Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[piecewise]

Fair enough.

I have question for you guys; I've been skimming through old systems of mine and other stuff to find one that I might slot in here to use thats simplier and less crunchy. How do you guys feel about statistical setups that can result in monsters that are statistically cannot be defeated via normal means?

Because there's one system I was looking at, based off the BLAME! manga, that basically has you roll 2d10 and add it to a skill number to get your roll for actions. And that means that if you have 20 skill and the opponent has 41, you cannot beat him in a contest of that skill, even if you roll a perfect 20. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't beat him other ways,  but you can't just stand toe to toe and swing away, hoping to get lucky, because you never will.

[Whisperling]

Fine by me, as long as big numbers are used somewhat sparingly. Powerful demons who are simply impossible to defeat in straight combat are fine, middlings a little less so.

[Pancaek]

I don't like it, but I guess it could work so long these kinds of things are very rare and there's at least HINTS* that you can't beat him. I feel like it might be safer to just not bother with those at all, unless on purpose.

*HINTS being different from regular old hints in that they're pretty gosh dang obvious. Nothing worse than working your ass off only to be told "lol, you couldn't beat him anyway". I hate it when it happens in video games with fights you can't win, I can only imagine the amount of rage it will generate inside of me if the 30 minute occurence from video games becomes multi-turn ordeal in a forum game.

[piecewise]

I don't like it, but I guess it could work so long these kinds of things are very rare and there's at least HINTS* that you can't beat him. I feel like it might be safer to just not bother with those at all, unless on purpose.

*HINTS being different from regular old hints in that they're pretty gosh dang obvious. Nothing worse than working your ass off only to be told "lol, you couldn't beat him anyway". I hate it when it happens in video games with fights you can't win, I can only imagine the amount of rage it will generate inside of me if the 30 minute occurence from video games becomes multi-turn ordeal in a forum game.

The thing about it is that while the concept of that seems weird to start with, it actually makes sense. If you're some novice you'll never beat a trained fighter in one on one combat with everything else being equal. But you could place a land mine and then lure the guy in and that could do it.

As per "hints" It should actually be completely obvious if I post the rolls. Because it is always Skill +2d10, so if you see

60+12 vs 25+11

You know you'll never beat him in THAT particular contest of skills. But you could beat him in some other contest, or via some contest that doesn't involve your stats, like aforementioned landmine.

I like it also because it removes low end rolls that skilled players and NPCS shouldn't have while also making it so that some unskilled nobody can't shoot as well as a highly trained sniper due to pure luck. Well, with exploding dice they could but it would be VERY unlikely. As it should be.




Overall though I think the big question becomes what kind of game people want. Do they want a dungeon crawl or a free roam or a ER style mission and objective but free reign to determine how they want to do things.  Or any mix of those. Maybe a character focused dungeon exploration like Dungeon Meshi? Dungeon as open world?  Some mix?

I mean, I'm constantly making and designing new things, so changing stuff isn't a problem, I just gotta know what people want out of the game.

Or I can just keep making games until something sticks.

[Ozarck]

I think it should be obvious by now that this group is too diverse to have a particular game, game style,level of complexity, setting, story, or playstyle in mind.
If you want this game to be your main game - your new ER - it's gonna need to be simple enough for brainless playstyle, while still rewarding those players who put some thought into their actions (but, preferably punishing those who put too much thought into them). It needs to be risky enough that people are in real danger of losing their characters, but not so risky that people can't build up their characters over time.

Or not. What do I know? My second most popular game is super simple, rewards very simple playstyle, kills all of the characters, and still lets people build their stories, sort of. So, yeah.
Oh, you might consider a game where one set of people are controllers - those who build their characters - and the other set are agents - those who go out and die. Like a custom robo style game! Have a set of players dsign the roots, then another set take them out and blow them to hell. the controllers are rewarded with, i don't know, income for the next set of developments, while the roboagents are rewarded with neat toys or something - capture a flamethrower, use it next mission, or something.

I would totally desing that game if I weren't runing two games with mid-teens numbers of players right now.

[Pancaek]

The thing about it is that while the concept of that seems weird to start with, it actually makes sense. If you're some novice you'll never beat a trained fighter in one on one combat with everything else being equal. But you could place a land mine and then lure the guy in and that could do it.

As per "hints" It should actually be completely obvious if I post the rolls. Because it is always Skill +2d10, so if you see

60+12 vs 25+11

You know you'll never beat him in THAT particular contest of skills. But you could beat him in some other contest, or via some contest that doesn't involve your stats, like aforementioned landmine.

I like it also because it removes low end rolls that skilled players and NPCS shouldn't have while also making it so that some unskilled nobody can't shoot as well as a highly trained sniper due to pure luck. Well, with exploding dice they could but it would be VERY unlikely. As it should be.




Overall though I think the big question becomes what kind of game people want. Do they want a dungeon crawl or a free roam or a ER style mission and objective but free reign to determine how they want to do things.  Or any mix of those. Maybe a character focused dungeon exploration like Dungeon Meshi? Dungeon as open world?  Some mix?

I mean, I'm constantly making and designing new things, so changing stuff isn't a problem, I just gotta know what people want out of the game.

Or I can just keep making games until something sticks.

I get what you're saying, but when seeing the rolls it might already be too late to do anything about it. What I'm trying to say is that the concept is fine so long as there's ways to guess what they're good at before they start doing so. Maybe mister office drone #654 is the most skilled frying pan fighter in the world, but I need to be able to somehow deduce that before I decide to get into a skillet fight with the man and get my head caved in in a single turn. I think it will depend a lot on the game itself, to be honest. We'll see.

As for game, personally I feel like maybe you're focusing a bit too much on the system instead of the setting? Numbers or mechanics weren't what made ER enjoyable for me, the setting and the narration was.

[piecewise]

Hmm. The reason I'm worried about the system is that the system was ER's big failing in terms of balance because I just flew by the seat of my pants a lot and the power creep killed things.  So even if its simple, I want a system that is good and fun so that I can then hang a bunch of my silly stuff around it.


...

I have...an idea that might work.

[Pancaek]

Just be careful you don't end up with a systems that bogs you down at every corner and makes it so that nothing fun and unexpected can happen. I know that the system in ER got unbalanced at the end, but it also allowed for a lot of fun stuff. Also, the unbalancing was helped along by tinker and all of the stuff they designed. How many layers of armour do you want with those armour thickness tests?

[piecewise]

Just be careful you don't end up with a systems that bogs you down at every corner and makes it so that nothing fun and unexpected can happen. I know that the system in ER got unbalanced at the end, but it also allowed for a lot of fun stuff. Also, the unbalancing was helped along by tinker and all of the stuff they designed. How many layers of armour do you want with those armour thickness tests?

Yeah, I'm gonna abandon rules for a moment and try something else; gonna sit down and think about the world and experiences I want and then go from there.

[syvarris]

Have...  Have you considered Mad Max With Wizards?

_Sorry.

[Radio Controlled]

Do they want [...] ER [...]?

I think you might be on to something here.

In all seriousness, if power creep was your biggest problem with ER, just curtail/ban the tinkering and keep a better eye on what gear you throw out there. No invulnerable suits, no upgrades that give perfect dodge, no magic that grants you a get-out-of-jail-free cards. A little planning and self-restraint really.

And hell, even without that, ER had at least like, what, 3-4 years of good gameplay with people having a lot of fun? I think a lot of gm's would kill for that.

[Egan_BW]

Have...  Have you considered Mad Max With Wizards?

_Sorry.

It has to actually be mad max though, not the weird thing set in a city that I found out it was. Can't get mad max without the road.

[piecewise]

I HAVE AN IDEA

FUCK IT I'll DO IT LIVE

[Egan_BW]

We're doing it live, people.

[Lenglon]

I HAVE AN IDEA

FUCK IT I'll DO IT LIVE

We're doing it live, people.

The who the whom the wait the whaaa??? Live where when wait wha?
um...
hunuh?