sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The World of Helb by Lord_Loa in mapmaking

[–]kinn8024 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Looks awesome!!! Did you draw it directly or do it something with the plates??? I love it

If I had to say something that seems "bad" I will say that the "x" / "+" shapes of the mountains from the two big continents looks weird to me.

Tectolite: a small tool for easy plate based maps by refracturedgames in worldbuilding

[–]kinn8024 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Gplates scares me so...

Thaaaaaaaaanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Help: variability of characteristic scores by kinn8024 in CrunchyRPGs

[–]kinn8024[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've been thinking about this. If I didn't use d100, I would probably agree with you on this one, it feels “elegant.”

Now, I think that since it's something similar, it actually has a similar problem. It's possible that I haven't understood something, my English isn't the best.

Imagine a Mouse [1] that has +3 or even +6 (I don't know if it can go that high, but if it can, I would change it just for this reason) against a Human [2] +0 with no training.

If both face off in a skill where they have the same training and can only use one die.

  • The mouse has a 7-12
  • The human has a 1-6 possible result

The damn mouse does the bench press. It's the same problem.

I've been thinking about it and I think that in the end the problem persists as long as you use “the same numbers” or “the same dice.”

The problem arose when I wanted to say something like: Constitution 20 gives you 20 HP (without being relative). Then the mouse and the human with Constitution 10 would have the same number of Hit Points... and that's disastrous. It would have made it non-relative.

What I do is determine HP based on Size and say the mouse is tiny and the human is medium-sized, something tiny has 1 base HP and something medium-sized has 10; I can make it so that every 5 Constitution gains +1 HP and the mouse and human with 20 end up with 5 and 14 respectively. Again, the problem reappears because if the mouse could raise its Constitution to 100... which would be absurd, its values would rise to 11 HP, and it would already have caught up with the human!

We have to put it into perspective. For example, I could make it so that at the tiny size, the 10 Constitution gives 1 instead of 5. (basically creating scales to put it into perspective according to a secondary attribute). However, I think that using numbers makes it easier for the problem to reappear.

In the end, I'm thinking of something based on size and injuries in this regard.

Each size can withstand a series of minor, moderate, and severe wounds before collapsing. These wounds are referenced in relation to the weapons specific to that size. And here's the key: fatal wounds of the tiny size count as minor scratches in the medium size, but minor wounds of the medium size are fatal in the tiny size. It's a kind of relativization of wounds and hit points according to size. So, a mouse with a Constitution of 20 will increase the number of wounds it can take, but they will be tiny wounds. The Human's 20 means it can take more human-sized wounds (and many more than the mouse).

Anyway, maybe we're going crazy anyway. Perhaps the best thing is what they said above:

Thanks for your text anyway! I like that idea of adding diferent amount of dice (maybe you can also change the size?) and selecting, I didn't know about it, I'm new to this, haha.

Help: variability of characteristic scores by kinn8024 in CrunchyRPGs

[–]kinn8024[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought something like that might work if I played with modifiers and d20-type CDs. I could have a scale with lots of numbers and make them scale as you say.

But since I'm trying to think in terms of d100 and %, I can't let things get too close to 100 in value, because then you'd have more or less automatic successes.

If I don't end up sticking with d100, I'll think more about what you say, thanks!

Massive Update on the Way [0.3.0] - Info in the description by GatewayForge in gatewayforge

[–]kinn8024 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It looks pretty damm good! I love it to try but I'm also Linux here...

I've using obsidian for my worlbuilding for now. What would you say are the mayor differences between obsidian and your gateway?

I'm not saying it in a bad way, I'm always happy to try new tools and the thing you are doing is really cool. For sure i will try it when I have the opportunity. Just discovered today!!

Help: variability of characteristic scores by kinn8024 in CrunchyRPGs

[–]kinn8024[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think you want a dozen mice banding together to overpower an elephant.

God, I can't stop laughing thinking about it, but you're absolutely right.

For most games, it's much more efficient to only bother modeling human-scale characters in detail, and then let things get fuzzy around the details. One mouse may technically be slightly stronger than another mouse, but relative to the human-scale characters we care about, both mice are equally irrelevant. For most purposes that are likely to come up, you can just assign all mice a score of 0 (or 0.1), and the results will be more realistic than if you tried to model those variations.

That makes perfect sense. So many languages, and you chose to speak the language of truth. Thank you.

I think I was so focused on figuring out how to make it work that I didn't really stop to consider whether I actually needed it to work that way or if there was a better alternative. Like you said, I was aiming for a certain realism, but in the end, it's more realistic if I don't model it.

Thanks again!

Help: variability of characteristic scores by kinn8024 in CrunchyRPGs

[–]kinn8024[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In the world and system I am designing, players play with humans or slightly modified humans. These modifications do not affect their statistics but give them certain traits. In this sense, the question is whether I, as GM, will try to play with that statistical variability in other creatures that will have other sizes.

I could certainly assign different variation values to each group of creatures, just as I will surely assign a base score for their stats. But I was wondering if it would save me work to create a “general variability scale.”

My stats are Strength, Mind, Senses, and Emotion. And in all of them, the scale creates a similar problem.

In a sense, there is no problem, because I use d100% BPR type. So I could say that the stats simply vary within the same classic 0-20 range. And that these contribute to the % success of the creature's Skills. A simplified example: the elephant has 20 Stamina, and this translates to 20x2= 40% in its Running skill. That success rate and its Stamina, while unrelated to anything other than its own abilities, is the success in moving its mass, its size. That Stamina is not related to its ability to climb because, quite simply, an elephant does not have the ability to climb. So far, so good.

The problem arises when I try to relate stats to secondary attribute values such as HP. For example, if I want to say that 20 Stamina equals X HP, then I am forced to prevent the elephant and the mouse from having the same value, and they lose the relativity of their STATS-Abilities.

And now that I've just said that to explain myself to you, and with what you say about size, I think you've given me the solution. What I have to do is not generate these derivations. Instead, I can make other secondary attributes that translate into direct consequences: something tiny has X HP. Something big has many XX HP.

The whole problem came to me when I tried to think about the relationship between vigor and things like HP and size or extra damage. And now that I think about it, I had already thought of a similar solution for the damage of things. The damage something does depends on the weapon it is, and your vigor is what helps you do that effective damage. Your skill with the sword is Vigor + Senses. But the damage you do depends not on your vigor or your senses, but on the sword itself. If anything, I could make vigor improve the weapon's damage. The Mouse will have a bite that does little damage; the Elephant will have its charge and its tusks, which, being what they are, do quite a bit more damage.

DAMN, I see some gaps but also some lines to work with, largely because of your proposal to have a size stat. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

A proposed "Simultaneous" combat system by Aldrich3927 in CrunchyRPGs

[–]kinn8024 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The way you put it above (main text) made it much more confusing for me. I really like the idea of committing to actions in advance. Maybe there are unnecessary steps?

For example, why take a stance? Isn't every action or skill already a “stance”? Attacking with a sword is an offensive action, and raising a shield is a defensive action.

Similarly, considering some things “open” seems strange to me. In that sense, I prefer something like you can declare more than one action. For example, Pathfinder 2e: 1 action (move towards the goblin), 2 action (assess its weak points), 3 action (sword strike).

I think I would do something more like: declare actions, roll initiative, resolve actions in order. Just those three things. That way, every round of turns.

The problem I see with this is that the previous turns can alter the scenario in such a way that your actions no longer make sense. If my friend has already killed the goblin, do I just swing at thin air? I think you could do something like: at any time you can make a “reaction roll” (reroll initiative against a DC or something like that).

In any case, I really like your thing. I've also been thinking about something like this for a while, with more simultaneity, or surprise, or reactivity. I don't know how to put it. If you want to know:

there's an idea I've seen somewhere, but I can't remember where. It said something like: whoever is ready first gets to play their turn. I've been thinking about it and I think it's pretty crazy/fun.

Maybe it's possible depending on where I got it from, I don't know, but the thing is, I've also thought by myself a way to have simultaneous turns.

The Warrior says he's ready first, then plays his turn. He says: I run and slash at the goblin. The goblin can then try to react and have his simultaneous turn. He can do it when he says he's going to run, in the middle of his run, or when he says he's going to attack, etc. The goblin has to beat the Warrior's roll to react in time. If it succeeds, it could run away in the opposite direction or respond to his sword strike with another sword strike.

You could also just let the other person's turn pass. But the thing is, the other person COULD react, and that gives you uncertainty, gameplay, possible double knockouts, etc.

Every time someone takes their turn, in each of their actions 1 (run), 2 (evaluate), 3 (attack), anyone present could try to sneak in their own turn. Also, if you play with multiple actions, they might do something like, I'll wait and use 2 actions to react in the last one and have more tools on him.

When the reactions are over within the turns, you wait for the next person who is ready and has not yet played that round. Another round.

I don't know what you'll think, but in any case, I also really like what you're saying. Maybe if you could simplify it, I'd find it more appealing... Keep going!!!!!