The Gaming Den

Oops

Here is a list of some design discussion threads relevant to fantasy heartbreakers.

Welcome to the den.

Fair warning, in case the Redditor didn't tell you: we're all rude, raving assholes. You will get good advice and a critical review, and people will likely swear and call certain ideas stupid. If you have a thick skin or otherwise don't take it personally, you'll fit right in.

As for the actual review, I don't have a lot of time to dig in right now. I just figured I'd warn you before your second post was something to the effect of "Why all the unnecessary vitriol?".

Eh, the vitriol I'm used to at this point. Advice and critical review would be great.

Not gonna lie though, the "here is a list to hundreds of other games like yours that failed" was a little bit of a punch in the gut.

It's alright though, I fully realize that there's no way to appreciate the game until you play it for a bit.

TomOfSteel wrote:Not gonna lie though, the "here is a list to hundreds of other games like yours that failed" was a little bit of a punch in the gut.

Oh, relax. Those threads were all about the same game like yours that failed. So the gut punch you should be worrying about is how like twenty people got together and talked about doing what you're trying to do, worked on it for like a year, and it still failed.

TomOfSteel wrote:Eh, the vitriol I'm used to at this point. Advice and critical review would be great.

I warned ya. As I said in our PMs, most of the concepts/ideas I was citing were things pulled directly from discussions here by people who are better designers and analysts than myself.

Not gonna lie though, the "here is a list to hundreds of other games like yours that failed" was a little bit of a punch in the gut.

It's alright though, I fully realize that there's no way to appreciate the game until you play it for a bit.

Well that wasn't meant to be an insult. That was because those threads have some really good debate/discussion/information/notmissingtheforestforthetrees.

If I were to enumerate desired improvements upon 3e, nowhere on the list would be "make melee combat more intricate and complicated." So I am left to conclude this really isn't aiming just to spice up melee combat but rather create a separate creature that is focused almost entirely upon that aim.

It looks like his is markedly different from TNE (the next edition). TNE was trying to make a fantasy heartbreaker, and this looks more like a complicated tactical minis game.

So much detail and granularity is invested into melee combat that it suggests that spellcasters are right out (or will become more like 4e/3e miniatures, casters in fluff only), and archers may more resemble 4e/3e miniatures as well.

This doesn't immediately mean that the project is two-fistfuls of fail, just that when judging it, it should be classed more as a low-fantasy sword-play game than a spells and sorcery high-fantasy game. I mean if you are caring about a stunt for shooting a second arrow, then you hardly are doing things like taming dragons and teleporting your enemies into the elemental plane of fire. Perhaps as a swashbuckler RPG combat engine this isn't so bad.

My initial thoughts upon skimming:
* Comparing the stunt cards is too onerous a task with the current layout.
* I don't see why you shouldn't allow diagonal facing, you still have an obvious 3 squares attacking, 2 squares threatening, and 3 squares neglected. Reach attacks become downright silly if you don't allow diagonal facing
* Do you have to declare all your actions before completing any? If so, then what happens if your first action rules out your intended follow-up actions? If not, then how does this square with the douchey notion that if you need to immediately know what you are going to do when it is your turn or else you get bumped from initiative order?
* Forcing delays coupled with effects that last until the beginning of your next turn seems fraught with frustration or potentially abuse
* At the end of the day it looks like you are going to have one optimal attack mode and you will fast-precise attack every time you can (at least in the case of the sample char), barring some stunt which you may alternatively try to do at will instead. I'm not sure what great diversity is being brought here. Just more fiddly options.

Well that wasn't meant to be an insult. That was because those threads have some really good debate/discussion/information/notmissingtheforestforthetrees.

I didn't think it was an insult. Just the harshness of reality. That said, I've never seen a game that utilized the mechanics I do, and I think they work quite well.

how like twenty people got together and talked about doing what you're trying to do, worked on it for like a year, and it still failed.

Well most of the work has to do with all the extraneous stuff of an RPG. If your core mechanics aren't good, no amount of dressing is going to make it great. I don't know about the other games, maybe they were great. I understand the reality of trying to compete with D&D or PF.

Way of Steel's whole premise is to make the simplest part of D&D/PF- moving around the board- an interesting, exciting, realistic, challenging endeavor. Positioning is everything, and you just build from there.

I don't have all the bells and whistles of an RPG system finished yet, but I know for a fact that the core of the game IS new, and its fun as hell. I'd really love for someone to take a glance at the Defense section of the Combat rules... it's like a few pages. Then tell me if that seems cool or not.

If you think it's cool, I tell you how I built on that, and so on.

Anyways, I'm definitely not butthurt or anything. It's pretty daunting to step into the massive graveyard of discarded RPG systems. However, of all the systems I've seen- and some of them do some things very well, better than WoS as of now- WoS is unique. It makes RPG battles into a chessmatch of movement and maneuver at their core- and it does that without adding complexity.

I think if you took that core, and got 20 people to work on all the various icings that go on the RPG cake, you'd wind up with something incredible. Now whether or not you can market that, I don't know.

This is going to sound arrogant, but one thing I've learned in life is that even when you are walking into a place where you are nothing more than the hungry rookie, you have to believe you can beat everyone in there at their own game. You listen, take advice, be humble and gracious, but you keep have to believe you are going to come out on top.

Anyways, hopefully some of you guys will take some time to look at the Combat Rules and give it some consideration. I'll try and take some playtest video or something to post.

TomOfSteel wrote:It makes RPG battles into a chessmatch of movement and maneuver at their core- and it does that without adding complexity.

How many extra fiddly things must you track? Not just on the character sheet (extra defenses, extra attack bonuses, extra damage amounts) but during a combat round (extra options, amount of times option was used between rounds, squares valid for various options)

I am definitely aiming for a considerably different game. I personally think D&D 3/4e is boring because there are almost no tactical decisions to make in combat beyond "when do I pop my encounter/daily."

So yes, it's quite different "under the hood", though it is immediately familiar to those who have played 3.x, which is important.

I'm not sure I agree that there is much more detail or "granularity" to the combat than D&D. Magic is definitely going to fall more into the "rare and powerful" than the "use it every turn"- even casters will need to be aware and know how to manuever in combat to stay alive.

I am definitely going for the low-fantasy world. It's "Game of Thrones", not "Lord of the Rings". The world's greatest swordsman probably can't fight an angry mob. A lousy goblin can sneak behind him and end him with a lucky blow. (Though stunts are basically there to counter this stuff, especially at higher levels).

This game definitely isn't meant to handle a campaign on the elemental plane of fire, but dragons and other monsters fit in just fine. They actually have the aura of danger around them that they OUGHT to have. And the sometimes bizarre defenses/attacks or special abilities of monsters really makes fighting them cooler. Even killing giant rats is unique when they have the ability to make multiple dodges- now you need to herd the suckers into the corner to pound on them.


The stunt card layout sucks, I know. Got a long way to go with them.


I've tried diagonal facing, along with hexes. The no-diagonal rule actually adds a lot to the game. Not sure if you have any experience boxing, but you often do wind up with people essentially on your diagonal, trying to work to your side. The explanation is a bit long-winded but trust me on this one. Reach weapons only add range to the front, so a spear gets an additional 3 squares in front of the normal ones.



No, don't have to declare actions ahead of time. There are some really nitty gritty rules for "what happens if I say I'm going to half-move but get opportunity attacked and hit badly and decide I want to full-move?"... but common sense prevails.


Abusing delaying-
There is a rule about that. If you are delaying and your NEXT turn comes around and you still want to delay, you basically take an 'empty turn' where you lose all actions but effects take place. Now you are delaying again.

Precise attacks/optimal attacks
Precise attacks are kind of a fluff rule, they don't really come into play (just like called shots in D&D). I just had some space on the character sheet and it fit.

I've worked the numbers pretty well through playtesting to make it so that both Fast and Strong attacks are well balanced. Characters that min/max might run into the situation where they have something like +5/d10 Fast or +3/d10+6 Strong. In that case, it's pretty obvious that they will never really use Fast barring a stunt.

I played a giant athletic dude who only used a Greataxe that can only make Strong attacks. So I had to play a style of game where I used my teammates and my movement to flank or gang up on enemies. It was challenging but fun.

Weaker/dodgy characters still get a pretty decent boost from Strong Attacks. +3 damage or so might not seem like much, but when you calculate the effects of armor and consider the injury thresholds, it is actual very viable.

It wasn't always this way. Been playtesting for 2 years now.

Thanks a lot for your feedback, I appreciate it.

Oh, yeah, by the way, the forums go completely berserk if you mess up your quote tags. Be careful with those.

How many extra fiddly things must you track? Not just on the character sheet (extra defenses, extra attack bonuses, extra damage amounts) but during a combat round (extra options, amount of times option was used between rounds, squares valid for various options)

The extra fiddly things is why I went with stunt cards over feats. So that you have the card in front of you as a reminder. Makes life easier.

You have your numbers for defense, easy. As far as keeping track of which defenses you used, I will admit it can occasionally get confusing in a big battle. As DM I might need to ask "uhh did you parry this round?" It happens. Usually though you know who your target is going to be, and so you see that he burned his Parry or Block or whatever, so you know that you are going to move in.

Attack numbers are pretty easy. The character sheet has 3 columns for Basic/Fast/Strong. You'll have something like this:

Basic Fast Strong
Gladius +2/d8 +5/d8 +2/d8+3


As far as other fiddly things to track go, the injuries are a bit of a pain now, I'm working on streamlining them and coming up with a way to make tracking them more convenient- tokens or counters or something.

When you have big battles going on, controlling like 10 or 20 enemies can get a bit challenging for the DM, but I think that's a problem with most any system. Definitely something to work on.

Chamomile wrote:Oh, yeah, by the way, the forums go completely berserk if you mess up your quote tags. Be careful with those.

Oh I see what I did. Damn that's a little onerous. I'll mind my p's and q's.

TomOfSteel wrote:When you have big battles going on, controlling like 10 or 20 enemies can get a bit challenging for the DM, but I think that's a problem with most any system. Definitely something to work on.

I don't think that is a good argument. You want your game to be Game of Thrones where one dude cannot cleave through an army, but you don't have rules to the point where you can actually put an army on the field without exploding. If you want armies to be a thing that people take seriously in your setting, you should also be able to interact with them without the game exploding. We can brush off the fact that D&D handles mass combat terribly, but we can do that because a level 5 party seriously just casts fly, protection from arrows, and gets out the wand of firebolts. In D&D, armies don't matter. In your setting, that is not the design goal. If something is a major setting element, the rules should be able to interact with that something.

Fix your quote tags.

ubernoob wrote:]I don't think that is a good argument. You want your game to be Game of Thrones where one dude cannot cleave through an army, but you don't have rules to the point where you can actually put an army on the field without exploding. If you want armies to be a thing that people take seriously in your setting, you should also be able to interact with them without the game exploding.

I'm not sure I agree with that logic. One dude can't fight an army. So why do I need rules that can handle an army? If a player decides he wants to attack an army, I can put the first squad of 10 or 15 guys on the board and kill him. No need for an army.

If I want to make the players feel like bad asses and have the corpses stack up, I'll throw a few waves of weak-ass people that they can cut down in a single attack. The record-keeping isn't a problem when the power levels are so out of whack that the players are taking limbs off with every swing.

The low-fantasy/realism aspect actually makes Role-playing and story-telling a lot more fulfilling. I can write a story where the Big Bad is in Town X, and the players can't just go say "oh no big deal we can kill everyone in the town if need be." The players are subject to social conventions. They think twice before picking fights. It's a good thing.

When the players capabilities are more in the mortal realm, you can write stories that make sense and aren't easily broken. "Well shit, we better find a way to sneak into Town X." or "We need to draw Big Bad out of Town X somehow."

None of this precludes magic, I've used it in half of my campaigns, though it's been ad-hoc. If you are a druid that can Root enemies to the ground, this ability is worth its weight in gold in Way of Steel, since positioning is life. An AoE Fireball is a game-changing, awe-inspiring thing- obviously you need strong limits on how frequently or easily these spells can be used.

TomOfSteel wrote:

ubernoob wrote:]I don't think that is a good argument. You want your game to be Game of Thrones where one dude cannot cleave through an army, but you don't have rules to the point where you can actually put an army on the field without exploding. If you want armies to be a thing that people take seriously in your setting, you should also be able to interact with them without the game exploding.

I'm not sure I agree with that logic. One dude can't fight an army. So why do I need rules that can handle an army? If a player decides he wants to attack an army, I can put the first squad of 10 or 15 guys on the board and kill him. No need for an army.

If I want to make the players feel like bad asses and have the corpses stack up, I'll throw a few waves of weak-ass people that they can cut down in a single attack. The record-keeping isn't a problem when the power levels are so out of whack that the players are taking limbs off with every swing.

The low-fantasy/realism aspect actually makes Role-playing and story-telling a lot more fulfilling. I can write a story where the Big Bad is in Town X, and the players can't just go say "oh no big deal we can kill everyone in the town if need be." The players are subject to social conventions. They think twice before picking fights. It's a good thing.

When the players capabilities are more in the mortal realm, you can write stories that make sense and aren't easily broken. "Well shit, we better find a way to sneak into Town X." or "We need to draw Big Bad out of Town X somehow."

None of this precludes magic, I've used it in half of my campaigns, though it's been ad-hoc. If you are a druid that can Root enemies to the ground, this ability is worth its weight in gold in Way of Steel, since positioning is life. An AoE Fireball is a game-changing, awe-inspiring thing- obviously you need strong limits on how frequently or easily these spells can be used.

Before I get into deeper "is it acceptable for your system to break down during mass combat or not" I want to cover a couple things first. Humor me.

1) Is this a storytelling engine?
2) What kind of stories are you attempting to model with said storytelling engine?
3) Do you have a setting at all, or is this a beer and pretzels game? It sounds like the first, but we can drop this whole line of debate if it is the second.
4) Is your setting something that is internally consistent with the rules, and how many gaps between the claimed setting and what the rules actually create are you willing to allow? Is it ok for the system to claim to be Game of Thrones low magic but still have massive artillery death mages killing dozens of people at once? Is it ok for the players to be told that armies are a really important thing, but never be allowed to command said armies or even reasonably interact with them?

And no, I'm not reading all your rules because the laptop I'm posting from will explode if I try to download anything.

ubernoob wrote: 1) Is this a storytelling engine?
2) What kind of stories are you attempting to model with said storytelling engine?
3) Do you have a setting at all, or is this a beer and pretzels game? It sounds like the first, but we can drop this whole line of debate if it is the second.
4) Is your setting something that is internally consistent with the rules, and how many gaps between the claimed setting and what the rules actually create are you willing to allow? Is it ok for the system to claim to be Game of Thrones low magic but still have massive artillery death mages killing dozens of people at once? Is it ok for the players to be told that armies are a really important thing, but never be allowed to command said armies or even reasonably interact with them?

1. Not entirely sure what you mean. It's definitely designed to be played as an RPG where a GM writes a story and whatnot.

2. Any of them, but obviously the game is probably best for a world of mostly humanoids. Monsters and magic are completely OK, but this system isn't for Demi-Gods hurling magic at Demons on a battlefield in the Fire Dimension. Think standard fantasy novel fare- mostly people, some monsters, some mages, maybe a divine intervention or two.

3. No setting. Drop it into whatever setting you want.

4. GM's discretion. This is the GM's job, to find a way to keep things internally consistent. If you decide the BBEG can torch an entire army, your player-casters should probably (eventually) be able to do that too. If your players are going to command armies and fight other armies, I wouldn't use WoS rules. If they happen to wind up in command of one in your WoS campaign, I would throw together some houserules or simply dictate what happens. If the players want to take the field themselves, put them against a detachment of enemies and let that outcome influence the larger battle.[/url]

Point the first: You can go back and edit the post you fucked up to not shunt everything to the side. So do that. I know you have edited posts before, so edit that one so it stops shunting the goddam thread.

TomOfSteel wrote:I am definitely aiming for a considerably different game. I personally think D&D 3/4e is boring because there are almost no tactical decisions to make in combat beyond "when do I pop my encounter/daily."

It sounds like you have never played 3e.

TomOfSteel wrote:1. Not entirely sure what you mean. It's definitely designed to be played as an RPG where a GM writes a story and whatnot.

Sounds like your game is shit and everything it ever produces will be shit because you are a shadazar.

TomOfSteel wrote:2. Any of them, but obviously the game is probably best for a world of mostly humanoids. Monsters and magic are completely OK, but this system isn't for Demi-Gods hurling magic at Demons on a battlefield in the Fire Dimension. Think standard fantasy novel fare- mostly people, some monsters, some mages, maybe a divine intervention or two.

If you aren't writing the rules for magic and monsters, then you have provided jack and shit to tell stories about magic and monsters. If you are writing them, then talk about them. I don't care if they are optional rules you can remove if you don't have them, if you claim to be modelling interesting melee combat, but you can't describe how to fight a dragon in its lair, or how to fight an ogre of giant, then your system flatly cannot tells stories about those things.

TomOfSteel wrote:3. No setting. Drop it into whatever setting you want.

Well to start off with, I can't drop it into any setting in which any or anything can both fly and breath fire. Because your rules suddenly magically disappear when both those qualities are added to the same thing.

Also I apparently can't add it to a generic fantasy setting with magic, or to a Game of Thrones like setting with armies, because your rules don't accurately model either of those things at all.

TomOfSteel wrote:4. GM's discretion. This is the GM's job, to find a way to keep things internally consistent. If you decide the BBEG can torch an entire army, your player-casters should probably (eventually) be able to do that too. If your players are going to command armies and fight other armies, I wouldn't use WoS rules. If they happen to wind up in command of one in your WoS campaign, I would throw together some houserules or simply dictate what happens. If the players want to take the field themselves, put them against a detachment of enemies and let that outcome influence the larger battle.[/url]

So if I want to add anything more interesting than a gladiatorial stadium fight to my universe, I have to make up all the rules myself with absolutely no help from your rules.

Your scope is so narrow it is practically non-existent.

TomOfSteel wrote:

ubernoob wrote: 1) Is this a storytelling engine?
2) What kind of stories are you attempting to model with said storytelling engine?
3) Do you have a setting at all, or is this a beer and pretzels game? It sounds like the first, but we can drop this whole line of debate if it is the second.
4) Is your setting something that is internally consistent with the rules, and how many gaps between the claimed setting and what the rules actually create are you willing to allow? Is it ok for the system to claim to be Game of Thrones low magic but still have massive artillery death mages killing dozens of people at once? Is it ok for the players to be told that armies are a really important thing, but never be allowed to command said armies or even reasonably interact with them?

1. Not entirely sure what you mean. It's definitely designed to be played as an RPG where a GM writes a story and whatnot.

I will take that as a yes.

2. Any of them, but obviously the game is probably best for a world of mostly humanoids. Monsters and magic are completely OK, but this system isn't for Demi-Gods hurling magic at Demons on a battlefield in the Fire Dimension. Think standard fantasy novel fare- mostly people, some monsters, some mages, maybe a divine intervention or two.

Here's the deal with that answer- It isn't an answer. The reason you have rules to your story telling game instead of just playing magic tea party (I mean the actual thing you do with your daughter and her teddy bear) which is the original story telling engine is that rules create a common framework for what kind of results will come from any action. Story telling engines put everyone on the same page and allow you have a resolution mechanic for whether Davey the Rogue wins the sword fight or John the Paladin does. Without agreed upon rules, Davey and John just sit there arguing about who's imaginary character is a better swordsman until someone gets bored and plays gamecube.

The implied answer by your posts is "dashing rogue medieval-eque fantasy where wizards are wise men in the forest, not guys that routinely level cities." This is a power level somewhere below both Spiderman and Hercules. What I'm basically hearing is that you want Hollywood style Bad Ass Normals to be the PCs and magic is largely a DM railroad device that PCs don't have access to or is a cutscene only ability that you don't get to use during the combat engine.

3. No setting. Drop it into whatever setting you want.

See above how your rules create a setting. If you have no spellcaster rules, then your setting has no spellcaster. If you have no beholders, you can never tell the story where the heroes slay a beholder. Every story has a setting. This is just a fact of storytelling. From your posts, I'm getting that your setting is essentially game of thrones on most points though. Most conflicts are solved by swords and armies, with a little bit of supernatural shit thrown in wherever the storyteller (GM) decides is needed.

4. GM's discretion. This is the GM's job, to find a way to keep things internally consistent. If you decide the BBEG can torch an entire army, your player-casters should probably (eventually) be able to do that too. If your players are going to command armies and fight other armies, I wouldn't use WoS rules. If they happen to wind up in command of one in your WoS campaign, I would throw together some houserules or simply dictate what happens. If the players want to take the field themselves, put them against a detachment of enemies and let that outcome influence the larger battle.

Personally, I would consider that an incomplete story telling engine.

You use a whole bunch of RPG terminology and seem to imply that each player has one character. That implies a plot and a setting and character development. Since your combat engine implies that armies are a Big Deal, it makes sense that on average, someone is going to want to command an army at some point. That is an actual goal a character in the setting you are implying could reasonably have. The fact that your combat engine breaks down when people try to interact with said army seems to be a weakness of your system.

Now, in our PMs on reddit I used the term "Tabletop MOBA" and that largely seems true. You're very heavy into the combat engine to the point of ignoring the storytelling engine (see: your comments about it not being a big deal that NO ONE CAN EVER KILL THE COMMANDER OF AN ARMY AND TAKE HIS PLACE). This is not a minis game, because there is still a GM and several players controlling only one hero each.

TLDR: Stories have settings whether you want to write one or not. Explicitly writing a setting and making your rules represent it would make a better and more complete game because you would know what you need to include and what you do not need to include.

Is this based in any way on Riddle of Steel?

Tom: Fix your goddamn tags.

Also, a couple of things strike me as immediately worrisome. Like this:

The no-diagonal rule actually adds a lot to the game. Not sure if you have any experience boxing, but you often do wind up with people essentially on your diagonal, trying to work to your side. The explanation is a bit long-winded but trust me on this one

This is a non-answer to the question at hand combined with an anecdote about a sport which only someone with absolutely no experience with for-real fights would say is much like for-real fights. Even the positioning you may have learned in boxing is absolutely goddamn useless because you only ever box one opponent (and if you have become confused and think that boxing is like actual fighting, this may explain why your system seems geared to handle gladiatorial death matches and nothing else). When there is a dude to the north, a dude to the east, and a dude to the northeast, the direction you want to be facing is northeast. So why can't I face that way? You're going to need an actual explanation here, not only for us in this thread but also for the actual game rules, otherwise the very first houserule GMs will make, some of them before gameplay has even begun, is to say that you can face diagonally.

Really, it's the internet. We've got time. We can read your response over the course of three days if we have to. So tell us what the actual justification is for this.

I mean, there's the way your rules explode when dealing with anything other than very small scale fights exclusively with other humans. And there's the way that precise attacks don't do anything, and are just there because apparently you thought adding extra cruft to the system would make it better somehow. And there's the way you apparently think that GM railroad plots are the only way to play RPGs. And these are all concerning. But the most concerning thing is that your game contains a really bizarre and arbitrary rule, and your defense of it is "just trust me."

It's also weird that you can't shift diagonally, because that means you can't dodge diagonally, despite the fact that if someone comes at you with a sword and your plan is to dodge the blow (presumably because you don't have anything to parry with), you are absolutely going to want to dodge diagonally backwards. Now, granted, diagonal movement on a square-grid has the problem where it is faster than moving in cardinal directions, but the typical wargame solution to that has been to use hexes instead.

Alright, this was a mistake.

And he still hasn't fixed his tags.

Oh noes, he had any kind of criticism at all, and he was asked to explain what kinds of stories he wants to tell with his rules and he threw a hissyfit and left.

But didn't fix his tags. Reporting for tag fixing Zherog.

TomOfSteel wrote:Alright, this was a mistake.

Dude, don't give up that easily. You wanted people to look at your rules and analyze them. You got honest feedback. With the exception of Kaelik, who is universally an asshole to everyone, we were even pretty nice about it. If you want to see us being mean, here are some threads. Just answer the questions. I promise, this is the civil side of the den. If the worst thing that happened to you is that kaelik called your rules bad, you're doing pretty good.

But seriously fix the tags.