Leovaunt Game Design

Click here to edit subtitle

Forums

Post Reply
Forum Home > General Discussion > 2nd edition questions and feedback

Shadow Chorus
Member
Posts: 77
Oh, I very much understand that this is a game made from a simulationist perspective. And none of this feedback has come from a standpoint that the system is poorly designed or bad. While I am very much a proponent of more streamlined game design that leaves much of the action in the hands of the players imagination rather than rules text, I very much understand the appeal of a very in-depth very simulationst system. And that type of system certainly has its player group. However there is a point to be made that even more simulation is systems or more narrative systems all have something for players of the opposite Spectrum. Something to make accessibility more viable. As much as I love Dark Souls, Dark Souls also has this problem of cording a more hardcore gamer audience with a massive entry barrier for those who don't fit that descriptor. Let's also take a look for instance at DnD 3.5, which is the system that has a white amount of variance. It has an incredible depth of rules for more simulation as players, but at the same time if you are only playing with the base level of rules, you can be just as effective. the primary problem in those situations, is what happens when a simulation is player is playing with a group of more casual players. And that is a fair problem to have, and one that every DM should deal with. However, there is definitely something to be said for having multiple tiers of play that are still effective. And I don't mean that in the sense of the non-heroic heroic Etc. Which also reminds me of another piece of feedback that is less on the general accessibility and more on nomenclature. There's a certain degree of, as me of my players put it, engineering speak, which permeates a lot of the rules text for categories. This is particularly obvious with the difficulty levels. Heroic epic heroic and so on. Critical perspective these categories make sense, a certain level of advancement on a similar idea. However from a player perspective of someone who is not in that mindset, that gets confusing. I've had more than one player who was accidentally using the wrong leveling up system getting the wrong amount of character points per level because of the naming convention and they saw heroic and went for the base heroic rather than the Epic heroic that we are playing at. It's very much it's very much one of those situations where my players fully understand why it is named like that, but the naming is causing confusion. There is a separate issue with the naming of protoss implements, however. One of my players who is significantly more blunt than I am, has noted that the renaming of protoss ranged weapons to implements really doesn't serve much of a purpose mechanically, and would be better served that they should be called protoss range weapons, because the naming of implements simply causes one to believe they are a separate category of thing than range weapons. I have made the Counterpoint that implements are not quite range weapons in the same manner and that they are not reloaded like a gun, but there is a point to be made there that the fact that they are still weapons that attack at a range and use the ranged skill for attacking implies that they could simply be called ranged weapons and given the item trait that declares that they are not reloaded like a gun. Sorry if any of this seems scattered or awkwardly worded. I am using my phone's voice recognition to dictate all of this. It tends to end up looking very much like how the words left my mouth, and as we know human communication is flawed at times.
July 12, 2017 at 11:41 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Leovaunt
Site Owner
Posts: 219

I'm sorry to hear that some of your players hate my game. It's always sad and wounding to hear people say that. Is it the complexity? I thought you had removed most of the complexity from the system. I would be interested to hear why.


Xhupi is right in many regards; this was designed as a tactical RPG, therefore it has a substantial level of tactical depth. There is little openly narrative rules in it, because my personal belief is much of that should be handled in roleplaying and not dice rolls and rules. Let narrative run free, while people can call out their strategist and plot their battlefield experience and schemes in an encounter.


You mentioned Dnd 5E. 5th Edition did a lot of good things, giving a strong concept for character backgrounds, personality, and a psychological image for your character and giving you a strong idea of different narrative activities. A lot of stuff I'm going ot use in my Stellar Realms/Warcraft RPG system. But I have to be blunt. In combat, 5E is boring as *&^*. There's virtually no tactical depth, no strategy. It's basically just move and attack. I get for people that just want a narrative game, that is perferable. But I want encounters to be a chess match. I want there to be options, choices, and different strategies. Those are the games I enjoy playing, and those are the game I enjoy making.


I began in roleplaying almost 25 years ago as an open roleplayer. No rules, no dice, no character sheets. That was how I began in roleplaying, and that is sorta how I started. It's why I don't make narrative heavy rules; I don't feel it is needed. I don't care as much about your persuasion check as I do your arguement. I jumped into the tail end of ADD , but the moment that 3.0 was released was when I really started to get heavy into dice rolling tabletop RPG. And, while I've played dozens of rulesystems since then, DnD 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder is what I always keep coming back to. The tactical depth, all the little things your characters could do, finding ways to manipulate modifiers, epic boss monsters with tons of abilities, enemies that required their own strategies to defeat, I love it. 


That being said, yes, I listed a bunch of combat factors that determine your accuracy bonus. You already mentioned aiming is simple enough. Flanking wasn't even my concept; it was taken straight from WotC. The morale system is getting overhauled, that much we've established. Combat Augmentations (tactics, leadership, lore, pilot) are deceptively simple and add a lot of depth and synergy to an encounter.


I get it, I'm an indie developer. Until recently, I was a one-man team indie developer. I could have done what everyone else does and  just copied someone elses work, done a few modifications to it, and say 'Hey! Here's a starcraft RPG!'. But I didn't. I chose to build something new and unique, taking a few base concepts from other games and build up from there. I decided to add in rules ideas and mechanics no one else ever did. Maybe some of them work. Maybe a lot of them don't. But I update and make it better. I didn't play it safe. I chose to take risks and pioneer new ideas. 


*Sigh* I'm starting to ramble again.


In short, I get the game has complexity, especially when you compare it to 5th edition or other bare-bones systems like that. It has more complexity than I like. I am actively trying to remove complexity WHILE retaining tactical depth and the immense scale of the game. THAT is the trick I am working on.


As the system is numerically its own thing, I have to run a 'risk vs reward' on everything that is done. One reason your idea for the morale system wasn't implemented was that it was too much benefit for too little investment. Ranks in leadership are trivial to gain, and maintaining a passive buff aura that gives everyone large benefits is too powerful for how little work needs to go into it and maintain it. You might be able to balance it out by making it sustained as a standard action, but then that character becomes criminally boring to play. 


Hopefully this gives you some idea of my design principles and why I make the desicions that I do. As Xhupi said before me, I'm not trying to be negative, just wanting to provide context. Everything that EVERYONE is saying is being taken into account for how it fits into the image and design philosphy of the game. Just because I argue with you does not mean I'm not listening. I hope you believe that. 

--

~Leovaunt

July 12, 2017 at 12:13 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Leovaunt
Site Owner
Posts: 219

You totally wrote your post while I was writing mine. lol


I get what you are saying about implements. It makes sense. I'll tell you why it is the way it is right now. Implements used to work on their own skill. There was not a ranged skill; instead there was an Implement skill and their own rules, so they had their own section. Now, they are basically just ranged weapons with a psychic recharge check. I left it the way it was because I though it was more organized; never occured to me that it would confuse people. Maybe I should just mix them all in one weapon section.Stuff to think about.

--

~Leovaunt

July 12, 2017 at 12:21 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Leovaunt
Site Owner
Posts: 219

The power levels right now are Heroic, Extreme Heroic, and Epic Heroic. Are you suggesting that they be renamed? And if so to what? What would be less confusing?

--

~Leovaunt

July 12, 2017 at 12:24 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Shadow Chorus
Member
Posts: 77
The suggestion given by my players was simply heroic extreme and epic. Adding the same word in a second time creates sort of a confusing rehash. As to the point of DnD 5e combat being boring, I would put to you this point. DND 5e combat is not about numbers, it is about effects. I can do amazing things in 5th edition combat that I frankly find not existent in older editions of DnD. Things that no other class can do, certain classes have this ability. For instance, the Arcane Trickster. It doesn't get a plus X circumstance bonus when using magic to apply stealth, it gets the ability to pickpocket people with its mage hand. To open locks with Mage hand. The ability to do something more than anyone else could do. It's not a numerical Advantage, it's an ability and effect Advantage. These are things are easy to understand, and create more depth. Rather than as I Envision it, being numerically better at doing the same things that everyone can do, 5th edition creates new things that someone can do that no one else can. Only an Arcane trickster can pickpocket a grenade into someone else's pocket and pull the pin from him a good distance away, and only a barbarian can flatly refused to die over and over again. The creation of depth via new abilities, rather than by numerical modifiers, can make it complex system that is easy to grasp. Rather than having to keep track of 15 floating modifiers like in Pathfinder and 3.5, you have relatively easy to grasp numbers, but a wide array of abilities that you can play with. I'm not saying that this is the kind of thing that you want for your game system, but this is a point that I would make that DND 5e combat is not boring. It's just not numerically complex, there is a lot of stuff you can do by manipulating abilities rather than numbers. And that also tends to inform a lot of my design philosophy, because I would rather not make it a game of math. I would rather make it a game of ingenuity. My personal design philosophy is that rather than making a numerical Advantage, because that makes balance very difficult, I would rather make a unique ability. Part of why I previously suggested that protoss weapon should be more esoteric and have more unique abilities, whereas tearing weapon should be more straightforwardly damaging. It creates new abilities rather than new numbers, and also makes a very straightforward and simple mechanic for Terran players
July 12, 2017 at 12:53 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Shadow Chorus
Member
Posts: 77
I also apologize for any weird spellings or words Miss typings, because I am still doing this with my phone using voice recognition. I sometimes will miss something that the phone doesn't pick up the right way.
July 12, 2017 at 1:08 PM Flag Quote & Reply

xhupi
Moderator
Posts: 42

So I'm all for changing extreme heroic and epic heroic, but then IMHO there'd need to be a different name for nonheroic -- and this might just be me being pendantic, but then epic and extreme are technically *non-heroic* as heroic is an option separate from themselves.  On the other hand, I don't have a suggestion for what a good replacement would be... 

July 12, 2017 at 2:53 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Shadow Chorus
Member
Posts: 77
I mean, the name is brings to mind is civilian. But that might not be accurate considering the nature of of the non-heroic creatures.
July 12, 2017 at 3:04 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Leovaunt
Site Owner
Posts: 219

Nonheroic doesn't just appy to civilians, as marines and such are nonheroic. It mostly just refers to generic NPCs. I'm up to name changes if people has suggestions. 


Now the idea that protoss implement should be more than just weapons with stat blocks, that is a GREAT idea. It'll give me and Xhupi something to think about. If you have any ideas about ways to convert implemans into being more ability focused, we are sure to listen.


As far as 5th edition, meh,we will have to agree to disagree. Lots of game systems have the capacity to do thing like the arcane tricksters power, including different editions and previous version of the arcane trickster. Psionic powers can do that through abilities such as Move Object and (especially) Manipulate telekinetic power That being said, as I've said I do like many things about 5th edition, but combat in it leaves something to be desired to me.

--

~Leovaunt

July 12, 2017 at 3:26 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Shadow Chorus
Member
Posts: 77
Well, part of it is that numbers are thing that I have trouble visualizing in context of a role playing setting. I'm good at math, I enjoy math, but when a game becomes so much about the flinging numbers around, I start to lose immersion in a universe. One of my close RPG friends has a very similar philosophy very similar background to your history and he also shares a lot of your thoughts on the various editions of DnD. We've had this conversation many times, he enjoys playing the numbers, I enjoy playing with things. Effects and abilities are much easier for me to visualize in a setting and rationalize thematically. I am much more about the feel. I would generally like to keep numbers as simple as possible to keep them from getting in the way of characters doing amazing things only they can. it's part of why I have a love-hate relationship with DND. I love the idea of the classes and Prestige classes, they make someone who very unique and plays the game in a unique way. But I also hate the constant presence of ridiculous and huge numbers that make it difficult to balance around, and difficult for new players to step into. I constantly going to the Pyremaster Prestige class from the WoWRPG as one of my favorite Prestige classes ever. Their ability to become immune to and subsequently healed by fire damage and their ability to create flaming Undead is something that is unique to them and makes them stand out. Those abilities, not those numbers, how it make me love them so much.
July 12, 2017 at 3:54 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Shadow Chorus
Member
Posts: 77
As for protoss weaponry. One of the conversations that we've had a lot of discussion on is the disintegration rod. My players generally seem to enjoy the idea of weapon that punches through one enemy into the next. The problem that we currently have is the fact that it basically overpowers similar Terran weapons. Perhaps if it did a little less immediate damage and was easier to punch through targets, it would strike that esoteric balance, becoming a weapon that is used to hit several enemies for Less damage, as opposed to say sniper rifle which hits one target for a ton of damage.
July 12, 2017 at 4:13 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Shadow Chorus
Member
Posts: 77
We had also had the thought of the fact that some protoss weapons fire seeking bolts. Perhaps being able to Target an enemy who is not in line of sight at a certain penalty.
July 12, 2017 at 4:21 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Leovaunt
Site Owner
Posts: 219

Is this the White Wolf Wow RPG you are talking about? The discontinued one?


What you are talking about for the disinitegration rod is possible. Lowering damage but increasing penetration to coorespond with the Unstoppable trait. 


I think you will like some of the things Xhupi is doing for the Advanced Terran Training Manual 2E. Furthermore, I think you will like the LGD fantasy system too (coincidently first being designed for warcraft, then later my own setting). 

--

~Leovaunt

July 12, 2017 at 5:17 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Leovaunt
Site Owner
Posts: 219

Also, Starcraft player compendium is coming up next. The biggest part of it will be primal zerg rules. You should talk to your players (especially Sensataku) about what you want to change about primal zerg, and what you don't want to change. Both are essential to deciding how they will work in 2e. I am very open to feedback on them right.  

--

~Leovaunt

July 12, 2017 at 5:24 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Shadow Chorus
Member
Posts: 77
I am indeed talking about the official wow RPG. I own All of the books, and we very recently finished up a campaign that I had been dming
July 12, 2017 at 5:25 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Leovaunt
Site Owner
Posts: 219

I also have all the books. I liked the game; wished they had supported it longer. I liked it overall, some things were a little awkard though. Like trying to have based 3.5 Dnd, but then trying to add warcraft stuff on top of it. I think it could have been streamlined a little better. The profession system comes in mind. Dnd potions and alchemist potions. Classic magic items and then 'Enchanter' enchantments ontop of them. Seemed weird. 


I remember one time having a succubus dominate a dark iron berserker wielding two throium axes. WIped the floor with the rest of the party, was pretty aweful yet we all thought it was very funny. Those good ole' thorium weapons. 

--

~Leovaunt

July 12, 2017 at 5:51 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Shadow Chorus
Member
Posts: 77
The people who made the first and second edition books, once they lost the licensing, actually released one unofficial supplement called even more magic and Mayhem it's fairly neat and also includes some new profession rules that match up fairly well with the MMORPG
July 12, 2017 at 6:28 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Shadow Chorus
Member
Posts: 77

feedback on character sheets. The suggestion was made for there to be a section for crippling wounds on different limbs to be tracked separately. The note was made that the space for vehicles could be used for that and a separate sheet could be made to list vehicles.

July 13, 2017 at 9:38 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Shadow Chorus
Member
Posts: 77

Another major note was also just made: With the 30 level scaling, the Epic power level might run into the issue of running out of things to take. One of my characters has actually maxed out all of their skills at level 9, another is running out of talents to feasibly take.

July 13, 2017 at 9:48 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Leovaunt
Site Owner
Posts: 219

Character sheet is about to be redone, partially because the crippling wound locations are about to be overhauled. There will no longer be right leg/left leg. Was too much to keep track of. I will keep it all in mind.


I sometimes forget about character sheets, because I don't use them myself, just a microsoft word document that I print out and scribble on. I forget sometimes that is a rarity rather than a rule, i've done it that way for so long. Anyways, I'm going to try to remember to get the new versions of the record sheets done once the major update goes up (and finally getting the Fallout record sheets finished).


--

~Leovaunt

July 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM Flag Quote & Reply

You must login to post.