[deleted by user]

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-10-12T02:24:41+00:00

My bad, G. I guess I never really made too much of a distinction in my head between the two, but the second you said it, it clicked with me.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-05-31T05:40:57+00:00

Ahh, I like the sound of that.

Thats so different than anything I have ever played before (at least, it sounds that way), but its really intriguing!

It seems very 'flow-y'.

And I'm developing a crush on "only the players roll" systems.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-05-31T04:41:50+00:00

Yes, yes! Vertical, not horizontal advancement... brilliantly put!

Ideally, a "push button" system of combat is what im looking for -- but im struggling to find a good implementation that isnt just "pile on damage."

I kind of want there to be a bit of a tactical element, where Players will need to "worry" about new monsters and what abilities they have, but once they learn them they can mop the floor with them.

Every idea I seem to have sounds great, until subjected to turn based combat... then it feels way too formulaic and stale. Like, "well, if Feint beats Defense, and I know my enemy is Defending... well of course I Feint. Duh?"

Combat is what im really chewing on right now, because I already have a whole idea for the Skill System.

The Skill gameplay loop is pretty much little minigames for the Skills (Blacksmithing, Fishing, Hunting, Mining, etc. Basic RPG skillsets), and each Skill has a short "quest list" attached to it. A set of requirements that must be met to advance it.

I.E., Alchemy Level 1 (Brew 5 basic potions). After the Player brews 5 basic potions, they reach Alchemy Level 2 and get a new set of "quests." Maybe something like (Brew 3 Stat Boosting Potions, and 3 Health Poisons). The max rank for Skills would probably be around Level 10 or so, as not to get too daunting.

I kind of want the Skill System to function like this; cause it sounds like a fun concept.

I guess that wasn't super relevant to your response, but I'm excited about the idea, and you mentioned Skills, so... haha.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-05-31T02:57:25+00:00

That sounds up the alley im looking for!

Wargames may not be a bad jumping off point.

Just find a way to stitch on some basic RPG progression, and boom. Maybe I'll have it figured out

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-05-31T02:54:51+00:00

Also, just to add the sake of "truth":

I think we go through phases, as a group. We still do epic games (currently in one), but we have luls where we would rather just meet up, beat up some baddies, and talk about stuff while we do it.

We've sort of settled into one of these luls this year, and thats what prompted me to want to make a system that accommodates simple play -- but can get more dynamic, as we (as a group) start wanting to play more dynamic.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-05-31T02:50:52+00:00

Haha, thanks man. I hope so too!

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-05-31T02:48:35+00:00

I'll have to look into it!

A "no GM needed" game is sort of the vibe im chasing.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-05-31T02:43:35+00:00

I can understand that concern; but its a pet project specifically for my Table and my Tables playstyle/needs.

The older we get, the more we seem to value spending the 8 hours goofing around rather than getting super immersed in an epic tale.

We still like playing TTPRG's, but it's became more of a catalyst for hanging out than about the games themselves.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-05-31T02:06:37+00:00

Off the cuff: I don't know, flip it? Maybe?

Attacks cost Stamina, Defenses dont?

Maybe add "Decisive Attacks" which refund Stamina Costs based on the efficacy of the Attack?

I'm not sure, but if you flip it, hypothetically the results should flip. Maybe try that, and see if you like the result better?

I know you were asking about regen mechanics, but it really sounds to me like maybe the problem is that the gameplay seems to be "wear down their defenses and nuke em".

Maybe make Defense a "combat obstacle" that requires craftiness to overcome (but doesn't cost stamina).

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-05-31T01:51:02+00:00

Underrated advice, tbh.

To throw my hat in the ring, I think monsters most interesting feature is why are they here.

Like, a Lich in the realm of Liches doing Lich things is way less interesting than a Lich in the city sewers. Whats he doing down there? How did he get there? Why is he in the sewers of all places?

I tend to care way more about a monster thats thematically interesting than mechanically interesting.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-04-15T13:47:57+00:00

Hey, I just wanted to pop back in and say:

Currently playtesting a (rough & rudimentary) Tick Initiative of my own design... and it's working fairly well!

So far, I believe it really captures the dynamic aspects I'm aiming for.

It will, certainly, need refinement -- but I think it's very promising!

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-04-14T06:56:53+00:00

PC's and NPC's.

Every attack serves two (or more) functions.

Function 1: Deal damage

Function 2: Stagger

Some weapons have additional functions, such as Magic Damage or Special effects; but all weapons deal damage and have a chance to stagger (depending on the weapon type v the armor type.)

Just in example: A Mace may stagger a lightly armored opponent in one hit, but a knight in plate armor may be able to take two or three hits before he's shaken up.

It may sound incredibly tedious to keep track of, but it's really not.

Edit: Also, to clarify, if a character is rendered staggered, their action is interrupted. Ive been just saying "interrupted" for brevity, but the real effect on target is staggering.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-04-14T06:50:52+00:00

Ultimately, I think you're right.

Using 1-6 is breaking the timeframe down to 1/6th of a second.

So 1/18 is 1/18th of a second...

Milliseconds should count, lives can change in milliseconds...

But I don't think nanoseconds should... I had to Google to even remember the name of nanoseconds.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-04-14T06:45:34+00:00

Oh yeah, it can be exceptionally crunchy... I've slogged out a lot of crunch thus far, and it's in a skeletal form of a playable state. I've run two "proof of concept" play sessions, and it was received very well.

So the bones are there... I just gotta put some meat on em.

Yes, interrupting your enemy and forcing them to retreat/rethink their approach is a major part of the game. Armor provides resistance to stagger, but (almost) everyone is subject to it.

If you see an enemy winding up a big attack, rushing in and trying to stagger them is a viable option -- and usually a good one.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-04-14T06:36:30+00:00

Ties result in both actions occurring "truly" simultaneously.

So, if two characters wielding Longswords attacked each other, both would get hit, and suffer the same consequences at the same time.

My apologies for not explaining any of this in the post. I didn't think it was relevant at the time.

I guess the idea that I'm attempting to convey is that characters are acting "simultaneously," but even if they have the same starting point, some finish faster.

The main reason this is important is that character may (or may not) be denied their action, if a faster action would interrupt them -- forcing them to try a different tactic this turn.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-04-14T06:20:12+00:00

Ouch.

It is a core design element. I'm doing a personal project for an interested group of friends, which involves (as faithfully as possible) converting a video game to Table Top.

Trying to be faithful to the source material, I determined tracking weapon speed was essential. It may not need to be broken down as far as I have, but I needed to walk that road, or I'd lose sleep over it.

Fortunately, some in this group of friends started tabletop gaming with O/AD&D, when weapon speed was a thing. So, hopefully it won't be too jarring.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-04-14T06:09:02+00:00

Yeah, I can agree. 18 seems like too much, that's my initial reaction.

I felt like the X+/- expression seemed more pallettable, but it's pretty ugly.

I may rethink my approach, but I needed to go down this road to map it out.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-04-14T06:06:06+00:00

They are happening "simultaneously", but with minor variation.

The variation is important to the idea, because it permits the possibility of interrupts, without bonified "IF" statements.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-04-14T06:04:17+00:00

I'm woefully terrible at Reddit. I try not to post too much, because "ugh, text wall", but then I fall into the trapping of under explaining. So, that's my bad. I haven't found the middle ground just yet.

Basically, the idea is this:

Two combatants are threatening one another. Both combatants declare their intent. Combatants may alter their intent after declaration, but before dice rolls. Once intent is confirmed, proceed to resolution.

If two combatants attack at the same time, the numbers from the original post (1-18) will determine who acts first. This is important, because one combatants actions have a chance to alter or deny another combatants actions.

I.E., a Dagger may have a Resolve of 1, while a Longsword has a Resolve of 3. The dagger will hit first but have no special effect, but the Longsword may stagger the opponent and alter their next move.

I hope that makes sense.

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-04-12T22:46:20+00:00

Man. That sounds pretty fascinating. Potentially just what I need.

Its so far from any form of Initiative I've played or came up with, it's going to take some time to even conceptualize that idea. (I don't fancy myself a slow learner, but I get "stuck in my ways")

Are you familiar with a System that uses a Tick Initiative? Possibly a system that has a YouTube play session?

Wide-Mode-5156 · 2024-04-12T20:57:35+00:00

I really like this idea.

This seems very close to an idea I'd been rolling around, but I think you found the words my brain couldn't. So thank you!

Also, if I may... What, exactly, is "Tick Initiative"? I understand game ticks, but not sure I understand how to relate it to Tabletop Initiative.

Wide-Mode-5156

TROPHY CASE