I suppose mechs could cannibalize fallen mechs of their enhancements to upgrade themselves or trade. Maybe there's also dodgy experimental enhancements that are intermittantly hazardous to the user.

Quote from: Sean !;547310I suppose mechs could cannibalize fallen mechs of their enhancements to upgrade themselves or trade. Maybe there's also dodgy experimental enhancements that are intermittantly hazardous to the user.

Excellent ideas.  It would essentially be a way to "kill them and take their stuff", but in a more personal sense.  I.e., instead of stealing their sword and using it, you steal their sword and implement it into your core being.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;547314Excellent ideas.  It would essentially be a way to "kill them and take their stuff", but in a more personal sense.  I.e., instead of stealing their sword and using it, you steal their sword and implement it into your core being.

Some mechs may do this for purely practical reasons (enhancement), some as a way of scalping/counting coup.

I suppose it would make you wary of doing overkill damage on another mech unless necessary - you wouldn't want to destroy possible booty. This could lead to more emphasis on sniping or ritual duels in mech vs mech (a contrast to mech vs monster). Also, a mech with major enhancements becomes a target for rival lesser mechs from other clans, so maybe some mechs prefer less showy displays of their tech.

This weeks focus: Attributes

Normally one of the first things I look at is attributes, but only from a very high level.  I typically only get a rough outline of what sorts of attributes I want int the game, but don't try to define them or assign a mechanic to them until I get a better grasp of the type of class/skill mechanic that I'm going with.

Early in the design process, I decided I wanted "core" (or common) attributes, as well as a hero/luck point metric.  I am really fond of a Stat Star mechanic I've used previously, and decided I will go with that here.

Basically a Stat Star consists of four core attributes.  In this case: strength, chassis, agility, and processing.  To the right of it are the accumulated hero points.

For example (excuse the poor quality, it's just for visual reference)



So what does all that mean?  For each core attribute, there are 5 levels, and a total of 15 bubbles.  The first level only has one bubble, the second level has 2 bubbles, etc.  Hero points go up to 10.

How do you get attribute points?
At character generation, you get a certain number to start with, say 6 points in which you can use to fill in bubbles.  You start at the center and work your way out.  As you are adventuring, you may be awarded attribute points (AP) to either increase an attribute, or to increase your hero points.

Why levels and individual bubbles?
Certain skills and abilities will go up with each bubble filled in, and other abilities and skills are based upon completed levels filled in.

What are they?

Strength: additional melee damage and carrying capacity
Chassis: additional hp (goes up per bubble) and damage absorption (goes up by level)
Agility: Affects a lot of skills and evasion rating
Processing: Needed for magic use.  Impacts several skills.  Determines how many additional enhancements (see above posts) you can have.
Hero Points: by permanently spending a Hero Point, you can avoid an action that would result in your death, or choose to automatically hit and do max damage for one attack, or choose to avoid any one attack, or choose to automatically succeed in any skill check.  Once a hero point is used, its slot is used as well.  I.e., you can never have more than 10 total hero points ever for the life of the character.

There's the general idea anyway.  I haven't decided if AP should be awarded based on GM fiat, a set amount every level, or a random amount every level.

In the example above, the character has 0 points attributed to hero points, 1 towards Str (making it level 1 since that row is complete), 2 towards Chassis (level 1 since level 2 isn't complete yet), 1 towards agility (level 1), and 3 towards Processing (level 2 since all of level two's row is complete)

I have one more thing I'd like to add that I'm sort of at a stopping point on:

How special are 1st level characters?  When doing design, and coming up with concepts and ideas, often I can get carried away with too many things that sound like they'd be cool ideas, and what happens is that even a 1st level character has a half dozen unique abilities or skills.

So I'd open this up for discussion.  My gut feeling is, "No, 1st level characters shouldn't have a bunch of unique powers and skills.  Let them earn it.  Keep character creation easy, fast, and basic."

But I am open to ideas on this one.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;548186Keep character creation easy, fast, and basic.

This. If you define the starting mechs too much, it's harder for the players to refine them the way they want.

Core Combat Phase

This is probably the hardest phase of the design process for me.  This is the phase where I usually end up with pages and pages of rules for all kinds of scenarios, only to end up throwing most of them out in playtesting because they slow the game up too much

This is also one of the most important phases, because this is where players will spend the most time applying rules to their game play.

Based on all of the above, here's what I have so far:

* % based resolution
* hit points (since the core dice concept supports this)

So the question becomes, "How to build a system around those?"

For me, what I do is try to identify the scope from a more macro perspective.  I rate priorities.  It isn't realistic to try to accomplish too many primary goals, otherwise you'll have a muddle of mediocrity.  Not to mention that some can conflict with others.  For this game, here is how I would rate my priorities:

1. Intuitive.  
2. Unified resolution mechanic (in this case, %)
3. Combat flow.  Keep it moving.
4. Maneuvers (plenty of options to do lots of different things)
5. Risky
6. "Realistic"
7. Tactical
8. Equality (everyone is equally powerful in all aspects)

I would like to point out that none of the above is universally better than another, but for this particular game, they need to be rated so I know which to place focus on.  By looking at the above, it seems like the top 3 priorities all point towards a more rules-lite system.  #4, #6, and #7 all point towards a more rules-heavy system.  Obviously, based on priorities, the core mechanic will be more towards rules lite. My initial thought is to start the game rules-lite, and implement the more detailed rules as the characters progress in levels.

What does that look like?  The starting core rules will only have very basic rules for flanking and line of sight, and might not have any rules for weapon reach, etc.  No rules for grid combat will be in place.  The game must be able to be played without minis to achieve priorities 1-3.  As characters level, more detailed rules might be implemented.  These more tactical rules would be tied to character progression, so they would be introduced to the players in a slow and steady pace rather than needing to learn them all from the get go.

The immediate question is, "Some of the more tactical rules should apply regardless of character level, so how do you incorporate those at low levels when you want a rules-lite system?"

The answer to that, at least initially, is two-fold:
1. Characters will gain skills/powers as they level up that impact a more rules-detailed system.  E.g., a juggernaut might gain a skill that allows him to strike all enemies within a 5' radius.  It's a skill that you can still play without a grid, but brings in a more tactical element or combatant positioning.  Another example is weapon reach.  Perhaps a soldier learns a skill that gives him a threat range and allows a free attack on any opponent that comes within 5' of that character if that character hasn't moved that turn.

2. Optional rules.  This is something I've done before.  In a side bar, clearly marked, are optional rules.  These are rules or guidelines to cover things like charging, flanking, cover&concealment, etc that you can use if you want to, but not have to.  They would not be part of the core mechanic, so the individual gaming group can implement a game flow that feels best for them.

There is a lot of thought around this phase, but that's pretty much the overview.

OK, time for a polling question for something so simple, yet hugely impactfull.  

Initiative.

With a rules lite approach, I'm leaning towards group initiative.  Individual modifiers (for weapon types, etc) are completely optional.

However, I can see why some people prefer individual initiative, and actually that's the way I've typically designed my games.

I do like that cover.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;551030I do like that cover.

Thank you!  Good to hear.  I've actually made some changes to it based on feedback (increased saturation, made the logo easier to read)

As what happens often in my design process, I'm going back to revisit a certain part of the game.  Mostly this happens as I have a new idea, or I get feedback from various discussions out there.

So this week, I have been going back to revisit how I envision the various classes/skill bundle trees, and how they work.  More specifically, to identify a clear role.

I've already determined that I want a class based system, and within each class, various skill trees that the character can progress on.  I think this is the best way to handle customization, while at the same time making each class fill a certain role.  One of the questions is, "how do I avoid the whole fighter/MU drama bullshit?"  I.e., how to I allow player who prefers a more mundane character (and keep them mundane) feasible without giving the casters too much power.

So this is where I'm at.  I haven't nailed anything down, and I'm completely open to suggestions.  But this is my personal design philosophy: Mundane characters need to largely stay mundane.  Mystical characters stay mystical.  I.e., no superpowers for fighters, so-to-speak.  Here's how I define mundane vs mystical:

Mundane: if you know how to do something, and have the physical tools/ability to so and the scenario presents itself, you can attempt it.  No dailies, no per encounters, none of that stuff.

Mystical: Since the power is drawn from a magical source, that source can be limited in any way that fits the game theme.  A character might have the knowledge and skill to conjure up a ball of fire, but unlike a mundane skill, doesn't have the magical energies available to do so all day long.

There are two primary fighter types in the game: Juggernaut and Soldier.  Again, I'm open to suggestions, but here's how I envision them having mundane skill trees while still having plenty of options and relevance:

Juggernaut: the tank.  He has two primary skill trees: damage and damage absorption.  Skills like Juggernaut's hammer, sweeping attack, backswing, rage, and battering ram all impact the juggernaut's ability to cause damage.  It might be damage bonuses, extra attacks, etc.  Whereas the other side of the tree has skills like Brick wall, Immovability, Damage Sponge, and Meat Shield all either increase resistance checks, damage absorption, or hit points.

Soldier: the battle leader (Patton, Alexander the Great, Leonidas, Joan of Arc, etc).  He's the guy who is skilled in tactics, all weapons&armor, and leadership.  Skills like Focused Strike and Coup de Grace make him deadly with weapons.  Armor proficiency makes him better at utilizing armor than most.  Skills like Defender and Sacrifice allow him to take hits that would otherwise strike an ally.  Skills like Rally Cry, Inspire, and Heroic Motivation all increase the combat abilities of allies around him.

So that's where I'm at as far as trying to keep these skills mundane in nature while at the same time seem interesting to play.

Ideas?

Time for another update.  This one around Clan/Theme combinations.  Attached is the concept art that I have for each combination of:

Clan:
Aldruin, Urklander, Inyoni, Industrial Workers Federation, Catori, and Imperial Lotus

Theme:
Juggernaut, Soldier, Archer, Infiltrator, Shaman, Mage, Treasure Hunter, and Arcane Warrior

Because I'm not going the traditional route of an RPG (everyone knows what a dwarf looks like, so there's no need to have a depiction of every type of dwarf class), I feel it's important to have this visualization within the game.  Thoughts?  The images are much larger, but for space here I have them fairly small

Quote from: Sacrosanct;548127For example (excuse the poor quality, it's just for visual reference)



So what does all that mean?  For each core attribute, there are 5 levels, and a total of 15 bubbles.  The first level only has one bubble, the second level has 2 bubbles, etc.  Hero points go up to 10.

Interesting piccy. I almost never use proper character sheets which would make it a bit painful for me, but I'd admit its pretty (and does the diminishing returns thing). Only 2c would be that until I read the notes properly, I wasn't sure if the 'level' would be based on rows started or rows completed.
Would you start with 1 dot in all of these then distribute extra? Or is it possible to have a level-0 attribute?

QuoteHero Points: by permanently spending a Hero Point, you can avoid an action that would result in your death, or choose to automatically hit and do max damage for one attack, or choose to avoid any one attack, or choose to automatically succeed in any skill check.  Once a hero point is used, its slot is used as well.  I.e., you can never have more than 10 total hero points ever for the life of the character.

I never really got why you'd want to have hero points be spent and then be permanently gone, instead of say recovering each adventure or each session? I'm not saying its bad, mind you, but I am curious as to why you'd do it that way. Trying to give an advantage to starting characters to compensate them for not having XP ? Wanting older characters to eventually retire (because the next bad roll will be their last)?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;559408Interesting piccy. I almost never use proper character sheets which would make it a bit painful for me, but I'd admit its pretty (and does the diminishing returns thing).

As an alternative, you could just write your total value and level.  For example: Strength 5/2, which means you would have a total of 5 points and 2 levels completed.

QuoteOnly 2c would be that until I read the notes properly, I wasn't sure if the 'level' would be based on rows started or rows completed.
Would you start with 1 dot in all of these then distribute extra? Or is it possible to have a level-0 attribute?

As of now, characters have 6 starting points.  Each of the four core attributes having 1, and 2 left over for choice.

QuoteI never really got why you'd want to have hero points be spent and then be permanently gone, instead of say recovering each adventure or each session? I'm not saying its bad, mind you, but I am curious as to why you'd do it that way. Trying to give an advantage to starting characters to compensate them for not having XP ? Wanting older characters to eventually retire (because the next bad roll will be their last)?

The way they work, is that as you get points to spend, you don't have to spend them all on increasing attributes, but can spend some on hero points.  But you can never go more than 10 total in the character's career.  This has a dual purpose as well, because some challenges would require you to make a "hero" check.  I.e., roll a d10 and get your hero point total or less to succeed.  It adds another element to strategy, and sends the message that you really shouldn't spend your hero points unless you absolutely have to.

Part II for today.  This is more on layout design than anything else.  Pay no attention to the actual text, because that's not proofread or permanent.  But as a "rough" idea, what do you think of these layouts for the clan (race) and theme (class)?  OH, I totally forgot that on the dark stripe on each page, there will be text that says what section of the book you're in.