Print

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

[Persus13]

Sorry, my mind broke at Aircraft Aircraft Carrier.

Airborne Aircraft carrier.


Airships.

Now I have the Helicarrier from the Avengers movie in my head.

[Tsuchigumo550]

Knowing I'd never be able to run the aformentioned,
ROLL TO BE A CREWMAN ON AN AIRBORNE AIRCRAFT CARRIER.
You can choose your job as anything, laughable as it is. Want to be a DJ? Someone has to entertain up there, and taxpayers don't have to know.

It dosen't matter what job you have though, failure can and will cause HILARIOUS DOMINO CALAMITIES RESULTING IN THE AAC CRASHING INTO... PROBABLY MARS

[mastahcheese]

Knowing I'd never be able to run the aformentioned,
ROLL TO BE A CREWMAN ON AN AIRBORNE AIRCRAFT CARRIER.
You can choose your job as anything, laughable as it is. Want to be a DJ? Someone has to entertain up there, and taxpayers don't have to know.

It dosen't matter what job you have though, failure can and will cause HILARIOUS DOMINO CALAMITIES RESULTING IN THE AAC CRASHING INTO... PROBABLY MARS

Since airborne aircraft carriers are a thing in my RtD world, I might actually do this.

[flabort]

I've got an awful idea based on a few TCGs. Actually, based off two TCGs and a VG with TCG elements.
Strangely, I've got the core rules for the TCG itself covered, but no idea left anymore how to keep it a RtD. 
Oh, wait, the #of successes idea. 4 or 5 succeeds, 6 succeeds and backfires, 1 just backfires. When a card talks about damage, it will say something like 2+3r, meaning 2-5 damage, with the opportunity to deal up to 3 damage to yourself. Oh, and other rolls for other things, too, with backfires still damaging you.

I was originally thinking of a drawing mechanic based on the RtD rules. But I guess not.

Part of the beauty of this, though, is that it can be autonomous except for the draw and recovery phases - while the ref must keep track of decks and discard piles, to keep the game fair, the players may follow the actions on the cards, and play and roll (as long as they can prove their rolls, I have a certain recommended die roller that I can't remember right now for that) without ref action, except to settle disputes. Oh, yes, and running the card shop falls to the ref, too.
Of course, designing the cards is the tough part.

I won't run this immediately, of course. But I'm just checking if there's interest.

[Digital Hellhound]

We do have a Gaming Block thread in FG&RP, if it isn't strictly an RTD. Not that I haven't used this thread for non-RTD ideas.

[monk12]

I've got an awful idea based on a few TCGs. Actually, based off two TCGs and a VG with TCG elements.
Strangely, I've got the core rules for the TCG itself covered, but no idea left anymore how to keep it a RtD. 
Oh, wait, the #of successes idea. 4 or 5 succeeds, 6 succeeds and backfires, 1 just backfires. When a card talks about damage, it will say something like 2+3r, meaning 2-5 damage, with the opportunity to deal up to 3 damage to yourself. Oh, and other rolls for other things, too, with backfires still damaging you.

I was originally thinking of a drawing mechanic based on the RtD rules. But I guess not.

Part of the beauty of this, though, is that it can be autonomous except for the draw and recovery phases - while the ref must keep track of decks and discard piles, to keep the game fair, the players may follow the actions on the cards, and play and roll (as long as they can prove their rolls, I have a certain recommended die roller that I can't remember right now for that) without ref action, except to settle disputes. Oh, yes, and running the card shop falls to the ref, too.
Of course, designing the cards is the tough part.

I won't run this immediately, of course. But I'm just checking if there's interest.

This is relevant to my interests, even if it grows beyond the RTD board. I'm also interested in that die roller you mentioned.

[flabort]

Here. http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/
There's three fields: Character name, which you could write "RolltD Something DM" if you wanted - it's to keep most or all of your rolls in the same place, if you want to check out other rolls made by that "character".
Number of rolls, which repeats the roll you make in the third field X times.
And Dice, which accepts most dice notations. 1d6 is absolutely valid. 3d10.takeHighest(2) is also valid. I think you can also use semicolons to put more than one option in that field.
If you have an account with them, you can also apply a campaign, so you'd put "RolltD Something" here and just "DM" in the name field.

Once you click roll, it presents you with the results, as well as urls to the results to prove them - as well as to the character as a whole, and if you have an account, to the campaign or your whole list of characters + campaigns.

Obviously it's more suited to more classic games as D&D, but it works for all dice based games (excepting fudge dice, stumble dice, and dice with words on them).
Here's a sample roll to prove it works:
    http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/4101993/

[IronyOwl]

So I know this is from two weeks ago, but I feel bad about wandering off and forgetting about it.

I find myself once again mentioning SS13. Nobody seems to need to do the objectives like murder someone and so on, and they give no benefit over the potential cost. But they do murder people, at the risk of the entire crew trying to kill them. People even give themselves limitations and objectives in various different games just because they can despite there being no reward at all. I could go on, but I won't in order to keep this threat more orderly. I firmly believe that people will do interesting or challenging stuff that is fun rather than do nothing or do something boring if given the choice. Otherwise, nobody would do risky things or challenge themselves, and we wouldn't have super hard difficulty options.

Isn't SS13 rife with drama and bans and trolling and so on? I've never played it, but from what I've heard it's a decidedly unique experience.

In any case, I have no doubt players will do something they consider interesting, but that won't necessarily be what you or the other players consider interesting, especially if it's something you haven't prepared for. If one player decides to overload the power core and blow up the whole base, and that turns out easier to do than you intended because you thought overloading the power core was a bad thing, I suspect you'd consider that a net loss unless it was appropriately dramatic.

Anyway, maybe you should suggest to me some sort of mechanic for preventing cancelling missions or something (that isn't an iron fist prevention). You haven't given me many, or perhaps even any suggestions to many things so far, only telling me what's wrong.

My advice would be to pull from the other end, as it were. Give benefits for accomplishing objectives, penalties for failing them if absolutely necessary.

Waitlist position or starting character strength next time might be good places to start, or maybe some sort of system where the winner of a given round can suggest features or a setting or similar for the next round. Or maybe random events/hitherto undefined details about how the wiring works or something, if you foresee the game being fairly long.

I wouldn't go too overboard, don't want people getting mad because their awesomely overpowered character got their face eaten in the first five minutes, but it's a good way to encourage players to have similar goals to their characters.

Second, care to tell me what you have in mind for preventing instant reveal for the same reason as two quotes above?

Well, like I said, making sure it's not advantageous to do so. It's harder to get more specific without knowing what, specifically, you have in mind.

Generally speaking, though, you want the majority to have some disadvantage from getting too friendly, and the minority to be able to cover their tracks well.

As an example, suppose you've got ten humans each with a nonvital profession that determines their abilities, and one alien that works on different mechanics. For the humans, immediately claiming their profession is a great idea, since it tells them all what they have to work with and what they can expect. For the alien, it's ruinous, because now they have to make up a name and abilities despite not knowing what's normal for a human, while making sure that whatever they're inventing and however they act from now on fits into what a normal human could do.

The counterexample, of course, would be that there's one alien who needs to kill the only human pilot, while there's ten humans, one of whom is the pilot they need alive. The vast majority doesn't want an immediate claim, because that just tells the alien who they need to murder.

[Tarran]

So I know this is from two weeks ago, but I feel bad about wandering off and forgetting about it.

Oh, don't worry too much, already lost most of my interest for it. Which, you don't need to be alarmed about because I've let a lot of ideas fade away so far. I won't be horrified if you never respond, I'll just think things up for myself.

Isn't SS13 rife with drama and bans and trolling and so on? I've never played it, but from what I've heard it's a decidedly unique experience.

Well, honestly I haven't played the game myself. Most of my knowledge is from PlumpHelmetPunk's videos, so I honestly don't know besides that. Though the only time I've seen a ban was once, for a really stupid response from a player to a silly thing. Haven't seen much argument in their chat either even after the game ends. Really, I actually remember seeing compliments there many times after the end of the round.

In any case, I have no doubt players will do something they consider interesting, but that won't necessarily be what you or the other players consider interesting, especially if it's something you haven't prepared for. If one player decides to overload the power core and blow up the whole base, and that turns out easier to do than you intended because you thought overloading the power core was a bad thing, I suspect you'd consider that a net loss unless it was appropriately dramatic.

Easier to do what, exactly?

And either way, blowing up the whole base is... kinda an objective in the game, actually. Dem aliens man, can't let them out. Or something. Well, you need to blow up the base regardless of why. Though that comes secondary to surviving, of course.

(also, fun note, I made an interesting typo in the thing you quoted. Cookies for anyone who managed to see it)

My advice would be to pull from the other end, as it were. Give benefits for accomplishing objectives...

There's only so much I can give for, say, priming an anti-vehicle gun to blow itself up and such without being unrealistic and somewhat silly. It's not like they'll be hiding their prototype guns in there rather than, say, an armory or an actual research place for prototype guns. I am giving rewards for other objectives that do have valid possible rewards (such as research labs), but for others there's not much I can reward.

...penalties for failing them if absolutely necessary.

Waitlist position or starting character strength next time might be good places to start, or maybe some sort of system where the winner of a given round can suggest features or a setting or similar for the next round. Or maybe random events/hitherto undefined details about how the wiring works or something, if you foresee the game being fairly long.

Waitlist position is a little harsh, though it is a valid suggestion. And so is starting character strength. Though... this relies on them still wanting to play after they die.

"Rounds" aren't going to be a thing. I don't plan on this to be a multi-thousand turn game. It'll likely already take you enough time to fight and move places, so multiple goes in the same, long campaign is not going to happen. If anything, I'll do reboots.

And I don't think it's a good idea to bottle up ideas for improvements to players who happen to win rather than those who happened to have a good idea. The latter are far more valuable in pretty much any single game. I'm definitely against that.



Anyway, I can't really think of any real punishments for failing objectives (besides not getting something) that don't look blatantly like a game mechanic (when actually in the game, as opposed to when waiting to get into the game as above). I don't want blatant mechanics inside the game, I'd prefer mechanics that have some explanation in-context/character.

As an example, suppose you've got ten humans each with a nonvital profession that determines their abilities, and one alien that works on different mechanics. For the humans, immediately claiming their profession is a great idea, since it tells them all what they have to work with and what they can expect. For the alien, it's ruinous, because now they have to make up a name and abilities despite not knowing what's normal for a human, while making sure that whatever they're inventing and however they act from now on fits into what a normal human could do.

Nah, not really. In character the aliens are spies, they know a decent bit about their fake identity, otherwise they wouldn't have made it for long in a secret military research installation with more than one, two, or maybe even three dozen military guards (who might just be a little bit weary of human spies!). And as for the players, they have no idea if they're going to be aliens before they are one, and thus they will give me the same sheet as human players. They will also be able to have the same professions as humans because... it's not like they can just sit around at the base and do nothing. As for abilities, only "special" humans will get abilities (if they ever do), and the rest of the humans will get no special abilities, so aliens claiming they are regular humans with no special abilities will be no more suspicious than humans with no abilities claiming they are so. And if they even lie and claim they are special humans with a believable secret profession instead, that might actually help the aliens in some cases because they will either discredit the legitimate revealing special humans, or conceal themselves further.

Though, that still assumes humans get special abilities from their profession. Which isn't a guaranteed possibility.

The counterexample, of course, would be that there's one alien who needs to kill the only human pilot, while there's ten humans, one of whom is the pilot they need alive. The vast majority doesn't want an immediate claim, because that just tells the alien who they need to murder.

It should be pretty obvious when I mentioned aliens possibly having objectives to murder someone else that this is definitely a possible thing, heh.

[Tsuchigumo550]

I've been trying to hammer out a simple mecha combat engine. The nature of the engine itself screams for complexity, but I'd like  it be easily run- the only exceptions being simple systems. It does not need to have a uniform d6 for everything, so long as the system is always run on the same dice- if attacking is done with d12s all attacks need to use a d12.

So far I have the idea of combat working one of three ways.

"Shotgun" die-
This would work as all attacks being based off a large number of small die- say, a very powerful cannon on a boss might throw a large number of d4. No attack uses any die other than d4, but instead either add (+) to the result or use more die. It feels clunky to use this, and I'd rather not.

"Variable" die-
This would work as a set number, a coin, and a die. The number is the set damage a weapon does, say, a 4 for a beam rifle. If the margin of error is 2, the coin is skipped and a d4 is rolled- 1 is -2, 2 is -1, 3 is +1, 4 is +4.

The problem here is that the rifle will never do it's base damage, the coin is used only sometimes to determine which way damage goes for large m.o.e. weapons and would be inconsistent (hypothetically) to die-only m.o.e., and it's mechanically taxing.

"Big Brother" die-
This system uses one base die for all attacks and changes it with modifiers based on weapon, as well as some being conditional. Some weapons will not fire at all if the main result is too low or high, some will backfire if low or high, some don't need the die to be a certain result to work. In this instance...

Let's say a d12 is the main die. I have a Shotgun, which requires a 3 or above to hit and does not take the result of the main die for damage. It's damage is 3d4.

This system is possibly mechanically taxing due to weapon variation, but generally-

The main die is accuracy, in a sense. Then, the weapon has a specific amount of die, however, this is similar for class.
Shotgun is 3d4. Shotgun variants, however:
Combat Shotgun is (4d4)-2
Autoshotgun is 4d4 but requires a 7 or higher.
Slug Cannon is (1d4)+5

The problem I have here is the good systems take time to look up, and players or the GM have to keep track of equipment. This isn't too much of a problem, but is an extra step.
---

Next is parts to the mech itself. This needs to have some kind variance to balance them, I'd prefer a triangle of stats.
Parts add a layer of complexity I'd like to strip away as much as possible, as weapons need to be able to strike different parts, and weapons such as shotguns need to be able to strike a bunch of parts (each d4 could hit a different area of the mech.)

That's a lot of extra computation, as well as needing a roll chart for what gets hit. It does allow me to triangulate stats, as if I use a d12 I can have parts with various "dodge" chances- cores are hit on 1,2,3, left arm on 4,5,6, right arm 7,8,9, legs 10,11,12. Say you have a low HP Core, but it needs a 1 or 2 to hit (3 is a miss).

I could also abandon part variance completely, and give HP, Dodge, and Weight to all of them as a whole. HP changes from a modified Chunky Salsa to an HP bar, Dodge is very general- a part that takes one number off means that a 1 is no longer a hit, and only adds one extra die, and Weight is a number given to parts and weapons. A high HP mech might be able to lift huge weapons (high Weight score) and can't dodge, but a light mech with higher HP can't carry large weapons at all due to a low Weight score. This is only complex for players during maintenance and part switching, and only requires the addition of a number not used in combat for the GM, and is fairly simple- make one number bigger.

---

Last, there's positioning. I've used a grid in the past- it does not work. I can't introduce weapon ranges without adding confusing movement rules, and the stats triangle on the parts would have to lose or give power to dodge for it. I generally opt for "All weapons can hit. You're moving a lot."

[IronyOwl]

Easier to do what, exactly?

And either way, blowing up the whole base is... kinda an objective in the game, actually. Dem aliens man, can't let them out. Or something. Well, you need to blow up the base regardless of why. Though that comes secondary to surviving, of course.

(also, fun note, I made an interesting typo in the thing you quoted. Cookies for anyone who managed to see it)

Easier to blow up the power core. As in, you thought the power core blowing up was a Bad Thing, so you made it sensitive, or you didn't plan for it at all, and now it feels like a stretch to say it's really well-armored.

And yes, blowing up the base is fine if you planned for them to blow up the base. What happens if someone with a hidden objective of "steal the prototype jet hidden in the base" suddenly screams that they have to stop the aliens at all costs and makes a beeline for the reactor, or begins quietly gathering the explosives he needs to blow it up and is priming everything on turn five?

Even if it's not that extreme, you probably don't want players saying "eh fuggit" and hiding in a room or making a break for the escape pods at the first sign of trouble.

And I see no typo. >_>

There's only so much I can give for, say, priming an anti-vehicle gun to blow itself up and such without being unrealistic and somewhat silly. It's not like they'll be hiding their prototype guns in there rather than, say, an armory or an actual research place for prototype guns. I am giving rewards for other objectives that do have valid possible rewards (such as research labs), but for others there's not much I can reward.

Now that I think about it, players probably wouldn't mind objective-based levelups or other stat gains. The only trouble would be that if doing something works out to be "worth it" for the team, we get back to the immediate fullclaim problem- sure, let Jim blow it up, we can't use it anyway and Jim gets +2 to rifles now. If it's not, some players will feel like jerks doing what they're supposed to.

Waitlist position is a little harsh, though it is a valid suggestion. And so is starting character strength. Though... this relies on them still wanting to play after they die.

"Rounds" aren't going to be a thing. I don't plan on this to be a multi-thousand turn game. It'll likely already take you enough time to fight and move places, so multiple goes in the same, long campaign is not going to happen. If anything, I'll do reboots.

And I don't think it's a good idea to bottle up ideas for improvements to players who happen to win rather than those who happened to have a good idea. The latter are far more valuable in pretty much any single game. I'm definitely against that.

Ah, that's an issue, then. Of course, a single "round" is a lot harder to plan for pretty much all around, because it's almost entirely at the whims of the players and there's not a lot of time or iterations to average things out.

Like, the immediate base explosion thing I've been talking about. If there's eight players, you might feasibly end up with anywhere from 0% to one fourth of the playerbase being in favor of or plotting to do that. Apply that mechanic all around, and you might have to be a little more freeform than I've been talking about just to make it work.

As for winning vs good ideas, yeah, I can see that. You could get around it to some extent by issuing relatively vague objectives ("survive," "kill the alien"), but it's ultimately not going to do anything for the guy who hung by his legs from a helicopter strafing the alien with a shotgun, only to hit the power lines some other dunce just reactivated before escaping on a snowspeeder.

Nah, not really. In character the aliens are spies, they know a decent bit about their fake identity, otherwise they wouldn't have made it for long in a secret military research installation with more than one, two, or maybe even three dozen military guards (who might just be a little bit weary of human spies!). And as for the players, they have no idea if they're going to be aliens before they are one, and thus they will give me the same sheet as human players. They will also be able to have the same professions as humans because... it's not like they can just sit around at the base and do nothing. As for abilities, only "special" humans will get abilities (if they ever do), and the rest of the humans will get no special abilities, so aliens claiming they are regular humans with no special abilities will be no more suspicious than humans with no abilities claiming they are so. And if they even lie and claim they are special humans with a believable secret profession instead, that might actually help the aliens in some cases because they will either discredit the legitimate revealing special humans, or conceal themselves further.

Though, that still assumes humans get special abilities from their profession. Which isn't a guaranteed possibility.

Then the ideas you already had were relatively good against that particular example. The concept is still something to keep in mind.

[IronyOwl]

I'd have handled this in the same post, but it was getting too large as was.

The problem I have here is the good systems take time to look up, and players or the GM have to keep track of equipment. This isn't too much of a problem, but is an extra step.

These all look horrific. Are you sure you're going for simplicity? And why do you absolutely want the main die to be the same, but are fine with adding coins and tables and variable damage dice?

Next is parts to the mech itself. This needs to have some kind variance to balance them, I'd prefer a triangle of stats.
Parts add a layer of complexity I'd like to strip away as much as possible, as weapons need to be able to strike different parts, and weapons such as shotguns need to be able to strike a bunch of parts (each d4 could hit a different area of the mech.)

That's a lot of extra computation, as well as needing a roll chart for what gets hit. It does allow me to triangulate stats, as if I use a d12 I can have parts with various "dodge" chances- cores are hit on 1,2,3, left arm on 4,5,6, right arm 7,8,9, legs 10,11,12. Say you have a low HP Core, but it needs a 1 or 2 to hit (3 is a miss).

I could also abandon part variance completely, and give HP, Dodge, and Weight to all of them as a whole. HP changes from a modified Chunky Salsa to an HP bar, Dodge is very general- a part that takes one number off means that a 1 is no longer a hit, and only adds one extra die, and Weight is a number given to parts and weapons. A high HP mech might be able to lift huge weapons (high Weight score) and can't dodge, but a light mech with higher HP can't carry large weapons at all due to a low Weight score. This is only complex for players during maintenance and part switching, and only requires the addition of a number not used in combat for the GM, and is fairly simple- make one number bigger.

Personally, and especially if I was planning on rolling once for attack and once for damage, I'd indeed go with the attack roll determining the location and then applying damage to the hit part.

I'd probably avoid giving each part a literal dodge stat, though, and do something more along the lines of bumping a number up or down. So if the core gets hit, but it's a core that's shaped to avoid getting hit, it'll reduce/increase the number by 1. If that's enough to shunt the attack to a limb, it does so. If not, oh well.

Making a mech the aggregate of its parts works well, of course. I'd avoid it mainly because I really like part damage.

As for a trifecta of stats... HP is a given, I guess. Weight could work, but it seems a bit odd to have a somewhat indirect stat like that. Maybe HP, Armor, and Dodge? HP would be good against everything, at least to a point. Armor would be good against glancing blows or repeated damage. Dodge would be good against high-power and/or low-accuracy attacks. Weight, if it existed, could be an analogue to cost; can't have a module with good HP, Armor, and Dodge unless your other mech's parts can sustain it.

Last, there's positioning. I've used a grid in the past- it does not work. I can't introduce weapon ranges without adding confusing movement rules, and the stats triangle on the parts would have to lose or give power to dodge for it. I generally opt for "All weapons can hit. You're moving a lot."

I'd generally second something like this. It's possible to add relatively simple but tactical positioning, but it tends to need secret actions and the GM making decisions for enemies before they see what they players are doing.

Plus, it helps avoid making sniper rifles and/or melee weapons useless and/or overpowered. Machete vs scoped rifle, who wins? Whoever rolls highest, duh.

[Harry Baldman]

I've got a question - what's the coin for in the "Variable" dice system? Oh, and if you need a d5 to include a 0 in the damage margin, just roll a d20, divide the result by four, round the result up.

Also, I'd advise against using the "Big Brother" system due to seemingly massive amounts of dice and rolling them, as nothing is better at killing both a GM's and a player's interest than massive heaps of rolling. In addition, I'd also advise abandoning part variance, as even if the player's don't see much of what happens, it's still taxing on the GM.

You could go for a system like this - there are two types of attacks, general and targeted. General attacks simply chip away at HP while targeted attacks carry an accuracy penalty (particularly if you target the core), but can introduce debuffs for the enemy (like a destroyed leg that impedes movement - you don't actually have to keep track of parts this way except in the most general sense (as in, does that robot actually have that many limbs)). And you can target anything - precision weapons have the accuracy penalty lessened, while stuff like shotguns have it increased, though they also do more damage. In addition, you have a preferred range interval for each weapon, with penalties to accuracy added depending on whether you are within that interval. However, for this to work, you'll need a separate to-hit roll and a damage roll.

Of the systems you propose, though, I feel like the "Variable" one would work best, but only if paired with skill bonuses depending on the user.

And for movement, add a movement speed for each robot dependent on their general size - whether this depends on their HP or Weight is up to you. And certain additions, like jets or improved legs, would increase that speed by multiplying its value a certain amount.

[Tarran]

And yes, blowing up the base is fine if you planned for them to blow up the base. What happens if someone with a hidden objective of "steal the prototype jet hidden in the base" suddenly screams that they have to stop the aliens at all costs and makes a beeline for the reactor, or begins quietly gathering the explosives he needs to blow it up and is priming everything on turn five?

Even if it's not that extreme, you probably don't want players saying "eh fuggit" and hiding in a room or making a break for the escape pods at the first sign of trouble.

In that case, good for him, already a (human) objective is finished. Unless he blows it up immediately, he is actually helping humans in the group, and he can go back to his own objectives. Though if he does blow himself up, failing the game and failing the game for everyone else, then I am inclined to believe that it is more (though not necessarily completely) a problem of a potentially bad player than bad rules, in which case I might have to step in. Regardless, I don't forsee this happening too much because I don't think the people on this subforum are interested in killing themselves early unless it's one of those RTDs with hyperlethality as the norm and players just join for a short bit of fun. I'd imagine it'd be especially true the more effort they put into their character.

There won't be escape pods, the base is under the earth (hence anti-vehicle gun), so that's out of the picture. Rather, they'll have to make it through the base first, which is not going to be easy if they don't build themselves up a bit. Hiding in a room for a long time would hurt them far more than it would hurt me--I could just open another slot as a result and skip their turns, while they would be twiddling their thumbs, maybe I'll start respawning aliens in the room from the vents and kill the player if it turns out they aren't watching the game, and hey, it would be entirely their fault--I didn't make them hide in a room. Even then I don't think it'll happen often--I have never seen an RTD where the players avoided the main quest and literally just sat in a village/base/whateverpeacefulplace for dozens of turns unless they were actually waiting on the GM to start something. Or at the very least, I do not remember any.

And I see no typo. >_>

Threat instead of Thread. As in, I was threatening you with my awesome ideas and I didn't want you to get too dirty in the process.

[Tsuchigumo550]

Kingdom, a game all about building a kingdom from scratch

The game begins with four players, three of which are Villagers and one is the Summoner (played by the GM in most cases, but the roles can be split.)

Villagers start in a very makeshift village, with three small dwellings of wood. Each villager gets one of these simple wooden houses and a class. The classes are:

Explorers can be sent out once a turn to hunt for resources. They can be told explicitly what to hunt for but won't always find it- tell them to chop down trees, and they might bring back many logs as well as plants, tell them to find Emeralds and they might turn up empty-handed. Each material has a certain number that must be reached on a roll- for instance, if you wanted Copper (the lowest tier Metal) you'd have to send one or more Explorers, and at least one Explorer would have to roll a 5 or higher (d20).

Warriors defend the kingdom from attackers and can be sent out to hunt through the day. Warriors can also be sent to escort other villagers, increasing their rolls by 1 (one time, sending a single explorer with five warriors is still only +1) and preventing some bad effects on low rolls. When defending the Kingdom, there is a chance they will be injured, crippled, or even slain if their rolls are bad enough, though for low-level monsters there is very little chance to even cripple.

Builders construct more dwellings, improve upon existing ones, create other kinds of buildings, and can craft items for other villagers (better swords for the army, better picks for the explorers, etc). They are the simplest and most valuable, and don't fail at their rolls. Buildings have a certain number, and a Builder's roll determines how much is completed. If you roll a 30 and the Building Number is 15, it gets done in a single turn.

There are other types of villagers, however, these are NPC villagers which buff the village as a whole. All classes can upgrade at least one time.

---

Stage 1: Daytime

Daytime is when orders are issued. Builders build, warriors escort, and explorers explore. There is little chance of people getting hurt other than on bad rolls, and the world becomes more fleshed out. If you've got the space in your village, more villagers might appear. Daytime is when most player-controlled actions happen.

Stage 2: Nighttime

Nighttime is the Summoner's turn. The Summoner spends their mana to send waves of enemies at the village, early on the Summoner has very limited mana and can only spend so many points. Over time, the Summoner regenerates Mana as well as has a raising cap.

---

It still needs some tables and the like, such as upgrade lists and the like.