Print

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

[OceanSoul]

Firstly, are we limited to conventional combiner mecha parts? As in, could someone control a tail, if they wanted to? How about the sword, or helmet, or even a parasol?
Second, could pieces be attached in unconventional ways, and if so, to what degree? Can a torso fit onto another torso? Can an arm have another arm attached to it? Can the head not be attached, and be held by an arm or another piece?
Third, how would the abilities of mechas and their parts be defined? Are abilities determined by bonus/malus to roll? Maybe different sized dice? Would mechas have stats that are compared for effects like damage, action order, etc? Do the pilots of the parts cumulatively decide on an action or set of actions, or can everyone just do their own thing?
Lastly, what would the end goal be? Defeat Alien invaders? Other mix n' match mechas? Would they be other PCs, or NPCs? Would they just be trying to do mundane tasks like go grocery shopping, walk the dog zord, get that promotion to assistant manager?

[The Ensorceler]

It seems extremely difficult to keep player actions meaningful. I think you need both a functional game when players are not combined and conflicting reasons to combine and stay separate. Here's how I'd do it:

Each player is a Robot Ranger, with a custom, unique robot. Each robot is its own distinct character, with its own sensible abilities. These can include things like flight, a weapons system, a force field, or less boring things. In addition, all robots have combiner abilities, which are broken into two parts. Primary abilities are used to act, but only one primary ability can be used per robot per turn, and there is probably a cooldown to prevent the same player or players from dominating control of the robot. This means that players have to take turns controlling a combined robot. Everyone except the player using a primary ability gets to use a secondary ability, which changes how the primary ability works.

The only way I think you could run it is to hide the mechanical side of gameplay from the players so that cheesing the system is impossible and if two abilities are incompatible you can just make something up under the hood, but that seems like a very risky way to run a game. Some sort of combining robot game is definitely possible, but maybe not one where multiple players form a single robot.

It's a very interesting game design challenge, at least. I think I might keep trying to figure out how to make it work.

[FallacyofUrist]

Here's something I came up with: Roll to Escape the IRS.

Your character is a tax evader of some kind, but the IRS is on their trail. As you might expect, they're breaking out the overkill: cyborgs and mass surveillance. Can you escape the country?

I already have a lot on my plate, there's no way I'm running this. If anyone else wants to...

Disclaimer: I do not support tax evasion.

[Doomblade187]

You could add a scoring mechanism for them stealing extra money while on the run.

[Person]

Haven't checked this thread in a bit because of reasons. Will try to answer those questions about my most recent idea. I'll probably end up repeating things a few times because my sleep cycle is currently in an awful state and I barely proofread this.

Firstly, are we limited to conventional combiner mecha parts? As in, could someone control a tail, if they wanted to? How about the sword, or helmet, or even a parasol?

That'd probably be up the the person running the game. Ideally it should be plausible for a mostly human shaped robot to fold up into whatever you're making, but that depends where the game will be on the super robot vs real robot scale. Given the somewhat silly premise, it'd probably be more interesting to lean towards the former. Heck, your initial robot might not necessarily have to be human shaped.

Second, could pieces be attached in unconventional ways, and if so, to what degree? Can a torso fit onto another torso? Can an arm have another arm attached to it? Can the head not be attached, and be held by an arm or another piece?

Good question. Limbs could probably just join at the... well, joints! A double arm bot would probably move by flexing around. Before you even ask: Yes. That would be simultaneously really dumb and amazing to witness. That's probably one of the simplest cases though. As for a torso to a torso... That'd probably end up either making some sort of (potentially mobile) fortress mecha or a flying "borg cube" sort of machine, depending on the robots involved. I'm not yet sure what implications a robot without a head would have to be honest.

It may be best to just have the head be a sub-part of some sort. Every robot might have a "command module" of some sort. Maybe it'll shaped like a head and placed somewhere on the robot. Maybe even somewhere inside the robot. Maybe not shaped like a head at all? Who knows? There's also the issue of self piloted (AI) robots of course... There's a lot of things to consider, needless to say. I do think having a clear head on the body should provide a notable bonus to most actions. I can't quite get across why I think that should be the case at the moment, unfortunately. Multiple heads should also be allowed, but probably be mostly redundant.

Third, how would the abilities of mechas and their parts be defined? Are abilities determined by bonus/malus to roll? Maybe different sized dice? Would mechas have stats that are compared for effects like damage, action order, etc? Do the pilots of the parts cumulatively decide on an action or set of actions, or can everyone just do their own thing?

When it comes to abilities/stats/dice systems/etc, it all depends how complex the gm and players want the game to be really. Anywhere from full minimalist to some gargantuan rule sheet with a billion sub tables like some people occasionally make here. I will say that being able to target individual parts of a robot should be possible, purely from a strategic standpoint. Meaningful decisions are key.

Pilots being in agreement should probably help in some respect, but they also shouldn't be forced to comply with the masses. That would basically just force half the players in a machine to just quote a post and say +1 rather than actually engage with the game. Not ideal, for sure. One option would for each player in a robot to have two actions. One would be their overall goal for the machine, and the second would be how they want to achieve that goal with their limb. Alternatively they could have some secondary goal to work towards.

Lastly, what would the end goal be? Defeat Alien invaders? Other mix n' match mechas? Would they be other PCs, or NPCs? Would they just be trying to do mundane tasks like go grocery shopping, walk the dog zord, get that promotion to assistant manager?

A monster of the week format honestly wouldn't be the worst way to go. However, a part of me is deeply amused by the prospect of our heroes (realizing they overslept) deciding to use an impromptu giant robot as a sort of carpool to make sure they get to work on time.

It seems extremely difficult to keep player actions meaningful. I think you need both a functional game when players are not combined and conflicting reasons to combine and stay separate.

Indeed! It's important for all the players to have things to do whether they're fused or not. One of the things that I (and probably a lot of other people) dislike about combining robots is that the new robot is basically only in control of the hero. Everyone else sort of gets sidelined in a lot of cases other than a cut in to yell stuff. I'd obviously want to avoid that.

I don't have anything concrete as of yet unfortunately, as I've been busy. The difference between passive and active effects does seem to be an important one. Ideally, all but the worst and most impractical combinations should be able to defeat your average robot. It'd be really dumb to try and fight with "literally just a pair of legs bot", but with enough jet thrusters it might not be impossible.

Here's how I'd do it:

Each player is a Robot Ranger, with a custom, unique robot. Each robot is its own distinct character, with its own sensible abilities. These can include things like flight, a weapons system, a force field, or less boring things. In addition, all robots have combiner abilities, which are broken into two parts.

I'll try and break this down a bit. Your method as a whole is certainly an interesting take that I quite like, but I'm gonna respond to each part separately because of reasons. This basic premise seems simple enough.

Primary abilities are used to act, but only one primary ability can be used per robot per turn, and there is probably a cooldown to prevent the same player or players from dominating control of the robot. This means that players have to take turns controlling a combined robot. Everyone except the player using a primary ability gets to use a secondary ability, which changes how the primary ability works.

I'd have liked some examples to differentiate between the two types, but given that I didn't exactly give everyone much to start with it'd sort of be hypocritical to ask someone to just make up example machines on the fly like that. All the same, I'd like to get a better idea about the difference between the two types.

I don't necessarily agree about the restriction on one primary ability per turn. However, you do want to be able to balance what exactly a machine can be capable of in one turn. I can understand that. Cooldowns do certainly seem to a good idea in theory to hand control between each player.

I've actually literally had a moment of mild inspiration right now so I'll put it here. The Dwarven Race RTD series had different modes of driving you could use during your turn. Aggressive driving added speed, but was riskier and might damage the car. Cautious driving was basically the opposite. Driving focus made you really good at driving but forfeited all actions. (Probably the least relevant example for this idea.) Naturally, standard driving had no bonuses or penalties.

It may be possible to port these "styles" over somehow or create new ones. Not sure how at the moment, but I'll think about it. Basically, give players different tactics to how they operate their limb, and potentially the robot as a whole. Ex: If you're a leg, walking aggressively might increase melee power due to speed, but make it harder to dodge.

The only way I think you could run it is to hide the mechanical side of gameplay from the players so that cheesing the system is impossible and if two abilities are incompatible you can just make something up under the hood, but that seems like a very risky way to run a game. Some sort of combining robot game is definitely possible, but maybe not one where multiple players form a single robot. It's a very interesting game design challenge, at least. I think I might keep trying to figure out how to make it work.

I do think character sheet submissions should be private messaged if this game happens. Players shouldn't know right off the bat what machine turns into what (other than their own of course). The game should probably start with a "There's no time to explain!" moment to shove the inevitably hideous robot right into the fray. I'm not quite sure about what to do after that though, as players would probably just ask each other what their robots do and engineer a functional (but mechanically boring) robot. I suppose that would depend on the total player count and the overall deadliness of the game. It might actually be a good idea to keep each round separate, and have new players each time. In that case, it would be important to keep the game relatively simple so that submitting and processing character sheets doesn't bog down the system. Alternatively, cycle the list of players (possibly somewhat randomly) for each mission. People can keep their old machine and character, but they'll just have to wait their turn.

Anyway, thanks for working on my little idea. Will try to check back again soon.

[TamerVirus]

I’ve been out of GM business for some time, but I’m kinda itching for in now that I’m posting here again.
I’m gonna throw down some fragmented ideas here so I don’t forget.

I’ve only really got a setting here
-Technologically primitive world, 99% is water, similar a planet spanning archipelago
-Tribes live either in ‘floating villages’ or interconnected wooden huts on sandbars
-most of the water is ankle to waist deep, but certain areas are basically ocean
-monsters are basically evil aquatic life: lobsterman, squidmen, evil fish monsters and the sort
-weaponry is cobbled together from scares resources: stingray tail spears, whale bone axes, etc
-naturalist magic? Talismans, totems and the like
-aesthetic ‘feel’: tropical, Polynesian mythology

I just can’t think of any sort of arching end goal or ‘motivation’

And here’s another half-formed idea:

-shoppers at a department store (the players) are trapped in an infinite mall dimension and have to survive/escape
-basically that IKEA SCP
-weapons are scavenged from stores and combined together ala dead rising
-aesthetic ‘feel’- abandoned malls, dead rising, vaporwave/mall soft

I’m also thinking of rebooting my freeform Creation game and the loot death match game, but both were really unwieldy and sapped my motivation after a while.

Hmmmm. Maybe I’ll run all of them. Or none of them. Don’t mind me, I’m just putting ideas to text

[Maximum Spin]

I just can’t think of any sort of arching end goal or ‘motivation’

The Supervolcano God is going to end the world in an enormous eruption and somebody's gotta get sacrificed.

[OceanSoul]

I've had a concept comparable to that first idea. Basically, some ancient sea goddess from Atlantis or Lemuria or such an ancient location awakened and submerged the modern world deep underwater. A goddess of earth, also waking up but weakened, was able to protect people, animals, and pieces of land by concentrating them inside spheres of land that left them unconscious before eventually float to the surface and they wake up. Some bubbles pop on their own on the surface, making floating island continually appear on the water's surface. Other bubbles stay sealed, but can be broken open by other land masses to expand them. The waters,  innately filled with ancient magics, caused fish to change and mutate, some becoming mermen of several kinds, and humans that weren't saved by the earth goddess were turned into marine, zombie-like creatures called the Drowned that arise on dark nights. Pieces of technology from Lemuria or wherever occasionally pop up, providing ways to learn of magic and figure out why it all happened in the first place.

I first thought it up as a survival video game of some sort, but it could reasonably work as an RTD. Players try their best to live on an island, having to scavenge food and other materials from islands that float alongside them before the currents take them away. 

But anyways, your game. Maybe have the tribal mythology oppose the existence of an ocean, and encourage the heroes to lower the water levels and reclaim the lands and cities lost in ancient times? Maybe preventing some society of monsters from unleashing an arcane storm that would flood the land further, all the way up to the sky? Something like that.

[Questorhank]

My thoughts on...

I'll form the head! An experiment in collaborative mecha building.

As I understand it, what's been brought up so far would result in a character like this:

Pilot: Tony Stark
Mech: Iron Man Suit
Abilities: Jarvis (AI that give benefits to many actions), Flight (The suit can fly using thrusters on all 4 limbs), Lasers (Can shoot lasers from palms)
Forms: Arm
Abilities (based off of mech abilities): Targeting System (Jarvis)(+1 to attack), Stabilizers (Flight)(+1 when mega-mech flies), Lasers (Same as before)

With this example, it's easy to see how combat, or combining in general, could become repetitive. To fix this, there could be multiple ways to combine, namely Anarchy, Communal, and Asymmetrical.

I. Anarchy- This would probably be the most entertaining to watch. Each player would control their portion of the megabot, each doing what they want. There would need to be some cooperation, however. if one leg decides to run, the other kick, and the rest of the bot is trying punch, they should end up a heap on the ground. But at the same time, if one arm falls off, the other can still hit.

II. Communal- Ideally, in this form, all players have equal control. All bots involved would combine as evenly as possible, and gain abilities based off the bots that formed it. For example, we have two generic humanoid bots that decide to combine. The resulting bot could be something like (generic humanoid bot), only larger and with four arms. Both players would have to agree  on some things (like who to attack), but can retain some control on others (their pair of arms). Mechs combined like this would probably share a health pool.

III. Asymmetrical- One player gives up control to buff another. This would work best if bots could only asymmetrically combine to bots larger than they are. Going back to the first example, Iron Man decides to combine with D.Va's (one of his teammates) MEKA (has Shotgun, Jumppack, and Directed Force-field), he replaces some abilities, Lasers (was Shotgun), Limited Flight (Jumppack), and adds targeting computer (+1 to attack)(from Jarvis). D.Va retains use of Directed Force-field.

And all mechs can change what part of the megabot/how they're combined whenever. (Preferably not taking a whole turn to detach, or it'll never happen in combat)

I'm having trouble phrasing right now, I'll clarify if needed.

[OceanSoul]

That would promote variety in combination "styles", but it could require an extra system or two to implement them, mainly from the Asymmetrical style, with some rules to define who controls what in Communal and maybe Anarchic styles. I can see the three on a sliding scale, from Anarchy to Assymetrical to Communal. Communal would avoid penalties that could occur from lack of cooperation in the other styles, but would act slower from everyone taking time to agree on what to do. Similarly, Anarchic would have quicker reactions from the absolute lack of need of approval for actions, but would be the most prone to stepping on its own feet, attempting to use too much power at  once, and other such things.

The scale ought to lean toward Anarchic, since it's chaotic (and therefore fun) and risky. Since there's so many things that the systems of a single mech could do and tell the other parts to do, an Anarchic system should have the possibility to be more powerful or resource-efficient than the other styles when the pilots are synchronized with each other. This might merit some stat or such that tracks/represents the ability of a given pair/group of pilots to cooperate. Perhaps Communal styles would be better for strengthening cooperation, since it requires a limited form of cooperation. This logic wouldn't apply to the Assymmetic style, since only one pilot would be in control...what would the other pilots be doing in that, anyway? Work on manual operation of certain subsystems, increasing the boost it applies to main mech? Getting into the metalwork and repairing damaged or broken parts?...maybe one mech could combine Assym-style as the buffer with another to take control of it while its original pilot does other things, like repairing their own mech, hacking into something, be in a coma, or the like. So I guess that teamwork could be trained in Assym-style combinations. I'm sure that it could even be trained when mechs aren't combined, just by working together toward the same goals, though the gains would be relatively small.

Anyway, I'm glad someone's still thinking about it. I know the idea has potential, but I doubt I have enough experience to run it myself.

[AoshimaMichio]

Hello guys, it has been a while, and I have gotten this itch to run games here once again.

So before I go ahead and post new thread, I figured I ought to ask first if anyone would even care to play it. The game in question would be Wild Magic: The Second Wind, largely based on my previous game Wild Mages but with some minor differences (mostly to prevent "A God I Am" moments on second turn).

[heydude6]

Hello again. If anyone's seen my posts in the D&D thread and gamer's block, they might remember that I was working on a cyberpunk RTD. Anyway, I've made a lot of progress on it, but I need some advice coming up with rules for suppression.

Currently if a suppressed enemy is in cover they need to make a willpower roll if they attempt an action that would expose themselves to fire (such as popping up their head to shoot). Here's the table:

Suppression table

Code: [Select]

<= 1  Paralyzed by fear (hunker down and lose the turn)
 = 2  barely together   (-3 to the next action you perform this turn)
 = 3  majorly stressed  (-2 to the next action you perform this turn)
 = 4  midly agitated    (-1 to the next action you perform this turn)
 > 4  well composed     (no effect)
I think this is pretty nice at the moment, but my problem is that this only applies when the enemy is already in cover. What do you think the effects should be if someone attempts to suppress an enemy while they are exposed (I know in real life they wouldn't bother with suppression and simply shoot to kill, but I as a GM must be prepared for this scenario)

[Egan_BW]

Trying to suppress someone who's not in cover... like, what does that even look like? Normally suppression is to encourage someone to not expose themselves, so if they're already exposed you're more firing a warning shot. Maybe force the target to make a will save or run for the nearest cover. If there's no cover, then the shooter is just wasting ammo.

[Doomblade187]

Hello guys, it has been a while, and I have gotten this itch to run games here once again.

So before I go ahead and post new thread, I figured I ought to ask first if anyone would even care to play it. The game in question would be Wild Magic: The Second Wind, largely based on my previous game Wild Mages but with some minor differences (mostly to prevent "A God I Am" moments on second turn).

Sounds fun.

[heydude6]

Trying to suppress someone who's not in cover... like, what does that even look like? Normally suppression is to encourage someone to not expose themselves, so if they're already exposed you're more firing a warning shot. Maybe force the target to make a will save or run for the nearest cover. If there's no cover, then the shooter is just wasting ammo.

I'll give some context. In my game, you don't explicitly suppress someone. Suppression is just something that happens to a target when enough bullets are fired their way. It makes it a lot simpler while still maintaining some of the depth a suppression mechanic can add. This works fine when the target is already in cover, but I haven't yet made rules regarding what happens if an enemy is exposed.

My biggest concern at the moment is the fact that I don't want the players to get stopped in their tracks just because some grunt decides to wildly spray his rifle in their general direction. Maybe I should allow that to happen, but that's why I'm here asking for advice.

EDIT: I think I'll settle for the force players to run for cover option if they fail the will roll, but I'd still like a second opinion.