN, or roll [stat]dice vs. TN and count successes... or any number of other things. Picking a die type would help too.

he did pick a die type.. the game would use six sided dice... But yes, how are actions going to resolved..

An interesting thing would be to do opposed die rolls like Brushfire, where you and your opponent roll dice, and if you beat his die roll, you hit, if you don't, then well you miss...

Things like that rather depend upon whether the game will be mass battle- or skirmish-scaled. In the former case, it's good design to, as above, give the inactive player something to do, in the latter, it's less necessary.

Until the OP gives us some idea of scale and turn structure, I really don't see that there's much anybody can usefully suggest.

Yes I was thinking for a skirmish sized game. the turn will consist of a movement, ability, attack, firing, phase each of the turns does as the name suggests.

Any game can do very well to keep BOTH players involved as you play. Look at the following games: Warmahordes, Malifaux, and Brushfire... The last two both do an alternating activation AND force your opponent to stay involved in the game even when its not their activation/turn... Warmachine only forces you to mark damage when it's not your turn.


Edit: LGC based on your latest post about wanting a skirmish sized game. Perhaps you should look at Brushfire's rules, their game already does what you're looking to do but with a d10 instead of a d6, if you can find a ruleset that you like, perhaps you could instead focus on a fan made ruleset and focus on background/models rather than rules.

Familiarity with orthography, editing, counting and generally what is existing in the field you want to work in, would be a good start "to organize your thoughts".
Just now it reads like someone, who for the first time met a gamer talking about Fallout 3 and immediately thinks he can revolutionize the gaming industry.

Lord General Cheese wrote:
ok

thank

you

for

the

info

so

thats the best dakka has to offer me

The best advice you will get from Dakka is to improve your grammar and spelling.

Take it on board.

Further, anyone who insisted that you must come up with mechanics before background is an idiot. Background must always come before mechanics.

Well, that was a bit of a trainwreck.

OP, I'm going to suggest that you start over, but if you actually want meaningful feedback, put a little more effort into -
A) Explaining just what the heck you're talking about right at the start and
B) Formatting your posts in a way that people can read. That's both a rule of the site, and common courtesy to those trying to read what you're writing.