And I want critisism. Fair critizism and changes are welcome.

So basically here is my character sheet and formulas for stats and actions

+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Name:                    |Class:                               +  Spec1:            Spec2:             RaceSpec:                |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------+

Title:	*unlike classical classes, classes     **Specialistions give a boost to every activity they
	in this game give  perma lvl up          are supposed to
Gender:	bonuses instead of class restrictions
	=+=====================================================================================
Eyes:	STR [0]	x1/lvl	PhysDMG:(((wep1p1-s1+p2-s2)+ wep1DMG)+((wep2p1-s1+p2-s2)+wep2DMG))*LUC/6*(diceRoll/2)
	SPD [0]	x1/lvl	Dodge(%): Spd*Agl*(Luc/4) / WepDdg
Hair:	AGL [0]	x1/lvl	HP: ClHP + (ADP*2)+STR
	DEX [0]	x1/lvl	PhysProtec: (ADP*2 + STR + HTR + WIL) *(diceRoll/2)
Height:	INT [0]	x1/lvl	FireProtec: (ADP*2 + FTH/2 + WIL) *(diceRoll/2)
	FTH [0]	x1/lvl	HexProtec: (ADP/2 + WIL/3 + FTH*3)*(diceRoll/2)
Race:	HTR [0]	x1/lvl	BloodProtec: (FTH*2 + WIL*4) *(diceRoll/4)
	WIS [0]	x1/lvl	FireDMG: (wep1p1-s1) + HTR*3 + INT + WIS*(diceRoll/2)
Age	ADP [0]	x1/lvl	HexDMG: (wep1p1-s1) + HTR*3 + HTR*3 *(diceRoll/2)

+-------------------------+WIL [0] | x1/lvl|BloodDMG:(wep1p1-s1 + wepDMG)+INT+HTR+WIL+WIS+DEX+FTH*(diceRoll/2)                   |

INVENTORY	CHA [0]	x1/lvl	Lying(NPC): CHA*3+iNT+LUC*(diceRoll/2)
	LUC [0]	x1/lvl	Guessing: (WIS/2)*INT*(LUC) + CHA
	CRS[-20]		Crafting: DEX *Spec1 *Spec2*RaceSpec
			Herbalism: Spec1 *Spec2 * RaceSpec + INT
			Spellcrafting: Spec1 *Spec2 * RaceSpec + WIs

+-------------------------+--------+-------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

(hope it will look as it should)(PS.No it doesn't. I will fix it next time I bump or post it lol. PSS table is terribly broken. Is there anyway to make sure it deosnt generate tables and is pure text?)


Thinks like PhysDMG are actually static,but every time a player attacks Dice rolls and applies to the damage.
Specs can only boost one spec action.
Tell what is flawed,what is OP and etc.

(About PhysDMG. Weapon will have two skill requirements . For example,let's say a sword needs 24 STR and 15 DEX. So basically, if a player hasnt enough DEX,he will still be able to damage, as long STR is big enough. But if player lacks both skills ,he won't be able to damage. Same works for magic. Armor will just add to existing protection)
This message was last edited by the user at 19:39, Thu 02 Nov 2017.

If you just want text, don't bother with tables.  Just lay everything out the way you want it, then enclose it all in <tt></tt> tags.

What are you goals for your system?

I've been exposed to three questions of Jared Sorensen for rpg game design: "What is your game about?", "How does your game do this?" "How does your game encourage / reward this?". John Wick add an interesting question: "How do you make this fun?".

---

I'm not familiar with many abbreviations you used. While developing I would pick clarity over brevity. Even after, if there is enough place, I would pick the long name.

You have so much formulas! I prefer to stay far away from system that look like math homework, but because, I think, they could be precalculated at character creation/level up that they are somewhat manageable. If the player need to calculate on the fly every time they needs to do a check, I hope that you have a way to make a computer calculates them.

Does parenthesis represent something or are only there to accentuate the operation priorities?

We need more data (and you design goals) to check if something is flawed or OP. What are the dice roll for check, how a starting character is made, what a "high-level" character could look like.

The table went terribly wrong ,it actually had captions lol.

Im going to post another thread later.

This message was deleted by the user at 06:01, Sat 04 Nov 2017.

The questions MaleaDezeld mentions are great places to start.

I have helped in the development of game designs both for wargames and RPGs, and have developed one or two of my own, so I'll just share in brief the process I use:

1.)  What's the game about?  Is this game geared to a particular setting, era, world, etc., or is it more general in nature.  Usually it's best to narrow the focus of a game to be able to keep the system manageable.  Work out details of set and setting here, before you move too much farther.

2.)  Once you have a general idea of what the answers are to the first question, put together a brief outline, a frame on which to hang the game mechanics.  Doing the outline will provide you with a point of reference when the creative process threatens to take you down the rabbit hole.

3.)  During the creation of your outline, make some fundamental decisions about how things will be done.  If you later discover that your fundamental decisions are somehow too limiting or unworkable, stop, look back, and use your outline to trim the fat away, or to evaluate and rewrite mechanics that are too complex.

4.)  Once you have what you think is a workable prototype, have some friends/editors/critics review it, maybe create characters, and try to work through the rules as written.  Usually, at this point some of the things you thought were crystal-clear when you wrote them will be in need of revision.  Revise to clarify intent unless the feedback clearly indicates a change in direction is needed.

I'll try to follow your progress in my copious free time, and help in any way I can.

I'd also suggest understanding rpgs more deeply than most players do. Most often as of late, folks I play with tend to actually be playing two games side by side, the combat and the narrative. Keeping this in mind can help you avoid mistakes, such as 4e's focus on one at the expense of the other.

I also highly suggest two other things, first, research. Watch the youtube channel Extra Credits. They have loads of videos on game design. Mostly geared towards video games, but most of it applies equally well to tabletop, and those don't apply directly to tt, still offer great insights that can help improve your design and your gming skills. Also, there is a blog The Alexandrian which has massive amounts of content that can seriously improve your game design.

The second thing is, understand the purpose of the rules, the mechanics possibility space, and emergent consequences, etc.

For example, many of the rules in d20 are about narrative support (albeit indirectly and unconventional by modern concepts). Understanding what the reason for the rule is can help you streamline it without failing it's initial purpose for existing.

Also, emergent consequences can seriously impact your design, either for good or for ill. The 15-minute workday is an example of bad emergent consequences (though it is expected that gms will handle it properly, negating the issue).

However, emergent consequences are not bad, in fact, they can be your best friend as a designer if done right, adding depth to the game with little complexity. For example, if you set a trend in the rules such that being harder to hit means being easier to hurt, and being harder to hurt means being easier to hit, basically creating an inverse relationship between attack ability and damage ability, then you open up the field of strategy, as one can specialize in either side without a clearly superior strategy that everyone must follow. Skne will focus their defenses on avoiding blows, while others with focus on withstanding them instead.

I started developing my own RPG system but ended up converting it into a module for d20 system instead because the underlying complexities of doing "math" right was too intimidating for me.

It was a sci-fi system and I wanted cover to be implemented right from the start into combat design. Basically the default assumption is everyone has cover but the weapons are so powerful that it blasts it away. The idea was to borrow a system like in video games where one player sets up an enemy by blowing away its cover allowing his team mates to pop the guy as he runs to new cover however I struggled to get the numbers to work right.

IF cover was too powerful then fights took forever. If cover wasn't powerful enough of a defense then everyone just ignored that whole part of the system and it became a game of rocket tag (whoever wins initiative just blasts the opposition away).

ANYWAY good luck :D

In addition to what the others said, which is good advice...

Streamline.  You have a whole gang of secondary characteristics each of which is determined with a unique formula.  Try to trim it down to one basic formula, or two, in which you have plugged in the different variables.  If one secondary characteristic is 2 x (STR + AGL) then ALL the secondary characteristics should be 2 x (One Primary Ability + Another Primary Ability)... and see if you can cut it further by knocking off the "2x".

Keep as much to a single, simple mechanic as possible.

Sometimes you need think sideways.

For example, instead of having cover act like hp (a defense that breaks down over time), go with something entirely different mechanically.

I would treat cover as a powerful defense, but turn the game into a maneuvering game. A player can lay down suppression fire, to keep the enemy from leaving cover, and have abilities like grenades that can affect players around corners or otherwise through cover, thus avoiding such means needing to chance the suppression fire, or fire blindly to try to hit whoever is laying down the suppression fire, to gain an opening to move. Stuff like this makes cover central to the tactics, but the cover itself is not overpowered as it is more like terrain than an ability.


Let me give a quick draft,

Lay suppression fire. Suppression fire is intended to make an area hazardous to cross by continuously filling that area with danger. Different weapon/attacks have different areas that are affected (i.e. a rifle has a long line while burning hands has a short broad cone)There are two options for suppression, direct and blind. Both types are full actions that last till the beginning of your next turn or when interupted. Taking damage ends the suppression effect.

Direct suppression has a 75% chance of damaging any target crossing a suppressed space. However, direct suppression requires looking out to aim. While laying suppresive fire, a character can be targeted by a called shot to the head, arms, or hands. A target that gets stopped in a suppressed space gives the suppressing character a free attack. A character can make a full attack action each round against any target that ends their turn in a suppressed space in addition to the suppression effect.

Blind suppression has only a 25% chance of damaging any target crossing a space. Blind suppression is firing around a corner without looking, which only exposes the hand/s, and therefore a called shot to the hands or weapon is the only possible direct attack. A target that gets stopped in the suppressed space has a 50% chance of taking damage. If a character spdnds a round in a supressed space, they have a 75% chance of taking damage.

Just as an example of tryinb somethjng different when your first idea falls flat.

My problem with many systems is the complexity of the combat mechanics. For me, just as the action starts and everything should be speeding up, many systems slow to a crawl.

This came to a head for me with a 1990s game about modern mercenaries called Millenium's End. I liked the setting and the char gen, but the combat tried to be very simulationist. Everyone was using automatic weapons, but the system wanted to track every bullet all the way out to how long it would take to recover from the resulting wound. So the action hit a brick wall.

When I made my own pulp system, combat was resolved with a single roll of 2 D10s and 1 D20. For NPCs the outcome was missed or hit and down or hit and still active. I liked it. :)

It might also be useful to make a distinction between concealment (which obscures your position and makes it more difficult to target you but does not protect you much), light cover (which may only cover you for small arms fire, possibly), medium cover (that which can withstand larger caliber weapons), and heavy cover (which might withstand medium bore field pieces, light rockets, mortars, etc.  Relating these by a "doubling scale" generally works well (such that any cover also provides concealment, medium cover is twice as effective as light, heavy twice as effective as medium).

All this depends, of course, on how complex you want to go in your rules.  As mentioned before, simpler is generally more playable and faster paced, so cover and concealment may be the way to go if you want the action to be quick.



Just as you say.  Now, expressing this description in a rules set might be a different matter.  The trick is to make the rules clear, concise, and still cover edge cases that are going to come up in some rational way.

I would tend to gravitate to some sort of Task System, in which combat is a special case of opposing task rolls, with attacker and defender rolling tasks which are modified by their weapon in use, level of proficiency, terrain (cover/concealment), and other factors.

As long as the system is easy to understand and use, and makes sense in the greater majority of cases, players will accept a rational ruling for any edge cases that do come up in play.

Actually, trying to worry about edge cases will only add complexity and limit the general versatility of a rule, so unless you are going for a heavier weight system, it is probably best to explicitly leave edge cases in the hands of the gm. After all that is one of the big reasons to have a gm.

Then again, DnD encourages a lot of things that are generally ignored or not even admitted to by the majority of players. I.E. advice for gms to modify classes to better fit each pc, with guidelines and examples. Yet strangely is almost never allowed.

You make a point I'm inclined to agree with, but some of my editors and playtesters feel differently about it.

I only worry about edge cases if, during playtest, they tend to come up more often than I expected (which either means they are not edge cases at all, or, worse, they point to a fundamental flaw in the game's design.)

You have to be careful about taking their word for such things, it is not uncommon for people to like or dislike something because they believe it to be the cause of something else or because they don't consciously notice the other half of a bad combo that would be fine if ghat unnoticed part changed.

There is a lot that people don't understand, even about themselves, and this can lead people to think that something would be better, only to find that it is worse .

For an example I just saw on Extra Credits, JC Penny thought they would try truly honest pricing, no more perpetual sales marking things at amazing discounts, but just the immediate low price. Sounds awesome right? But then, why did the change completely devestate their sales? Because even though it sounds great to a consumer, it alters the customer's mindset when they actually shop and they don't buy there as much.

Another example is dissociated mechanics, which most players confuse with "realism" because they don't fully understand why those mechanics are bad, only that they are.

The same issue can arise in games, both from the designer, and from the players. I'd suggest setting up a scenerio that tests the specific mechanics in question, and try playing both ways, without telling the players what you are looking for, then see how they compare.

In this case, I'd present them with the next rules revision, which would include one rule that covers edge cases, and somewhere else a rule that leaves edge cases to the gm without actually saying so, then play a scenerio centered on each. Do they really like the silliness from a complicated rule that could never handle edge cases well, or do they like when you step in and handle the edge case? Once you get their initial thoughts with a little undirected probing, then you can start asking specifically about how those edge cases were handled, and why they did or didn't like them.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:35, Mon 20 Nov 2017.

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 15):

I have to agree with you again.  I pack a small Siberian Salt Mine ^(TM) in my hip pocket when I am evaluating feedback, but I don't let it stop me from seeing what needs fixing.  (Sometimes I do have to be convinced of it, though.)

Dissociated mechanics is an interesting term, and one I hope I'm understanding correctly.  Basically if part of a game system sticks out from the rest as being disjointed or overly contrived, it probably needs a good testing and reconsideration.  Have I got that correctly?

A hallmark of good game design is elegance.  If the underlying model of the game setting is sufficient, the rest of the game's aspects should flow from there easily.

It's when we get down into the details that it's easy to lose focus and forget that.

Dissociated mechanics are mechanics that do not correlate to a decision made on behalf of the character. I.E. once per day, gain a +4 on an otherwise normal action flavored in a way that normally wouldn't be limited to once a day in the milieu of the world. 4e minions are also dissociated mechanics, because you are choosing tactics based on whether they are minions or not, a distinction that doesn't exist for the characters within the world milieu.

To really understand dissociated mechanics, I recommend reading the Alexandrian article on them,
http://thealexandrian.net/word...anics-a-brief-primer

Huh.  By the definition put forward here, I've tended to avoid dissociated mechanics in my work as much as possible without really understanding what they were or what my objection to them was.  Good job putting a name to them for me.  My original assessment doesn't miss the mark by much, but is somewhat of an over-simplification.

Most of my stuff is geared toward anime' or science-fictional settings, but the principle seems the same.

I get that character creation is a special kind of mechanic that "sets up" part of the setting, namely a character.  I tend to try to make the player at least think about character concept and background a bit during character creation, as this provides more verisimilitude (yeah, "realism" by any other name would still have thorns...).
This message was last edited by the user at 06:05, Mon 20 Nov 2017.