Looking for inspiration

Darth Tagnan said:

I registered my company

I dug up my old Crux RPG system - and I will be adapting it for this game. I designed the system to be adaptable to sci-fi from the beginning, so it doesn't take a lot of work.

I've started a mock-up character generator - and I'm struggling with keeping it to strict functionality.

But, I'm slowly getting into the zone. I need to be there when I quit my job - or else I won't be comfortable living without the security of a regular paycheck.

Click to expand...

Why don't you keep your job and make your game in your spare time?

What is the Crux RPG system?

You have a character generator in a card game?

Is it a Slay the Spire clone? Multiplayer? collectable or all cards available?

As for my game, there's a major decision I'm struggling with a little.

It's about the combat system.

Now, personally - I prefer games with as few abstractions as possible. In fact, I tend to hate them - which is why I can't enjoy otherwise fantastic games like, say, Europa Universalis.

But, I'm subject to my own limitations here - and I'm going to be doing everything by myself.

That means I must make SOME compromises to get this to a manageable state.

Ideally, I would have wanted an isometric tile-based engine - sort of like Shadowrun.

Now, I can still do that - but I don't know how much work it would be - or if it would be truly worth it. Having this feature could easily double my work load in terms of art assets and stuff like pathfinding and AI behavior.

I'm considering a playfield more akin to board game. Imagine if Shadowrun, Wasteland 2 or Battletech took place on a gameboard resembling, say, the Gwent gameboard. Not the best example - but it's the only one I can think of right now.

As in, everything would be abstracted - and there would be a number of "playfields" representing range. Let's say 5-10 areas - with the outermost areas representing "distant range - and the innermost representing "close range".

Characters would be represented by cards - and things like cover would also have to be abstracted with some kind of visual representation.

I don't know if you can imagine this kind of tactical combat on such a board - but do you think it might be "good enough" for such a game?

Of course, I will ultimately just do what feels right - based on my own vision - but I'm keen to hear your thoughts.

SirJames said:

Why don't you keep your job and make your game in your spare time?

Click to expand...

I think I explained that in my first posts?

I feel dead inside when working and I've been here for 10 years, and my job takes too much of my mental energy - and it represents too strong an excuse for not getting things done.

What is the Crux RPG system?

Click to expand...

That would take a very long time to explain. But the gist of the system is two fold:

1. It's an RPG system that's partially based on my perception of how human beings are formed in terms of talents and capacities.

2. It's an RPG system that's intended to provide interesting choices for every single step of progression.

It's very much my own thing - but obviously it draws inspiration from my experience with RPG systems.

If it resembles anything, it's probably mostly systems like SPECIAL mixed with a bit of D&D.

The primary design philosophy is that every single choice should carry weight - and be an entertaining process in itself.

The intention is that every time you assign a point to a skill, buy a feat - or focus on a passive - it should be felt in the actual game.

If I pull it off, no level should ever feel like "just one more level" - but something you're actively excited about.

That, to me, is the core of meaningful progression - and I've always wanted to make a system that supported such a paradigm.

You have a character generator in a card game?

Click to expand...

It's more like a CRPG with cards representing most of the stuff in the game. Think Shadowrun with cards instead of isometric models.

Is it a Slay the Spire clone? Multiplayer? collectable or all cards available?

Click to expand...

It's not a clone of any particular game that I'm aware of. But it draws inspiration, heavily, from a variety of games. It's most likely going to be focused on tactical combat - but the intention is to have it be more akin to Battletech and the old Jagged Alliance 2/X-Com games.

It's not going to be a "mainstream" indie - but more of a game intended for the core audience.

So, sort of like Knights of the Chalice 2 with a sci-fi theme?

I don't quite understand the combat you describe with the playfields being distance and all that. Why not have distance be in pixels? I'm not quite sure what you mean by abstraction? Is that sort of like where combat will open a new window away from the main play area?

SirJames said:

So, sort of like Knights of the Chalice 2 with a sci-fi theme?

Click to expand...

I haven't played it - but from my understand KotC is pure combat? My game will have elements of exploration and social interactions - but they will not take center stage.

I don't quite understand the combat you describe with the playfields being distance and all that. Why not have distance be in pixels? I'm not quite sure what you mean by abstraction? Is that sort of like where combat will open a new window away from the main play area?

Click to expand...

Distance in pixels would require a non-abstracted engine or playfield. Meaning, I would have to actually create a ton of tiles, attractive isometric art - and I would have to code pathfinding and AI behavior on another level.

Now, I have confidence that I can do those things, except for the art part - but it would be a LOT more work.

Abstraction, in this context, means that the player will have to use more of his imagination. Like, say, if you're playing Magic the Gathering - and you have two creatures figthing - there's no actual playfield or area to move around in. You just have to imagine them fighting - and if they're melee, then you imagine them being close to each other - but if it's an archer/mage doing ranged damage - you have to imagine the distance.

So, my "boardgame" approach would be sort of like that - only with a little more detail in the form of "distance" areas - like I explained.

Like:

https://www.google.dk/search?q=gwen...UICigB&biw=1920&bih=947#imgrc=FwQErXLSWRs5YM:

Gwent is very primitive, but it should demonstrate the "range" areas.

Hmmm, this summer in Serbia is one of the cooler ones in years. It's still around 30C, but last few summers it was closer to 40C. Last summer in particular was unbearable to me. We also get more rain than I can remember we've got in past summers.

Nah, KotC is a proper RPG. It has a world map with locations to visit. Uses that free D&D OGL or whatever it is. Real close to 3E D&D. The only down side was just 3 classes, but KotC2 is going all out with classes we've never played.

I never played Gwent, but I think I get it. It's kind of like MajorMUD, the text mmorpg, where you'd follow someone then type frontrank, midrank or backrank then you'd imagine how the party is standing but the server prioritises monsters attacking at the front rank first so that's where your armoured party members go, while the priests and mages go BR.

SirJames said:

Nah, KotC is a proper RPG. It has a world map with locations to visit. Uses that free D&D OGL or whatever it is. Real close to 3E D&D. The only down side was just 3 classes, but KotC2 is going all out with classes we've never played.

Click to expand...

Ok, didn't know that. Interesting

I never played Gwent, but I think I get it. It's kind of like MajorMUD, the text mmorpg, where you'd follow someone then type frontrank, midrank or backrank then you'd imagine how the party is standing but the server prioritises monsters attacking at the front rank first so that's where your armoured party members go, while the priests and mages go BR.

Click to expand...

Yeah, a little like that

So, how do you figure you'll do exploration? That's all graphics, isn't it?

Are the social aspects NPCs or real players?

SirJames said:

So, how do you figure you'll do exploration? That's all graphics, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Exploration will be relatively simplistic. You will enter a room, which will likely be represented by a background image - and some flavor text. Then there might be a terminal - which you could hack and gain some sort of advantage, either in the form of secret information, a money deposit, or just a random flavor e-mail. There will likely be locked safes that you can open with enough skill or the relevant feat. Most of it will be abstracted using 2D images and some text bits.

Like:

(Image of a darkened room)

"You enter a small room with no visible movement. The only light source is a desk lamp in the corner. Next to the desk, you spot a safe."

You will then have options like:

1. Search the room.
2. Try to open the safe.
3. Move on.

Something like that - but obviously it's something I will expand when making the game.

Are the social aspects NPCs or real players?

Click to expand...

No real players. I doubt I can figure out how to do proper multiplayer. I do plan on having cooperative hotseat multiplayer - with each player taking the role of a party member.

Most of the social aspects will take place in the city - where social skills will mean better contracts, more information and better prices. Stuff like that.

I do plan on having ways to avoid combat by smooth talking or intimidating people. It's a pretty big part of the Crux system - so I want to implement that sort of thing.

But I don't imagine I will be implementing a real "dialogue" system with multiple dialogue paths. Most will be relatively simplistic with some flavor text - like you would get from a dungeon master at the point of entering a conversation - and then straight to ability usage.

Everything will be strictly turn-based IGOUGO like in a board-game.

Sounds more like a text adventure? Bit like the random events from FTL, Thea, or something?

Does the game really need combat?

Maybe combat could just be done in "key" form where you win the fight if you find the right item, such as a gun?

Thing is, we're getting close to RNG territory. Do you want everything to be luck based or 100% skill and tactics? Exploration, finding things, should effect combat?

I think there's some things to learn from Age of Decadence. For example, the SPECIAL system sucks because who wants to waste points in CHA? AoD had combat and social ability scores separate, which was a great idea, but the combat ended up being frustrating because the difficulty was all RNG. % chance to miss? How many reloads to get lucky? You really wanna avoid this situation. Any save scumming, too.

I mean, why even have ranks? There's millions of ways for the AI to decide who to attack first. Most of the time you'll stick to the obvious positions, anyway. You'll never want your mage in cloth at the frontrank. It's sort of a square peg in a square hole only thing.

Maybe I need to play more Gwent? How much Gwent have you played?

SirJames said:

Sounds more like a text adventure? Bit like the random events from FTL, Thea, or something?

Click to expand...

Some aspects of it will feel a little similar to that.

Does the game really need combat?

Click to expand...

Yes - that's the only really interesting thing about it

Well, not really - the interesting part will be the RPG system, loot and progression - but without combat it's going to be hard to make the fun parts tangible.

Thing is, we're getting close to RNG territory. Do you want everything to be luck based or 100% skill and tactics? Exploration, finding things, should effect combat?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion with no knowledge of my RPG system.

I don't like luck-based games, and the only RNG aspects I put in my game will be to ensure it's not entirely predictable and to retain a proper sense of progression.

That said, a fully predictable system is even more boring than a luck-based system.

My game will be more like Battletech than modern X-Com - in that way. In that, both have random numbers as the core determining factor (like any interesting TB system) - but one is much smarter in terms of the aggregate weight of random rolls where individual unexpected outcomes don't ruin entire games. The modern X-Coms are terrible in terms of the RNG factor and how much a single miss can ruin the whole thing.

I think there's some things to learn from Age of Decadence. For example, the SPECIAL system sucks because who wants to waste points in CHA? AoD had combat and social ability scores separate, which was a great idea, but the combat ended up being frustrating because the difficulty was all RNG. % chance to miss? How many reloads to get lucky? You really wanna avoid this situation. Any save scumming, too.

Click to expand...

That's interesting, but I'm supremely confident in my ability to create a compelling RPG system. Well, a system that would appeal to me and players like me.

Also, I mentioned SPECIAL as a way to convey a similarity. That's mostly how it deals with stats and skills - but my system is somewhat more elaborate.

I don't mind feedback - but that will have to wait until people are exposed to my system.

I have no use for "advice" based on this particular aspect of the game, because that's one area where I have absolutely no doubt in my own abilities.

Maybe I need to play more Gwent? How much Gwent have you played?

Click to expand...

Gwent has almost nothing to do with my game. I used it as an example of a similar way of abstracting playfields. That's about it - except that Gwent is also using cards.

I've played quite a lot of it, and it's a nice little diversion - but nothing like my game in most ways.

Darth Tagnan said:

Well, not really - the interesting part will be the RPG system, loot and progression - but without combat it's going to be hard to make the fun parts tangible.

Click to expand...

Progression will be the main challenge. When you get to the point where you just scale up the numbers. Double the health, 1.8 times the damage so it slowly gets harder? Or more damage than health scaling so the game starts hard and ends easy?

Darth Tagnan said:

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion with no knowledge of my RPG system.

Click to expand...

I've played many, many RPG systems. I've designed my own. It's not like you invented simple mathmatics.

You know, one of the reason I think Ds2 is the best RPG ever made is because every step of the way I can see the solutions to all these RPG problems with no "wrong" answers. They really made an amazing effort at being unique while also staying hardcore RPGs. A fresh system!

I'm sure whatever you're doing I've seen before.

Darth Tagnan said:

I don't mind feedback - but that will have to wait until people are exposed to my system.

I have no use for "advice" based on this particular aspect of the game, because that's one area where I have absolutely no doubt in my own abilities.

Click to expand...

You seem to be getting annoyed? What sort of inspiration were you looking for, exactly? Why did you start this thread before it's possible for one to be exposed to your system if that's a requirement for discussion?

Are you sure this isn't a procrastination thread?

Surprise, SirJames had his ego take over once again. That was quite the chest-beating.

I was looking for feedback about a very specific feature - and I was perfectly clear about it. You asked about my system, and I answered - and you went into SirJames is the bestest smartest person alive mode.

Anyway, thank you for your contribution

Nah, man. I said something challenging and YOU went into dart is the bestest, smartest person alive mode.

Chest-beating? What did I say?

Discussion about progression. Specifically scaling issues prevalent in RPGS. Which way will you lean? Have you thought about this?

Just the fact I knew SPECIAL was from Fallout should be proof enough I'm the real deal. You're talking to a gamer here who clocked Pool of Radiance 2 years after he learned to read. Chest-beating or references, it all depends on your perception. If I knew nothing about RPGs I'd say nothing, but I know much. You know I do.

And the final point is you seem to be getting annoyed. Something triggered you, as always, because your ego is so fragile. Oh, sorry, did that trigger you again? Course it did.

You should be grateful I'm posting in this thread. I wasn't going to. You don't deserve my wisdom because you don't respect it.

You say stupid shit like "what you call bosses I call a developer ruining your perfect plan because its the only way he can think of to waste your time"

You think you can make a game when you think like that? What do you call difficulty?! What sort of challenge ISN'T the developer trying to waste your time?

And you have absolutely no doubt in your ability? It's a perfect system you can't find anything wrong with? What do you think I could find wrong with it and how much would that annoy you? How much would you refuse to learn from the criticism? You should be more open to doubt because, as I said with DOS2, there's no "wrong" answers to RPG system solutions. Only various trade-offs.

But I am grateful. I even said thank you

As for egos, we both have them - that's obvious. The difference is that I'm secure in my ego - and you're not secure in yours.

That's cool, though. Most people aren't secure in their egos. It's a natural part of being human. I'm just lucky in that way - but not in many other ways.

I don't need to push my opinions and I understand that what I, personally, enjoy isn't necessarily what other people will or should enjoy. That's part of being secure in your own ego.

As I said, I'm open to feedback - but I don't need feedback from people who don't know my system - and it's far from finalised, so any feedback would be useless until I'm ready to show the details.

Also, it's supremely evident to me that you enjoy very different kinds of games - and that you think there's a "right" way to design systems.

That's not how I think. I think my way of designing a system is right for me - and people like me. That's all it needs to be.

But, as I said, I'm supremely confident in my ability to create a compelling system.

That doesn't mean nothing is "wrong" with it - or that improvements can't be made. But for any criticism to be useful to me, it needs to be informed - and you're not informed.

The very fact that you assume you're informed - based on having zero information - tells me your ego is driving your statements. It tells me that your primary objective is about yourself and your opinions - not to actually contribute.

As such, you're useless to me, I'm sorry to say.

But I certainly appreciate your effort - even if I doubt you really want to help here.

I just said twice I think there's no "wrong" answers, only various trade-offs.

What's the "right" way you think I'm thinking of?

Why do you think your system is so mysterious to me? SPECIAL, D20? Inform me!

We could play 20 questions until I understand?

Does the system have a chance to miss?

Are all rolls made from 1 to x, like a die roll? Does it use the tabletop dice only?

Does the system have damage ranges?

Does the system have armour? Magic Armour? Resistances?

Hitpoints? Damage reduction? Facing? Flanking? Magic?

PS. What's the secure ego thing mean? I don't follow you.

@SirJames;

I'm afraid that exchange isn't interesting enough for me to bother. Certainly, not in this thread.

My system is rather extensive and it would be exhausting to go into detail - and utterly pointless when it's just to satiate your hunger for ego-food.

When my system is ready to be demonstrated, I'm curious to hear your opinions. The Watch is full of people with decades of experience when it comes to RPG systems, and all comments will be considered valuable.

Even from ego-maniacs who think they're extra special and use their ultra-insecure competitive drive to seek flaws in everything they didn't, personally, create or enjoy.

We've all had many years to establish preferences and particulars that we enjoy. As such, any feedback is interesting.

That said, I'm likely to listen more closely to balanced feedback - and feedback from people who're demonstrating an actual interest in what I'm doing - and who will make the effort to understand the system BEFORE commenting on it.

I find there are several people on the Watch who're relatively close to myself when it comes to personal preferences. Too many to mention, but people like Maylander, JDR, Kordanor and several others seem to share much of the love I have of certain approaches.

So, there it is.

Darth Tagnan said:

@SirJames;

I'm afraid that exchange isn't interesting enough for me to bother. Certainly, not in this thread.

Click to expand...

How odd since it's about your game.

Darth Tagnan said:

My system is rather extensive and it would be exhausting to go into detail - and utterly pointless when it's just to satiate your hunger for ego-food.

Click to expand...

Maybe, if you're so afraid I'll tear it to pieces, discussion would be better before production than when it's too late?

Darth Tagnan said:

When my system is ready to be demonstrated, I'm curious to hear your opinions. The Watch is full of people with decades of experience when it comes to RPG systems, and all comments will be considered valuable.

Click to expand...

Well, hurry up! I want to play.

Darth Tagnan said:

Even from ego-maniacs who think they're extra special and use their ultra-insecure competitive drive to seek flaws in everything they didn't, personally, create or enjoy.

Click to expand...

I want you to read everything to say to me and pretend you were saying it to yourself. I swear you're projecting. It could be great therapy for you.

Darth Tagnan said:

That said, I'm likely to listen more closely to balanced feedback - and feedback from people who're demonstrating an actual interest in what I'm doing - and who will make the effort to understand the system BEFORE commenting on it.

Click to expand...

I thought I was making the effort. I asked lots of questions. Honestly, you don't seem interested in discussing game design at all. I don't think you're going to make this game.

Darth Tagnan said:

I find there are several people on the Watch who're relatively close to myself when it comes to personal preferences. Too many to mention, but people like Maylander, JDR, Kordanor and several others seem to share much of the love I have of certain approaches.

So, there it is.

Click to expand...

Approaches?! You're not going to talk about game design, are you? What approaches? Sorry, was that a boring question you won't answer, too?

@SirJames;

You can always follow this thread in the future and, as I said, I'll be interested in your feedback on specifics.

I'm not particularly engaged with your competition approach. That's not really how I prefer to communicate - and, trust me, it doesn't suit you to "lose" your own imaginary contests over and over again.

But I sympathise. I can be a very, very unpleasant person to communicate with if you have a frail ego.

If you really want to discuss game design in general - then you can make an appropriate thread for that topic, and I'll exchange a little with you. Probably not a lot, because I don't find your method of communication very interesting or productive. You seem a little limited and overly aggressive for my tastes.

As for this thread, it was more about being inspired and your online persona is not a great fit for that purpose.

But, again, thank you for your contribution.