Long story short, I'm working on the item crafting mechanics for the system I'm working on.
Personally, I love the idea of item-crafting being a big part of the game. I like the idea of a member of an adventuring group being dedicated to item production - not just for purposes of outfitting the group, but also as the party's economic engine. I want to move away from the idea of parties finding immense hauls of treasure tucked away in ruins, and instead relying on their own members to generate money and equipment.
I find this aspect of the game important enough to warrant a "player model" for crafting. By that, I mean the idea that there is something the player can interact with in a tangible manner. For combat, you have the tactical grid; for explorer-types, you have the map; for social interaction, we have a graphical system that can show the players exactly what's going on. There's something visual for the players themselves to focus on, which is something I think is helpful.
Crafting, though, is more of a solo activity. Unless you have a bunch of crafters in the party working together on a project (which is a neat idea, but probably won't come up very often), the crafting character will be working on their projects, while the rest of the party does other things. It's no fun, IMO, to have your entire role reduced to "role some dice... yeah, okay, you do that, it takes X long. What's everyone else doing?" Instead I want to engage the player, in a manner that is representative of what's going on with the character.
So what I want to do is give the crafting character's player a puzzle to solve, which is a tangible representation of the item the character is making. The way the player solves the puzzle impacts the crafting of the item. It gives the player something to focus on while the rest of the group does other things - and also has the added benefit of at least distracting the crafting player's attention from what's going on, which is sensible to me, because the character is busy crafting.
Basically the idea is that, based on an initial roll and material quality (and perhaps quantity), the player is given a grid of some size (I'm thinking a default of 3 x 3). Material quality changes the properties of some of the slots on the grid - crappy materials make some slots on the grid crappy to use, or perhaps even unusable entirely, while high-quality materials make some slots better and makes enhancing the end item easier.
Modifications to the item - such as increasing damage, decreasing encumbrance, and such - are represented by blocks, similar to tetrominos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrominos), and are placed on the grid however the player sees fit. There are limits on how many and what kind of modifications the player can utilize (based on the character's knowledge and abilities and such).
Once the player is satisfied with the grid, another roll is made to actually craft the item, with the target number based on the material used and the item being crafted, as well as possibly modified by the modifications being introduced. If the roll is successful, the item is made; if unsuccessful, the player can accept various negative modifiers to the item, down to a certain point (not sure how to determine that limit, or how to avoid min-maxing, just yet), but still make the item. At some point of failure, though, the craft attempt just straight-out fails, consuming some portion of the resources that went into the attempt.
Does this sound like a reasonable idea? Does it sound at least interesting? Are there issues I'm not seeing?
It sounds like it could result in a loner character. Instead of "I'm being Wolverine!", it could be "I'm being Forge!"
If nothing else, though, it prevents that player from being a distraction, maybe? Channels the whole "I'm a loner" thing into something useful, perhaps.
I'm not really sure how long it would take to complete one of these puzzles, either. I mean, if you got really into it, it would probably take awhile (min-max which pieces to use and of what size to make optimal use of beneficial tiles, etc etc), but if you were just looking to make a relatively mundane item it would take maybe a minute or two of real-time.
If you could focus parties into shared element creation that might be interesting--where one guy forges the sword while another enchants it--at the same time.
I think a lot of games miss an opportunity to put more power in the pc's hands, by letting them take control over special item creation. D&D had it as part of the game which is a good thing--but made it mostly a wizard or priests affair. Mix it up.
Maybe a fine item must be used while enchanting (Swing that sword warrior) or perhaps they're awarded the forging skill.
I once played a Mage/Cleric kit in 2E AD&D that was all about item creation. He was rather buff half-elf since he needed strength for one skill or another.
Perhaps you can include aspects: Research (for each class or profession/skill set), element gathering (same), item development (same), and crafting (same.) If the PC's have to do something for an item for its full creation cycle you've gotten them involved. If they aren't needed for a step or too that's alright.
I'd prefer it be stuff a character wants or needs for long term rather than a one shot item for "now" unless its significant to further the campaign in the direction it was going. On the other hand any "barrier" to flow my cause PC's in a sandbox game to veer sharply to another direction. Requiring items seems more plot focused (forging a dragonlance to fight dragons..for example.)
Well, players may want to play a craft character, and not want to solve puzzles. I've played runesmith-type PCs before, and I'd fall into that category...but it depends on your players.
Whether this is actually necessary depends on your campaign, too. (And your game system). One set of PCs may be on the go continually, others can have an adventure every month with time in between, others its an adventure each year. If you're using the first model, you'll take the player out of action while the character is out of action: use yearly adventures and you may end up with the player trying to solve the puzzle as quickly as possible since the other players are stuck in downtime until he finishes.
I despise almost all item-creating rules. PCs should be getting items from the bloody corpses of their enemies, or buying them with the spoils stolen from the same, not spending hours fiddling with stupid calculations for how many +2 shields you can make so you can sell them to make more +2 shields, or shit like that. Worse still the guys who get an "artificer" of some kind so they can suddenly kit themselves and the entire party in a totally overpowered way.
The instant you allow a player to have his character MAKE an item that is worth anything in game mechanics terms, you are inviting for a system of abuse. Either you make the crafting mechanic so restrictive that nothing useful can ever be made (in which case, what's the point?) or you have just made a system by which players can all become walking tanks; and at the same time destroying the central reason for going adventuring in the first place.
RPGpundit
I don't see how making a mini-game out of crafting gets you anywhere closer to your goal of making fun for the whole group. I get your concept, I really do, but it doesn't sound like fun for a group or even most individuals.
If I wanted to implement a crafting system that involved all players and was easy resolve, I'd instead create a series of random "loot" tables of crafting items that the party could come together and combine at their leisure. If the party needed a specific item from that table, one could design an adventure from that. A game of Tetris doesn't make that any more fun to me.
Quote from: RPGPundit;387342I despise almost all item-creating rules.
Awww then you will moments like
MARCUS' POTION SHOP
WE SELL POTIONS CHEEP
on a beautiful wood cut sign. Proudly presented by Marcus' player.
Really happened in one of the games I GMed. The misspelling was not intentional.
Quote from: RPGPundit;387342I despise almost all item-creating rules. PCs should be getting items from the bloody corpses of their enemies, or buying them with the spoils stolen from the same, not spending hours fiddling with stupid calculations for how many +2 shields you can make so you can sell them to make more +2 shields, or shit like that. Worse still the guys who get an "artificer" of some kind so they can suddenly kit themselves and the entire party in a totally overpowered way.
You could have the "artificer" have to
go out and get rare ingredients to build or craft these items, like oh, I don't know, lifting off from the bloody corpses of their enemies.
Otherwise it is just boring.
To do this properly, the designer has the rather difficult mission of making this not boring.
Crafting arcane items of power is part of the fantasy genre.
In order to do this, the whole party must be involved, it must be difficult to achieve and the end result must be worth the effort. Above all else, it must be rare.
Quote from: RPGPundit;387342Worse still the guys who get an "artificer" of some kind so they can suddenly kit themselves and the entire party in a totally overpowered way.
The Artificiers of Eberron totally rocked. The could kind of hang out and do light melee combat duties, but really specialized in a new type of magic where they temporarily enchanced the abilities of the other players during melees or otherwise intense gaming moments. While they could totally buff up a Warforged construct to make it truly fearsome in battle, they had an almost equal number of infusions to support the other players as well.
Artificers were nor overpowering, for example, they couldn't stand toe-to-toe and slug it out with mages, sorcerers, and/or clerics, but they could definitely buff their party to withstand an npc party composed entirely of spellcasters.
Plus, with their crafting and infusion skills, they could emulate or replicate the effects of any spellcraft, and imbue devices especially rods, wands, and rings with infusions that would duplicate the effects of the spells, even if they didn't know the spell themselves.
Any character at all with any ranks in Use Magic Device would benefit from having the company of an Artificer.
They couldn't continuously "kit" their party out in this manner, but it was sure handy to have one around for a BBEG fight, or in a surprise situation when the party as a whole was outmatched or otherwise threatened by a temporarily superior foe.
Quote from: Silverlion;387219If you could focus parties into shared element creation that might be interesting--where one guy forges the sword while another enchants it--at the same time.
A normal crafter will not have the capability to make magic items; that'd be in the hands of a spellcaster. Either role could learn to do the other, but they're separate activities.
Certain materials, if used in the normal crafting process, might grant the end item "magical" properties, but it wouldn't be necessarily the same as if an actual caster gave the item such properties.
QuoteIf the PC's have to do something for an item for its full creation cycle you've gotten them involved. If they aren't needed for a step or too that's alright.
In general, to make an item, you have to find the materials. Most basic materials can be purchased, but "special" materials would have to be gathered, which would probably be the point of an adventure, which would presumably involve the whole group.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid JohnsonWell, players may want to play a craft character, and not want to solve puzzles. I've played runesmith-type PCs before, and I'd fall into that category...but it depends on your players.
I've toyed around with the idea of making the puzzle aspect optional, but I'm not sure how to balance the two.
QuoteWhether this is actually necessary depends on your campaign, too. (And your game system). One set of PCs may be on the go continually, others can have an adventure every month with time in between, others its an adventure each year.
If players take the time to let their crafter craft, they benefit from that; if they don't, then they don't, and have to deal with that. It's not necessarily absolutely necessary to let the crafter do their thing, but it is probably a good idea.
Quote from: RPGPunditPCs should be getting items from the bloody corpses of their enemies, or buying them with the spoils stolen from the same, not spending hours fiddling with stupid calculations for how many +2 shields you can make so you can sell them to make more +2 shields, or shit like that.
Taking loot from the fallen is always a good idea. I envision this actually being a primary source of materials for crafting, even: it's way easier to melt down those craptastic orc swords into iron to make better weaponry than to find and mine out iron ore yourself. But expecting most enemies you fight to have better or more useful equipment than you already have seems silly to me.
As for the shield problem... the system will hopefully have a solid enough economic system in place that you can't benefit that much from making and selling the same thing over and over again; eventually you flood the market.
QuoteThe instant you allow a player to have his character MAKE an item that is worth anything in game mechanics terms, you are inviting for a system of abuse.
That's a stupid generalization; it's system-dependent. If crafting is planned on and part of the game from the get-go, there is no reason to assume that it will break everything.
Quote...at the same time destroying the central reason for going adventuring in the first place.
Your one-dimensional approach to roleplaying games is fascinating.
QuoteI don't see how making a mini-game out of crafting gets you anywhere closer to your goal of making fun for the whole group. I get your concept, I really do, but it doesn't sound like fun for a group or even most individuals.
The puzzle thing doesn't make it more fun for the whole group; no matter how you slice it, when you get down to brass tacks, crafting is a solo activity.
The puzzle thing is more a way to get the player involved, to give them something to do that is more than just roll one set of dice and be done with it. If crafting is their thing, then it should be more involved than something that's done and over with in a few moments. It'd be like if combat was just one set of rolls, done in a few seconds - not very exciting, not very interesting, not worth investing your time in, as a player.
Quote from: DarranYou could have the "artificer" have to go out and get rare ingredients to build or craft these items, like oh, I don't know, lifting off from the bloody corpses of their enemies.
Yes! Exactly. Normal materials like iron and wood would most likely be available in most towns for purchase, but rarer and more-awesome stuff would have to be found and collected.
Quote from: One Horse TownIn order to do this, the whole party must be involved, it must be difficult to achieve and the end result must be worth the effort. Above all else, it must be rare.
Normal everyday crafting, like making iron swords and such, wouldn't necessarily be difficult or involved.
However, making ridiculous magic items most likely would be, and would require components that would have to be found from probably all over the place. Which would lead to the whole group being involved.
The problem FOR ME is one of permanence and pacing.
I can't stand when the game grinds to a halt for either repetitive dice rolls or for "we wait around 2 months for the XYZ to be made"; but I do like the concept of the questing for bits to make the magic doodad in the fires of Mount Evil.
Like the hacking mini-game in Shadowrun / Cyberpunk, I have not seen a method to involve the group while one player is crafting.
I would be cool with a "temporary buffer" crafting character.
Quote from: Spinachcat;387520I can't stand when the game grinds to a halt for either repetitive dice rolls or for "we wait around 2 months for the XYZ to be made"...
Part of the goal of the puzzle thing is to take out the repetitive dice-rolling and let the player figure out the nitty-gritty aspects of the crafting while freeing up the GM to deal with the other players.
As for the waiting-around-in-town part, I envision most adventuring parties having a wagon-train, complete with one wagon with the tools necessary for a crafter to do their job. I realize that carting around a full forge isn't necessarily realistic, but I like the visual and think it's neat enough to warrant making it a reasonable thing to do, and also helps get around the waiting game problem.
At the end of the day, fantasy RPGs are about killing monsters and looting their stuff. The only reason I would craft something is because I can't find it in Ye Olde Shoppe or the monster's loot.
So if crafting is important to the game, there must be a reason within the setting.
In my 4e campaign, there are no magic toys to be found, only "items of personal aura". AKA, Thor's hammer is badass because it belongs to Thor and does super stuff in his hands alone because the hammer is an extension of his god power.
My setting rationale is that all PCs are demi-gods, so instead of finding a +2 Sword, their own blade becomes magical as their god-energy increases (AKA, they gain levels). However, they can make their items more special (+2 Sword of Frost), they need residuum and the enchant item ritual. With the 4e math, its pretty easy to keep the crafting well balanced.
Thus, my PCs keep going on adventures to unleash their god-energy which if they could make it to 30th level, would allow them to ascend into the pantheon.
In my OD&D games, I would be hesitant about having PCs craft permanent items - unless it was one-shot quest stuff, like turning a +1 Sword into the
Death Bane of the Orc Lich which is only useful for killing said Orc Lich, but otherwise just being a +1 Sword the rest of the time.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;387539Part of the goal of the puzzle thing is to take out the repetitive dice-rolling and let the player figure out the nitty-gritty aspects of the crafting while freeing up the GM to deal with the other players.
I am having trouble visualizing this. Give us a blow-by-blow example of what decision points would exist and how the player would need to agonize over the balance of choices.
You may be onto something. If your mini-game puzzle idea is fun, it might be transferable to stuff like cyberhacking as well.