Creating a New Table-top RPG System, Part 12

Deeper Dives, Translations, and a Little Retrospective

 Introduction

This blog is a potpourri of topics and discussions. If it seems disjointed and disorganized, it’s because it is. Here we are, twelve blogs into this conversation, meaning that I’ve already written over 55,000 words, which calculates to 110 pages (based on 500 words per page). Some things are covered in enough detail that I can probably start writing those rules. Some topics are barely covered and need a lot more discussion. And there are some topics I haven’t covered at all.

Personality Aspect

Let’s review. There are sixteen “Personality Types,” as defined by Jung and Myers-Briggs. One is chosen for the character as the Core Personality Facet. There are four Facets that further define the character’s personality. The maximum range is 1 to 8, but it is narrowed by the selected Core Personality. Finally, there are two Identifying Facets: Trait and Weakness.

What I want to do is determine how this will appear in the game.

Let’s start with the Core Personality Facet.

As stated, the player chooses one of these for their character. I don’t want to use the exact terms defined by the studies; instead, I’m going to dig through an online thesaurus and try to come up with descriptive words that make sense in a Fantasy Setting.

  1. Framer: This person has a plan for everything.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 1-4
      2. Innovation: 1-4
  • Organization: 1-4
  1. Regulation: 5-8
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Discernment +
    2. Diplomacy –
  2. Rationalist: Inventive with a thirst for knowledge.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 2-5
      2. Innovation: 5-8
  • Organization: 3-6
  1. Regulation: 1-4
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Mentoring +
    2. Animal –
  2. Mastermind: Strong-willed leader who always finds a way.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 5-8
      2. Innovation: 4-7
  • Organization: 3-6
  1. Regulation: 4-7
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Diplomacy +
    2. Deception –
  2. Raconteur: A story teller that loves intellectual challenges.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 4-7
      2. Innovation: 3-6
  • Organization: 3-6
  1. Regulation: 3-6
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Presence +
    2. Discernment –
  2. Supporter: The strong, silent type. Idealistic and mysterious.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 2-5
      2. Innovation: 4-7
  • Organization: 5-8
  1. Regulation: 5-8
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Deception +
    2. Diplomacy –
  2. Peacemaker: Generally kind and altruistic, always eager to support a cause.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 3-6
      2. Innovation: 1-4
  • Organization: 2-5
  1. Regulation: 1-4
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Mentoring +
    2. Discernment –
  2. Champion: Charismatic and inspiring.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 5-8
      2. Innovation: 2-5
  • Organization: 3-6
  1. Regulation: 2-5
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Performance +
    2. Deception –
  2. Zealot: Enthusiastic and supportive, always positive and optimistic.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 5-8
      2. Innovation: 1-4
  • Organization: 1-4
  1. Regulation: 1-4
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Performance +
    2. Diplomacy –
  2. Reliable: Practical and factual. Hard to find doubt in their ideas.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 2-5
      2. Innovation: 4-7
  • Organization: 4-7
  1. Regulation: 3-6
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Discernment +
    2. Diplomacy –
  2. Guardian: Always there to defend the ones they care about.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 3-6
      2. Innovation: 2-5
  • Organization: 3-6
  1. Regulation: 3-6
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Animal +
    2. Deception –
  2. Manager: Great at keeping records and managing people.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 4-7
      2. Innovation: 3-6
  • Organization: 5-8
  1. Regulation: 4-7
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Mentoring +
    2. Performance –
  2. Agent: Social and popular, always eager to help.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 5-8
      2. Innovation: 3-6
  • Organization: 2-5
  1. Regulation: 2-5
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Performance +
    2. Deception –
  2. Adept: Mastery of all kinds of tool, willing to experiment, but practical.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 1-4
      2. Innovation: 5-8
  • Organization: 2-5
  1. Regulation: 3-6
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Mentoring +
    2. Presence –
  2. Voyager: Always willing to try something new.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 3-6
      2. Innovation: 5-8
  • Organization: 2-5
  1. Regulation: 1-4
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Deception +
    2. Discernment –
  2. Pioneer: Perceptive person who enjoys living on the edge.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 4-7
      2. Innovation: 3-6
  • Organization: 1-4
  1. Regulation: 2-5
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Discernment +
    2. Diplomacy –
  2. Performer: Spontaneous and energetic. The life of the party.
    1. Personality Facets
      1. Ambiversion: 5-8
      2. Innovation: 4-7
  • Organization: 1-4
  1. Regulation: 1-4
  1. Interactive Facets
    1. Performance +
    2. Mentoring –

You’ll notice in the outline that I determined the ranges for the next four facets as well as identified the bonuses and penalties for the Interactive Aspect Facets.

Before I can identify Knowledge Aspect bonuses, I need to come up with the complete list of them. Fortunately, I have this roughed out in Part 6. Let’s consolidate it here:

  1. Business
    1. Banking
    2. Construction/Building
    3. Hospitality/Service
    4. Stewardship/General Business/Bookkeeping/Scribe
    5. Merchandising/Advertising
    6. Farming/Agricultural
    7. Cottage Industry/Home Business
    8. Fencing/Black Market
    9. Booking/Gambling
  2. Knowledge
    1. Academics
    2. Animal Lore
    3. Appraisal
    4. Arcane Lore
    5. Cartography
    6. Clockworks
    7. Espionage
    8. Folklore
    9. Geology
    10. Linguistics
    11. Local Lore
    12. Mathematics
    13. Mechanics
    14. Medicine
    15. Mountaineering
    16. Musician
    17. Nature Lore
    18. Politics
    19. Religious Lore
    20. Seamanship
    21. Stewardship
    22. Teamster
  3. Magic:
    1. Bush Magic
    2. Faith Magic
    3. Guild Magic
    4. Nature Magic
    5. Practical Magic
    6. Street Magic
  4. Proficiency (Combat)
    1. Axe (Large) – Great Axe/Battle Axe/Halberd/Glaive
    2. Axe (Small) – Hand Axe/Hatchet
    3. Blade – Dagger/Knife/Stiletto
    4. Bludgeon (Heavy) – War Hammer/Maul/Bec de Corbin
    5. Bludgeon (Light) – Mace/Club/Hammer/Pernach/Quarterstaff
    6. Defenses – Shield/Main Gauche
    7. Flexible Weapons – Whip/Flail/Chain/Rope/Net
    8. Long-Range Weapons – Longbow/Shortbow/Crossbow
    9. Short-Range Weapons – Sling/Throwing Knife/Chakram/Shirikin/Boomerang/Dart
    10. Spear (Long) – Pike/Lance/Ranseur/Partisan/Fork/Spontoon/Sarissa
    11. Spear (Short) – Trident/Ahlspiess/Brandistock/Hasta
    12. Sword (Heavy) – Hand-and-a-half/Bastard
    13. Sword (Light) – Shortsword/Gladius/Seax
    14. Sword (Medium) Broadsword/Knights Sword
    15. Sword (Single-Edge) – Scimitar/Sabre/Cutlass/Katana/Falchion
    16. Sword (Very Heavy) – Great Sword/Flamberge/Claymore
    17. Sword (Very Light) – Foil/Epee/Rapier
    18. Unarmed Combat – Brawling/Martial Arts
  5. Proficiency (Non-Combat)
    1. Alchemy Supplies – Mortar & Pestle, Alembic, Crucible, Retort, etc.
    2. Assassin’s Tools – garotte, sap, poisons, etc.
    3. Brewing Kit – Stand, bottles, cauldron, kegs, etc.
    4. Carpentry Tools – hammer, chisel, carving knife, etc.
    5. Cooking Tools – utensils, pots & pans, spices, etc.
    6. Cottage Craft Supplies – knitting needles, crotchet and latch-hooks, yarns, canvas, etc.
    7. Gaming Sets – 3-Dragon Ante, Dwarf Chess, Dragon Chess, Seagull, etc.
    8. Herbalist’s Supplies – pouches, reagents, bottles, vials, etc.
    9. Jewelers Tools – loupe, tweezers, pliers, wire cutters, wire, needle & thread, etc.
    10. Thieves’ Tools – lockpicks, small mirror, scissors, pliers, etc.
    11. Tinker’s Tools – wrenches, screwdrivers, pliers, gears, metal bits, magnifying glass
  6. Tactics
    1. Aerial – fighting as, with, or against fliers
    2. Ambush – setting traps, stealth, and hiding
    3. Diversionary – creating distractions
    4. Defensive – minimizing damage against an attack
    5. Demolition – blowing things up
    6. Mounted – fighting from horseback (or another mount)
    7. Naval – ship-to-ship
    8. Ranged – targeting calculations, getting the most out of ranged combat
    9. Siege – using siege engines, how to conquer a city
    10. Skirmish/Guerilla – hit-and-run tactics, staying alive and effective against overwhelming odds

Some Questions and Considerations

Before any of these are set in stone, I want them reviewed for completeness and practicality. Do I have everything covered that I need covered? Are there overlaps that can be removed? Am I using the best terminology, or are there better ways to describe or name things? Lots of questions.

One major question is this: will it ever be used? Players will tend toward building optimal characters within the given constraints. I’m not saying a player won’t choose “Basket Weaving Tools” proficiency, but it’s something that makes little sense in the context of a heroic game. Crafting Supplies, however, can mean anything from a sewing kit to knitting needles, to basket weaving tools. The more generic description is practical and may have context in the game. It is a viable option for a character.

A Rough Outline

I said in the introduction I’m not ready to start writing rules yet. I’m resisting temptation. My fingers are itching to type.

There are several reasons I don’t want to start yet.

  1. Appearance of finality: Writing rules gives the appearance of finality. There are a lot of details I haven’t covered or made decisions on. I don’t want rules getting written that will influence other rules. A good system is wholly integrated and writing rules too soon can lose that cohesion.
  2. I don’t know yet all the stuff I need to write. I’m creating a rough outline today, but it’s not locked in. It’s still flexible. Call it Agile Development, if you want.
  3. Before writing rules, I need to decide on tone and perspective. If you’ve been reading these blogs, you may have noticed I’ve not been consistent on these. Switching back and forth is a sign of unprofessional and unpolished writing. With a clear writing guide, I can avoid these pitfalls.
  4. Play-testing and Feedback: Before I write rules around mechanics, I want to spend time testing and improving them. What may work flawlessly in my brain doesn’t always translate to good game-play on the table. This is a process that takes time. For many games on the market, it is sometimes obvious when a designer hasn’t sufficiently tested a mechanic. Are holes fixed with more rules or by improving the existing rules? How well does the system handle the things I haven’t thought about?

Despite that, I think if there’s a rough outline of the rules, I can at least have a promising idea of what I need to work on. Fortunately, there are a lot of decent examples to follow.

Section 1: Introduction

What is a Role-Playing Game?

What is Role-Playing?

A Neuith Primer

Section 2: Characters

Personality Aspect

Knowledge Aspect

Social Aspect

Physical Aspect

Other features and abilities

Ongoing Development

Supplies and Equipment

Section 3: Magic

The Six Knowledges Facets

Specializations

Spells, Rituals, and Powers

Section 4: Mechanics

The Universal Resolution Chart

Common (Non-Combat) Interactions

Combat Encounter Sequence

Action Card Description

Other Rules

  •                                 Special Combat Situations
  •                                 Conditions
  •                                 Crafting

Section 5: Conducting

What is the Conductor?

Group Dynamics and Leadership

Running the Game

  •                                 When to Narrate, When to Role-Play
  •                                 Agency versus Scripting
  •                                 Running an Encounter
  •                                 Downtime

Running a Session

  •                                 Running a Campaign

Conductor Utilities

Antagonists

Section 6: Neuith

A Brief History

Current Affairs

A Bit of Technical

Major Personalities

Gods Old and New

Section 7: Adventures

Four One-Shot adventures

The Heir of Linne, the Introductory Adventure

Section 8: References

Character Sheet

Reference Page

Glossary

Index

My goal, as previously stated, is to pack all this into a 200-page volume. Is it possible? Probably not. The inevitable evolution is to break things out into supplements. D&D 5e has Players Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, Monster Manual, as well as a growing array of supplements and adventure books.

It is conceivable to separate out Sections 5, 7, and parts of 6, into the Conductor’s Manual (or whatever we call it.) Sections 3 and 6 can easily grow to 100 or more pages each if I’m not careful.

Here’s a question: Do I go ahead and write five-hundred or more pages and figure out how to break it up later, or do I try to contain myself and stay within my original constraint? A good editor would be immensely helpful in making this decision! Any volunteers? (I’m not talking about a proofreader who will check spelling and grammar. I’ll need that, too, but I’m referring to a full-service editor.)

Progression of Action Cards?

I have a conundrum. I scraped from a multitude of websites as much as I can find about combat maneuvers, techniques, attack and defense styles, and so on. I’m sure I only scraped the surface of what’s available, but, unsurprisingly, information started becoming repetitive. What I mean is, every site that talks about fencing describes the same set of fencing moves. That’s not the problem. The problem is figuring out how to scale the various moves and maneuvers against the appropriate skills in a way that not only makes sense but gives players options when determining how to assign their initial build points along with assigning earned points as they gain experience.

What the heck did I just say?

Let’s break it down with an example. Ristar Cliffsmasher is our new character. We’re designing him as a fighter who’s good at a variety of fighting styles. Assume I’ve already built his Personality, Interactive, and Physical Aspects. (Yes, I know, it’s not in order, but for this example, it’s okay.) In Blog #9, I proposed that each character starts with 45 Knowledge Improvement Points (KIPs).

I haven’t yet worked out what inherited bonuses apply from Personality and Interactive Facets toward Knowledge, so we’ll assume, for now, that there aren’t any. You know, before finishing this blog, I may go back and figure that out! Until then, let’s just say it costs 3 points to open the first Knowledge in a group, 4 points for the second, and 5 points for the third. Groups refer to Business, Knowledge, Magic, Proficiency, and Tactics. I’ll track remaining, unspent KIPs in square brackets.

We’ll start with an obvious choice: Sword (Medium). This costs 3 points [42]. For making this selection, Ristar gets 2 action cards: Lunge and Slash, as these are the most basic forms of attacking with a sword.

Ristar wants to use a shield effectively, so he picks up Defenses, costing 4 points [38]. This gives him Shield Block.

Finally, Ristar wants to be good at hit-and-run style tactics, so he opens Skirmish Guerilla Tactics, costing 3 points. [35]. This gives him Charge, which allows a move-and-attack combination.

Ristar still has plenty of points to spend, which is where it gets tough for me as a game designer. Does each point in a Specialization lead to an additional card? Think about it a second. In my current list, there are 18 Combat Proficiencies and another 10 Tactics. Assume that each, upon opening, gives 2 Action cards for combat, and 1 for tactics. That’s 66 cards.

The typical scale for these facets is 1 to 8. 1 is introductory/beginner and 8 is highly-trained master. Going higher is conceivable, as it is allowed for Interactive and Physical Aspects, but for Knowledge facets, probably isn’t necessary. If each new rank in a Combat Proficiency and Tactic leads to one new card, it means another 266 cards, for a total of 332. That’s a lot of cards! It means I must come up with 332 unique cards. What’s more, I need to be sure they are balanced and meaningful. The sad truth is that as much as 75% of the cards will never be used.

One option I have is to not add a card at every rank. Only add them at ranks 1, 3, 5, 7, and so on. This reduces the potential set of cards by half, but it breaks another rule I’m trying to establish for this game: every value means something.

In the “other” game, it drives me nuts that to cast 5th level spells, you must be a 9th level caster.

Maybe the answer is a combination. 1 rank gives me the card. The next rank uses the same card but slightly better. The next rank (rank 3) gets me another card. And so on. This concept gives me flexibility in that some Facets can be front-loaded with more cards that “get better” with more ranks, while other Facets start with fewer cards, but gain more cards with more ranks. Balancing these is tough, though.

The example I use for comparison is D&D’s Dragonborn breath attack. When going up against a small number of weak creatures, this attack is meaningful. However, as challenges get stronger as the character and the party level up, that breath attack’s usefulness diminishes. Compare that to the rogue’s sneak attack. At low level, this ability doesn’t make a huge amount of difference. Killing a 5-HP Kobold is easy enough that the extra damage die is just overkill. But as the character gains levels, this ability scales and becomes increasingly more effective.

I can take the same approach with the combat cards, though in some ways I’m reluctant to do so. For a sword, I start with basic lunge and slash. As I gain levels, I get a variety of new maneuvers, some are situational, and some are just better versions of the basics. For another weapon, like Bludgeon, I only get one card: Bash. Rather than awarding new cards, Bash just gets progressively better.

This approach, however, creates limitations on a player’s options during combat. Agency is important, and I want it represented at all levels. Or at least as many levels as possible. What I’m trying to avoid is a condition where a decision made during character creation leads to no decisions during combat. I don’t want character standing in one spot just hitting whatever enemy is closest with only one type of attack. My goal is for each player to be able to make decisions at each point in combat. I want those decisions to have consequences and I want them to be meaningful. If the only difference between Slash and Lunge is the type of damage (cut or stab), there had better be a good reason to choose one over the other. Perhaps the enemy is wearing leather armor, which is less effective against cutting damage. Perhaps they are wearing maille, (the proper term for chainmail, by the way,) which is less effective against stabbing. Even in this example, is the player really deciding? Obviously, they are going to select the more effective option.

The core question I’m struggling with is: with a semi-abstracted combat system, how many viable and meaningful choices can I offer a player?

Let’s try to answer that in terms of what mechanics can be affected by a player’s choice.

Action Resolution Time

Every action takes a set amount of time to resolve. Heavy weapons are typically slower than light-weight weapons. Duh. Some maneuvers are faster than others. The player chooses what weapon to use and which maneuver.

Facets

The first consideration is determining which of the seven Physical Facets will be used. Unfortunately, the list of seven is extremely limited, but there is some flexibility. Normally, a melee attack will use Fight as the Actor’s facet. One can make the case to use Adroitness for a finesse-style attack, Force for sheer muscle attack, or Wits as an attack meant to confuse or distract an opponent.

The second consideration is which is used by the defender. The default, of course, is Defense. Adroitness, Vitality, and Wits can come into play as well. There might even be a case for Force.

Potential Damage

TURC outlines 12 possible outcomes for an attack/defense roll. (Unless and until I change the chart, I’ll use the letters as previously defined). I, J, K, and L are all misses. There’s no damage done to the opponent, but they could lead to damage against attacker. We’ll set those aside. H is defined as a miss with “advantage,” though the concept of advantage isn’t clearly defined. Loosely, it means that even though I missed, I’m not giving up anything. It’s either treated the same as a hit for triggering various triggered actions, like Riposte, or it means that my next combat action is one increment less. Or something.

G through A are hits with damage. G is the minimal damage that will rarely result in real or actual damage. I tapped your armor, tore your shirt, or scratched your arm. I got through your defenses, but not by much.

F is “normal” damage, though I may reclassify it as “half damage.” It’s better than G, but it’s not insta-kill or anything like that. E through B represent increasing levels of damage. A is lethal blow.

To determine damage amount for results B through F, we must know two things:

  1. What type of damage is being dealt (cut, stab, bash, or other damage type.)
  2. What Facet is the calculation drawn from.

Damage types, as previously mentioned, relate to how well the defender can ablate or absorb the damage. They are also key to understanding the type of critical that can be dealt. For example, you’re not as likely to have a bleeding wound from a bludgeon as you would a sword.

The Facet, however, plays a more significant role. Force and Adroitness seem to be the two most obvious choices, but some of the others can come into play as well.

The Attack Action

At its core, the attack action must define these things:

  1. How long, in increments, an action takes before being resolved?
  2. What Facet is used to determine your chance to hit?
  3. What Facet is used to determine your damage?

In addition, it should cover these as well:

  1. What is your default defense, which may be modified by an opponent’s action?
  2. Does your action override your opponent’s default defense in favor of something else?
  3. What are the potential critical damage results, both favorable and unfavorable?

Best Potential Outcome

Though I’ve mentioned this before, I feel I need to revisit this. There are some popular games that suffer from “the only viable choice given the options” issue. Why does almost every rogue in D&D 5e seem to gravitate to the Rapier? Unless the player is making their choice based on flavor or some other criteria, it’s the best weapon in terms of chance to hit and damage output, for the price. There are other weapons that do the same amount of damage (1d8), but this is the only one with the Versatile property, meaning that you can use either your Strength or your Dexterity to determine your to-hit and damage.

This is something I want to avoid! I want there to be several viable options that are roughly equivalent. However, I don’t want pure symmetry, because there’s no agency in that, either.

Considering this game is being crafted as a point-build character generation system, the first layer of agency comes with building the initial character. As the player goes through the process, they will make numerous decisions that will impact decisions they will make during the play but won’t dictate them. Hence, I’ve chosen to build a character good at melee combat, and I’ve chosen to equip him with a specific weapon. Despite these choices, I still want there to be choices while in combat, other than the obvious: which opponent do I attack, and at what point do I break and run because I’m getting overwhelmed?

At the minimum, I want every character to have two types of attack, one type of move, and one type of cowardly defense. Yet, with this established minimum, can I make the two attack types distinct enough that the player must decide between them? If one choice is obviously better than the other, that second Action Card will never be played. If the two are equal in all ways, or if the difference is insignificant, the player can select randomly, and the outcome is the same. It’s not a true choice.

When we look at the proposed combat system, we begin to see a glimmer of the answer. D&D 5e’s system is built around “Action Economy.” During a combat round, every character gets a predetermined number of Actions: Move, Attack, Bonus, and Reaction. The goal for the player is to figure out how to maximize their character’s output within those constraints. I follow this blog: http://themonstersknow.com/, which guides Dungeon Masters in making these decisions for monsters.

However, SligoRPG is not built as a turned-based, action-economy game. I’m breaking the mold by adding the element of resolution time. This added detail allows me to balance “better” actions by making them take longer to resolve. Now, the player’s choice is: Do I strike with a weak but quick blow, or do I strike with a strong, but slower blow?

But I’ve kind of painted myself into a corner: I only have one resolution chart. How do I reconcile this and give alternatives to the player?

  1. By driving the “To hit” and “Damage” Facets independently, I encourage choices to which maneuver to select. Players will have to choose between which facet is more likely to hit versus which facet deals more damage.
  2. As players advance in levels, they can choose to increase their physical Facets, which increases the potential To Hit and potential Damage results. This applies for defenses, too.
  3. Alternatively, players can invest in their knowledge Facets, which opens more effective maneuvers, that are faster, are more likely to hit, or deal more damage.

This gets us back to the original problem: the proliferation of Action Cards. Oh yeah; in my prior calculation, I neglected to include spells. This is inevitable. Though I may be able to consolidate some things. Arg. Okay. Frustration aside, I can establish some things here:

  1. First rank opens the ability to use a weapon, giving 2 of possibly 3 attack options: slash, bash, stab. Their names will be different, but effectively they are the same. Bash is Fight/Force, Slash is Fight/Adroitness, and Stab is Adroitness/Force.
  2. Second rank opens a weapon-defense: Block, allowing Fight to be used instead of default Defense. This is the first Interrupt.
  3. Third and subsequent odd-numbered ranks opens a situational, triggered Action, like Riposte, which is a stab (Adroitness/Fight) attack that you can use immediately after an opponent has scored a miss (TURC “I” or worse.)
  4. Fourth and subsequent even-numbered ranks opens an improved version of one attack action previously learned. For example, “Bash” becomes “Improved Bash”, and is Force/Force. Another option might be a slightly faster resolution time.

This isn’t set in stone, nor will it be the same for all weapons. As mentioned, heavier weapons, like two-handed weapons, will take longer to resolve than lighter weapons, but their damage curve is typically greater.

The Shield (Defensive) Knowledge progression will be similar. I envision a character with knowledge in this will play two cards, one for active defense, which overrides the default defense based on their current attack, which is the other card.

Tactical knowledge adds foot-work maneuvers to combat. Things like step-through, roll, trip, and such. These are things that aren’t typically attacks (though can be) but allow the character to do more than stand in one spot and hit whatever happens to be nearby. It’s through these cards that characters gain advantages for flanking, called shots, sneak attacks, etc.

I’m back to my original count of 332 cards, not counting magic, but I think I have a clearer picture of how to proceed.

This doesn’t ablate the amount of work that needs to be done. Help!

oadmap

I’m going to close this blog entry a little early, and I’m going to post it without my usual, more thorough, editing. I want to get it posted today (it’s Friday, and I’ve been working on this blog for two weeks!) My wife and I are moving next week, which means I won’t have time to work on this project at all for a few days.

It doesn’t mean I won’t be thinking about it.

In this summary, I want to address the question of, what blogs do I still want to write before I start writing the rulebook?

Here goes (and this is neither complete or in any specific order):

  1. Finish religions of Neuith (this may be 2-3 blogs.)
  2. Address other cultural stuff that may or may not be part of the rules.
  3. Work through equipment and details of how various weapons will work mechanically.
  4. Dig deeper into the magic system (this may be as many as 6 blogs; I hope not.)
  5. Report on playtesting.
  6. Fix things. You know this will be needed!

Based on this list, I’m less than halfway done. I feel like I’ve made more progress than that, because I’ve made most of the major decisions. As they say, however, the devil is in the details.

 

SligoRPGCharSheet3

3 thoughts on “Creating a New Table-top RPG System, Part 12

  1. Now that you have a set of rules partially constructed in your head. before you write the rules, it might be time to print off a few character sheets, print out a bunch of cards, and try to actually run a game. I would be happy to try at this point.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s