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.

I've hit my limit on my ability to create an original and interesting rules set for my game. My skill set is more related to creative design of the art, fiction, and miniatures, which I've gone back to doing full time.

As such, I'm looking for someone to collaborate or hire to help work on the rules, with some guidelines.

I do not expect anyone to work for free, so there will be some form of compensation or even ownership, which we can discuss.

For more information about the game, see:
http://www.exoshift.org/

I have some miniature sculpts, not shown online, as proof of work that I'm serious about this game.

My contact info is up on that site, and you can PM here as well, although I'm more likely to respond via email.

Out of interest, what kind of scale/scope are you looking at with these rules? I've taken a brief look at your fluff (some interesting stuff there) and the setting looks like it could easily support anything from galaxy-spanning conflicts in 10mm scale to a skirmish game following the crews of single ships or groups of characters.

I've asked that question myself so many times during the development.

I settled on 28mm~32mm after a lot of anguish. First a squad level skirmish, similar to Infinity, then a platoon level game broken up into fireteams units of 3-5. The goal being the platoon level as the standard game.

Originally, was going with 20mm (1/72) company level mass battles, with multiple infantry models per base. However, I was never sure the market could support jumping to that scale. But it would have been nice to have a full army on a table without feeling crowded like it can be in 40k.

Seems like a good idea, taking the route of Skirmish first (more detail=good way to flesh out the 'feel' of the factions/setting). 28-Heroic/32-true is also more recognised in the market, which always helps.

I'm not sure whether or not I could commit to this fully, but I can probably help hashing out the basics of the system, so feel free to PM me with what you have so far. At the very least I can offer some feedback, and possibly more.

I have some experience writing rules, having written (but not really published) a D20 RPG, 20mm Historical and Star Wars (but pretty generic) sci-fi Skirmish rulesets; I can send you these if you're interested in seeing what/how I go about rules design.

Do you have a design brief? It seems quite nebulous in what you want.

No design brief for the rules. It was a solo project until now.

I have reposted some older rules drafts in the downloads section, here:
http://www.exoshift.org/downloads/

Primarily for reference, but the short of it is:
D10 system, roll equal or under a target number in all cases.

Two actions. Move, attack, and OpFire, etc.

To attack, roll a number of shots equal to your weapon's RoF. Get equal or less than the attacker's modified Combat stat.

Pretty standard stuff.

I've taken a quick look, and I reckon you've got the makings of something good here. You seem to have borrowed a lot from Infinity (split Move values, range bands, rolling under target) which is no bad thing, seeing as that is regarded as one of the better systems out there. In fact, you could also go so far as to add more, perhaps the 'critical' if you exactly equal the target score.

Some ideas to bear in mind, which you may have already planned/thought of:

The differentiation between Quality and Combat stats is a good one, but one thing I like to use in rules that have a 'one stat, multiple uses' setup is a 'class' or 'special' type that grants only bonuses to the stat when used for that purpose. For example, a model with Q5 that was also a Medic (2) would recieve +2 to their stat, but only when making Heal tests. The same thing can be used for hackers, mechanics, marksmen, brawlers, and is a good way to avoid having, for example, Medics that were just as good at Hacking (by dint of a good Q stat) as healing, without requiring different stats for everything.

One thing I wasn't clear on (although I may have missed it) is whether you activate all your units before the opponent's turn, or whether it swaps back and forth each time, or if you have an Infinity-like Order pool that allow anyone to take actions before swapping. For the record, I prefer the idea of everyone having 1 activation (2 actions) per turn, but being able to recieve additional actions by Commanders being nearby, extra tokens being spent or a nearby friend helping out (for example, a HMG guy gets and extra Suppress action if a nearby friendly lends supporting fire instead of shooting himself).

The one thing I wasn't too keen on was the 3-band range. It is fine in theory, but rather than having 3 different stats for every weapon, would it not be simpler to just add a mod for shooting under or over half range? That way, it still scales with the weapon range, but is just a little simpler to handle.

Hope that helps,

Thanks for the suggestions.

It's alternating activations. Essentially, I act with one unit, you act with one unit. Repeat until all units are activated.

There's an additional delay mechanic to offset someone taking a ridiculous spam army, since a problem with alternating activations is that one player with significantly more troops can hold back activating his important models until all enemy models are activated, then get to activate the rest of his models unopposed.

Actually, about influences, more of these rules come from the old FASA game, Vor, than infinity. They had 3 range bands, rolling under, and other elements I hold dear, but perhaps too dear.

For the combat stat, I have actually experimented with removing it, and making normal weapon fire hit on a target number of 6 or 7. It simplifies shooting and fits with the idea that future weapons correct for aim (and that guns are easy to use). However, the concept was irking me somehow, perhaps I'm just too used to having a ranged combat stat in games. I guess that's why I'm looking for rules help, I need someone who can make those calls.

And I already have Quality modifiers for units, exactly as you describe. A medic literally has a +2 on the roll to do things like revive models. Engineers have +2 when constructing emplacements with portable nanoforges.

I definitely hear you about the range bands, but I wanted to test things out as they were. However, I understand that simplicity would help speed of play by reducing the calculations and stat lookups every time you shoot. That extra speed in the game flow would make the alternating activations mechanic work even better as players quickly take turns, back and forth, like a quick match of checkers or speed chess.

Sounds good, and I might look up that other game you cite as an influence as well.

I reckon keep the Combat stat, I can't say I am a fan of the 'one stat fits all' games, it's just too much oversimplification for my tastes, especially for a skirmish. While I see what you mean about futuristic weapons being unlikely to 'miss' (or strike armour, lose power ect), but there should still be a difference between spray-and-pray machine guns and calibrated, supported and specialised sniper rifles ect.

Regarding speed of play, I reckon the faster playing, the better. I find Fantasy games get away with slow, grinding wars of attrittion, but sci-fi to me means fast, deadly and brutal combat; put a foot wrong or step out of cover and you should be blown away. There is a balance to be stuck between simplicity and depth, and my gut feeling is that in general, you should err on the side of simplicity for the sake of speed. One of the few things I dislike about Infinity is that a lot of the time, you are calculating 3 or more mods for each shot, which can sometimes bog stuff down (especially when learning).

You definitely should have a design brief, even if working solo, because it makes you stay focused on your design and helps looking where he deviations happen (and if this is a good or a bad thing)

The rules are not bad, but definitely not something I would put on a squad based game.

How many models you plan on selling for a side? how many different units per faction, do you plan on keeping the models per faction low and expand on factions or keep factions low and expand on in faction units?

Do you want a game system that is tight and balanced? or a game system that is narrative? how user friendly you want the game system to be for new players? will there be some unique identifying thing on the game system? any special restrictions like it been a D10 system? Does the system need to be more simulatory or more gamy?

Do you want the game designer to bring in a new set of ideas, or rework/ improve on the existing frame?

Does the fluff need to be close represented in the game or have an abstract connection?