Waterbrick Down

Heroica: Glory Amongst The Stars RPG - Game Development

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

I'm not talking about that, I'm referring to the bit at the end of the Dice Pool section in the rules that states 'For some checks, multiple players may contribute dice into a single pool, however the maximum standard dice pool is ten.' I bring this up for two reasons.

One, the way it's worded and it's placement seem to imply that this statement applies to all forms of checks and that it constitutes multiple players making the same check and contributing their combined successes into a single number. The Rally and Defend actions seem to be different things entirely.

Two, it gives that impression that such combined checks may allow players to exceed the standard dice pool. However this is vague due to poor formatting and lack of clarification.

Ah, I see where you mean now. I tend to agree on both of those assessments. That being said, I would not be able to make a hard ruling at this stage - I wouldn't be opposed for two players combining similar proficiencies in a single check, but I think there needs to be some math behind it, simply because...

Two players getting Tech to 5: (1+2+3+4+5)*2 = 10 * 2 = 30 exp

One player getting Tech to 10:  (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10) = 55 exp

So it needs some evaluating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lord Duvors said:

Hello?

I too am waiting on @Endgame to finish this up, it sounds like their was some more still. I am wondering if he is feeling well (or sick again)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mild family emergency that has been sorted out... and rendering problems. The Mission is virtually over, so if anyone wants to start post-mortem discussions, feel more than free. Getting the very last picture ready now, and I might be able to get it up within the next hour, so stay tuned. If not... tonight. :blush:

Sorry for the delay! I appreciate the concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Endgame said:

Mild family emergency that has been sorted out... and rendering problems. The Mission is virtually over, so if anyone wants to start post-mortem discussions, feel more than free. Getting the very last picture ready now, and I might be able to get it up within the next hour, so stay tuned. If not... tonight. :blush:

Sorry for the delay! I appreciate the concern.

And there it is! Final loot update coming when I get more than an hour or two at my laptop. But there's the end! And there's a certain build I mentioned. :classic:

Thank you everyone for joining me on this ride. I know it was a little bumpy at times, but I hope everyone enjoyed and is eager to explore more of this brand new galaxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Endgame said:

The Mission is virtually over, so if anyone wants to start post-mortem discussions, feel more than free.

I have radically different ideas about what I liked about Heroica, so I've been working on a homebrew(a more straight adaption+a few QOL improvements), but one problem that seems to be universal, is time.

This was not a particularly dense quest. (As is typical for Endvame) it was a GOOD quest, but a quest that took nearly two months. People posted about once a day, tops. What might take two nights at a tabletop, takes two months.(Times aren't exact, but you get the point.)

Time is expensive. It's one thing to commit to, say, a week long thing. It's another to commit to things that can take a month at the minimum, months if it runs long.

It's not an inviting prospect and I can't be the only one who feels this. I like these games, but worrying about having to commit to months, when I barely  know where I'll be from week-to-week, isn't fun.

I've tried to come up with a way to get around this problem but the solutions so far involved either Community shared player characters or Quest Masters posting on "autoplay" - both of which would severely diminish the level of fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have my thoughts up either tonight or Sunday, depending on how today goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my thoughts on Mission Zero.

 

The Mission

Overall, I really enjoyed it.  The story was really nice and I very much appreciate the level of detail and lore you have revealed during the quest, particularly with the Cyndonians.  I hope they are continued in the full game and not just a featured antagonist for the test mission.  The cliffhanger at the end really has me intrigued!

 

The Party

I enjoyed playing with everyone despite some conflict we may have had.  Maybe it is just me but I struggled a bit with roleplaying Igaz because he was not necessarily my creation.  I had not thought of a backstory or a personality really and sort of improvised here and there.  As the mission went on, I pictured him more as a grumpy grandpa who means well but has a rather eccentric way of dealing with things.  The only thing I disliked about the party came to certain actions, such as asking every stranger we meet about the secret criminal auction and having conversations during combat.  To me, those came off as awkward.  I like to put myself into my character's position and roleplay accordingly.  I will not deny that getting information is futile but asking directly for said information is dangerous.  I am quite surprised we did not get ambushed at some point before reaching the auction.  And like I said, trying to have a conversation and interrogation during combat is inappropriate timing.  Imagine doing that in real life.

I too felt like I had nothing productive to add at times so I may have been silent for a day but I have kept up pretty much every single day.

And a tip for @Classic_Spaceman - you should reserve bolding your text for things that are only important.  For example, doing something or asking about something important.  Italics are usually just actions to describe the scene, what characters are doing, and so on.  Nothing necessarily important until it becomes bolded.

 

Combat

I really enjoyed the new battle grid system and combat.  I seriously hope that it remains the same in the official Heroica 2.0.  It is not too simple like Heroica 1.0 but it is not too difficult.  I feel it has the perfect balance and not overly complicated that the second system we discussed could pose.

One thing I disliked about the new combat system are actions, especially playing as a melee user.  Being able to move only once per turn and wasting a turn swapping weapons makes playing a melee user less viable.  If this current system remains, it feels almost mandatory to invest points in Arcana or whatever just to have the teleportation spell if you want to use melee.

I would also like to see Arcana become more prevalent in combat.  Currently it seems more useful for a Support character because you have to use spells sparingly.

 

Proficiencies

By far this is my favorite addition to Heroica 2.0!  I really like that players are not boggled down to a specific set of skills and weapons based on a single class.  There is more freedom with shaping your character however you want.  Proficiency checks are also really nice because I enjoy a mission that is flexible and can be manipulated by one's actions.  Having players that were proficinienct in Technology really helped a lot.  The only concern I could possibly have is that Technology would become meta.  There really was nothing in the mission that indicated Arcana would be useful in solving or doing anything.  Basically I hope that there will be proficiency checks for everything rather than mostly Technology.

As @samurai-turtle said, they should be explained better.  I expect that on an official page somewhere when Heroica 2.0 officially launches.  I will also add Spells and Items to that list.  I had to flip through so many pages trying to keep track of what does what.  Again, I expect that information to be on a page for easy access later.

 

Timing

This is something we cannot control unfortunately.  A few times the mission seemed to progress very slowly, like when we were at the ship lot.  Maybe it was because there was so much to do in order to reach Jek's ship?  Conversations between players and NPCs also slows the progress down a bit because you have to wait for a response.  Timing really was not much of an issue for me but everyone on the mission should dedicate time each day to log on and participate.  But it is up to the Mission Master or whatever to progress the mission as they control it.  If they feel we are getting caught up in unnecessary banter they should scoot things along so we do not spend three days asking questions.  Sometimes not having all the answers is a good thing.  I like being surprised here and there.  In short, cut the interaction before it becomes a drag.

 

Mission Master Lessons

I would like to see a dedicated page that goes over how to be a Mission Master.  Mostly explaining how to handle battles.  I got confused on the damage calculations and would like more clarity on that.

 

Edit:  Added a few more things to comment on.

Edited by Goliath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I should put a few things down for now. 

- The Story - I really don't have much to say about it. I didn't have much expectations on what anything should be. 

- The Party - Besides Classic Spaceman basically being new and slightly annoy everyone (I hope he doesn't take it to personal). My personal item with myself is that I had all these ideas for what a "War Bot" could do but, I never written it down anywhere just in my head and it slipped my thoughts (temporarily). Which Endgame remind me (or us) that we cannot just put out random stuff on the fly. 

- Spells - My main issue is with the magic spells. Right now it seems little limited, my thoughts is expand the proficiencies for casting spells. Right now it seems like you need to have a proficiencies in like one of three things. 

- Weapons - This is me wondering if we need examples of each type of weapon type. Right now I am wondering what makes it a "short range weapon" and not a "long range weapon", not to mention the "arsenal weapon". "Melee weapon" seems pretty obvious but you never can tell with some people. This is some examples I thought of, for each type...

Long Range - Rifles, (Would Magic Wands go here?), 

Short Range - Pistols (???), Boomerangs, Balls (it got used in a MegaMan 8 & Final Fantasy 10 {and not that type :ugh: more like a soccer ball}), spears (???), halberds (???),  

Arsenal - Mortar Rounds, Cannons, (I guess the "Space Satellite Lazer" goes here too.), 

Melee - All types of Blades, Clubs, Maces, Staves, Yo-Yos (It got used as a weapon in the game Startropics on the NES :grin:), 

One last question on weapon switching, was it ever explained how it worked in combat, does it takes a round to switch weapons. 

- Battle Grid - It seems to work fine especially since it gets used in other games. My question with it is making one, is their some online site to set one up or is a "paint" program getting used. Because right now I am not sure how I would set one up. 

- Proficiencies - Right now I think they need to be tweaked some. And probably explained a little better some where. 

- Timing - I am not sure what everyone else expect, but a few months seem fine to me. Where the last Heroica One Quest lasted about a year. And that one it seemed like people just disappeared on that one and never really came back. And everyone has a different schedule so online might work better for them (I guess). I hope they try to fine out how long a quest might take and hopefully have the time play a quest. :def_shrug: 

- Participation - I felt, I tried, but sometimes it seemed like I couldn't think of something useful to add. And I would wondered if Tester-Three actually would say something. But I was checking at least daily, and felt I was more active than other players. 

Edited by samurai-turtle
Add a comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, here are my thoughts for this test quest. Thank you, Endgame, for hosting. This might be my first or second Endgame quest, honestly. Your storytelling, of course, is fantastic.

Story: With this being a low-stakes test quest, as others have said, there's not too much to comment. You did make it very in depth for what it was, intriguing. We look back at H1 early quests, and those were quick, simple stories. Heroica/RPGs on EB have come a long way since 2011. Wow, it's been that long.

Party: I think everyone here is a great sport, even when it did get (somewhat) heated at various points. I myself wasn't as active as I should have been (totally my fault, and I apologize). Everyone else's activity was fairly high. I'm not totally miffed about how long the quest took, partly because this is a test quest, and a fairly involved one at that. As I stated above, Heroica quests became longer and more complex as they went on. I do think as we get more test quests to specifically try out specific things, we'll move faster. If/when this game becomes officially started, I think new/old players will be active, especially if the world (as in the universe outside of the quests) is engaging. I do like how Classic_Spaceman was involved as a newcomer. The rest of us were vets of H1 and I can definitely tell we were used to the meta of that game. That being said, I started to shut off during the all bold, long passages. And as everyone else spoke, I found little to say, although that definitely is my fault. It was wall of text for me and when everything was bolded, it became difficult to tell what truly was important. It's partially the reason I use italics during non-dialogue and bold for actions. I do think when it comes to H2.0, we should have some sort of standard of text, be it italics or colors and bold only for actions.

We tended to get sidetracked with talking with everyone and arguing and doing everything possible rather than sticking to the path, which may have made the game more complex in this test.

Characters: I'm only going to speak for Kleeck and NPCs on this one. I liked Kleeck and figuring out how to play him, which was very different from Kiray for me. NPCs were memorable and good. Nice work, Endgame.

Combat: I love the grid system. I love how versatile it is, and I'm already thinking of ways to add terrain or line of sight. What i don't like (or didn't understand) was the melee system, and honestly the dice pool still confuses the hell out of me. I need to spend a good few hours studying it to wrap my head around it. Spells I think I grasped towards the end of the quest.

Proficiencies: I like proficincies for this system, but as samurai-turtle said, I think they need to be defined a bit more clearly, although that will come with testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I started to discuss the end of the mission zero, with the "outside observer" and are some points brought up... 

A - The "timing issue", he did mention it and he had some concerns about it. But he felt it was something he could keep up with the "quest". 

B - The "battle grid" he did wonder if a hexagonal or octagonal pattern could be used (I too wonder if it is feasible ). But I did mention mention to him the squares might be easier to make. He did think the hexagonal or octagonal would solve the 1 or 2 "targeting debate" and movement stuff. But then I mention other games that use a square grid and how the characters could move 2+ spaces, which led to...

C - "Weapons" more specifically Heavy and Light weapons. Then I asked what if you carry one of each? And then he brought up a possible "weight stat" for the weapons. Next a asked him how complex do you want to make the "character sheet"? His response was he like the simplicity of the character sheet.....

D - But the spells do need work. And he is not sure what could be done. (I did agree with him on it, and told him what I thought could be done.) Next some talk I am still not too sure about (something about a +/- thing). After I asked for some example, and then I explained some, "rules" (well what I thought they were). 

E - And then he brought up the "separate OoC" threads. He said he kinda like it until some brought it up. And it seemed like most of the drama was going on their, and players could explain their actions better. I then brought up a group PM that was used in the past. Then he mentioned maybe a sperate thread should be done permanently for OoC stuff. And the "Dungeon Master" would not read the separate thread. 

F - I think @Classic_Spaceman can answer this point. The "outside observer" thought it was weird that he was planning to use Yelana more. I told him, I thought it was for a second "test quest" not for the permanent game. And another debate was if Yelana is Classic_Spaceman's character, he thought someone else (like @Waterbrick Down or @Endgame ) made her. I thought Classic_Spaceman made her up. I guess he can tell us for sure.....

For now the conversation stopped. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, samurai-turtle said:

Well I started to discuss the end of the mission zero, with the "outside observer" and are some points brought up... 

A - The "timing issue", he did mention it and he had some concerns about it. But he felt it was something he could keep up with the "quest". 

B - The "battle grid" he did wonder if a hexagonal or octagonal pattern could be used (I too wonder if it is feasible ). But I did mention mention to him the squares might be easier to make. He did think the hexagonal or octagonal would solve the 1 or 2 "targeting debate" and movement stuff. But then I mention other games that use a square grid and how the characters could move 2+ spaces, which led to...

C - "Weapons" more specifically Heavy and Light weapons. Then I asked what if you carry one of each? And then he brought up a possible "weight stat" for the weapons. Next a asked him how complex do you want to make the "character sheet"? His response was he like the simplicity of the character sheet.....

D - But the spells do need work. And he is not sure what could be done. (I did agree with him on it, and told him what I thought could be done.) Next some talk I am still not too sure about (something about a +/- thing). After I asked for some example, and then I explained some, "rules" (well what I thought they were). 

E - And then he brought up the "separate OoC" threads. He said he kinda like it until some brought it up. And it seemed like most of the drama was going on their, and players could explain their actions better. I then brought up a group PM that was used in the past. Then he mentioned maybe a sperate thread should be done permanently for OoC stuff. And the "Dungeon Master" would not read the separate thread. 

F - I think @Classic_Spaceman can answer this point. The "outside observer" thought it was weird that he was planning to use Yelana more. I told him, I thought it was for a second "test quest" not for the permanent game. And another debate was if Yelana is Classic_Spaceman's character, he thought someone else (like @Waterbrick Down or @Endgame ) made her. I thought Classic_Spaceman made her up. I guess he can tell us for sure.....

For now the conversation stopped. 

 

B - Hexagonal could work, but it seems more on the complex side, which I was under the assumption we were trying to limit, in mechanics at least. Also, for those who aren't photoshop/technically inclined, a simple excel sheet can help show where characters are.

D - I really do think spells will be the most complex thing we have to work out. Is there an idea of "schools" of magic that could work? Dragon Age: Origins had linear spell trees that sometimes were upgrades. Total War: Warhammer has its Lores that have just a variety of spells in each "school".

E - I prefer OoC inside the thread, partially because I'm used to it. If we have two threads dedicated to a quest, one for the actual quest and one for OoC, it will clog the forum up real fast, especially if there are multiple threads people are posting in, from two or three quests happening at the same time, the market, the central hub, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, samurai-turtle said:

Well I started to discuss the end of the mission zero, with the "outside observer" and are some points brought up... 

A - The "timing issue", he did mention it and he had some concerns about it. But he felt it was something he could keep up with the "quest". 

B - The "battle grid" he did wonder if a hexagonal or octagonal pattern could be used (I too wonder if it is feasible ). But I did mention mention to him the squares might be easier to make. He did think the hexagonal or octagonal would solve the 1 or 2 "targeting debate" and movement stuff. But then I mention other games that use a square grid and how the characters could move 2+ spaces, which led to...

C - "Weapons" more specifically Heavy and Light weapons. Then I asked what if you carry one of each? And then he brought up a possible "weight stat" for the weapons. Next a asked him how complex do you want to make the "character sheet"? His response was he like the simplicity of the character sheet.....

D - But the spells do need work. And he is not sure what could be done. (I did agree with him on it, and told him what I thought could be done.) Next some talk I am still not too sure about (something about a +/- thing). After I asked for some example, and then I explained some, "rules" (well what I thought they were). 

E - And then he brought up the "separate OoC" threads. He said he kinda like it until some brought it up. And it seemed like most of the drama was going on their, and players could explain their actions better. I then brought up a group PM that was used in the past. Then he mentioned maybe a sperate thread should be done permanently for OoC stuff. And the "Dungeon Master" would not read the separate thread. 

F - I think @Classic_Spaceman can answer this point. The "outside observer" thought it was weird that he was planning to use Yelana more. I told him, I thought it was for a second "test quest" not for the permanent game. And another debate was if Yelana is Classic_Spaceman's character, he thought someone else (like @Waterbrick Down or @Endgame ) made her. I thought Classic_Spaceman made her up. I guess he can tell us for sure.....

For now the conversation stopped. 

 

B - I do not mind the idea but I feel like it would overcomplicate things to change the shapes of the spaces.  I think the current grid is perfect as is.

C - Not a fan of adding a weight stat.  That will just add unnecessary complications to the game.  

D - Agreed.  I was thinking that Arcana determines the damage of combat spells similarly to other weapons.  In case players want to play a full on spellcaster and have this option.  The only thing is that it will not compete well with other weapons as Arcana technically is not a weapon in the current system to give it a boost.  Weapons will more than likely add more than +1 damage later on and the only thing magic users can get benefit from is armor and other equipment.  As for utility spells, they could go off your Arcana and Skill stats.  The higher they are the more effective they will be.  For example, you can teleport further.  Just pitching ideas here.

I would also like to add in that, though I forget the spell name, the spell that changes the environment or spaces in a battle grid should not be limited to certain things.  By that I mean a Druid-type of spellcaster could turn a specific space into nature and cast a spell that turns that square in a HoT position.  These ideas are probably more complicated but I hope you understand what I am trying to get at.

E - I agree with @KotZ on this.  Plus adding OoC threads for each quest will just be annoying.  If players really want a separate OoC thing they can set up a group message for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B - Hexagons are much better from a tabletop perspective, but when you are calling out coordinates such as B5, a square grid is much easier to use. (Also, letters should denote columns and numbers should be rows since coordinates are written as (x, y) and most people are used to calling out Letter-Number instead of Number-Letter.  This is why Battleship and Bingo both have letters across the top.)  I am super confused about the range/distance system that most of the people here seem to prefer.  It feels very odd to me that 3 spaces to the left is the same distance as 3 spaces to the left + 3 spaces up.

D - I would like to see "spells" swapped out for "abilities".  It can open up more flexibility with that feature and make non-"magic" characters more interesting than just move and attack.  That said, there is no reason that you need a lot of abilities to exist from the get go.  The original Heroica had classes added to the game later inside of specific quests or storylines and abilities could be the replacement for that.  With new abilities being created as the game grows.  As to the functionality of spells, I would like to see a potential to succeed with no matching skills (even if it is low), or at least with a proficiency at 1.  The idea that you need a proficiency at 2 to cast a spell seems a bit much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your input! I have been reading it and keeping tabs, but COVID-19 has currently smashed some plans of mine like a wrecking ball (myself or nobody I know has it, thank goodness), so it might not be until tomorrow I can sit down and do my full debriefing... along with a final loot update for you folks. I apologize for this one last delay, but thankfully, the stakes aren't as high anymore. :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, KotZ said:

B - Hexagonal could work, but it seems more on the complex side, which I was under the assumption we were trying to limit, in mechanics at least. Also, for those who aren't photoshop/technically inclined, a simple excel sheet can help show where characters are.

E - I prefer OoC inside the thread, partially because I'm used to it. If we have two threads dedicated to a quest, one for the actual quest and one for OoC, it will clog the forum up real fast, especially if there are multiple threads people are posting in, from two or three quests happening at the same time, the market, the central hub, etc.

 

2 hours ago, Goliath said:

B - I do not mind the idea but I feel like it would overcomplicate things to change the shapes of the spaces.  I think the current grid is perfect as is.

C - Not a fan of adding a weight stat.  That will just add unnecessary complications to the game.  

E - I agree with @KotZ on this.  Plus adding OoC threads for each quest will just be annoying.  If players really want a separate OoC thing they can set up a group message for that.

 

1 hour ago, joeshmoe554 said:

B - Hexagons are much better from a tabletop perspective, but when you are calling out coordinates such as B5, a square grid is much easier to use. (Also, letters should denote columns and numbers should be rows since coordinates are written as (x, y) and most people are used to calling out Letter-Number instead of Number-Letter.  This is why Battleship and Bingo both have letters across the top.)  I am super confused about the range/distance system that most of the people here seem to prefer.  It feels very odd to me that 3 spaces to the left is the same distance as 3 spaces to the left + 3 spaces up.

The B point I do think the square battle grid would be easier to make in general, something I pointed out to him. 

The C point it does seem like adding extra unnecessary stuff. But then again it does bring up my original question what does make a weapon one type and not another? 

The E point to much clutter is a problem (and I speak from some experience). But setting up a PM message thread for newer people might be a problem seeing as you need x amount of post to add x amount of people. Would one main / general thread be a problem if all the on going mission / quest went their to post their OoC stuff? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, samurai-turtle said:

The E point to much clutter is a problem (and I speak from some experience). But setting up a PM message thread for newer people might be a problem seeing as you need x amount of post to add x amount of people. Would one main / general thread be a problem if all the on going mission / quest went their to post their OoC stuff?

I think it would, as you'd have to sift through everyone else's posts. Spoiler tags in the quest thread worked fine for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, samurai-turtle said:

The C point it does seem like adding extra unnecessary stuff. But then again it does bring up my original question what does make a weapon one type and not another? 

The name of the item and / or description will determine that.

A weapon can be very obvious such as Slug Rifle (+? Long Range Weapon, Kinetic)

Or a bit more complex if it has a unique name and set of properties if that ever becomes a thing such as Stormbringer (+? Artillery, Elemental,  1/4 chance to stun target)

Loot really acts no differently than Heroica 1.0 I would imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So sorry for not speaking sooner, I tend to get a little burnt out at the end of these things and this was no different. I don't really have much to say about the party right now. While I had some frustrations other people have more-or-less stated them for me, though I have a few I feel I should talk about at some point. I enjoyed the grid system even though melee is clearly awful as things currently stand. On the subject of proficiencies, I like them a lot they are. I feel that keeping them somewhat vague is actually a good thing as it allows people to use them in ways that would not be immediately obvious (though still constrained by the nature of the proficiency, Enson's use of medicine to effectively hit Jek harder is an example of this) whereas making them adhere to a more rigid definition may make them less useful. I have other thoughts on proficiencies but I'll save that for a more detailed breakdown of the rules later.

As for that timing issue, I personally didn't have any problems. In fact the way @Endgame kept having the entire party move at once without waiting for everyone confirm they were ready to move on caught me off guard several times and made it feel as if we were being moved along at someone else's pace. It's not that it was bad so much as that I wasn't used to it. And quite frankly issues with the time it takes to complete a quest were always present in the first game and will continue to be present in this one. That's just the nature of the medium and there's nothing that can be done about it. One thing I'd like to bring up though is that while a player being unable to post is easy to deal with a MM not being able to post will immediately cause the game to grind to a halt. In that past QM's would sometimes have other people run battles when they couldn't, but that only works for combat. I fell that this time around it might be worthwhile for MM's to consider having someone on hand who could move the story forward in their absence. A sort of understudy MM if you will.

Now to address some of the things @samurai-turtle has brought up:

B- I don't really have much to say other then I agree with most people that we should keep the square grid over a hexagonal one. The existence of a grid already adds a bar to becoming a MM that wasn't there in the last game, so keeping it a simple as possible will help to mitigate that. @joeshmoe554, I think the reason you're having problems with the grid system is that you're thinking of the squares as being only connected along the sides and not the corners, whereas everyone else is thinking to them being connected at both.

C- I have to object to the idea of having a weight stat for weapons for the same reason everyone else does, it's too complicated. Quite frankly there doesn't seem to be any need for it. As for the distinction between different types of weapons, outside of melee it's entirely arbitrary. Realistically all ranged weapons should be artillery without the restriction against attacking enemies within one square, but sometimes absolute realism has to be sacrificed in the name of balance and tactical sophistication. People will still assign different types of weapons to different ranges based on how they perceive said weapons (throwing knives and pistols will generally be Short Range, rifles and harpoons will tend to be Long Range etcetera etcetera) but the way the system is set up now allows for, say, halberds that are Short Range weapons due to their reach or pistols that are Long Range due to having a longer barrel. The ability for players to define exactly what their weapons are gives them a great deal of creative freedom and I enjoy that aspect very much.

D- I see two issues with the spell system as of now. First is that it's possible for spells to have no effect even if they succeed (something I've already mentioned), and that entry-level spells are terrible. The simple fact is that a character with two in any magic skill can't really do much. For reference, if Enson with his two in Religion tried to cast a Healing Light spell It can heal a grand total of one vitality at maximum. I have no problem with with entry-level spells not doing a lot, but spending the necessary points to get up to two in a magic skill and then having so little as the most you can do feels bad.

@KotZ, I really don't see the point in having 'schools' of magic because the way the system is designed right now kind of does that already, as the kind of spell skills you have determine what spells you can cast.

@Goliath, I really don't like that idea for several reasons. Firstly, you seem to be suggesting replacing all spellcasting skills with arcana. I dislike this as I feel that having different skills for different sets of spells is more evocative and allows for more distinction between different types of spellcasters. Making all spells use a single skill sort of just makes that skill seem extremely bland and generic, whereas having different skills allows one to look at anther character's stats and say 'ah, this guy has a high nature skill and lots of nature spells, so I'm guessing they're some kind of druid-y person' and things like that. The alternative possibility is that you're suggesting that Arcana be used in addition to other magic skills which is arguably worse. And the idea of adding Skill to Arcana for utility spells is unnecessarily complicated and makes Skill far too good as it's already responsible for four other things (Initative, protecting yourself from damage, protecting others from damage, and how good the Energy weapons you can use are). There's also the fact that none of these suggestions actually address the actual problems with the system.

@joeshmoe554, I am emphatically against turning spells into abilities. I don't feel up to explaining it all right now, but right now I'll say this. Firstly all the ideas I've had for abilities are a lot more freeform in design then spells are and ofter either modify the ways spells work or interact with them in unique ways. And secondly that I feel that magic needs to work differently from mundane skills, to have a different texture so to speak, in order for it to feel unique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Goliath said:

The name of the item and / or description will determine that.

A weapon can be very obvious such as Slug Rifle (+? Long Range Weapon, Kinetic)

Or a bit more complex if it has a unique name and set of properties if that ever becomes a thing such as Stormbringer (+? Artillery, Elemental,  1/4 chance to stun target)

Loot really acts no differently than Heroica 1.0 I would imagine.

Yeah, I guess what I am trying to do is put some sort of "reality" or "reason" to the weapon system. Or another way is not to make a weapon to crazy, for example I pick up a living cat and somehow make it a Lazer gun. :distressed: :def_shrug: 

I texted to the "outside observer" again today. And some of the things mention were...

The OoC thread he didn't realize their could be multiple "quest" going on at once. He said he was looking at it like a noob (his word used). Because only two threads were getting new post on it. 

The next thing he texted about, and I am going to quote him here was about weight / movement... 

"A bit of clarification about weapon weight. Say maximum movement was 5, no weapons just your hands. A short sword -1 to movement and you move a max of 4 spaces. Broad sword -2 to movement. Sniper rifle -3. Artillery -4 to movement, one square on tour turn." 

The third thing he texted me about is again about @Classic_Spaceman and he should answer this for clarification...

"It looks like I'm wrong about Classic Spaceman's "Yelana". He asked for a tester character and then produced his own. My bad."  

I do hope no one minds I am bringing up "his" text to this conversation. Hopefully if / when the next "mission" comes up he will have an account here and participate for himself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

I really don't like that idea for several reasons. Firstly, you seem to be suggesting replacing all spellcasting skills with arcana. I dislike this as I feel that having different skills for different sets of spells is more evocative and allows for more distinction between different types of spellcasters. Making all spells use a single skill sort of just makes that skill seem extremely bland and generic, whereas having different skills allows one to look at anther character's stats and say 'ah, this guy has a high nature skill and lots of nature spells, so I'm guessing they're some kind of druid-y person' and things like that. The alternative possibility is that you're suggesting that Arcana be used in addition to other magic skills which is arguably worse. And the idea of adding Skill to Arcana for utility spells is unnecessarily complicated and makes Skill far too good as it's already responsible for four other things (Initative, protecting yourself from damage, protecting others from damage, and how good the Energy weapons you can use are). There's also the fact that none of these suggestions actually address the actual problems with the system.

Then feel free to throw your ideas out.  If you just dunk on ideas and have no solutions yourself you are not helping.:def_shrug:

If a player wants to throw fireballs from their hands Skyrim style at people instead of using a laser rifle they absolutely should.  Arcana is fundamental in being a magic user.  If there are to be requirements for specific types of magic, like Druid-y magic, then a Nature proficiency could be added.  Not only could it be used for that type of magic but used in proficiency checks on the local floral and fauna.  Anything nature really.  Not sure how to incorporate other categories though because Nature seems to have everything - many ways of dealing damage, healing, and effecting the grid.

That is where it gets tough.  There are so many forms of magic that it is just too much to have them categorized separately.  Suppose I was very proficient in Nature and I am using magic.  I could heal someone with fungal spores, I could damage an enemy with a barrage of razor leaves, I could magically grow a tree to create a barrier, I could protect myself with a sheet of ice, I could inflict an illness on someone, summon an animal, etc.  Nature covers so many things.  Maybe it is best to just leave it to the caster and roleplay the type of magic they are doing but keep the fundamentals - damage, healing, etc.

A player can roleplay a Mechromancer by being proficient in Technology instead of Nature.  They can use a swarm of harmful nanites to attack someone to do damage or heal them, summon a robot familiar, etc.  Again, they just have to be creative in deciding what they are casting but still identify the spell type.

As for the entire system, Spirit becomes a stat just like Smarts and Skill and does not drain when casting a spell.  Spirit only determines how many spell types you know.  Arcana affects the damage, healing, and area your spells affect.  If you want to rely on magic you simply upgrade Spirit to learn new spells and Arcana to cast the spells better.  Choosing between Nature and Technology would determine your type of magic.

Edit: Just to clarify things, Spells will become Spell Types.  Suppose my Spirit is at 1 to begin with.  I choose Damage as my Spell Type.  I can cast any magical spell that I can think of that is appropriate for my character.  In addition to what they do already, Nature and Technology are what I would base them off of.  I would have to specify the Spell Type too.  For example, [Protagonist] attacks [Antagonist] with a barrage of razor leaves.  A DoT would be something like this, [Protagonist] traps [Antagonist] in a storm of razor leaves.  It is all about word play to convey it.  Or you could be more simple with it such as [Protagonist] attacks [Antagonist] (DoT).  It has been a long day and I am trying my best to share my ideas.

Edited by Goliath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Goliath said:

That is where it gets tough.  There are so many forms of magic that it is just too much to have them categorized separately.  Suppose I was very proficient in Nature and I am using magic.  I could heal someone with fungal spores, I could damage an enemy with a barrage of razor leaves, I could magically grow a tree to create a barrier, I could protect myself with a sheet of ice, I could inflict an illness on someone, summon an animal, etc.  Nature covers so many things.  Maybe it is best to just leave it to the caster and roleplay the type of magic they are doing but keep the fundamentals - damage, healing, etc.

A player can roleplay a Mechromancer by being proficient in Technology instead of Nature.  They can use a swarm of harmful nanites to attack someone to do damage or heal them, summon a robot familiar, etc.  Again, they just have to be creative in deciding what they are casting but still identify the spell type.

As for the entire system, Spirit becomes a stat just like Smarts and Skill and does not drain when casting a spell.  Spirit only determines how many spell types you know.  Arcana affects the damage, healing, and area your spells affect.  If you want to rely on magic you simply upgrade Spirit to learn new spells and Arcana to cast the spells better.  Choosing between Nature and Technology would determine your type of magic.

I think this is the way to go, or at least trending in that direction. And Nature and Technology can then also still be used as base skills of roleplaying. Say you're skilled in nature due to playing with magic that way, but you have a point in Technology for the more techy aspects your character runs into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lord Duvors said:

 

@joeshmoe554, I am emphatically against turning spells into abilities. I don't feel up to explaining it all right now, but right now I'll say this. Firstly all the ideas I've had for abilities are a lot more freeform in design then spells are and ofter either modify the ways spells work or interact with them in unique ways. And secondly that I feel that magic needs to work differently from mundane skills, to have a different texture so to speak, in order for it to feel unique.

I personally like that magical abilities have proficiency checks and I think those proficiency checks would work well for non-magical abilities as well.  You may not have the same number of passable levels (perhaps 2+ and 5+ instead of 2+, 4+, 6+, 8+) and it would not utilize magical proficiencies but the mechanics should work just as well.  As to the name, you can always have abilities and spells, but having two different categories on a player sheet for magical and non-magical abilities seems unnecessary.

Unless you are thinking of passive abilities instead of active abilities, but even in that case the only difference would be not tying it to the "Spirit" stat since you are not actively using the ability.  I think I would still tie the ability to a proficiency check since it maintains the flavor of every ability (magical or non-magical) requiring knowledge in the skills required by that ability and you can improve your abilities by improving your character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, joeshmoe554 said:

I personally like that magical abilities have proficiency checks and I think those proficiency checks would work well for non-magical abilities as well.  You may not have the same number of passable levels (perhaps 2+ and 5+ instead of 2+, 4+, 6+, 8+) and it would not utilize magical proficiencies but the mechanics should work just as well.  As to the name, you can always have abilities and spells, but having two different categories on a player sheet for magical and non-magical abilities seems unnecessary.

To be honest the idea of adding more things to the character sheet is one of the reasons I've not talked about abilities much. The other, and the one that looms larger in my mind, is bloat. Even if you start out with relatively few abilities to begin with as time goes on people will add more and more abilities and the number of abilities will grow increasingly hard to keep track of and to balance against each other. In fact I'm worried about some abilities never being used simply due to being buried in a mountain of other, better options.

7 hours ago, joeshmoe554 said:

Unless you are thinking of passive abilities instead of active abilities, but even in that case the only difference would be not tying it to the "Spirit" stat since you are not actively using the ability.  I think I would still tie the ability to a proficiency check since it maintains the flavor of every ability (magical or non-magical) requiring knowledge in the skills required by that ability and you can improve your abilities by improving your character.

It's sort of hard to categorize my ideas for abilities because they're sort of all over the place, which is sort of why I would want them separate from spells. The thing is most of the ideas I've had are pretty bad and I'm not sure about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did have an idea or two. The first one is add agility to the "stat page" and this will tell you how many spaces you can move during a turn.  Maybe it would be a proficiency or it scales like one. 

The second idea is about long range weapons it is more of a slight adjustment, increase the range by one but their needs to be a space between "targets" so it will be like...  

the current way - OXXX 

the modified way - O_XXX 

So O is you, X is hit zone, the _ is empty space. I am thinking this way could add some strategy to the picking of weapons. Besides I wouldn't think if someone is "bear hugging" you shoot them with a rifle, you would take said rifle and "club" them with it. 

As for Melee Weapons I wonder increase the the hit ratio to a "5/6 a hit" but a "1/6 a miss". I would think this could give a good reason for someone to pick or use Melee Weapons. 

After looking back at the hit ratio on some of the stuff... I am thinking if "Melee Weapons" get adjusted, Short Range Weapons might also need a boost, for example a "5/6 a hit" but a "2/6 a miss" or 2/3 ratio (or 66%). 

I might adjust the hit ratio for artillery weapons and long range weapons to a 1/2 hit ratio (or 50%). 

On 2/13/2020 at 1:47 PM, Goliath said:

 

Not sure why or how this get quoted but it did. :drunk: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.