|
Post by Gravedust on Jun 24, 2010 14:04:17 GMT -8
Ooh.. Close but not quite. And @ Brendur.. Don't worry about Vik too much.. You can track him down if you want, but it's not in the main story and I'm not going to make you. Because that would be lame. He was a good excuse to get you out of prison and a story lead to follow if you all choose, but his further involvement in anything is up to y'all. However he does have a function in the world, as you surmised. But yeah.. I'm trying real hard not to put Mary-Sues in the story anywhere. This story is about YOUR characters, not mine, and Ima try to keep it that way as much as I can. ;D
|
|
|
Post by jazzs3quence on Jun 24, 2010 14:06:53 GMT -8
Has anyone figured out the joke behind the ship's name, BTW? um...it's biblical?
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jun 24, 2010 14:09:48 GMT -8
Nope, a bit more modern than that. Del was pretty close. He just had the wrong game.
|
|
|
Post by brendur on Jun 24, 2010 14:51:49 GMT -8
Bethesda IS indeed the name of that company, but Grave is winking at The Elder Scrolls, which to my knowledge at least two of them start off with the main character on a prison/ prison ship, only to have them set free by royalty. Also I don't mind whether or not we run into Viktor again, Tom would just hit on his girlfriend. I just find it hilarious that by the rules of most contemporary fiction, this crew wouldn't be the focus of the story, but rather a collection of short stories written around it . Viktor rides off into the sunset and let's the hooligans run wild, it ...is...hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jun 24, 2010 14:54:22 GMT -8
BINGO!
A WINNAR IS YOU! ;D
|
|
|
Post by danielle1 on Jun 24, 2010 16:56:01 GMT -8
I knew...IF you will note I actually commented on the name on the VERY FIRST post I made. You know I knew....I WANT A PRIZE TOO!! *goes to room, slams door, turns on Ozzy and pout*
|
|
|
Post by brendur on Jul 18, 2010 4:07:21 GMT -8
Among the flag messages, you may want to consider one for a plague ship, as disease was a common occurrence in confined areas.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jul 18, 2010 15:34:47 GMT -8
I think the airships featured in the game don't quite have the susceptibility to disease that the older sailing vessels( to which they're often compared to) do, simply because they're faster and get to where they're going a lot quicker, so you don't have situations where you're coped up on a vessel for 40 days or something like that, with your food going bad around you and a less than awesome understanding of disease vectors and the dietary requirements that humans have. That being said, I think it'd still be a handy thing to have for plot reasons, so I'll stick it in.
|
|
|
Post by jazzs3quence on Jul 18, 2010 19:22:12 GMT -8
given that bredur has already stated that he's read Boneshaker, I think that I'm thinking what he's thinking when it comes to plague ship and, therefore, wholeheartedly agree.
mmmm...zombie airship....
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jul 18, 2010 19:43:24 GMT -8
Actually picked up Boneshaker this weekend, along with Scott Pilgrim Vol1 and some samurai manga called Vagabond. Very impressive art, and the story is pretty alright once you settle into it. S.Pilgrim is a cute little book.
Haven't had a chance to get into B.Shaker just yet but I read the back and inside front.. Looks like fun.
|
|
|
Post by brendur on Jul 18, 2010 19:57:25 GMT -8
Zombie Airships, crazy inquisitor types sworn to eradicate deadly diseases at all costs, Mad scientists trying to control said diseases, the possibilities are endless
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jul 18, 2010 20:04:25 GMT -8
Hehe.. Kate loves Zombies so I was saying I might have to find a way to work them in. (Or else just make a zombie game. But there's a popular one out already) but the idea I wound up with is it's not voodoo per se, but rather a rare disease from the deep jungle (transmitted a'la Malaria) that basically disables your upper brain functions, turning you into a drooling, moaning, shambling thing.. Not really undead, but they do take a lot of killing since the normal human 'Ow jesus I just got hit- Well, I'll go into shock and/or shut down' reaction is short-circuited. They'll just go until they physically can't anymore.
I also wanted there to be a cure, so the emphasis would be more on evading/stalling them till the vaccine has a chance to work, rather than just killing them all. 'course you still could if you were like that...
|
|
|
Post by jazzs3quence on Jul 18, 2010 20:15:44 GMT -8
That's kinda-sorta along the lines of what Boneshaker does, actually...
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jul 18, 2010 20:24:42 GMT -8
Hehehe. Yeah I read the plot synopsis and went. 'Oh.. Well there goes that. >.>' Hence me spoilering my version, since I probably won't do it now. I hate it when people steal me ideas before I have them and then don't tell me.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Jul 21, 2010 9:45:07 GMT -8
So heyyyy... Back when you all were making items, how annoying was it? I've been looking at the formulas and I think I can simplify things a bit, especially with regards to calculating Rarity. The end result would be that rarity per Stat would increase a bit, (~20%) but the rarity for having more than 1 stat is reduced since it isn't multiplicative anymore, it's calculated just as Cost usually is: [Amount of stat] x [Stat multiplier] = Rarity (I increased all the current rarity modifiers by x10, so 1.3 is now 13, etc) And for items with multiple stats: [Amount of stat1] x [Stat1 multiplier] = Rarity 1 [Amount of Stat2] x [Stat2 multiplier] = Rarity 2 and: Rarity1 + Rarity2 = Total Rarity, bang you're done. Rather than: -------------------------------------------- [Amount of Stat1 added] x [Rarity multiplier] = [Stat Rarity1] [Amount of Stat2 added] x [Rarity multiplier] = [Stat Rarity2] [Stat Rarity1] + [Stat Rarity2] = [Total Rarity] [[Total Rarity]] x [Number of Stats Used]] x 4 = [Total Stat Rarity] As it is currently. Originally when I deigned the stat generation system it was for my personal use only, since I wasn't originally going to include player crafting in the game. I just wanted a way to balance stats and cost/rarity quickly and w/o guesswork. As a result I built in a little bit of variability so it wouldn't be obvious that I was using a system to generate all these stats. But it also made things needlessly complex and I don't want to cause aggravation to all the people trying to make items and wondering why the hell there is this extra math there making things difficult. ANYWAY. The other downside to this is that every item Tailoring/Tinkering Item in the the game will have to have it's rarity recalculated. (weapons and explosives, etc would remain unchanged.) and I may decide to put back in a difficulty multiplier for having more than 1 stat on an item (Accessories would still get a free ride) but I need to twiggle with it a bit. I also may re-weight the rarity multipliers on stats to give results I like more as they maaaay be a bit high with the new system. I'll have to test a bit. Anyway, thought I should let you know, and if anyone has any comments on the matter, please let me know.
|
|
|
Post by jazzs3quence on Jul 21, 2010 10:56:49 GMT -8
i didn't find the current/former system all that annoying, but I didn't do a lot (any) multiple stat item crafting (um...i don't think?). but then, i'm a sucker for systems and arbitrary stat generation, so...
|
|
|
Post by brendur on Aug 19, 2010 11:41:16 GMT -8
I was thinking with the recent change to Com Tac that allows you to catch someone flatfooted and make a surprise attack: what if there was a mechanic that allowed someone with combat tactics to lessen or eliminate the advantages multiple attackers have against a target? It would represent maneuvering opponents so that they were in each others way when they attacked.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Aug 19, 2010 12:34:11 GMT -8
Well that's an interesting idea but I'm not sure how it could be implemented in the game system.
You have some generic defenses like Dodge, Duck and Weave and Return Fire that rely on Com Tac to be effective (being that these effects don't begin until your turn rolls around, so the better your Com Tac is, the more effective your defenses will be.
I could maaaaaaaaybe see the effect you describe as being an Action of some sort... But I'm not sure how I'd implement that, either.
|
|
|
Post by brendur on Aug 19, 2010 13:15:28 GMT -8
How about an action like this:
Outflank: To perform this maneuver, the character must possess a higher Com Tac roll than the targets. It is only performable for melee, and only when there are multiple attackers. The player performs an attack roll against one of the targets attacking him, and forgoes any damage he may inflict via the attack (this doesn't apply to who he's attacking). Instead if he wins the roll, the amount by which he succeeds is applied against the penalty of multiple attackers to all attacks thereafter. The character may score only as high as their Swashbuckling skill, and it is only applied to the multiple attacker pentalty.
Example:
Jake is attacked by Tom, Dick, Larry, and Moe. He wins against them all on the Com Tac roll, and choses to Outflank Tom as his last action for that round.
Jake beats Tom on the Outflank by 40, however his swashbuckling is only 10, so he only applies 10 to the oncoming attack penalties, like so. Jake does no damage to Tom.
Tom's attack: [D100+Attacker's Swashbuckling] Vs [D100+Defender's Swashbuckling] Dicks's attack: [D100+Attacker's Swashbuckling] Vs [D100+Defender's Swashbuckling] Larry's attack: [D100+Attacker's Swashbuckling] Vs [D100+Defender's Swashbuckling][-10] Moe's attack: [D100+Attacker's Swashbuckling] Vs [D100+Defender's Swashbuckling][-20]
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Aug 19, 2010 14:53:09 GMT -8
Wellll.. Some of the language in your writeup isn't necessary, for instance you can't use the move against anyone who has a higher Com Tac than you by default because of the way Com Tac works.
Likewise, Multiple attackers isn't something you'll know about while declaring actions so I guess you can choose the use the ability if you're -anticipating- being attacked more than once in the coming round.
If you want to use base Com Tac values as a trigger, I'm afraid I'm not going to allow that because the rest of the system doesn't use the straight base values, there's always that D100 involved. So by the time you know how your Com Tac roll stacks up against everyone else's it's too late to do anything about it.
Anyway.. the point being that as I understand it, it creates sort of a mess in the ruleset. Also it introduces some floating variables (You have to remember the results of the outflank roll for the rest of the round so you can apply them against other attackers) which I try to avoid whenever I can.
I do -very- much like the spirit of the idea however, there aren't very many defensive measures you can take against melee, though there are a couple for ranged.
Taking that idea and mangling it a little, I come up with:
---- +Defensive Maneuvering Attempts to use a melee attacker's bulk against them in order to help ward off other attacks. While a Character is engaged in Defensive Maneuvering The first character who uses a Melee attack the character using Defensive Maneuvering attacks as normal. However any subsequent Attackers (Melee or Ranged) that round must roll: [Attacker's D100+Combat Tactics] Vs. [Defender's D100+Combat Tactics]. If the Defender's (the one who declared the Defensive Maneuvering) roll is higher, the attack fails automatically on account of the attacker not being able to get to (or shoot) the target. (The defender moves in such a way that their first attacker's body blocks subsequent attackers.)
Note the Defensive Maneuvering only comes into effect once the character has had time to put the Action into effect. Until then, all melee attacks proceed as normal. Also note that attacks that fail due to Defensive Maneuvering do not add to the defense penalty of the character being attacked. Second Strike attacks associated with attacks that fail because of Defensive Maneuvering also fail.
----
.. Okay actually it wound up being quite a bit different than what was originally proposed.. >.> Also I changed the name since I mostly think of flanking more of an offensive tactic and I didn't want to confuse people... People like me, apparently.
Now it offers a chance that attacks after the first one are simply ignored completely. I figure that's a nice enough tradeoff since it's not at all guaranteed to work unless you have a comparatively really high Com Tac. It's also a good reason to not just set all your melee guys on one target and try to tear them down one at a time, because if he anticipates that and pops DefMan on you many of their attacks could just go to waste.
Overall I think I need to think about it a bit more before I decide wether to commit to it or not. it seems liek fun, but there might be some sticky points I haven't considered yet.
I have another half-baked idea for melee defense, but I'm still trying to figure it out..
This is your idea, originally, so you're free to give me some feedback or propose anything else or re-explain your original idea if you think I missed the point somewhere....
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Aug 19, 2010 15:00:11 GMT -8
I remembered what it was!
+Defensive stance The Character concentrates on a solid defensive swashbuckling techniques. Takes 1 Action. Halves the defense penalty for being attacked multiple times in melee.
|
|
|
Post by brendur on Aug 20, 2010 6:24:55 GMT -8
Hmmm, actually yours does seem to fit better with the combat system, I suppose why mine seemed so complicated was all the addendum I had so that it wouldn't be too easy for a character to negate the multiple attacker effect.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Aug 20, 2010 8:30:06 GMT -8
Yeah... It still isn't exactly easy via the Defensive Maneuvering thing, you have to have someone melee-attack you before it'll go into effect and even then there's a chance they still might hit.. But if you have a ton of Com Tac or are getting Zerged it could be pretty useful. Also it works against ranged attacks too, which is cool. Defensive stance is a lot more straightforward, just a purely defensive Action. Though still it's only really useful if you're fighting several people. Anyway.. thank you for making that suggestion. I know it didn't quite make it across in the manner you suggested, but it is a really good idea ought to benefit the game. I hate to give the impression that I'm taking a good idea, changing two things and then taking the credit, though. : / But once everyone gets a little more familiar with the system it ought to be easier to write new actions or other things that fit right in perfectly. Anyway, I'll give you some bonus CP for helping out with developing the ruleset. And thanks again, very much. This is exactly why I invite other peoples into the dev process; new ideas come up that I never would have thought of, or would have taken a lot longer to come about.
|
|
|
Post by brendur on Aug 20, 2010 8:41:53 GMT -8
Oh no, no worries at all ;D ideas are nice and malleable that way. Just as proud to say I inspired something to be as I am to say I created it myself.
|
|
|
Post by brendur on Aug 24, 2010 9:32:58 GMT -8
Another idea I've been noodling.
Cross-skill Creations. Items which require the application of not one but two or more skills to reach fruition. As a for instance:
Two items from different skill sets.
1. Grenade from the Sapping skill 2. my own little noggin baby, Dr. Soluables Wonder Glue (Pharmacopia or Tinkering, whichever is appropriate) - great for gluing doors shut, leaving for brutes to step in, or just finishing that Hecate model that refuses to stand up in the bottle.
When their powers are combined, they create: Glue Grenades!
I figured there would be a roll to combine them, perhaps both skills rolled and combined towards an appropriately large DC?
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Aug 24, 2010 9:57:36 GMT -8
Hmmmmn. That could probably be done via a Modification. (Formerly Accessory) Modifications are intended as little doodads that add functionality for other equipment... ...Which would probably make them a Tinkering item (that uses the rules for thrown explosives) so you'd need to be a Tinker to make it, but remember you can buy them in the world, too.
But to answer your question I'm going to try like hell to avoid cross-skill crafting since the rules don't really support it. So if I can add any special effects people want by adding a Modification that does that rather than make the base rules more complex I'll opt for that...
|
|
|
Post by brendur on Aug 24, 2010 10:17:20 GMT -8
kk...but now I'm stuck thinking about Glue Grenades...Jayne...ready the sticky...
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Aug 24, 2010 10:44:29 GMT -8
Nothin' wrong with glue grenades. ;D
Just tell me what they do, remembering it needs to stay balanced with the rest of the combat system.
|
|
|
Post by brendur on Oct 18, 2010 6:52:42 GMT -8
Joker's Jacket
Toughness +10 Intimidate + 5 Storage Slots + 4 Size: 3 Cost: 180
Description: Designed originally for a knife thrower who liked having plenty of weapons on hand, this vest earned it's moniker and countless others (Mad man's mail, the last vest you'll ever wear, ect) when it was re-purposed by Mad-Eyed McCreedy. The four straps in the front have been made wider and given a clip and hook set up so that the simple act of pulling a grenade from the vest arms it for throwing. A chain mail weave has been sewn into the leathers inside to provide protection for the wearer, but that's little comfort to the victim of a premature detonation.
Note: I'm wasn't sure how to mechanically implement the set up I described above, so I just used the storage mod instead. Perhaps a new modification for grenades in specific?
|
|
|
Post by Gravedust on Oct 18, 2010 11:30:16 GMT -8
Hmm.. Well you were right on for the price but you didn't include a difficulty/rarity so I calculated that for you. It wound up as being 120 if you added Toughness and Intimidate as straight stats, so I took off the Intimidate and instead used 2 slots to put on Spike Modifications. (+2 intim each) which gave it 4 Intim instead, but lowered the diff all the way back down to 50. The price also dropped to 175.
Also the size of the item is effected by both the Toughness you added and the pockets you added, so the final size is 6.
Giving us:
Name: ######### Slot: Chest Bonus: +10 Toughness Bonus: +4 Intimidate Effect: - Rarity: 50 Cost: 175 Size: 6 Modifications: (Spikes (x2)) Description: ###########
Which ought to be correct unless my math sucks. And it does, so I'll proably recalc it again at some point. >.>
So... I'm not 100% certain what you want the effect of the grenade.. throwing.. thing to be... Ooooooooooooh.
Wait you want it so that you can remove an item and use it as part of a single action? Like sort of a quick-release pouch?
Or something else?
But in any case it would probably be handled through a modification, yeah..
You know I considered doing modifications for grenades to give them features like tripwires and timers and such.. but in the end I decided to just let it go and gave sappers all those abilities by default, no matter what explosive they're using.
Maybe I'll amend that to be they can do all that stuff if they have a special kit with them. Or maybe not.
|
|