The crux of the mechanic is in the Victory Chance and Synergy stats. There are 6 classes, currently, that form the foundation of other classes. Warrior, Defender, Ranged, Quick(Sort of like... duelist? I dunno a better word for that), Power Caster, and Support Caster. Each class has their base rate of Victory Chance, but also gives Synergy to all their teammates. The base rate is small, 5-10, and the synergy is in the 1-5 range. You take a group of 4 adventurers, and each one applies synergy to the other. The sum of all the numbers provides you with a percentage number, with your chance of victory in an encounter, the Total Victory Chance.

From there, you pick a quest location/dungeon, put in a few commands, and off they go. This ends your involvement for now. From there, your party goes off, travelling through the wilderness. Every, say, hex of wilderness travel that your party passes through, they might have a random monster encounter. Assuming they survive that, they reach the dungeon, and then go through encounters at the location until either they die or become wounded, they run out of stamina, they fill up on loot, they reach a preset limit set by your commands, etc. Then they return, and you get a report on the mission.

Each encounter runs simply. Your party, composed of 4 adventurers, has their Total Victory Chance. The encounter, comprised of a party of "monsters", has their own Total Victory Chance. Both the party and encounter roll against their TVC. If the party wins and the encounter fails, the party wins, and vice versa. If they both succeed, the one who rolled highest without going over wins. If they both fail, reroll.

Immeadiately afterward, each party member rolls to see if they are now wounded. If the encounter was a failure, this check is made with a massive penalty. If the party is unwounded, yet fails, this represents them fleeing from the encounter. If the party succeeds, and are alive, they are awarded treasure. Then each member rolls to see if they fail an Endurance check, and if they do, they are too low on physica/spiritual/magic energy or ammunition to continue, and the quest ends, even if only member failed the check.

That is the core of the mechanics of the game. It is not a Tactics game, it is a management game. It will most likely be automated, like a Rogue-like, and probably put to some kind of delay, if I have my wishes and it eventually becomes linked to a psuedopersistent world. But it is not all the mechanics, as I've referenced. Each class currently has several abstracted stats, some simple, some unimportant. Victory and Synergy, I already went over. Endurance, a catchall stat of stamina, ammunition, and magic supply. I know this seems like a strange thing to combine, but really, it functions the same. A warrior's fatigue, an archer's arrows, a wizard's magic power, when they're low/gone, no more fighting. This stat functions by basically a culmulative X% chance per encounter. The longer the quest goes, the more likely to fail. Pack stat is simply how much loot that the unit can carry.

Health is done in levels. Health will recover slowly, between adventures. Healing magic is nice for D&D, but I want you to worry and care.
Healthy = Normal.
Stunned = Normal. Go to Healthy at the end of a quest.
Hurt = Half synergy given to allies.
Wounded = Automatically fail the Endurance check. Cannot be sent out on quests.
Stricken = Same as Wounded.
Dying = Same as Wounded, for the moment.
Dead = Guess.

Now those are the rules as I have set up for now. I have several idea in the pipeline, though I'm either not sure on their implementation, or just want to get the thing stable before I introduce it. Obviously the first one is equipment. What else is loot for? I'll need lots of variances on equipment and either premade examples, or some sort of item generation method. Second is improvement. I'm not sure how I want to do that, but the one that cries out for me is to improve synergy between *specific* units. ie, you get better at working with Eagle The Archer, not every archer. I also want to add upkeep and prices, so you have to take care of your guys. Bases, so you can send out forays without having to march through so much wilderness, but you also have to staff them and defend them. "Prestige Classes", monstrous units, special units, elemental system, etc etc. I've got more than few ideas to go with it, ubt I want to get the core of the game working before I dick around.

So it's like Nethack or Dungeon Crawl, except that the extent of your involvement is setting up a group and telling them when they should come back?

...so, SimAdventure, basically.

I remember this.

>What else is loot for?

The game is about killing and looting. You get better loot to kill bigger monsters. Which get you better loot and so and so forth.

So what I need to work on next is items I guess. Each member will have 4 item slots, varying depending on their class. What I have so far is various slots, some shared, some not shared.

Warrior: 2-Handed Weapon, Light Armor, and Armor.
Defender: Weapon, Heavy Armor, Shield, Armor.
Ranged: Weapon, Quiver, Light Armor, Uh... Coudln't think of a 4th one.
Quick: Weapon, Light Armor, and uh... I got nothing.
Power Caster: Focus, Paper, Uhh. No idea.
Support Caster: Focus Paper, ditto, no idea.

Some of those are self explanitory. At least the weapons. Light Armor and Heavy Armor, are suits of armor. "Armor" itself, is something simple, and nondescript, like a helmet, boots, etc. Weapons... I kind of want to seperate weapons between the classes, but not sure how at the moment. Focus would be some kind of implement, like a staff, ring, amulet, etc. Paper, would be about the same, with scrolls or tomes or something.

Mechanic-wise, the weapons/focus would provide a bonus to victory chance maybe 1-10, the armors providing bonuses to peril, probably 1-3, the quiver/Paper providing bonuses to endurance, probably 1-3 as well.. Aside from that, I'm really not sure. Of course I also want to include an elemental system, as well as something for more unique items.

There, /tg/, I've worked on it, revised it, rerevised it, editted the mechanics, and there you go. MY BRAIN BARFS UPON YOU.

Any comments, questions, concerns?

>>7414200

Elemental system, in this case, I would assume being similar to:

Fire-weapons:
+5 Victory Chance against Plant and Ice enemies
-5 Victory Chance against Fire and Rock enemies

?

I'd play this game.

My first question as a would-be player is how many adventurers I start with. And on that note, how do I get more?

Tactics games usually have this as a side thing you can do with excess rubes. I know you could sent people off in FF Tactics Advance. It's also something you did in King of Dragon Pass.

What's the framework? Is the player the "Adventurer's Guild" or whatever large organization. You would kind of have to be right?

What do you do while your groups of guys are out on quests?

Does the proposed game randomly generate personalities and little tiffs that happen on a quest that affect future compatibility between certain individuals?

I'm guessing they bring back the money or loot and the player/ organization uses it to outfit it's armory for the adventure groups?

What else do you manage?

Warrior: 2-Handed Weapon, Light Armor, and Armor.
Defender: Weapon, Heavy Armor, Shield, Armor.
Ranged: Weapon (Two-handed), Quiver, Light Armor
Quick: Weapon, Buckler, Light Armor, Technique,
Power Caster: Implement, Robe, Spellbook, Totem
Support Caster: Implement, Robe, Spellbook, Holy Symbol

>>7414230
I was thinking more a "Tag" system, similar to 4e. Your flaming weapon would be tagged with "Fire", and any monsters would have a specific weakness or resistance to fire, rather than it being a property of the weapon.

>>7414252
thats on the drawing board. At first I wanted to have adventurers be like livestock, you just go buy more. But I'm also toying with the idea of adventurers petitioning to join your crew. I'd probably start you off with 4, maybe 5.

>>7414261
I tried to explain the concept using FFTA's thing, and everyone just said "FFTA SUCKS".
And yes, the player is the manager of the "Guild", so to speak.
What YOU do while the party is out there? Well, in-game, nothing, you're a manager.
Out of game... I'm not sure. I was wanting, eventually, to have a persistent world, where you're doing this alongside other people.
I'm nowhere near there yet, but I want the functionality. Yes, one of the BIG things I want to have is randomly generated personalities and stuff.
Yeah.

ALSO I APOLOGIZE, I AM COOKING DINNER RIGHT NOW, SO I'M RESPONDING SLOWLY

>>7414562
>I was thinking more a "Tag" system, similar to 4e.
Those are keywords. Tagging is a SotC rule.

>>7414608
Eh? Whatever, Heart Points, Hit Points, Health Potential, whatever.

Would certain quests get bonuses with particular units sent?

i.e. "The brown bear population is running perilously thin!" Send 1 or 2 Rangers and have a much higher victory rate?

or, "The Tomb of the Forgotten King has been found and is just waiting for experienced archaelogist" would get a bonus for sending a Priest and a Treasure Hunter?

I know there are no such classes, but I'm more asking about the general idea than specific implementations.

Also, it seems slightly unfair to me that Warriors get, effectively, only 3 equipment slots. Depending on implementation, it can either make them either [a] disproportionately easier to find equipment for (one less equipment slot = one less adventurer-killing quest for that special equipment) or [b] powered-down, since unless the bonuses are jacked-up for 2-handers they might be less-than-adequate for many fights.

Have you thought about rules pertaining to multiclassing and leveling? Reincarnation of dead heroes?

You could give adventurers special skills that define them past their character class. Some might be mechanical, like a Tough as Nails ability that gives a bonus to resist wounds. Others might just be keywords that give bonuses on certain quests, like Animal Empathy, Diplomatic, Seductive, etc.

You could even tie some of these items; i.e. a magic scabbard that grants the Tough as Nails skill.

Also, how would synergy be calculated? It seems that, for the purposes of the game, max synergy would be achieved with a well-balanced party (Defender + Quick + Support Caster + X, for instance), but this doesn't necessarily follow from a realistic point-of-view; the highest synergies would be achieved from a group of like-minded individuals (Warrior + Defender), since they would have more in common and such.

How would victory rates be handled in cases where adventurer and enemy levels are different? For that matter, how would enemy victory rates be calculated at all? Would it be something like, Monster Group A has several Magic Units and Adventurer Group B has no magic-countering units, so A has a +10 Victory Chance for this fight? Or would it be more simple, such as A is average level 20 and B is average level 25, so A gets a -10 Victory Chance for this fight?

Okay need to address points better using formatting
>>7414729
>Would certain quests get bonuses with particular units sent?
Yes, but in so much that the encounters would be based in such a way that it makes sense. ie, taking the fire mage into the Highly Flammable Monster Nest.

>Warriors
Well.. I didn't fill out all the slots for everyone else. I just coudln't think of one to fit in.

>Have you thought about rules pertaining to multiclassing and leveling? Reincarnation of dead heroes?

Leveling would be done through increased synergy bonuses between specific units. Grabnar The Warrior and Whizbaang the Power Caster are getting along better, and thus work better together.

Multiclassing, I'm not sure on. I'm thinking an "unlock" system, where after X happens,(I'm really not sure what on), the Ranged can become a Forest Ranger or Sniper.

Dead heroes? I'm not refusing to consider it, but I want them to stay dead. If you notice, its kind of hard for them to die.

>>7414826
I like that. I do. Hmmm. I could randomly assign them across a spectrum, like Pokemon, or let them be unlocked like my example of Ranged>Ranger/sniper.

>>7414829
Well, true, synergy in real life should be between similar peoples... and yet in standard fantasy, the more diverse the party, the better.

IDEA: Each item the party carries has a "Victory Draw" besides their common tags. The calculations will choose one particular item for each character instead of a base roll. To this is added the special effects from those items, that are circumstantial, and the base effects, which always apply.

So it is important to both balance equipment, special tags, and high Victory Draws (which are essentially big dice)

>>7415239
Run that one by me again? Not sure I got that.

Bumpalumpa. I know /tg/ is all about the settings over the stubstance, but I know there are guys out there able to handle it.

...This isn't a quest thread. tl;dr get it off my board.

Why don't you list a couple of things you want input on, and we'll go from there? Try to be specific.

>>7417106
>Why don't you list a couple of things you want input on, and we'll go from there? Try to be specific.
You mean like the entire post/paragraph dedicated to ideas I had on weapons and equipment that I wanted /tg/'s opinion on? >>7414200 ?

>>7414169
>>7414181
Oh crap, didn't see your posts, guys, sorry.

I've been having a REAL hard time finding something to compare it to, so I'm hoping thats a positive comparison.

And my question on what loot was for was rhetorical. Loot, at least to me, is the combined term for treasure and equipment, which fall under two seperate things.

Two other things I had been considering: An Abstracted upkeep system. While I could do a flat "x monies per y times" upkeep, and thats probably a good idea, I had this one idea of an abstracted upkeep, after getting into MTG and seeing how they abstracted the elements. Basically, a Defender would require a "Steel" for upkeep, a Power Caster would require a "Magic" for upkeep, and you find caches of "Steel" Or "Magic". That sounds flat out RETARDED as I explain it, but meh. You get the idea.

Another concept that I had, that would be FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR down the road of the creation of this project, but as is, you start out from a city. Now if I could get multiplayer going, or just do it anyway, have a tax levied on you if you operated out of the city, and any NPC actions done with a fair chunk of cost. OR you could take your adventurers, and with a bit of capital, start a "base" outside of the city, vulnerable to monster attack, and without many of the city's amenities, but if you stocked it with your own NPCs, cheaper for those activities, and closer to dungeons.

The next subject, obviously, is NPCs. NPCs, I wanted to fill roles that are useful, but not critical. Like an NPC accountant that keeps track of all your ingoing and outgoings. A quartermaster that keeps your gear together, and makes sure all upkeep is purchased automatically. A scout that functions like a single-person-party, to tell you whats in an area. A bard who recalls all your previous adventures, etc.

Make it a 40k game, like... guys fighting over Kronus, and maybe it'll fly.

how would it affect the game to include random events where you as the manager have to make a decision out of several options?

I was thinking that something that could give variation is to have stuff like "a woman appear, claiming to bear the child of the adventure Alpha, do you
A. ask him to take responsiblity.?
B. have the guild take responsbility for the child?
C. send of the woman, who may or may not be trying to cheat you?"
so on and so forth. though it might be alot of work to have enough events filling up the intere expected time that a player will spend on this game.

Bump? C'mon, /tg/. I know you're there, waiting to shine.

>>7418004
Have you played My Life As A King on the Nintendo Wii? Because what you describe sounds a lot like that game.

>>7417971
That wouldn't really affect the game one way or another, though I like the idea.

>>7418060
Never heard of it.

>>7418187
You should play it. It's pretty much Quest Tycoon.

One more bump for the road. I admit, I was expecting a little more out of you, /tg/. I mean, nighttime is when the good stuff happens, I thought

>>7418214
Are you dense? I can't believe someone would recommend that "game"

>>7419314
I only recommended it on the basis of how OP is trying to clone it.

I think the op should take a step back and look at why the sim/tycoon games are fun.

There's usually a BUNCH of different aspects you have going and and even though you often assume a god's view of the area you often have ways to directly interact with it.

With your idea it's going to be like fucking playing microsoft excel with a graphics interface.

>>7419314
I found it quite enjoyable, for a few days.

Kinda reminds me of Majesty 2, actually.

Majesty 2 is a management RTS. You play as a King who has to create adventurers guilds (Warrior, Ranger, Cleric, Thief) which you then offer bounties on various actions in order to encourage them to run out and kill stuff/explore areas. You have a little city, and collect taxes from the local workers. You can also build merchant shops from which you sell items. As you continue to expand, more classes become available (Wizard, Dwarf, Ef, and prestige classes) and you are able to make/sell better and better items, which your adventurers buy and the money goes into your pocket. Gameplay really stopped there. After you got your basic buildings up and started expanding it was pretty much just a waiting game from there.

You should play it OP, the game is somewhat similar to your concept and exists in an RTS based system. If you did create yours, with adventurer personality management, I'd still be interested because I wanted a deeper gameplay than Majesty 2 could afford.

>>7419519
Majesty 2 is utter trash compared to the first one, which is an amazing game

>>7419544
Having never played Majesty 1, I find this interesting and now will seek out the first game to see if I might be interested in its gameplay. I am fairly nuetral towards M2, it entertained me for a while when I had more or less played everything else available to me at the time.

>>7419395
Funny. Every tycoon game I ever played was "Build X until you run out of money. Wait for more money. Repeat", with X being some marginally profittable concept. And I'm sorry, you didn't come early enough in the thread to claim that the OP's idea is flawed, since plenty of people have chipped in.

Honestly it makes me think of D&D Tiny Adventures, only not sucky.

Y'know,

the reason I like Heroes of Might and Magic IV over III, or Dominions 3 over Stronghold, or Ogre Battle over Command and Conquer, is that these games let your avatar participate in the game.

It's always a fun choice for a gamer to make--do I risk losing by using my commander in chief? Should my main dude be a stay-at-home research or production type, or should they be in the front, kicking ass in a way that other commanders, with their fewer build points, cannot?

Something that would make me more likely to pick up this game would be the ability to have a commander with a few specialties of his own. Even if he doesn't actively adventure, he might still be useful in the event of a monster attack on your base (>>7417459).

Even if other heroes were randomized, the avatar should be something a player can fine-tune, choosing class, about three skills, and some cosmetic choices.

This brings to mind...

>>7422364

...the skills mentioned above. Are there logistical-based skills? For example, could a wizard with, say, a Warding skill set up traps to interfere with invaders (or raise some arbitrary defense number)? Could your rogue moonlight as a Fence? Could your Talent Agent help you find more adventurers?

Bonus points for blended skills, like Cartography, which would add a passive bonus to travel times when deployed at home and make the character very unlikely to get lost at the dungeon.

Not sure why, but I find something appealing in the idea that an obsolete defender might find his true calling as the company Armorsmith.