Previous thread 404'd; archived here:
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/19797267/ As a recap, we've decided the mechanical base of the system needs rebuilt from the ground up, and are in the process of determining what it should be. The current task is to figure out what kind of dice mechanism to use: A success-based system, or a target-number based system.
So far, this post from the previous thread is the only thought presented on the issue:
>I think for this system, a success-based dice method would probably be best. While fixed-dice are easier to work out probabilities for, I think a success-based system would be better for people who are new to gaming, and I think making this system have a low barrier of entry for non-gamers would be good. Success-based dice pool systems are pretty straightforward to learn -- roll a handful of dice, see how many come up X or higher. Pretty much no mucking about with math, which is definitely something that tends to turn off non-gamers, even if those who've played a few games before are used to it. Makes it seem more like a game, and less like homework, you know?
Anonymous
Yo you can't design a game without a consideration of probability, though d6 dice pool is a good, solid mechanic for getting into things.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19820320 It didn't exactly crash and burn so much as just run out of steam. There was some definite clusterfuckery in terms of the core mechanics (as you note, you can't design a game without a consideration of probability, and the probability spreads for that system were whack), but the system as a whole made it to a pretty much playable form in the original run. It was just missing some details to flesh out certain character types, and people got too burnt out between real-world issues and wrestling with the wonky dice system to finish it off. If you're ok with homebrewing your own techniques to accomodate concepts that are lacking support in the existing rules, you can actually play a full game using the rules on 1d4chan that the board collectively devised (and people have in fact done so).
If it weren't for the derpiness of the dice mechanics, the original project could very well have truly made it to completion entirely on the board itself. We could just try to polish off the existing ruleset, but given that we've had time to step back and recognize the flaws in its underlying mechanics, we may as well try to correct that.
And yes, I do know how to use foolz, but I figure since somebody archived the previous thread to suptg I may as well use that instead.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Did somebody say Zelda?
Anonymous
Anonymous
Tea Homebrew Guy
Quoted By:
Neat, don't have to make a new thread.
Anonymous
Tea Homebrew Guy
Picture is about all I managed to turn up for a success-based system so far, and I haven't had much more luck for a target-number-based system, though I found a tool that can be turned into a graph with a bit of work.
Anonymous
>>19820320 B-but /tg/ gets shit done! Just look at <half-finished super awesome setting> we've made!
Who's in charge of this? And please don't say "the /tg/ hivemind."
Anonymous
Is this the place to post my own LoZ concept or should I be making another thread?
Anonymous
>>19821955 Actually, come to think of it, for a d6 dice pool we can get the probabilities for that from the spreadsheet that was made for the original project. There's a link to it at the bottom of the wiki page. (I'd link it directly but apparently 4chan thinks it's spam.)
http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Legend_of_Zelda_RPG#External_Links The "dice pools" sheet has probabilities for hitting not just one success, but also multiples. Just ignore the lines for target numbers other than 5 (since 5 seems to be the standard target for d6 pools).
For target-number systems, probabilities are dead simple as long as you're using fixed dice rather than a variable dice pool. Subtract your modifier from the target number, and find the probability of hitting that number on whatever you're rolling. It's piss easy to get the probability spread for any straightforward fixed-dice setup using AnyDice.
>>19822052 Tea Homebrew Guy is taking charge of this incarnation of the project. He's been keeping the process pretty open to community input, but he is exercising final executive control in guiding the process.
Anonymous
>>19822251 >Tea Homebrew Guy is taking charge of this incarnation of the project. He's been keeping the process pretty open to community input, but he is exercising final executive control in guiding the process. So he's just rubberstamping the /tg/ consensus?
Anonymous
Why not base it off of FATE 3.0?
Anonymous
>>19822222 Post it here, maybe they can melt together in one big mess of a system.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>19822486 Because fa/tg/uys have to be special snowflakes who can't use somebody else's system to make their derivative ideas work.
Unless it involves Dark Heresy, that is.
Anonymous
>>19822527 >maybe they can melt together in one big mess of a system. Yeah, no. I'll probably make a thread for it when I've got a rough framework in place and want feedback.
Besides it probably won't go over so well here anyways since I'm using the Triforce as primary attributes.
Hey there, thought i would post.
Anonymous
>>19822616 Oh. I was just thinking it seems to be the kind of system the OP was going for in his initial post as FATE is pretty good at that sort of thing. Plus, you know, the whole OGL makes it easy to reference a generic set of rules for it and open to throw your own stuff on.
I do like the Warhammer 40K Roleplay system though, but I don't know if it would fit with Zelda. You'd have to refluff/rename/get rid of a shit load of talents and skills and such.
Anonymous
>>19822667 I believe the 40k bit was a reference to AdEva, nothing to do with this game.
Personally, I don't think Fate is a good fit for what this system's aiming at. Yes, we'd like it to be painless and accessible for non-gamers, but the reason for that is because this system is intended to emulate the gameplay style of the LoZ video games. Heavy emphasis on using items to solve puzzles, not so much on the narrative stuff that the Fate system is geared toward.
Anonymous
>>19822667 >You'd have to refluff/rename/get rid of a shit load of talents and skills and such. Which is exactly within /tg/'s comfort zone. It what its good at and likes to do.
Never mind there might be a system that already exists that would work just fine for the concept, even without tweaking. Off the top of my head I can think a couple systems that work for Zelda gaming that don't require building it from the ground up.
/tg/ wants to talk about making games, not actually make them.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19822746 I forgot about AdEva. Also, I disagree. YOu can still use items and skills to do the puzzle solving using the narrative to set up the puzzle. Nothing in FATE stops you from doing that.
Admittedly, I am biased in favor of FATE. I just love that system.
>>19822748 Fate Points would need to be changed, and you would probably either need to get rid of corruption and insanity entirely.
Though, I suppose the base of what's there would be enough to base a Zelda game around... But It'd be certainly quicker to use something like FATE.
Anonymous
>>19822636 >Besides it probably won't go over so well here anyways since I'm using the Triforce as primary attributes. See that sounds like something that might actually be genuinely interesting.
Tea Homebrew Guy
>>19822310 I suppose that's one way you could put it, though I come up with ideas too.
Basically, I try keep people on task, and tell them if they're doing something stupid. Though that goes both ways, I've had a few boneheaded ideas myself that anons talked me out of.
>>19822251 Excellent find, I didn't even know that was there.
>>19822656 Good luck! If you don't mind providing us with feedback about what your players wanted to do, that would probably help us out a lot!
Anyway, the current issue is dice systems. Does anyone have any arguments in favor of fixed-die, because otherwise the general consensus (of one comment) seems to be for a dice pool, and with the uncovering of the probability table we can balance it just as well as a fixed-die system.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19822903 Speaking of the probability table, I made a pretty graph that shows the probability of getting as many as 10 successes with dice pools of up to 10d6, assuming 5 or greater is a success.
Anonymous
>>19822748 >Off the top of my head I can think a couple systems that work for Zelda gaming that don't require building it from the ground up. Care to share, or are you just going to act smug and patronizing?
If you've actually got something good, we'd love to hear it. Personally, I can't say I've ever heard of any RPG where character capabilities are primarily defined through equipment, which is carefully placed by the GM as dungeon treasure and quest rewards with little to no player ability to expand their inventory without explicit GM cooperation.
Because that's what we're going for here. That's what it will take to make a tabletop RPG that plays in a manner similar to the LoZ games.
Anonymous
>>19822891 >See that sounds like something that might actually be genuinely interesting. Did you see the last thread? Half of it was a shitstorm over using the Triforce because its not Zelda-y enough or however the argument went.
The rough idea right now is that characters have their Race (goron, zora, whatevers) that has special abilities and weaknesses and their Calling, a vaguely defined class/archetype. Each Calling is strongly tied to a piece of the Triforce. They're the Warrior (Power), who kicks ass and takes names; the Sage (Wisdom) who knows things and tells you about them and the Bard (Courage) who is dashing, daring and bold.
I'm taking cues from Apocalypse/Dungeon World for the most part so minimizing skills, having broad attributes and not worrying too much about fiddly details like movement rates and who can lift what.
Anonymous
>>19822990 I'd rather be smug and patronizing because it warms my blackened, shriveled heart.
>>19823047 Well, at least you're honest about it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19823056 Also I realized I can only think of one system and that's Reign. Mostly for the Martial Disciplines and magic system. Not too big on equipment though.
Anonymous
>>19823024 >Dungeon World why would you use anything from that tentaclerape weeabortion? Can't you use something better and less Japanafaggoty like, i dunno, FATE or Riddle of Steel? Those are good and Western.
Anonymous
>>19823148 He's talking about the D&D hack of Apocalypse World, not the board game.
>>19823024 That sounds fucking sweet. You're basically going to have two playsheets, for race and calling? Or both on the one?
Anonymous
>>19823178 >That sounds fucking sweet. You're basically going to have two playsheets, for race and calling? Or both on the one? No playsheets since that's too close to the A/DW aesthetic; At that point I might as well make a full-on hack. It'll probably be a normal character sheet and you just write your stuff on there. Groups can have more than one of a Calling (or none of one) because I dunno lol.
Its all up in the air right now. I've been working on this intermittently for maybe two hours. That's about as far as I have for coherent ideas.
Anonymous
>>19823243 Callings should either offer a lot of choice or there should be more than three then, I think. Group variety can be important.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19823268 For sure I want there to be options offered. But first I still need to work on the basic mechanics and shit like that before trying to figure out moves and feats and special shinies.
This'll be my last post on this while I try to get it together and stop derailing this Zelda homebrew.
Anonymous
So basically we have our Attributes which fall under Power, Wisdom, and Courage? Physical stuff would fall under Power, Intellectual stuff under wisdom and... Social/Bold things under Courage?
Tea Homebrew Guy
>>19823590 The thing with callings and stuff is an entirely different project than the one being developed in this thread. I don't mind you guys talking about it, as there isn't any discussion on the actual game going on currently, but I would suggest you weigh in on the die system if you care about it. Or just say you don't care about it.
Anonymous
>>19823690 Ah, okay, I was just a bit confused about what was part of what.
I still think that FATE would be a pretty good base for this system, as it lends itself well for modification. If it's completely out of the question though, I think Xd6 dicepool success system would be a nice thing to use.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19823590 That's all a different project.
The main project in this thread has scrapped just about everything to start over because of reasons.
Tea Homebrew Guy
>>19823744 I personally am unfamiliar with FATE, but another anon familiar with it thinks it wouldn't adapt well to the intended feel of this game. That, and it's much more fun to make or play a system specifically for something.
Anonymous
>>19823744 I'm not terribly familiar with FATE, but what I've heard about it before and what I gather from skimming the SRD suggests to me that it's not really what we're looking for here. While there's not necessarily anything about it that would *prevent* you from using it for a Zelda game, the system is *geared* for a completely different style of game. We're aiming for a game that's really geared for a distinctly Legend of Zelda style of gameplay, and that's not really what FATE is about at all. Best I can tell, FATE's all about shaping the narrative flow of the story based on character personalities and archetypes -- utterly different from anything you'd typically associate with Zelda. Adapting FATE to really *support* a Zelda game (as opposed to merely being capable of running it) seems to me like it would require such a thorough overhaul of the system that what you'd be left with would hardly bear any resemblance to the source material aside from perhaps the underlying dice mechanism.
Anonymous
Anonymous
The servers went down RIGHT when I was about to post this! Anonymous Wed 11 Jul 2012 01:34:46 No. 19824173 Report >>19824113 >>19823932 In that case, why don't we use the underlying dice mechanism? Like, there are bits and pieces from FATE that could help to build the Zelda system. The dice system is a quick and simple, and I personally don't feel that Zelda really needs a helluva lot of crunch to work.
Also considering that one of the biggest draws to the series, aside from the puzzles, is the underlying setting. There's tons of little background things going on with the different cultures and myths and such (Including a lot of stuff we see in the background that's constantly present but never touched upon), so I don't really see the argument that a narrativist system like FATE doesn't work, but I will concede that the idea and challenge of building a system around the setting is a lot cooler than just adapting an OGL.
Then that leaves us with the question of what is, mechanically, important to Zelda? We know the Triforce needs to come into play, swordplay, and heavy dependance on items and puzzles, but what is intergal to Zelda gameplay?
Anonymous
>>19824173 Hell, there are version(s) of FATE out there with ability scores! It can be as crunchy as more traditional RPGs.
Too bad aspects and zones require creativity to use and not the INSERT PLOT ITEM A into PLOT RECEPTACLE B "problem solving" of Zelda games.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Looks like the server mishaps aren't helping much here. Bump.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19824173 >but what is intergal to Zelda gameplay? Themed dungeons generally built around a particular item contained within. Impressive looking bosses whos weak spot generally involves said item. Side quests!
Anonymous
>>19824173 >In that case, why don't we use the underlying dice mechanism? If you can offer a compelling argument as to why 4dFudge is better than a d6 pool, go for it. We are currently at the stage of determining what kind of dice system to use, after all.
>Also considering that one of the biggest draws to the series, aside from the puzzles, is the underlying setting. The thing is, setting can easily be incorporated into any game system. There's a difference between a game run in a Legend of Zelda setting and a Legend of Zelda game. The whole reason this project originally got started in the first place was because existing attempts out there at making a Zelda game didn't feel like Zelda games at all -- they felt like whatever the base game was, just set in Hyrule. That's not what we're going for.
>Then that leaves us with the question of what is, mechanically, important to Zelda? The items and puzzles (including puzzle-style boss battles). Consider the game that's generally considered the "black sheep" of the franchise: Adventure of Link. What made it different? It had the same setting. It still had Link wielding his trusty sword and shield. What it didn't have was item-based puzzle solving. Instead it just has lots of platformer-style side-scrolling hack-and-slash.
Of course, the setting and overall plot structure of navigating themed dungeons to collect MacGuffins is also important, but those aren't mechanical elements per se.
Anonymous
>>19824194 >Too bad aspects and zones require creativity to use and not the INSERT PLOT ITEM A into PLOT RECEPTACLE B "problem solving" of Zelda games. If you're that in love with FATE's gameplay and so unimpressed with Legend of Zelda's, then go play a game of FATE set in Hyrule. This project is not for you.
Anonymous
>>19824603 This project isn't for anybody, really. Nobody's been able to come up with anything concrete beyond "We should make a Zelda RPG," "Here's what I like about Zelda games" and "I don't like what you like about Zelda games."
Anonymous
just reminding you all, don't forget to archive this shit. The reason the last attempt failed was because everyone forgot to archive that shit, and they got demoralized. And no, don't say, "I'm sure somebody's got it handled."
Anonymous
The combat has to reflect the attack and respond, timed nature of the games. No wailing on an enemy until you roll high enough to hit and damage him because in a Zelda game all that would happen is the enemy would dodge or block the attack forever.
Anonymous
>>19824709 So why aren't you archiving this shit? Is it because you're sure somebody else has got it handled?
Anonymous
>>19824682 >Nobody's been able to come up with anything concrete You must be new...
http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Legend_of_Zelda_RPG The original run actually managed to make a playable system; it just wasn't completed (in terms of fleshing out options for a full range of character types) before the folks working on it got burnt out.
We could just hack out the remaining details that need filled in, but since we've recognized that the underlying mechanics of the original are a mess, we've decided to correct that and work out something a bit more...well, sane. Granted, it's going kind of slow this time around, but that's not to say it's not going anywhere.
>>19824735 Agreed. This was a bit of a problem with the original project, where we initially started out with a simple standard action system and eventually wound up trying to tack on all kinds of clunky measures to make it work with shit like tossing a bomb into the dodongo's mouth and whatnot.
>>19824709 >>19824743 Chill, I got this.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19824842 Sure, you post a link to a "finished" version. But the OP goes of and says "We're scrapping what we've got and starting over!" And this thread and the last one have been full of people kind of sort of suggesting ideas, other people shooting those down, a namefag claiming to run the show and nobody having any clear idea what the fuck this is about.
Anonymous
>>19824575 >If you can offer a compelling argument as to why 4dFudge is better than a d6 pool, go for it. We are currently at the stage of determining what kind of dice system to use, after all. Simply that Fudge dice are a little easier to understand I suppose. It will help the game keep from being too number heavy. Other than that, I can't really offer an argument as to why Fudge dice are vastly superior to regular d6s. In truth, you could even go with a percentile system. It depends on how much crunch you're looking for.
>The thing is, setting can easily be incorporated into any game system. There's a difference between a game run in a Legend of Zelda setting and a Legend of Zelda game. The whole reason this project originally got started in the first place was because existing attempts out there at making a Zelda game didn't feel like Zelda games at all -- they felt like whatever the base game was, just set in Hyrule. That's not what we're going for.
Fair point.
>The items and puzzles (including puzzle-style boss battles). Consider the game that's generally considered the "black sheep" of the franchise: Adventure of Link. What made it different? It had the same setting. It still had Link wielding his trusty sword and shield. What it didn't have was item-based puzzle solving. Instead it just has lots of platformer-style side-scrolling hack-and-slash. Of course, the setting and overall plot structure of navigating themed dungeons to collect MacGuffins is also important, but those aren't mechanical elements per se.
Alright then, how do we represent this, mechanically, on a table top game? I'm thinking we'll probably need to play on a map for dungeons.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19824906 Here's how you make your Legend of Zelda Dungeon Map:
-Draw out a bunch of rooms. Write down what's inside, especially the important details and puzzles and foes.
-When the PCs enter a room, do all that boring description and roleplay stuff.
-If there's a fight, break out the Handy Range Map. This is just a piece of paper with some boxes in a line labeled "Hand to Hand," "Close" and "Far." Add more ranges if you need/want to.
-When combat starts, PCs start off at the first range. Monsters are in a different one if the PCs got the drop, or in the same one if the PCs got ambushed.
-Just go read 3:16 where I stole this from.
Anonymous
>>19824906 I'm not sure how Fudge dice are any easier to understand than "roll a number of dice equal to your stat + skill, see how many come up 5 or 6".
>Alright then, how do we represent this, mechanically, on a table top game? I'm thinking we'll probably need to play on a map for dungeons. Well, first we need a simple but robust mechanical framework to represent items within. Since you don't have the direct player input of, say, aiming your bow with the control stick, we need to use dice rolls for things where there's a chance of failure. Once we have a mechanical basis to work with, we can start statting up individual items. Since combat is also a significant part of the game (albeit not the primary defining feature), we need rules for that too -- preferably ones that allow combat to be puzzle-like in nature, based on timing your moves carefully and exploiting weaknesses.
As for maps, they'd certainly be a big help, and I'd personally use them for this game whenever possible, but I wouldn't call them an absolute necessity. Battlemats are often considered a necessity for D&D due to all the positioning-based effects, but I've had plenty of success playing D&D with no visual aids. It all depends on how well your GM is able to describe positioning, and how well players are able to visualize it. Basically, it boils down to the preferences of the individual group.
Anonymous
>>19825029 They have these nice + and - and blank spots that are easy to look at and add together. It requires a bit of lateral thinking, I know, but its rewarding when you learn how to open your mind and actually think.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>Slowly but surely working our way through the process of reviving the LoZ RPG project. Dice mechanisms are discussed and haters waste their time try to convince us we're wasting our time.
Anonymous
>>19825179 Well, bear in mind part of the goal here is to be easily accessible to non-gamers. I.E., people who don't have actual Fudge dice and will have to make do with d6s raided from their copy of Monopoly/Risk/Yahtzee/what-have-you. That's why the competing proposal is a d6 pool as opposed to the more common (for gaming) d10.
And even if you are using actual Fudge dice, you're talking arithmetic vs comparison. Granted, it's very simple arithmetic, but that's still not as simple as comparison, and in my experience even intelligent, experienced gamers can wind up getting hung up fairly regularly even on very simple arithmetic, especially if you're gaming after a long day at work or whatever.
To be clear, I certainly don't mean to say that Fudge dice are some kind of super-arcane baffling thing. Just that I don't think the claim that they're simpler than a d6 pool holds any water.
Byrna !!xpUCCgDFtqT
Quoted By:
Here's my thing, (and I'm new to the discussion) in looking at the existing stuff, it's too crunchy to be Zelda. Let me explain my thing on it.
Byrna !!xpUCCgDFtqT
What's the same? Few Stats. No Strength and agility and yada yada. Just Explore. The game system should follow that. How's about this:
Anonymous
>>19825348 >Well, bear in mind part of the goal here is to be easily accessible to non-gamers. Wait, is it? Was there some secrete LoZ RPG design doc you've been keeping secret?
Why don't you share that so we have a plan?
Anonymous
>>19822486 Coming up with aspects based on the Zelda universe demands a really specific knowledge about the cultures/races/storylines and stuff, while the idea may be really good for diehard LoZ fans, for new players it may prove difficult.
I suggest a d6-die success based system, the only problem with the last one was the keep mechanic, which wasn't beginner friendly, a simple approach a la Mouse Guard / Burning Wheel may be appropiate, imo. Not for chargen, but for dice mechanics.
Anonymous
>>19825367 Not too bad, except for putting the Triforce front and center. If you'll read the first thread you'll see that we've come to the consensus that we need to make this a Zelda game, not a game with Zelda references. The Triforce was nothing more than a MacGuffin in the games and building the game around such a minor item that does nothing in-game is a poor start.
Also you haven't mentioned having an option for Moblins as PCs. That's a very important thing for this game.
Anonymous
>>19825179 At best, fudge dice are just as simple as a success pool, and are much less likely for people to have than d6s.
That's more than enough time for everybody to put in their thoughts, we'll be going with a dice-pool system for this.
Anonymous
>>19825369 It's been part of the goal since the very beginning. No top-secret plans, just remembering what was discussed in the original project last year.
Remember, while the mechanics might be being redone from the ground up, the project itself has lots of history, and the overall goals haven't changed.
The idea is that there are a lot of people who like Zelda. Most of them don't play RPGs, but some of them might be curious. Since the primary goal is to emulate the characteristic feel of the Zelda series, it would potentially be very attractive to those who like the video games and are open to the idea of tabletop gaming. Making the system accessible to those folks would be a good idea.
Anonymous
>>19825442 You're not Tea Homebrew Guy.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19825451 >Remember, while the mechanics might be being redone from the ground up, the project itself has lots of history, and the overall goals haven't changed. Okay, but there should be some sort of cohesive design and reference document *now*. Requiring people be intimately familiar with the previous, abandoned iteration kind of goes against the idea of this being a accessible product, don't you think?
It also helps keep things organized and people informed.
Byrna !!xpUCCgDFtqT
>>19825425 How did that focus on the Triforce? The fact that I threw it in at the end? Or the fact that I stated that Link was Courage-based? He is, by the way the games did state it. I put it there in the event that it came up in later discussion. You jumped to a conclusion there without really reading, I think.
You then start talking about how it didn't allow for Moblin? I hadn't even touched on racial details. I figured since the main discussion was on dice mechanic, I'd start there.
I'd say you're married to certain concepts and are getting a bit aggressive about them.
This system also works for Non-Zelda universe games that have a Zelda-style gameplay. Mod your skills a bit, and it can work in cyberpunk, even.
Anonymous
>>19825431 I swear, these threads attract trolls like moths to a flame...
>>19825367 I'm with you on the general idea of keeping things as simple and straightforward as possible, but we differ on the details of how much is too much.
I personally don't see the particular benefit of having no base stats. Sure, playing the video game is pretty straightforward as far as "character creation" goes, but it's pretty clear that Link isn't as brawny as a Goron, nor as nimble as a Shiekah, nor as skilled with magic as the sages. As long as the handling of stats stays pretty simple and straightforward, the crunchiness shouldn't be at all overwhelming.
Unranked skills does seem like an interesting prospect, but on the other hand, again, it doesn't do a good job of reflecting the range of abilities you see NPCs exhibiting in the game. A little bit more granularity -- not a whole ton, but at least a little -- seems more appropriate. I could very well see skills as something that don't actually improve over the course of the game, though, unlike a typical RPG. It might be interesting to see an XP-less game, where every advancement you get is simply earned through in-game efforts -- tracking down a mentor to teach you a new sword technique, or finding an item in a dungeon, or being taught a song as a reward for completing a task, etc.
Definitely don't agree on using Pieces of Heart to fuel the dice pool, though. That just seems completely out of left field.
Anonymous
>>19825537 Disregard that guy, it's just a troll post referring to drama and shit that cropped up in the previous thread.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19825557 We prefer to be called "voices of reason."
Anonymous
short rushed up idea:
Anonymous
>>19825577 >using a wound system a la FATE or Savage World Not hearts? Come now, that much should be obvious.
Byrna !!xpUCCgDFtqT
>>19825557 Okey, so let's deal with racial stuff. Maybe each race has a racial Skill that sets them apart. So Gorons have incredible strength. They get an extra Die for anything that involves strength.
How would you feel about implementing the "magic" points as the dice pool instead of using your Pieces?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19825571 There was a lot of valid criticism, suggestions and points brought up in that thread. Dismissing half of it as "just trolls" is a pretty shitty thing to do when you're trying to make a /tg/-designed game.
Tea Homebrew Guy
Quoted By:
>>19825464 Oh, whoops. Actually, I am. Just forgot my name.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19825610 Well, you could go for a fixed-damage system like Old School Hack: light weapons, heavy weapons, magic weaponsnd they could do a certain amount of damage. Also, with extra successes you could add some damage and stuff.
Byrna !!xpUCCgDFtqT
>>19825577 >>Skills would have to be all focused on exploration, really precise and self-describing, like the verbs from Technoir. I agree with this. The more self-descriptive our skills, the better.
Tea Homebrew Guy
>>19825611 Hold up there, guy. We're not nearly to the point where we need to
Also, I don't think that using racial differences will cover up the game not having any stats.
Tea Homebrew Guy
Quoted By:
>>19825611 Hold up there, guy. We're not nearly to the point where we need to work seriously on racial traits.
Also, I don't think that using racial differences will cover up the game not having any stats. For example, how do you reflect a bodybuilder hylian being stronger than a hylian theif?
Byrna !!xpUCCgDFtqT
>>19825733 Do you need stats? Stats may differentiate characters in abilities, but they also add complication. Don't get me wrong. I love stats. But I never crunched numbers while playing Zelda. I smacked things with a sword and I solved puzzles. Characters are differentiated in this system by the skills that they're better at. Two people might both have sword fighting, but this other guy has acrobatics while the other has magic item. They get around very differently. They handle problems differently.
The hylian bodybuilder has taken Lifting and Throwing. The thief has taken Stealth and Legerdemain. They pick up a sword. Neither are good with a sword, so they each get one die to hit each other with. Unless, of course, the bodybuilder throws the sword...
Byrna !!xpUCCgDFtqT
>>19825823 Note, that's the To Hit, not damage. That's a whole different kettle of fish.
Anonymous
>>19825715 >>19825577 Well, we did work out a list of skills in the previous thread. The idea was to hit all the major things that Link and/or NPCs do in the Zelda games, but in fairly broad categories that allow for reasonably versatile characters. And not necessarily all for exploration either -- combat is a significant feature of Zelda games, even if it does take a backseat to exploration and is handled in a rather puzzle-like fashion.
The list we came up with was:
>Melee Weapons (any melee weapons that don't fall under Heavy) >Heavy Weapons (big, hefty stuff like the megaton hammer and Biggoron sword) >Ranged Weapons (pretty much self-explanatory; bows, boomerangs, hookshots, etc.) >Shields (self-explanatory) >Spellcraft (both magic items, like the Fire Rod, and learned spells like those in Adventure of Link) >Instruments (for all those mystical ocarina tunes and the like) >Tools (all those oddball items that don't fit above, such as the spinner, and probably bombs) >Acrobatics (jumping around like a ninj- er, Shiekah) >Athletics (running, more mundane jumping, swimming, climbing, all that jazz) >Riding (horses and birds and boars and stuff) >Stealth (self-explanatory) >Perception (also fairly self-explanatory) >Presence (catch-all social skill) >Survival (for finding stuff in the grass, and maybe fishing and stuff) >Lore (knowing shit) More descriptive names would be nice, but that might be hard to balance with the goal of keeping them broad.
Byrna !!xpUCCgDFtqT
>>19825876 Sweet. That's a great starting point.
It might be good to break some of them up into smaller skills, as well as add a few more RP based skills. After all, Link is less likely to be affected by intimidation than Zelda, but more likely to be diplomacy-ed into submission. By having all the social as Presence... If the others are okay with this, though, I'm flexible on it.
Anonymous
Anonymous
So what's a good online source of LoZ fluff? I need it for research.
Anonymous
>>19825823 >>19825834 The thing is, the amount of complication stats add is pretty negligible, but the added robustness they add is pretty substantial. Essentially, your system is a stat + skill system where everyone has 1 point in every stat and at most 1 rank in every skill. Simple, yes, but also very limited. Having stats and skills with just a little bit more granularity (say, stats ranging 1-3 and skills ranging from 0 to 3 ranks) doesn't complicate things significantly, but adds a lot to the system's ability to handle a variety of scenarios in a way that feels plausible. Remember, even if you aren't crunching any numbers when you play a Zelda game, the computer is definitely doing some crunching for you in the background. We should definitely try to keep things as simple and straightforward as possible, but there's no sense in restricting.
Also, having very specific skills like that doesn't work so hot for a game that's about gathering an array of different items to overcome the challenges you face. Either you have a big laundry list of skills (which doesn't mesh so well with the idea of keeping things really simple), or you wind up being very limited in the kinds of stuff you can use. While I wouldn't expect the PCs in this game to be quite as versatile as Link, there should still be some flexibility. That's where fairly broad, general skills help a lot.
Tea Homebrew Guy
Quoted By:
>>19825823 Specialties are all well and good, but when I see you describing your system, it sounds like, to paraphrase another poster, a generic rules-light system set in Hyrule rather than THE DEFINITIVE CAPITAL LETTERS LOZ ROLEPLAYING EXPERIENCE.
(And there were stats in Adventure of Link).
It's pretty late where I am, so I'm going to go to bed. I'll try and adapt the current combat rules from 1d4chan to a form compatible with the new, revamped system. I am a fan of the damage increment idea, but other opinions on it would be helpful.
Tea Homebrew Guy
>>19825996 There are two sites I can think of that might help you. Zelda Dungeon and Zelda Universe. They're roughly focused on crunch and fluff, respectively.
http://www.zeldadungeon.net/ http://www.zeldauniverse.net/ TKDB
>>19825996 zeldawiki.org might have some useful info.
>>19825939 See the second part of
>>19825999 for the reasoning on keeping them broad. As for lumping all the social stuff under Presence, you're right that it's kind of limited (and the items bit doesn't exactly apply). The reasoning was that such things aren't really a huge part of the typical "Zelda experience", if you will, so it's not worth putting a lot of detail into. There was serious consideration of having no social stats/skills whatsoever.
Incidentally, this is also an area where having underlying stats helps. The stats we came up with last thread were Strength, Agility, Wits, Mysticism, and Guts. So for the specific example you mentioned of Link being resilient to intimidation but weak to diplomacy, that could be a matter of having high Guts but low Wits. The Triforce virtues also help here, being a matter of Courage and Wisdom, respectively. Admittedly still not as fine-grained as splitting it into multiple social skills, but on the other hand your proposal of a statless system with unranked skills loses a lot of granularity in other areas, so I'd call it a wash at best.
Also, adopting a name. I seem to be one of the more active contributors on this, and was pretty active in the original run of the project too, so I may as well identify myself.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19826091 Awesome, thanks. You've just helped educate your opposition.
Tea Homebrew Guy
Quoted By:
>>19825996 There are two sites I can think of that might help you. Zelda Dungeon and Zelda Universe. They each have some stuff about fluff, but you might have to look for it.
http://www.zeldadungeon.net/ http://www.zeldauniverse.net/ Anonymous
>>19826091 >>19826129 Awesome, thanks. You've just helped educate your competition.
Byrna !!xpUCCgDFtqT
>>19825999 >>We should definitely try to keep things as simple and straightforward as possible, but there's no sense in restricting. So what do you guys think of
>>19825577 ?
It has a bit more granularity, not overly complicated. Not too math heavy. I'd swap out for a Hearts system for HP though.
>>That's where fairly broad, general skills help a lot. Point taken. Like I said, I was flexible on it. I'm even okay if you took out the social skills, like TKDB said.
>>THE DEFINITIVE CAPITAL LETTERS LOZ ROLEPLAYING EXPERIENCE So what if you go into the far future of Hyrule and things are a bit different? How will the system adapt? What if the DM actually wanted to focus more on story as the later games did? This isn't a bash on what you're saying, I just would hope that a system could handle things while playing like the inspiration, rather than just being a pen-and-paper reversioning of what had come before.
>>(And there were stats in Adventure of Link). Yup. And I talked about that too. In my first post, I believe. AoL was designed from the ground up to be a different game with a different feel. I'm attempting to recreate the feel of the gameplay throughout the series. Simple gameplay, but if you try to do something you're not good at, it might not work so well. Low stats if any, so that a beginner can pick it up and only need a tutorial on how to use an item. Explore, interact, experiment. That's the core of Zelda.
Gotta go sleep now. Enjoy!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19826431 Well nobody needs a rulebook to tell them how to tell a story, but when combat and adventuring come into play they'll have these rules to use as well as characters, monsters and settings statted up.
I wish I had something to contribute about the dice but I just don't have the head for numbers and I'll bet a fair portion of those interested don't either.
TKDB
>>19826431 The dice system outlined there is more or less what we've already got, except in our version the Triforce stats are a separate contributor to the main stat + skill array, and we haven't gotten to racial benefits yet. Roll Xd6, where X = stat + skill + virtue, and any die that comes up 5 or 6 is a success. Numbers for all of these stats would of course be fairly low, capping at no higher than 5 for a truly phenomenal individual. I could reasonably see stats and skills capping at 3 (also the proposed cap for Triforce virtues), though that might require using a different target number to work right with the probability spread.
The mechanism proposed there for racial benefits might actually be an interesting way to handle the Triforce virtues instead, though, if we were wanting to keep the amount of different numeric stats down. Something like, rather than having a numeric rank in the virtues, you just have one virtue that you exemplify, which gives you an easier target number for any tasks falling under that virtue. Shifting the target number by 1 makes a pretty significant difference, especially when you're aiming for multiple successes, so something like a typical success being 5 or 6 but a success in a task falling under your chosen virtue succeeding on 4 or greater would be an interesting way of handling the Triforce stats. I'd say it actually increases the complexity, but it would shake things up a bit and give the Triforce virtues a bit more of a unique role.
TKDB
>>19826777 Yeah, actually, looking at the probabilities, I'm rather liking the idea of using the Triforce virtues as a non-numeric trait that modifies your target number rather than dice rolled. If you already have a decent-sized dice pool and/or are trying for a small number of successes, the boost to your chances from lowering the target number by 1 aren't too different from that produced by adding another die to your pool. However, the bonuses are much more significant the longer your original odds are. So basically, if we had your Triforce virtue reduce the target number for related tasks by 1, it would mean you're significantly more likely to make long-shot extraordinary successes and would have a much easier time with things you're not skilled with when what you're trying to do fits your virtue. Since you're still rolling the same number of dice, you still can't exceed whatever your normal maximum limit is with the skill, but you're more likely to hit the upper range of your capabilities.
Somehow, that just feels very appropriate to me. Granted, it is a step up somewhat in system complexity, since you're looking for different numbers depending on whether your action fits your virtue or not, but it just seems so elegant.
I've made graphs for dice pools at other target numbers. This one is for a success being 4+; the next post will have the graph for success at 3+.
TKDB
Probability graph for a d6 pool where a die showing 3 or higher is a success.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>19827091 >>19827084 its..... its beautiful.
im stealing this for other homebrews
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
I spent too much time on this pt.1 Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Wed 11 Jul 2012 08:01:39 No. 19827344 Report I was running with the idea of keeping things simple, and made a mock-up in paint.
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Wed 11 Jul 2012 08:02:16 No. 19827349 Report >>19827344 I also put up two different item set ups. You can carry as much shit in your inventory at a time, but can have only two (or four, depending on the consensus) items equipped/handy to use at a time. Like say a puzzle requires the use of two or more items. Example: The puzzle set up is a large pillar in a wide room with a button in the middle (Or one of those timer switches). You gotta climb up a ladder (Or spiral walkway) and use the roc's cape/feather to fly/jump toward the middle of the room, and then use the iron boots to fall with enough force to actually make the switch press/depress.
Outside of battle, this doesn't really do much, but inside battle, you can only use what's equipped unless you spend a turn going into your inventory and switching things out. For example, let's say that you're up against a rather difficult boss that could, potentially, fuck up your day. Luckily you have a bottled fairy, which will auto-revive you in case the boss kills you. Unluckily, you forgot to equip it before fighting. In the middle of the fight, you decide to equip it, just in case. While you were equipping it, the boss killed you since, before this moment, you were running low on health. Sword and shield don't count since, in most of the series, you're counted as already having them out no matter what.
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Wed 11 Jul 2012 08:03:06 No. 19827355 Report >>19827349 Hearts are your health, beginning characters start out with three. Pieces of Heart could be used like Fate Points/Benny that can be spent to re-roll bad rolls or add another die to the roll. Maybe you can use them to add another heart to your health when you have four of them.
The wallet up there is pretty self explanatory. It's for your rupees. Cash money. You use it at shops to buy shit.
I dunno how many people will like the idea, but I also threw a Skills & Techniques thingy down there. Basically you can throw down sword techniques or spells you learn along the way, or whatever. I put it as optional since, I don't know how many people are down with it.
So, I tried to keep it simplified. I forgot to put stuff on there like your Quiver, bomb bag, etc., but that's stuff that belongs in your inventory anyway.
I also want to mention that, like the game, instead of going up levels and stuff, you advance by gaining more hearts/items and expanding on current items/improving your attributes and skills (there should totally be a cap on this stuff). You can eventually get a bigger wallet/quiver/bomb bag and shit like that. Maybe different races give you different caps on skills and attributes.
What do you guys think on any of this?
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Wed 11 Jul 2012 08:08:50 No. 19827393 Report >>19827355 Also I just thought of something. Maybe we should put some sort of Aspect mechanics. Like Hylians get a musical aspect that gives them a bonus die when performing musical magic (Maybe songs can be put in that skills and techniques thing I put on the mock-up?). Or If you're a Goron, you get the Aspect of Goron Strength, which throws in a bonus die to strength rolls and so on and so forth.
Also, i spent time working on that stupid mock up and haven't had a time to catch up on the thread. Sorry if I said something that was either already suggested or rejected.
Anonymous
>>19827393 Except FATE isn't going to work at all for this. Did you read the thread?
Anonymous
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Wed 11 Jul 2012 15:43:00 No. 19830645 Report >>19830304 Yes, I'm the guy who keeps suggesting FATE. Also, I didn't say to use the whole system (This time), just adapt some of the mechanics that MIGHT work for the game.
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Wed 11 Jul 2012 15:51:52 No. 19830726 Report Quoted By:
>>19830645 I mean kept. I'm not anymore. I realize that it isn't the perfect system for Zelda. I think there are certain parts of it we can cannibalize though.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
TKDB
>>19827344 >and the other posts by Cyphas For stats, the setup we were working with was a five-stat spread of Strength, Agility, Wits, Mysticism, and Guts. More or less what you suggested, but handle social stuff with Wits, replace Charm with Mysticism (for music and magic, since magic in Zelda seems more mystical and less tome-studying wizardliness), and add Guts for resisting stuff (eg, poisons, or a ReDead's shriek). Arguably we could do away with Guts and have all such things be "no-save", so to speak, but I do prefer Mysticism rather than a social stat in a game where social stuff generally is going to take the back seat. Keeps the stats more balanced in overall importance.
For hearts and magic, we should definitely use a visual system like was used in the original run (see pic). To track damage, you tick sections off your hearts, and likewise for using up your magic meter. I also like the idea used here of filling in bubbles to track your stat & skill values (though obviously our stat and skill list is going to be a bit different).
I like the idea of only having a limited number of items accessible at once. It's kind of odd for an RPG, but it kind of makes sense if you think about it due to the hyperspace inventory thing. Sure, you can carry as much as you want, but you can only have a limited amount out on your person at any given time. I think auto-revival by fairies should work without the bottle being equipped, though. That's how it works in the games, after all.
TKDB
>>19831888 I absolutely do not like the idea of Pieces of Heart being used as fate points. It makes absolutely no sense, and just feels like an attempt to shoehorn in a mechanic that is neither necessary nor fitting for the game. Pieces of Heart should be Pieces of Heart -- collect 4, you get a new heart container. Just like the video games.
We should definitely have space for sword techniques and such, though how we handle that needs discussed. The original project had such techniques as perks you can buy with XP if you meet the skill rank prereqs, but I am in favor of your idea of an XP-less system, where any and all advancements are acquired through in-game effort rather than spending XP. And definitely there should be a cap on skills and attributes. I'm thinking absolute cap at 5 for each, starting cap at 3, assuming we use the Triforce as a target-number modifier like I described above.
As for your suggestion of aspect mechanics, it sounds more like a bog-standard racial bonus type of thing rather than "aspects" in the full sense of the term as used in the FATE system. As I understand it, aspects in FATE entail a good deal more than simply getting bonuses to certain rolls, and the stuff beyond the simple bonuses strikes me as out-of-place for this particular game. I'm all for cannibalizing appropriate mechanics from other systems, whether FATE or otherwise, though -- as long as they're appropriate.
(Pic related for the item-equipping stuff in the previous post.)
HeroofLime
Im just here for pictures
HeroofLime
HeroofLime
Anonymous
>>19831888 Dude, if you're doing a simple character sheet like that, use PNG, not JPG. It's lossless, and that file would be like 180kb, not 1.8mb
TKDB
Quoted By:
>>19832049 I didn't make it, I just saved it.
HeroofLime
HeroofLime
HeroofLime
HeroofLime
HeroofLime
HeroofLime
HeroofLime
HeroofLime
Anonymous
>>19825876 I'm the d6-success-23-types of die guy. I have been thinking about the skills, and, since I suggested an atributte+skill format it came to me that this idea demands a really specific focus for the skill list...what I mean is, it's not the same when you roll Power+Swords (for attacking) than rolling Wisdom+Swords (for crafting one, or recognizing an enemy technique). Just if you guys are keeping that part of the old mechanics.e
HeroofLime
HeroofLime
Ekoi !PpcsYfrVrw
>>19831888 >>19832049 Character-sheet guy here. Been hovering about. My previous offer to make character sheet templates still stands
I don't remember if the original PNG was too large to post or not. Since the game is going through redux, I'm going to have to redo the character sheet anyway. I have the psds still so I can easily recycle aspects.
HeroofLime
HeroofLime
TKDB
Quoted By:
>>19832292 Once we get more of the system fleshed out to where we know just what we want in a character sheet, your help would be greatly appreciated. I love your work on the original project.
By constantly posting images, you are sending the thread into autosage that much quicker, along with putting unneeded gaps in actual discussion of the subject matter.
HeroofLime
Cyphas Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
>>19831898 >>19831888 I was thinking of doing the four sections per heart thing, but I was tired and just didn't bother. I don't know why I thought of Pieces of heart being used as Fate points. That was a weird idea. But yeah, I like those stats, and agree that mysticism and guts are better than charm for a Zelda game.
I wasn't suggesting an XP-less system per say, but that probably DOES fit the feel of the game more than XP since the games weren't traditional RPGs, but more action games with RPG elements. All the advancement of the game didn't come from your character getting stronger at anything, but the acquiring of new items and learning songs and such. We are trying to make this game as close to the experience you get through the game after all.
Arguably, you should just get a certain amount of starting points to build from, and that's it. That might be a bit much though, as I'm not sure how many people would be cool with their character never getting the chance to achieve that upper tier PC status where your character can smash through boulders and shit. It could also be conducive to more well balanced parties and encouraging group character creation.
It's not like you won't find items and shit along the way that would make up for the lack of "Epic-tier", excuse the phrase, PCs. That's just a suggestion though, and more than understand if the idea of advancing through items and techniques doesn't trump being able to improve a character's stats.
Tea Homebrew Guy !Pnt5Q68gPo
>>19826160 It's ... not a competition. Good luck with your game, though!
>>19826777 I'm not really a fan of that mechanic. Aside from the extra complexity, it doesn't let players embody multiple parts of the triforce to a lesser extent, should they want to. As well, it provides its full benefit right out of the gate.
>>19827091 >>19827084 Thanks very much for the charts.
>>19831937 I'm cool with that, just don't interrupt ongoing discussion.
By the way, I've taken a tripcode just in case.
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Wed 11 Jul 2012 19:32:34 No. 19832840 Report >>19832708 Maybe the Triforce element should just be what is in the games in that case. A quest thing. Your group is one of many (or few) trying to recover it (or one of it's pieces) before someone else does. Aside from being an attribute thing (Which we've seen doesn't really work), I don't see how to make it an underlying mechanic.
Tea Homebrew Guy !Pnt5Q68gPo
>>19832292 It's much appreciated. Your work for the previous project was great.
>>19827344 Thanks for your work as well! I love the idea of only having four items available at a time, though keeping it going outside of battle would mean a lot of erasing and re-writing. Perhaps players have a set of items they keep within easy reach, and outside of battle they just take the extra time to get the right stuff and it's glossed over. Would also be interesting for time-sensitive puzzles, such as a descending ceiling of spikes.
A section for learned techniques and spells would also be cool.
>>19832227 We're not keeping the 'virtues as main stats' aspect of the game, if that's the aspect you mean.
TKDB
>>19832656 My thought for if we went the XP-less route would be that you could get inherent boosts to your skill, but they'd have to be earned in-game rather than bought with XP. Find the hidden Great Fairy's cave to get a blessing, or track down a master swordsman to train you or something.
Of course, a more traditional XP system would also work just fine, but it's an interesting avenue to explore anyway.
>>19832708 A fair point on the Triforce stuff. I was just really impressed by the statistical implications of such a mechanic.
>>19832840 The Triforce virtues work just fine as a attributes, it just causes some issues with granularity when you try to make them THE primary attributes, especially with the wonky roll/keep mechanism that was used for the original run of the project. There shouldn't be any problem with using the Triforce virtues as auxiliary stats in addition to a more standard spread of stats and skills.
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Wed 11 Jul 2012 19:48:55 No. 19833071 Report >>19832925 I figure outside of battles/Puzzles (Puzzles should totally be encounters) the mechanic wouldn't really come into play, but it'd be an interesting way to make it more like the game.
>>19832918 When you put it THAT way, an XP-less system sounds more workable. I like the idea of learning techniques from swordsman and ghosts.
So the Triforce stats would be more of a Skill stat thing? Like, swinging your hammer really hard to break through a rock, for example, would be a Strength + Power roll? Am I seeing that right?
Tea Homebrew Guy !Pnt5Q68gPo
>>19832925 Oh, yeah. Looking at the graphs, the difference is pretty impressive. Perhaps providing an effect like that for a limited time would be a good effect of the Oracle Charms from Minish Cap. It would fit with the other idea for them, which was something along the lines of 'a limited burst of power/wisdom/courage'.
TKDB
>>19833071 More like an extra kind of skill. Using a megaton hammer would be Strength + Heavy + Power, whereas using using a longsword would be Strength + Melee + Courage, and using a dagger might be Strength (or perhaps Agility) + Melee + Wisdom.
>>19833077 That would be a good mechanic for handling major temporary buffs, yeah.
Ekoi !PpcsYfrVrw
I'll throw in an idea regarding the Virtues and Skills.(things like swordsmanship, block, etc) Not sure if it's a -good- idea, but I'll let you guys decide on that.
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Wed 11 Jul 2012 20:16:36 No. 19833390 Report >>19833116 This leads to another question, would the items themselves have stats on them? Like, let's say you're throwing a Boomerang. That's a (I dunno what the final thing will look like, so I'm just making shit up) an Agility + Courage + Ranged + Boomerang? Like, you agility is 3d6, your Courage is 1d6, your ranged weapon ability is 2d6 and the stats on the boomerang is 1d6. Do you roll the boomerang stat, or is that something you roll after you roll the other attributes for damage or something?
Also, for item stats, on the boomerang would it be something like...
Boomerang:
Damage - 1d6
Perks - Always returns to thrower. Can pick up one (1) small object.
This leads me to another thought. Would different weapons do different types of damage? I'm going off the assumption that we're going with the visual heart representation for damage (i.e. you tick off a quarter of each heart every time you take damage) so I think it'd make sense that different weapons do different types of damage. Things like boomerangs would do light damage, they'd take off a quarter of a heart, swords do medium damage, taking out half a heart, and things like large boss monsters deal heavy damage, which is maybe either 3/4 of a heart to a full heart.
Actually, I don't think that quite works. Then again, I'm not taking things like armor, dodging, and shields into account. So maybe that isn't completely broken?
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Wed 11 Jul 2012 20:20:00 No. 19833431 Report >>19833266 I think I see what you're saying. If, say, your Sword skill was 2d6, Blocking was 1d6, and your rolling was 3d6, then your Courage stat would be 2d6, and you would roll that each time?
Ekoi !PpcsYfrVrw
Quoted By:
>>19833431 Not sure on that really.(or how to effect crunch, for that matter) It was moreso a "your interests define who you are" sort of mentality in regards to the relation between Virtues and Skills.
TKDB
>>19833266 Seeing as several skills can fall under different virtues depending on what you're trying to do with them, I don't think that would really work.
>>19833390 I don't think items themselves would add any bonuses to your dice pool. And I don't think we should use D&D-style damage rolls.
But items would definitely deal different amounts of damage, measured in fractions of hearts. Weak weapons like a boomerang or hookshot would do 1/4 heart as base damage, standard stuff like a sword would deal 1/2 heart, and heavy weapons and big boss monsters would probably deal a full heart of damage. Not sure if we should have damage multiplied by the number of successes on the roll or not. Seems like that would be the most logical approach, but it might be a bit excessive, especially for high-damage weapons. I guess it comes down to how we decide to handle defenses -- if we do something where the defender gets a chance to roll to cancel the attacker's successes, it should be fine. Perhaps something like the defense setup from the original project, but just based on number of successes rather than directly comparing your dice to the opponent's.
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Wed 11 Jul 2012 20:35:57 No. 19833625 Report >>19833568 What if you gave some weapons a bonus for getting a lot of successes? Like, if you get 5+ successes, you deal an extra quarter in damage? Better yet, why not give exceptional successes knock down or stun effects? That way, you don't get all sorts of ridiculous damage going on, but you still get something for rolling very well.
Tea Homebrew Guy !Pnt5Q68gPo
>>19833625 That seems like a good idea. Maybe something along the line of an extra quarter-heart per success past whatever the threshold is, and maybe also gradually increasing effects from number past as well (IE, 3 successes = stunned, 6 successes = dazed for 1 turn, 9 = helpless for 1 turn)
That will probably need balancing, but there you go.
TKDB
>>19833625 Knockdown/back and stunning effects would be pretty appropriate for a Zelda game.
One interesting prospect that comes to mind would be having different benefits depending on the weapon. For example, a dagger might just straight-up deal 1/4 heart of damage per success -- you're not likely to knock somebody back with a dagger or anything, but a skilled wielder can strike vital areas (or just get in a lot of quick cuts and stabs) to deal extra damage. A hookshot might let you trip or disarm the target if you get enough successes. Other weapons might stun, or knockback, or knockdown -- or even a combination of effects if you get a really stellar roll. A weapon that's particularly useful for blocking or parrying might give you some kind of defensive bonus until your next turn, because your particularly skillful attack set you up to defend yourself against counterattacks.
Tea Homebrew Guy !Pnt5Q68gPo
>>19834194 That seems good, but ... complex, and would take a lot of balancing to make all weapons viable. Maybe, instead of having the success bonuses organized by weapon, have them organized by 'school' or 'style' and have each weapon belong to one of those schools.
Quoted By:
>>19834194 >>19834187 Both of these things sound good.
I'm at work right now, and it would suck to see this thread gone when I get back to it. I know I can always wait for the next thread, but if any of you dudes decide to get a living document or whatever going, just know I would definitely like to be involved as much as I can. I put my email in the field in case you guys want to get in contact.
TKDB
>>19834293 Yeah, it would definitely be best to have a set of categories that weapons would be assigned to determine the effects of extra successes on the attack.
Just as a bit of brainstorming:
>Finesse Stuff like daggers that are good for precision strikes and/or swift flurries. Deals damage for each success, rather than just the first.
>Stunning Stuff that leaves enemies reeling; perhaps this would be where swords and other edged weapons go, due to pain from the cuts? Makes the enemy lose actions based on the number of successes you get. Could perhaps key off of the enemy's Guts, but that might be more complexity than we really need.
>Forceful Stuff that sends enemies flying. Knocks enemy's back a distance based on the number of successes and your relative weights. If the enemy is knocked back more than 1 meter (or whatever our spacing is), they're also knocked prone.
>Grasping Stuff like the hookshot that can grab shit. Extra successes gives you a chance to trip or disarm (your choice). Perhaps the trickiest to work out mechanics for.
>Defensive Stuff that's well suited for blocking, parrying, or holding enemies at bay. Extra successes give bonuses on defense until your next turn.
Tea Homebrew Guy !Pnt5Q68gPo
>>19834659 Those all seem good, but fluffing the lost actions as pain from the cuts seems silly to me, as in both the games and most tabletop systems(probably including this one), one can fight at full effectiveness on the edge of death/unconcousness.
I'd instead fluff it as time spent dodging or blocking follow-up sword strikes, or something like that.
TKDB
>>19834774 Good point, but on the other hand, that explanation wouldn't work for losing actions over multiple turns.
I suppose we could just gloss over the fluff behind it and if anyone asks just say that swords are considered a "stunning" weapon because of the way your attacks can make enemies falter in the video games. Seeing as that's the reason I tried to come up with a justification for them to fall under that category in the first place...
Tea Homebrew Guy !Pnt5Q68gPo
Well, who said that the loss of actions had to be for more than one turn? Making an enemy lose an action is a pretty powerful thing that should take a bunch of successes, after all.
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Wed 11 Jul 2012 23:34:22 No. 19835833 Report >>19834774 >>19834659 >>19835645 >>19834975 I like the categories, but I'm gonna have to agree that swords are more a finesse weapon than a stunning weapon. Things like the Bal and Chain from Twilight Princess and the Megaton Hammer seem like stunning weapons more than swords. If you really want to stun with swords, I'm sure that's an effect we can roll into a sword technique.
I really do dig the idea of putting the weapons into those categories, as it plays into that "item for every occasion" thing that Zelda has going for it.
TKDB
>>19835645 >>19835833 I'm cool with putting swords under finesse. Like I said, I was just thinking of how your attacks affect enemies in the video games.
But at any rate, I think we're getting a tad ahead of ourselves here; the dice system needs polishing off. We need to work out how big dice pools should run; once we do that, we can set what number qualifies for success. Since we want to keep target numbers constant as much as possible (we found in the original run that shifting them around is a real hassle), we'll need to pick a target that gives a good probability spread for the size of dice pool we're working with.
If we're going to use the Triforce virtues as additions to the dice pool, with a maximum value of 3, I think we should also cap the stats and skills at 3 as well. If we have racial bonuses as a +1 to certain checks on top of this (or perhaps just as a +1 to stats that can allow it to exceed the usual cap of 3), that gives a maximum dice pool size of 10 for an absolutely maximized, high-"level" character, which sounds like a reasonable ceiling.
Since the numbers for each contributing element are so low, I think it should be reasonable to allow stats and skills to be maxed out at character creation (albeit at cost to your other stats/skills), so a starting character who's 100% specialized for a certain thing (stats, skills, virtue, and race) would have a pool of 8.
How's that sound?
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Thu 12 Jul 2012 03:34:47 No. 19838667 Report >>19838426 Personally, I like it. 10 seems like a nice even number to cap things off at (Any more and WoD levels and that's ridiculous).
We just need to finalize the basic roll this and that now. Are we sticking with the attributes being Strength, Agility, Wits, Mysticism, and Guts?
Tea Homebrew Guy !Pnt5Q68gPo
>>19838426 I don't know if I like the idea of a starting character being that close to endgame. I'll have to look at the graphs to see the difference in probabilities, but if we do do that system we should encourage generalizing, either through increased costs as you level things up more, or outright saying "you can't build things up high".
Also, I was thinking about having the virtues be bonus successes. I'm pretty sure that's too good, but, again, I'll check the graphs.
Tea Homebrew Guy !Pnt5Q68gPo
>>19838667 For now, yeah.
>>19838985 Yeah, just one bonus success is a huge increase to probability. Definitely bonus dice.
>>19838426 Assuming for a hypothetical action that a player has 1 relevant virtue, 1 in the relevant skill, and 2 in the relevant stat, that's a ~4 die pool...
Tea Homebrew Guy !Pnt5Q68gPo
>>19839078 Which means your average low-level adventurer will have a ~80% chance of one success and a ~40% chance of two, if successes are 5+. If they're 4+, probabilities are ~95% for one success and ~70% for two.
3+ probabilities are way too high for that to be the standard.
So I guess the question is whether we want to have extra successes be common or not. I'm in favor of them being less common, as then when they happen they're more exiting.
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Thu 12 Jul 2012 04:45:29 No. 19839380 Report >>19839212 I dunno nothin about no fancy math graphs, but I do know that, as is, maybe we need to set the difficulty overall to be a bit higher than originally envisioned.
Or we can do a no XP system, and have the advancement be through getting new equipment/hearts and techniques.
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Thu 12 Jul 2012 04:46:52 No. 19839401 Report >>19839380 An XP-less system was mentioned earlier in the thread, btw. So basically, the starting stats are the stats you keep through out the game (much like in the game itself), but you still advance by other means.
TKDB
>>19839401 No, see, the idea I had for an XP-less system was that you could still increase your stats and skill ranks, but you'd do so by in-game means rather than with XP. However, this would still favor allowing higher starting stats, since it adds another thing that needs done in-game and thus would be something that happens only rarely.
>>19839212 We should definitely have multiple successes be fairly common, at least for a character that's geared for that task. If we want to represent more challenging tasks, it will need to be done either by requiring more successes or by removing dice from the pool. Personally, I think the former is the better option because it keeps things simpler player-side, so we want a character who's fairly competent in a given area to have a decent chance of hitting multiple successes.
It's also worth noting that if we assume relatively small starting dice pools even for a character's strong areas, that tips the balance in favor of 4 as the target number. Thinking about it from a combat perspective, if we assume 4 as a typical dice pool for a starting character's main attack and 5 as the target number, you're looking at 1 in 5 attacks missing *even when the enemy isn't actively defending itself*. For a Zelda game, I would imagine using actions to defend should be common and quite effective, meaning that attacking when the foe's defenses are down should be pretty reliable to compensate for it being very difficult to hit when they defend.
Byrna !!xpUCCgDFtqT
Good to see this thread is still here. Let me see if I've collected what we've decided thus far correctly:
Tea Homebrew Guy !Pnt5Q68gPo
Quoted By:
>>19840053 No, that's pretty much it. The needed number for successes will probably be 4, as
>>19839605 make a very good point about defense.
Anonymous
Anonymous
TKDB
>>19840053 >Each aspect will grant up to three dice, except for race as it will give only one. Wait, what? We've talked about drawing from FATE's aspect mechanics to an extent for handling racial bonuses, but that's as far as we've gone with that.
Byrna !!xpUCCgDFtqT
Byrna !!xpUCCgDFtqT
>>19840264 Ah, I see you hangup. I meant aspect as far as Skill, Ability, or Virtue. Not the "Aspect" of FATE. I actually don't know much about FATE system.
TKDB
Quoted By:
>>19840303 Ah, gotcha.
I think I'm actually gonna get to bed at a semi-sane hour tonight. Hopefully the thread'll still be around in the morning.
Byrna !!xpUCCgDFtqT
Hopefully. Also, I'd like to drop in there that rather than having weapon types that define the multiple success effect, have it be defined by the weapon. This makes a significant difference between a wooden sword and a metal one... and the Master One.
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Thu 12 Jul 2012 06:37:01 No. 19840493 Report Quoted By:
>>19840053 The whole item equipping mechanic seemed to have some steam. As in that you can have four items equipped at a time (aside from sword and shield). During puzzles and fights, you take a full round action to switch things out of your inventory into your equipped items. Outside of those though, or really whenever time isn't of the essence, this isn't a big deal.
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar
Cyphas Zebbidiah Gravebane, Wizardly Scholar Thu 12 Jul 2012 06:39:39 No. 19840522 Report Quoted By:
>>19840371 The weapon type can define effects the weapon has (stunning, defensive, etc) while the quality of the weapon determines additional successes (poor/wood, steel/good, master, etc). Or did I just rephrase what you said?
