Chronicles - Tabletop Roleplaying - Development Thread
Daniel36:
Yeah I shouldn't focus on "new" players, but I am still keeping the focus on simplicity (which is a different thing, really...)
The reason there I went for 5+ 6+ 8+ 10+ 11+ is that 8 in this sense is the middle (not 50% btw), and the first jump is two, the next jump adds another (either to easier or harder), really for sake of simplicity. Aside from that, this opens up the way for items that can boost another 1+.
I will need to make sure everyone knows that the basic actions are there for "cinematic" moments (for lack of a better term). You are right about running / sprinting. I will change the name. You are also right about the react action... I hadn't thought about that.
I am glad to hear about your experiences. The game is mostly going to be focused on the skirmish aspect, which is also apparent in the rulesets. The "RPG" aspect is basically those cinematic moments where the basic actions may come into play. I chose to omit conversational skillsets altogether, further walking away from the RPG aspect. I guess what I want is a skirmish game where people CAN use the battles to tell a story, but one that isn't focused on how the story goes from A to B, but rather how the story goes from battle to battle. A bit like how Final Fantasy Tactics worked, I suppose... Thanks for the heads-up though, I am sure it will affect the continuation of the project.
I deliberatly stay away from any setting. I personally hate it because it limits me when someone else wrote out everything for me. So I decided that this is left for the GM and the players. They are perfectly capable of coming up with stuff themselves...
I need to re-write the core book to accommodate the changes and I am nearly done with the first basic classes and careers, so I will post those as soon as possible. Again, thanks for the feedback.
bosky:
That makes more sense, and I 100% agree that simplicity is critical for skirmish games. You don't exactly want to be bogged down with unnecessary details when dealing with a dozen figures on the table. I'm a big fan of streamlining and rules lightness in that regard, which is kind of funny because I used to like the most detailed and complex games I could find.
It's a bit hard to visualize how the X+ will be tracked, but I'm sure you have a good system figured out for keeping it clear on what needs to be rolled. Also another option (aside for scaling die types) would be a different die type in the first place compared to 2D6. I'm a fan of the D12 myself, but again that's project bias because I use it in my game :)
Definitely fun to link standalone games together into a story, as it really gives depth and meaning to each character and the conflicts they have. That was (and is) one of the biggest draws of Necromunda and Mordheim I think, let alone some of the more modern skirmish games.
Like I said I'm looking forward to a posted doc and to see how the project develops. But even if you have something rough I'd post it up as I think that helps feedback a lot and puts everyone more or less on the same page.
Daniel36:
If you ask me, simplicity is best in any game, be they skirmish or RPG. But I suppose that too is a matter of taste.
I actually have the "Core Rules" document in my first post, but as you can imagine several things are outdated by now. But you can see how X+ will be tracked from there. It is actually quite easy. Which race you choose defines what an adventurer needs to roll to succeed. A Dwarf isn't very good at jumping, so he might need an 11+. an Elf isn't very good at lockpicking, but jumping isn't too hard for them. Humans just have 8+ (will change that back to 7 if I go for D12) for everything, but as a free Perk they may level up one... Aye, I couldn't get myself to steer away from D&D completely there... But anyways, it's quite negeralized. With the Perk and Handicap system, you can change these, so you could in theory build a Dwarf that is an excellent jumper, a "rogue" Elf, etcetera.
Perhaps I should indeed think about this game as a sort of Mordheim/Necro (and Warhammer Quest, my original inspiration) when dealing with the roleplaying bit. It really is up to the GM and players how they go about... If you ask me, roleplaying doesn't, in essence, need rules, so you can throw it in if you want. Thanks for the thoughts. My first draft was centered around an "Adventurer's Guild" idea, handing out missions (think Warhammer Quest). Perhaps I should return to that idea...
Perhaps you are right... Maybe I should just use D12 for the to hit phases and the actions. I am starting to like the notion more and more... The chance of rolling a 7 is the same as rolling a 2, which is not the case with 2D6. I learned that lesson when I playtested. My mates almost never failed a roll... But I won't go any further than D6 and D12... None of the other dice...
Thanks a lot for the thoughts and interest. Helps me to continue!!
bosky:
Yeah it certainly makes learning and playing a lot faster. I think the only genre I still like complex is games involving spaceships...they just seem to flow better if you really feel like a technical engineer playing the game, haha.
I had just skimmed the doc originally but I took a second look. I can see some of the Warhammer Quest inspiration in the Event Phase, since that's kind of similar to it's predecessor Advanced Heroquest. And yeah trying to make rules for roleplaying can be tough, although providing the framework (in the sense of resolving skill checks or the like) can help when the GM/players need it. Personally I think a lot of the flavor just develops from the personalities and events involved, and can turn a boring 1vs1 fight into an epic conflict with lots of history behind it.
I really like the idea of Skill Points, they kind of remind me of "Heroic Effort" or "Fate Points" seen in other games. Having to balance saving SP and using it at key moments is always fun and tense and helps add a cinematic feel so that Adventurers don't awkwardly fail at basic tasks because they rolled poorly.
I think the Fighting Skill has changed a bit so I'm not sure if it still uses the chart? The idea of 3 values is kind of interesting though and reminds me of the Weapon Skill vs Weapon Skill chart from GW games.
Anyways I'll be interested to see if you keep with D6s or go with D12s and how you continue to evolve the game.
Daniel36:
Yeah... The Event Phase... I actually just deleted that segment from the core book an hour ago...
I am actually thinking of returning to creating loose documents for "missions" or "quests" which might have Event Phases, but since it's going to depend on the scenario, I decided to leave it out of the core rules.
I am glad you like the Skill Points idea. I liked it a lot as well.
The idea behind the three values is actually really simple. It is now four lower and four higher, left and right from the middle value, and basically, if your value is the same, you roll an 8+ (may change if I go to D12), is your FS lower, a 10+, if the Enemy's FS matches or exceeds the right value, an 11+, and the other way around. It is indeed a simplified GW Weapon Skill idea, but I think it works really well.
I am leaning towards the D12 more and more. I am afraid though that the "evolution" might actually mean I am going back to my original idea of pre-generated race/class combos, with the choices of Perks and Handicaps to flesh them out... I got completely stuck with what I am working on right now, but it has been a very good lesson on rules writing, so I am not that sad.
Thanks again for the interest.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page