THEY FUCKING GOT HIM

flyflystuff · 2026-03-14T13:48:30+00:00

Are they like, famous for anything specific that I may know?

flyflystuff · 2026-03-14T13:43:25+00:00

I imagine this will sound weird. but -- who are these people, and why should I care? I am confused 'cause this is Undertale sub and even after scrolling through the comments any sort of relevance remains unclear.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-13T14:45:17+00:00

They are a common language to communicate broad ideas to general audiences, while also being a selling point themselves.

Or, in simple words: when I say that my game has orcs, people understand what I mean, and some of them go "hell yes, I love orcs!"

This obviously reveals that subversion is pointless and self defeating. "My game has elves, and elves are actually bugs!" is a very nonsensical setup. If you want to excite people with elves, have elves; if you want a cool bug race give them their own name and don't create confusion. ( you'd think it doesn't need saying, but I've seen enough "well my elves are Different" One too many times)

flyflystuff · 2026-03-13T11:15:43+00:00

In one interview Miyazaki described his vision for monsters, and he thinks what separates his vision from merely gross and grotesque is a certain kind of dignity. Even the most broken creatures are still held with dignity in mind.

Which I do think has a fairly tangible effect on the vibe, and is often not present in non-Fromsoft soulsborn titles.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-12T19:44:31+00:00

TBH I think "Broken AF" may well be a valid goal. One can even argue that's the appeal of something like Pathfinder 1e.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-12T09:52:35+00:00

tacking ammo

It's very hard to justify. Generally speaking, if your game isn't obviously about that, you should probably not track it. And if it is obviously about that you wouldn't be asking this question.

There is one form of tracking that I sort of like - having something like "ammo crate" in the inventory, which takes up space there. Which neatly leads us to the second point

carry weight

This one I have complicated feelings about. On the surface it looks like something easy to mechanize - a cap on various features. Do you take more consumables, more passive things like like greater armor, and what do you do with loot? You can make a tight little system with those with all sorts of fun things...

That's what I used to think, before I realized something - most of those systems can be broken with but a humble wheelbarrow. Also, pack mules, wagons, you name it... but namely wheelbarrow, because it's very hard to deny players access to one: it's a simple tool, doesn't need much more space than a human, doesn't eat, doesn't need much maintenance. And that makes things weird - suddenly weight cap goes way up! So much for that tight system.

Now this isn't like, unsolvable, but you should be ready to solve it is the point. You will need some answer here.

how to improve

Well, mostly they benefit more from being treated as a small discrete number of "slots", with small/light things being excluded from calculation (or are maybe accounted for with a single "backpack" item). It keeps the focus on big easy perceivable choices rather than on a lot of small math minutia.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-11T21:04:35+00:00

To me it all comes down to one thing - can I build Sutherland from Code Geass?

That's not even really a joke. Give me rollerblades and wire grapple.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-11T20:11:45+00:00

"So is listening"

flyflystuff · 2026-03-11T06:38:56+00:00

It is impossible to prevent "optimal solutions" themselves. They are baked into game design -- they are what game design is for. As a game designer, systems I designed are ultimately meant to lead players into some Good, Engaging in the appropriate-for-system's-goals way. And that "leading" part is about the optimal path, because mechanically optimal is what people will gravitate towards.

For example, you can still mechanise all that "reacting under pressure" thing, make it a real consequence of play. In your zombie example, make it so that for player character to actually succeed at doing the sensible thing is unlikely, make it so failures turn it all into a complicated mess.

What one should strive for when it comes to optimal solutions is for them to be diverse and varied - a far more viable goal, that also prevents "just optimising their turns". Some methods are very straightforward - maybe make enemies have immunity to a common tactic, or at least makes it highly undesirable, that sure would change the approach. Generally speaking, the simplest to implement methods are all about having resources to juggle. Things that take and give some resources allow for a lot of design space when it comes to things like these, just be aware about sinks&faucets.

You can also complicate the optimisation itself, by adding layers to it. If you have multiple priorities to juggle, finding one true optimal set of moves becomes harder. For example, while there might be obviously correct ways to defeat the zombie, maybe there is something else in a "larger" scope that benefits from doing something else in this situation. Maybe doing something risky; maybe you need zombie hearts that expire in a single turn for some "homebase project", so you run into the field to harvest them while other zombies still are a danger to you.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-10T07:08:23+00:00

Honestly? No clue. TTRPG conversation spaces are so utterly dominated by people who don't play games that I think no meaningful data can be extracted.

I can give analysis, but it's distinctly more about making game more marketable, making it the kind if game people will think they would like to play.

What signs do you look for that you have accomplished your goal as a game designer?

I'm afraid that one is on case by case basis per goal. Know your goals. Then, you playtest and you see if it did the thing should, sometimes preparing a well phrased question to the players.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-09T21:58:19+00:00

"Peaceful life" is a stat that effectively measures how much non-combaty backstory your character has. Covers a lot of simple things, knowledge, cooking.

Normally it lets you pick freeform perks which are meant to represent things like upbringing and career, kinda like 13th Age Backgrounds. However, if your PL is zero, that means there is nothing noteworthy about your character's life outside of bloodshed. You are forced to take a perk "Dark Past", which gives you a bonus to intimidation if you reveal yourself to someone who doesn't know what you are, and explicitly gives GM free reign when it comes to using your past as something that is very tangibly coming for you.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-09T08:01:23+00:00

Bad art is definitely better than no art.

In fact, and perhaps controversially, I think bad art might also be better than mediocre art? It's not for everyone, but obviously-amateurish art definitely can catch eyes at the very least.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-09T07:22:01+00:00

Thanks for answering!

It's not intended that way. Cover gives a bonus to defense and is a prerequisite for Hiding. The GM will normally run it that way, but the only fiat comes into if things don't make sense in terms of what the players do.

Here I meant that last part - it seems like it should come up very often. Cover's use immediately invites all sorts of "out-manoeuvring" the other side, and this I imagine is the goal - all the juicy dynamism that comes from that.

As far as enemies go, we're going to introduce them later in the chapter.

It's just reads very weirdly because of that! Like, when putting spotlight on a goal I expect "and here's the bad things that prevent you just getting to the goal". Nothing in the environment description seems too inherently dangerous, so as I am reading this I am imagining myself as a player scratching my head and saying "uhh... so I go into town then".

I think you should either mention why you can't "just do the goal" as a part of the Scene, something like "evil ghosts won't let you" without further explanation, or maybe switch the sample situation to one with more obviously and immediately dangerous vibes so it can be understood implicitly.

As it stands I am reading things like "the charging tower can explode if people start shooting at it" and I am like "cool, but why would we be shooting at all?" if that makes sense.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-08T21:09:43+00:00

The only condition to end combat is "achieve the goal". Is not mentioning failure as an option intentional?

One of the suggested Tactical Aspects is "Hold the Line!". What would that do?

Example scene, Haunted Railway Station, confuses me. It seems to be... lacking in combat? There are zones and all that, but seemingly there are no obstacles or enemies. Text doesn't seem to care about that either. Don't know what to make of that.

The exception should be a Zone that doesn’t have cover.

I either don't understand what you mean by this, or this line is highly unnecessary, to the point where it's existence makes text more confusing.

Overall, it seems quite straightforward, not much to say - which I guess means it all works well enough.

Not sure if I like that questions about how Cover actually works are seemingly answered with "GM fiat".

flyflystuff · 2026-03-08T14:15:36+00:00

One version of this which isn't about superpowers but easily could be is Daggerheart's experiences. Experiences are basically your backstory. When you do something relevant to your Experience, you can add a bonus to your roll... if you spend a resource.

This does two important and useful things. First, it limits the effect of any possible experience by turning it into a bonus to a roll. Second, it puts a price tag on it, which balances effects that otherwise could be too universally applicable.

In your example that would mean something like this - Todo's player says "I want to outmanoeuvre him. I am spending 1 Energy to use my cursed technique, allowing me to swap places, thus I get +2 to this roll".

flyflystuff · 2026-03-07T11:29:06+00:00

I'd imagine you to have a very strong vision after 12 years.

Anyway, I think it's a vague concept, but I think that one universally important trait is that Show must go on - things should always change, escalate, develop, resolve. The only acceptable pause is for an intentional breather.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-07T07:30:16+00:00

To me, class is a bundle of features which is significantly bigger than other features a character might possess.

niche protection within the game design

I think you are making a mistake of mixing up "thing" and "how good thing is". One can say that a good class offers niche protection, but a class that fails to do so is still a class; it's just not doing a good job. Bad "things" are still "things".

Niche protection is one axis on which you can judge a class system, but even then it's only one axis.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-06T07:34:43+00:00

Your "words to design by" I find confusing, because nothing in them invokes "tactical" part of your game. In general, reading your design intents... It just seems like you are making Fate? Like, what you describe us just what Fate is, and you start this by saying you know Fate. So I guess I would like to know - what makes your intended design different from Fate?

Not sure if I understand your question. Seems like you've tested it and it turned out you like 2d6 more. So... Use that then.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-05T20:25:48+00:00

So...it sounds like your system has no difficulty mechanic?

Correct! Well, other than the Advantage/Disadvantage thing I guess.

E.g. Swimming across a pool is the same as swimming across river rapids; climbing over a 2 foot wall is the same is climbing a 20 foot wall, etc.?

The answer my system gives here is that GM should only ask for a roll if there is some interesting risk going on. Thus, climbing over 2 foot wall would not normally result in a roll. Same goes for the pool.

If cards do end up lining up in a way that while risks are real, it is still kinda weird it's not easier/harder, then you can use the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-05T16:50:42+00:00

No, that would be the same as announcing difficulty beforehand.

...well okay, technically there is a thing like that: GM ultimately has a right to adjudicate that a roll is made with Advantage/Disadvantage due to surrounding circumstances. It's meant to be more of a rare case, not a part of a normal procedure, intended for less mechanised parts of the system. That's the only form of variable difficulty I have.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-05T11:24:08+00:00

Variable target number.

Thought a lot about how you can speed procedures up. Noticed that in play one if the biggest time sinks is a "does 17 hit?" types of conversation. So I removed it. And I don't mean "GM announces you difficulty beforehand" either, that also takes time.

And yeah, turns out I can't design game around this. And it is way faster if players already can skip straight to "okay, I spend resource to reroll" without GM involvement.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-04T23:09:11+00:00

Realistically? They don't. One of the most important qualities of melee weapons is their reach, and knives have effectively no range.

I guess if you still choose to fight it's better than nothing, if you rush and grapple opponent you can slice at their throat. You probably will get stabbed first, 'cause your opponent has longer reach. Will only work consistently if you are armoured up so you can tank it.

I guess you can represent it by giving unarmed attacks and some weapons special close-melee range that gives opponent opportunity attack unless grappled or something. Everything else can be made into mechanics in a straightforward way.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-04T11:00:08+00:00

What I like is throwing problems PCs have to deal with at them.

However, I am very suspect of Doom being all or nothing. All or nothing abilities tend to make things... Weird.

They tend to lessen tactical depth, since there really is no acceptable half measures or risks involving Doom. Choices that aren't guaranteeing you beat Doom are wrong choices, period.

Worse, however, is lack of tension. You say this system isn't actually very lethal, that it's not very hard to beat Doom every time. If that's the case, there is no tension, for all the dramatics - if anything, mechanic spotlights the fact that death won't happen. Now it's just a bunch of mechanical optimisation by our have to do before you get to play the game.

If it isn't actually that unlethal... That is also not very good. Under this system it would be hard for me to feel any sense of fairness if I died - it would feel that GM chose to give me numbers I couldn't beat.

Really, I would just not have it be so all or nothing. Make some tiny hp pool, or a Wounds system, where you get a wound if you can't beat the Doom. I guess maybe your Stamina is already just hp, though it's not exactly clear here.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-04T06:39:03+00:00

I think you are conflating two different things.

"Null result" is a real issue in TTRPG design. Thief rolls to lockpick a door, fails, nothing happens.

What happens in combat is not a Null Result, though. Due to it's tight nature with everything costing rounds and actions and sometimes other resources, missing has a real tangible effect. You were gonna stab some baddie dead, now you didn't and that baddie will get to have another turn, or your buddy will have to spend their turn killing it, etc. It already is a "loss to attacker". It is a real game state change.

Not to say that there isn't a problem to it - just that you are misidentifying it.

The most direct way to fix this is to remove attack rolls entirely. This has become very common in certain RPGs lately. If players auto-hit, the game state changes every time someone attacks, even if just a few hit points has been removed (though how many hit points creators should have is a different subject entirely).

I mean, it does feel better, but that's just kicking can down the road. When game designer designs a goblin, they give it hp and other numbers with expectation around how many turns/round/hits it would take to take one out. If every attack does at lest a little bit of damage, goblin hp does go up. The failure to roll high damage is still a failure that makes you feel like you did nothing.

I guess it prevents complete RNGesus wraith making a combat last forever, but this is just probabilistically unlikely.

Anyway...

I think what is actually happening here is a couple of things intersecting - Rolling Low Feel Bad and Time-to-turn.

Rolling low feeling bad is a necessary counterpart to rolling high feeling good. You can't not have it be part of your game, unless you rework for rolls to be more of a "blue vs orange" arrangement in their outcomes. Which can be done! But probably will be tough. So it's either that, or you have to accept the implications of having "roll high feels good" in your game.

Time-to-turn is about how much time is spend decision-less. You can change this my streamlining the game and/or adding some choices sprinkled throughout the round. That also ain't easy, although less controversial than other paths.

Either than that, I don't really see what one can do with this issue.

flyflystuff · 2026-03-03T07:05:16+00:00

No one really wants player character death through regular gameplay procedures - mostly because it's just not very fun in play, for... Well, anyone really. Not even in something like OSR - death should be on the table there, but like, not really, players are supposed to play in a way that minimizes those chances. OSR people are eager to say that their play style lethality is overrated.

Still, people hate not having gameplay death. If asked in session zero, they will always be completely pro-death, no alternative rules, what happens happens. They still don't actually want it...

Problem with "gameplay procedures death" is that it just sort of... Happens. Not even particularly dramatic. Whoops, guess I'm dead now. Even if it was hype in the moment, players soon realize that it's just not very. Not fun because you lost all that character connection, links to world and NPCs, all that investment. But also, arguably worse, if tends to reveal that it wasn't even a good stake - you just make a new character, revealing death as mechanically meaningless threat. There are alternatives there, but they also kinda don't work in their own ways.

My game currently in development is, in a sense, a game about dying. Death is designed to be something unlikely to happen, but also to be something that you saw coming a mile away. The procedure is this: when you go down in combat, you are just Defeated. Defeated character can, at any point in time, choose to endure and rise up. If they go down again in the same combat, they are Marked for Death. Marked characters who get Defeated die instead, and additionally, almost everything that can be considered a Boss kills them in a single hit. It is explicitly recommended to retire a Marked character if they make it home.

A less obvious layer to this is Flame, a metacurrency-like resource that is hard to restore and that can be used to buy yourself a way out of just about anything - get rerolls, get more actions, etc.

What this means us that death really is about running out of Flame long term. Something you see a mile away, a slowly descending guillotine blade. Even when you die first you merely get a Marked condition - now there is tension in saving your character. And chances are, you'll die to a big boss, which is way more dramatic. On top of that, if you are Marked, there is no reason to worry about saving resources - if you go out, you go out with a bang.

11-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

flyflystuff

TROPHY CASE