Designing Tabletop RPG. Advice?

[EboMan7x]

So me and my pal are designing a tabletop RPG. I won't go into extreme detail, but the essential concepts are these:
1. Anything beyond a standard attack requires some sort of "aiming" or strategic set up. Similar to the cones and Area of Effect spells in Dragon Age.
2. The liability behind the big giant awesome attacks that kill the dragon is not that it drains all your mana. The liability is that it will take multiple turns to set up, specific spacing in some cases, and cooperation amongst the whole team.
3. Reduce complexity in terms of crunching numbers by taking dice rolls out of standard attacks, conversation, and generally.

I won't go into further detail as everything else is subject to change, seeing as we've only hours ago gone beyond saying "we should totally make a tabletop RPG." So, advice? Anyone else venture into this before? Ideas for constructing attacks/spells/abilites? DMing tips? ANYTHING?

Thanks so much.

EDIT: If it helps, I'll include a rough version of what the level up system will be. (SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
Its like ability vs. interest. There will be initial stats like SPECIAL in Fallout (different ones obviously), that affect different skills. So say for instance you have High strength and high aim (those are both stats). This will contribute to a high Melee skill from the beginning. You can also upgrade melee by leveling up. But eventually you'll be asked what specifically you'd like to be good at in melee, and you could for instance choose "two handed weapons". So that way when you put points in melee you're getting better at two handed specifically, which opens up to more specific abilities you can get when you level. And after awhile you'll be asked like, "blunt or blade". If you choose blade, you'll be better at like giant swords and spears. Then you'll be asked "swords or spears?" So as you level up you'll become specifically awesome at stuff, and generally good at things related to it.

 

[Metaphysic]

Are you guys basing your system off of any other tabletop games (D&D, Pathfinder, the Cortex system in the Serenity RPGs)? Or are you building everything from scratch? It's very difficult, if not impossible, to help you with anything design-wise, without knowing anything about the structures and rules you have in place in terms of dice rolls, character stats, physics, etc.

 

[EboMan7x]

Are you guys basing your system off of any other tabletop games (D&D, Pathfinder, the Cortex system in the Serenity RPGs)? Or are you building everything from scratch? It's very difficult, if not impossible, to help you with anything design-wise, without knowing anything about the structures and rules you have in place in terms of dice rolls, character stats, physics, etc.

We're essentially building from scratch. The only Tabletop game we've really explored much is DND, so its probably closest to that. We haven't decided exactly how we're handling level ups or stats yet. And on that note... PHYSICS?! Isn't that more a videogame thing?

 

[Dr_Horrible]

Well, first step should honestly be to play a lot of tabletop RPGs and read lots of sourcebooks to gain some context.

 

[FalloutJack]

It's a little hard to give advice to something with only general data available. However, I can still give you one very good golden rule:

Make it make sense. Whatever it is you're doing, make sure that it follows a very consistent line of thinking that allows the game to flow in a reasonable way and doesn't cause players to go "UUURRRGH!!" in reaction to an aspect of it that falls short.

If this doesn't make sense, I'll explain. I have had some experience with Shadowrun in the past, and its biggest flaw is the debate over the effects and logic of some niggling little details that weren't thought out right or explained to an appropriate degree. This will happen alot. You can spend HOURS arguing over this stuff, wasting game-time. Things like that hurt the system, break friendships, and make you want to kill the GM. If a thing SHOULD work, sometimes you have to let it go, even if the rules don't fully-allow for it.

 

[Metaphysic]

By Physics, I meant what FalloutJack said; a normal human won't be able to jump twelve feet high wearing a suit of plate mail or stab his spear through a stone wall in order to stand on it to climb. Non-magical fire has to have fuel, water will put it out etc.

You really won't be able to get the specifics of spells/weapons/combat until you know how characters' stats interact and grow. Aside from 'make it make sense,' (which means you should think of things on as detailed a level as you possibly can), there isn't a whole lot we can help you with, as we aren't actively involved in your creative process here. You may want to consider using other games (DnD since you're familiar with it) as a framework, modifying things and experimenting to better suit your needs, just get a feel for what goes into creating a [good] game.

Just my two cents.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

The best advice I can give is to make it intuitive. A player (or the DM/Storyteller/Host/Whatever) should be able to know the rules in general, and deduce the rest using logic. For example, if Dexterity is used for accuracy and speed, it would be used for juggling.

Similarly, playtest like crazy. If you can think of something to do that would require a roll, but you can't figure out what it would be, take a look at your systems again and tweak them until you can. A big gap in game logic is easy to overlook in design, but is a glaring problem as a player. I would reccomend throwing yourself and your tester(s) into strange situations to get out of to test this, since that would more likely be a test of how versatile your system is.

And don't railroad players. Give them as much freedom as you can afford (varying on your design preferences, of course) to develop, customize, and progress through the game. I personally would advise against making a linear story, erring more on world-crafting and letting the players/GMs control the story, but there's no reason you can't include both if you're willing to put in the time and effort.

Really, Escapist? You give me a picture as my capcha and want me to describe it to you?

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Know your rules, rules and rules!
If your dungeon buddies are like the jackasses in my group they will exploit any loophole they can find. Make sure you have all your bases covered and your info as solid as possible.

 

[Webb5432]

Are you guys basing your system off of any other tabletop games (D&D, Pathfinder, the Cortex system in the Serenity RPGs)? Or are you building everything from scratch? It's very difficult, if not impossible, to help you with anything design-wise, without knowing anything about the structures and rules you have in place in terms of dice rolls, character stats, physics, etc.

We're essentially building from scratch. The only Tabletop game we've really explored much is DND, so its probably closest to that. We haven't decided exactly how we're handling level ups or stats yet. And on that note... PHYSICS?! Isn't that more a videogame thing?

I've tried a bunch of White Wolf publishing stuff, Pathfinder (spiritual successor to D&D 3e), percentile systems (though only once for player-related reasons), and I've read more system books than I care to count. And I'm in the same boat as well seeing as I am currently designing an armored-suit RPG. So far, there are a few suggestions I can say.

1) As the other people on this forum have said, have the mechanics make sense. But I would like to add that the sense should be in the context of the story. For example, the psyker systems in the Warhammer 40k books have a few charts dedicated to the terrible and fickle nature of the warp screwing with reality or causing all kinds of terrible trouble. Pathfinder, as far as I know, does not have such a system in place. You can screw up a spell and it will explode in your face at worst is what I remember from it (but I could be wrong). Likewise, in the Warhammer 40k books, you getting a bonus for shooting point-blank. That makes a lot of sense.

2) Pick a system that is appropriately fast without sacrificing too much detail. I played Anima recently, and that uses a system where you roll d100 and add your stat (the average addition for the attack is 135 for our players), then the victim rolls their defense (d100 plus a block or dodge stat usually just as high as the attack), then the difference is calculated and checked on a big table that corresponds to the victim's armor rating for that specific type of attack (thrust, cut, impact, etc.). Sound complicated? That's a crap design. It drives me crazy. D&D is roll against target #, if you succeed then roll an appropriate dX + stat, then that is your damage. It seems useful, but it also keeps certain types of character builds from working effectively (I have seen a few archers begin to feel inadequate when a two-handed weapon wielder was introduced). Try to accommodate what fits your setting in the rules. I would actually suggest you look up the new White Wolf World of Darkness Storyteller system for inspiration (the new revised one, that is). It is nice and simple while still offering a lot of detail and customization.

3) Class or classless? This question is important because it can lead players to be somewhat fixed but very specialized characters that each bring an interesting something to the party, or to give players full control of their character to create a unique one that might (and most likely will) have similar skills to the rest of the group (if stealth is very useful in your game, your players will learn it. All of them. Not just the stealth monkey). I like the freedom of the classless system a little more, but you have to make sure that the players are not taking advantage of it. We had one guy in a Scion game that would take abilities to counter anything he fought. He ended up being a wall ornament until we could give him something to swing at. Then he was impossible to kill.

4) Never let one stat/skill do too much. Scion had a problem where the DEX stat governed running, dodging, blocking, jumping, climbing, crafting, sneaking, shooting, punching, and stabbing, and a bunch of other things I can't remember at the moment. Really. If you saw some sucker with one more point of DEX than you, you were more likely to just throw in the towel than fight back.

5) Introduce mechanics that show off your world. For example, a current concept I have in my game is that the suits are in fact dormant but alive creatures themselves. As the players gain experience, the suits begin to wake up and give the players different bonuses and drawbacks depending on their abilities and personality. The suits could also berserk Evangelion-style if the pilot suffered too much damage or did something that the suit did not like. This was tying in to the theme of double-edged swords in the game. Warhammer 40k has the above-mentioned psyker charts where a psyker does not ever want to screw up his powers too badly, but gained a massive amount of power in return for the risk. Also, the same system has crazy Critical Hit charts that depict the brutal and fatalistic nature of the setting.

6) Pick a theme. This governs a lot of design. I based my armor RPG concept on the basis of the characters being selected to pilot the suits based on their genes. This tied in the theme of dealing with the one thing you can never run away from, yourself. The characters are placed into evil, alive armored suits to save the world all the while knowing that the whole situation is out of their control, and they have to learn a way to cope before the suits destroy their minds. I based this off of my experiences of living with mental disabilities, both in myself and in people I know. I find the concept of dealing with weaknesses and flaws you were born with and have no control over to be the finest struggle in existence, akin to a human vs. nature conflict but with a literal struggle between nurture and nature added in. You end up with a slightly less mass-market system that can't as easily be given to anyone, but end up with a more focused and driven system that sets a fire in the hearts of those who still had wood resting in that fireplace, if you catch my drift.

7) Make the system for more than yourself. Some people love realistic systems, some love narrative, some love something else. Which kind do you enjoy? Use that. Did you like Rolemaster's crazy Crit Tables? Let that inspire you. Hated Warhammer 40k's class system? Don't use it. But always remember the reasons why those systems and tables and quirks were designed and understand how they fit into their system. Let it inspire you, and then let that inspiration iron out the areas you believe need improvement. Then go to a friend and ask them what they think. Listen to their opinion and get feedback. Same again for someone else. And then as many people as you want. In the end, don't let your inspiration leave you, but allow others to input some feedback as some of those people may end up being your fellow players.


Good luck!

 

[Rack]

The good news for you is the standard quality of RPG design is so bad it would be almost impossible for you to make anything substantially worse than the industry average.

There's a lot to know about and because there really isn't anything out there you can copy or get ideas from it won't be especially easy. Still I would say this.

1) Try playing some games without any system at all. Just have all the players write down a handful of bullet points as to what they're good at and what they're bad at and go from there. It will give you a good idea of what you actually want the system to provide.

2) Get your maths sorted. If you know even the basics of probability that will immediately put you in the top 1% of RPG designers, amateur or professional. Make sure you know how much of an effect any abilities or improvements or tactics have

3) Work out what your system is for and what it adds. Are you doing a tactical combat system or a storytelling system? If you're introducing rules see how they support that system. If you can create simple emergent systems you can get away without huge amounts of extra rules covering individual situations.

 

[Requia]

I suggest trying to find takedowns of why the big game systems suck, so you can avoid their mistakes. The physics in d20, the tendency for White Wolf to discourage narrative focus on the PCs, everything about GURPS, these are lessons you should learn.

Likewise, in the Warhammer 40k books, you getting a bonus for shooting point-blank. That makes a lot of sense.

It really really doesn't against moving targets.

 

[Webb5432]

I suggest trying to find takedowns of why the big game systems suck, so you can avoid their mistakes. The physics in d20, the tendency for White Wolf to discourage narrative focus on the PCs, everything about GURPS, these are lessons you should learn.

Likewise, in the Warhammer 40k books, you getting a bonus for shooting point-blank. That makes a lot of sense.

It really really doesn't against moving targets.

An interesting point. But it is a proven fact that a bullet moves too fast to dodge (it is possible if you move just before the gun fires, when the shooter is already mentally committed to firing, but that works only rarely and if you know how to tell when they will shoot). A firearm requires more skill and aiming to hit a target the farther away/smaller the target is. However, when shooting in a close quarters scenario, the proper technique is to just point the gun and shoot, because aiming in not as important. Whether the target is moving or not is useless, because the hardest shot at point-blank range would be firing at a target moving perpendicular from your sight lines (a.k.a. Straight across). However, you could also just rotate your torso and shoot the sucker before they got there, unless they had a surprise advantage, in which case you can't shoot back in most RPG systems if surprised anyways.

Now, your claim does hold some weight because turning around and firing is much more time consuming and risky than firing straight ahead, and a moving target does require constant adjustment as they come towards you, but at point-blank range aiming is not really that useful (unless you are attempting to target a specific spot or shoot a very small target, in which case aiming is very useful) and you just point and shoot. However, in many fight animations, people are seen getting the drop on gun-toting goons at close range because they predict the gunshot and targeting and juke out of the way pre-emptively.

Also, take a look at the following scenario. Someone dodging a bullet must predict the firing of the weapon (too early and they adjust, too late and they've already shot), the path the bullet will travel, and then use all of their muscles (or a good chunk of them at least) to move their entire torso out of the way. The shooter needs to only slightly adjust the bullet trajectory by changing the angle at which they point the firearm.

And while a supernaturally fast and agile target would very much be able to move and change direction in such a way as to create a difficulty shooting in a point-blank scenario, the only way a moving target could cancel out the relative ease of shooting point-blank would be to surprise the target with a specific timing or move or strike. The only way to cancel out such a bonus is to get the drop on them with a maneuver that would stun, confuse, disorientate, or otherwise cause hesitation in the shooter.


As to my resources, I took ninjutsu for a bit and talked to my instructor on firearm and anti-firearm technique theory (basic theory like the stuff above, no real practice ) and to another ninjutsu acquaintance of mine whose sensei had decided to teach the class how to dodge a bullet and the intimidation factor that results from a successful dodge (you would want to shoot again if you were the shooter, but the target just dodged a freakin' bullet!).

 

[Requia]

*Massive snip*

While you can't dodge a bullet, there's a .2-.25 second lapse (on average, this might be as low as .15 in exceptional cases) between action and reaction, being unable to dodge a bullet is fairly irrelevant here because a *lot* can happen in that gap, there's is a reason there's about 100,000 bullets fired for every person killed by gunfire in Afghanistan. Also, its the shooter that needs to predict what the target will do, not the other way around.

And you did not study ninjistsu, there's no such thing.

(Note that while gun defence is perfectly possible, it should only be attempted if you have no other choice, your life is not worth your wallet).

 

[Webb5432]

*Massive snip*

While you can't dodge a bullet, there's a .2-.25 second lapse (on average, this might be as low as .15 in exceptional cases) between action and reaction, being unable to dodge a bullet is fairly irrelevant here because a *lot* can happen in that gap, there's is a reason there's about 100,000 bullets fired for every person killed by gunfire in Afghanistan. Also, its the shooter that needs to predict what the target will do, not the other way around.

And you did not study ninjistsu, there's no such thing.

(Note that while gun defence is perfectly possible, it should only be attempted if you have no other choice, your life is not worth your wallet).

I definitely agree with the last note, and you are correct. Ninjutsu technically does not exist, I went to a bujenkan school (don't remember the spelling or the full name to be honest... Bujen- Bujan-kan.. screw it) that taught nine different martial arts disciplines, three of which were modified/ripped from the Japanese shinobi (ninjas) and the underlying concept of illusion-based fighting (leaving yourself intentionally open in a specific spot to goad out a specific reaction that happens to leave the opponent vulnerable to a counter that you are already prepared for), survival at all costs, and economy of movement. So yeah, we just call it ninjutsu for short.

As to your above comment, I was gonna rant to prove my point but it really does not make a difference. I probably sounded like a complete arse. Sorry. I do that sometimes. Arrogance is my Achilles heel (odd coming from a Canadian).

And yeah, I heard about the 100,000 bullets fired per kill thing, but I would like to say that I think that number is a little misleading. I believe it comes from the inherit difficulty of hitting targets at long range/in cover (does happen a lot, rocks and desert are often long-range combats from what I remember), and the urban environment provides lots of cover. Also, include suppression fire tactics designed to not necessarily hit anyone but to keep a group occupied, vehicle-mounted machine guns that do not always hit their targets, support fire that is designed to harass rather than kill (some artillery strikes and machine gun tactics from long range), and the amount of rounds planes and helicopters fire from their chainguns/miniguns which are also not very accurate (per bullet anyway), and the possibility that training rounds could be included in those counts. Also, misfires and firing due to panic-attacks or traumatic stress could also be included in those statistics. Plus, from a memoir I read from a private contractor in Iraq (the book is titled "Making a Killing" I believe), he describes a scene where two gunmen fire on an American convoy from behind a wall, and the convoy turns to that side and everybody shoots, unloading their magazine and creating a kill zone. However, I believe the gunmen got away via another escape route. This shows an ammo-hungry tactic that results in many rounds fired by the average soldier in tandem with others to create a kill zone.

I really have a hard time believing that the average soldier, whether Canadian, American, British, or what-have-you, will fire 100,000 rounds at something before they get a confirmed kill (I assume that unconfirmed kills are most likely not counted). But hey, I get it.