OId thread (which 404'd as I was in the process of writing a post): >>19820279 (also on suptg)Quick recap: We've decided on the base mechanics for the system. It will be a d6 dice pool, where each die showing 4 or higher is a success. Size of your pool is determined by your relevant attribute (Strength, Agility, Wits, Mysticism, or Guts), skill (Melee Weapons, Heavy Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Shields, Spellcraft, Instruments, Tools, Acrobatics, Athletics, Riding, Stealth, Perception, Survival, Lore, and tentatively Presence), and Triforce virtue (Power, Wisdom, or Courage). Each of these categories can go up to 3, and racial bonuses can add 1 additional dice to the pool for certain actions, for a maximum dice pool of 10.We're considering the idea of making the system XP-less; to improve your attributes, skills, or virtues, you'd need to accomplish some kind of in-game task (eg, find a hidden Great Fairy's cave to receive a blessing, or perform a quest for a master swordsman in exchange for training), rather than simply spending XP.Weapons will deal damage ranging from 1/4 heart to a full heart (or perhaps even more for Heavy weapons), and we're also leaning toward weapons having different effects for extra successes on the attack roll, based on which of a handful of categories the weapon falls into. Current ideas for categories are Finesse, Stunning, Forceful, Grasping, and Defensive.
Now, as for the post I was about to make in the old thread before I was rudely interrupted by ye olde four-and-four-hundred...>>19840371I would imagine that the main difference between weapon qualities would be the damage it deals. A poor-quality weapon (eg, wooden sword) might deal less damage than the norm for that type (in this case, 1/4 heart instead of 1/2), and a high-quality weapon (like the Master sword) would deal more (3/4 instead of 1/2). Or you could have an extra layer of advanced quality, dealing another step up for damage.And of course, there's no reason that a weapon couldn't belong to a different category than others of its type, if such a differentiation would be appropriate, or that a weapon's couldn't have additional properties beyond those defined by its category.
>>19844780That's actually pretty much what I was thinking about weapon qualities - it's just as easy to hit someone with a wooden sword as a metal one, the difference is in the damage they do if they hit.
http://www.mediafire.com/?h2bi6m78x9srbj3Legend of Zelda HackI haven't looked at this closely, but I've seen the folks on #MuteCity on suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com (same folks who made the F-Zero RPG) running a Zelda game on this. I haven't actually looked at it myself, but I've downloaded it. Is this what you're looking for? Anything you want to lift from it?
By the way, possibly useful links:http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Legend_of_Zelda_RPG http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive.html?tags=Legend%20of%20Zelda%20RPGPic is a graph of probabilities by TKDB for dicepools, with 4 or higher as a success. If the need come up, I can post the other ones, but we seem to be agreed on 4 as the target number.I need to go for a bit, but I'll be back soon.
>>19846906TKDB?
>>19846960That'd be me. I usually go anonymous in most cases, but seeing as I seem to be one of the more active contributors on this project (and was fairly active for the original run last year too) I figured I may as well identify myself at least within the context of this project.
bump for fuck yeah this project
That took longer than I expected, but I'm back.I like the idea of an XP-less system, and if it doesn't work out it seems like it'd be relatively easy to put XP in.
So, seeing as we have the dice mechanics more or less figured out, I think an actions system for combat and such should be the next thing we work on. We should really try for something that can capture the emphasis on careful timing and exploiting moments of weakness, which is not something that a traditional turn structure is very good at.The solution that was more or less settled on in previous incarnations of this project was basically allow actions to be held at no penalty to interrupt opponents. That's a fairly simple way to handle it, but on the other hand it strikes me as though it might make things rather hectic. It also only captures half of the whole reactive timing style of LoZ combat -- while it gets the whole bit of knowing when to exploit an opening, it doesn't quite capture the challenge of actually being capable of doing so. While I'd be perfectly fine with using this system, it would be nice if we could come up with something better.Part of me wants to explore the possibility of eliminating the typical held-action mechanic, and instead having an allotment of reaction attempts that you have to succeed on a check to use. Since basing the check on any existing attribute or skill would effectively make that a bit of a god stat, it should probably instead be a fixed "reaction pool" not based on anything else. Not sure if it would really be a good idea to give reactive actions an additional chance of failure on top of that inherent to the action itself, though.
>>19850885I think the held-action mechanic is pretty good. People would probably have to make attack rolls, so the "being capable of doing so" bit is there.>>19846815No, it's not, but thanks for the link anyway.
>>19849936XP-less sounds like a fun change but the DM would have to play it pretty smart and provide ample opportunity for it. Maybe coming up with your own Kaepora Gaebora-like figure to guide and recommend advancement for the next dungeon.
>>19851989Yeah, it definitely does add a bit of an added burden on the GM, and the game's going to ask a lot of them already just to handle the items properly. A necessary evil, I suppose.Though I doubt you'd necessarily need an NPC to prod the PCs to go find advancements unless you have players that are really helpless without rails. I imagine the typical RPG player would always be on the lookout for opportunities to power up.Not sure if Kaepora Gaebora is necessarily the best thing to use to guide the PCs, though. Pic related...
>>19851989That would be pretty cool, as long as the advice wasn't too obvious. Definitely should have it as an optional rule, as some definitely won't want to have anything like that in. This system will definitely require the GM to do a lot of work, making puzzles and stuff. Not much we can do about that, unfortunately.
>>19852345I was thinking more along the lines on where the heck to find advancement. You'd probably be fine with the setting's main town once you find it, but finding a Great Fairy or a master swordsman might warrant some Sagely advice.
So, got a design doc yet?
>>19849936And if it doesn't work then we can just scrap everything and let /tg/ do the hard work again.
BUMP FOR AWESOME PROJECT EXPOSUREwhat needs to be done, gents?
>>19853123>what needs to be done, gents?Everything. We especially need people to shout out ideas and people to shoot them down.
>>19853174okay, well then let me go ahead and start:we need to pick a zelda game as the baseline for all the othersas was mentioned before, the things you are capable of and how those things work change dramatically from game to game and we need to establish one as the thing we're basing everything on or else we're going to have 3 systems for horseback riding and about 5 for running
>>19853217>we need to pick a zelda game as the baseline for all the othersI thought the unspoken understanding was that we were going to use all of them because setting reasonable goals and limits is for pussies with common sense.
>>19853217Really, rather than picking one game to use as a reference for specific mechanics, we should be just fine cherry-picking which has the best representation of things, or just using a real-world baseline (since that's more or less what the 3d games resemble). Sure, it might be true that somersaulting is the fastest way to get around in most of the 3d games, but I don't think that's really something that should be reflected in this game's mechanics (amusing though that might be). True, we're trying to capture the iconic Zelda style of gameplay, but that doesn't mean we're literally converting the video games to pen-and-paper format in every detail.
>>19853372Unless you're a Goron, then that's a totally valid way to get around.
>>19853431Point granted.>>19852971What exactly do you mean by "design doc"?
>>19853464>What exactly do you mean by "design doc"?Some kind of document (googledocs or just posted first or second post of a thread) that outlines what the fuck is planned, done and needs work and what you're trying to accomplish. An outline of the project. Preferably kept up to date with each thread.
>>19853372I'm not saying we use things like easter eggs as baselinesI mean, say we use specifically OOT as a baseline for all the Links, and thereby a baseline for player charactersfor example, he can't sprintwhenever there is sprinting, it has limitations by either making it necessary to continue onward in a straight line or giving you a limit on how long you can sprint foryou can do this by quantifying these different link mechanics as different items or skillsmaybe Skyward Sword link has some sort of blessing that allows him to sprint where others cannotmaybe the charging feature of some games need not be limited to items but have that be the working mechanics of a charge attack of any formmaybe you could regulate charge attacks to those who have those items alonepersonally, I like the idea of abilities based around items and objects, but that's just me
>>19853545Thus far, TKDB has been helpfully including summaries when he starts a thread, and if he ever stops feeling like doing that, I could also provide progress summaries.
>>19853779Oh, those. I tend to skip poorly formatted blocks of tl;dr They also don't mention what the overall goal is (and don't say "Make a Zelda RPG hurrrr")
>>19853717>personally, I like the idea of abilities based around items and objects, but that's just meYou and plenty of other people interested in this project actually. It's more a point of defining the base abilities of the characters and what makes mine different than yours. Some kind of design doc really couldn't hurt if somebody wanted to knock one up though.
>>19853779Forgot my name. Also, I might eventually make a Google doc, but if I do, it'll probably take awhile.>>19853717We'll probably be choosing on a case-by-case basis based on what makes sense/is fun.
>>19853854>Some kind of design doc really couldn't hurt if somebody wanted to knock one up though.It would be nice to have a solid list of the neat ideas we have but nobody wants to actually write up and balance.
Have we done the rules for combat?Or at what step are we at now?
>>19853891okay thenwhat's an item and what isn't?we could keep the stamina bar from SS and have it replace the magic bar from every other Zelda gamethat way it's relevant for everyonelike I said before, you should only be able to perform charging attacks with the appropriate shoesall magic should be items and they should use staminaideas thrown
>>19853991I actually think >>19853545's idea of a design doc would be a good idea to make before we move on with actual crunch work. Given that we have past efforts to draw on, we should be able to put together a good idea of what needs addressed and where we need to go, and having an outline of our plans made in advance will help us stay on task and not get stuck spinning in circles as we muddle our way through with no particular sense of direction.I can get the ball rolling with overall system design goals, based on what I remember being discussed in the original run and such. I'll write those up and post them here shortly.
>>19854073I'd rather have a magic bar than a stamina bar, because magic has been in far more Zelda games than stamina. I wouldn't be opposed to using both a magic and a stamina bar, however, since there's no reason we should necessarily limit ourselves to any particular Zelda game.I agree with all magic being items, at least in the sense that it needs to be obtained in essentially the same manner as items -- as a reward for a side quest, or hidden away in a dungeon or other remote location. I see no problem with having a character who wants to use innate magic acquiring their magic "items" in the form of scrolls or tomes that teach them how to use a particular spell, or in the form of tutoring from a reclusive sage, or in the form of a mystical blessing imparted by a Great Fairy or other powerful entity. Innate magic is definitely present in the Zelda series, although it is primarily used by NPCs rather than Link in most games (AoL and, according to some interpretations, OoT being the main exceptions).
>>19854089Also when you're making an "accessible LoZ game" (are you? This is what I was told in another thread by a random anon) making your hivemind design process accessible seems like a good idea.
>>19854228I'm saying the magic bar and the stamina bar should be the same thing mechanically
Just sayin', this idea is totally kickass and thanks especially to the name-friends who are crunching hard to make this happen. I've been around since the first thread, reading the discussion and I'd really like to help, though aside from just spouting 'yea or nay' I'm not sure how. I'm a forever-DM so I suppose I could help with play-testing when the time comes, but when/if you guys come up with a list or something specific, I'd be glad to contribute as I can.
So, overall goals (this'll be multiple posts due to character limit):>#1: Make a Legend of Zelda RPG, not merely a Legend of Zelda-flavored RPGThe core mission statement of this system is to make a game that captures the characteristic style of gameplay that the Legend of Zelda video games are known for. This primarily entails a central emphasis on acquired items as the primary determiner of character capabilities, and a prominent presence of puzzles requiring specific items to solve. Combat, particularly boss battles, should have a puzzle-like aspect as well. And of course, all the classic LoZ items and races and such should be represented for use in games. It's not sufficient to merely have a system *capable* of incorporating these elements; it should be specifically geared to promote a uniquely and recognizably Legend-of-Zelda style of play.
>>19854563>#2: Synthesize and expand on the video games, don't merely replicate themWhile emulating the characteristic style of the Zelda games is the #1 priority, that doesn't mean we should limit ourselves to only the things you can do in those games. Any archetype that would reasonably fit into any of the Zelda settings should be feasible; not all PCs will be Hylian sword-and-boarders. The beauty of pen-and-paper RPGs is that they aren't limited by the same technical constraints that bind video games, and the Zelda series has very rich settings with lots stuff to work with; we should be free to let our imaginations run a bit wild. Likewise, unless it would add excessive complexity to the core of the system or threatens to render an item utterly redundant, there's no harm in allowing characters to do things that should reasonably be possible but can't be done in the video games. (It's important to note here that even if an item's original purpose in a given game is rendered moot by allowing a certain action, that doesn't mean the item can't be slightly adapted to still have a purpose. For instance, it would be reasonable to allow all characters to swim, barring conflicting racial traits, but that doesn't mean you can't still have a use for stuff like the Zora's Flippers or Zora Armor.)
>>19854590>#3: Simplicity and AccessibilityWe want this game to be easy to learn and easy to play, even for Zelda fans who've never played a tabletop game before. Of course, there is a point of diminishing returns where trimming down the rules hurts the system's robustness more than it improves ease of use, and we want to avoid that, but as a rule of thumb, keep it simple.So, think this is all stuff we can agree on? Any points that you take issue with? Any additional goals that should be added to this list?
>>19853991I'm very interested in this project, but I don't know how to help. I'm no DM either.
>>19854228I'm more for the spells as items, as well.Although, I would like to throw out there, how would we handle those forms of magic that were not done by items? Mostly, they were enemies, but some could do magic that way. Are we going to just say that they were hiding the crystalized form of the spell? Like, spells that are not in use take on the form of crystal in your inventory. That would mean wizards like Agahnim have a bunch of crystals in their pocket.
>>19854606>So, think this is all stuff we can agree on? Any points that you take issue with? Any additional goals that should be added to this list?I think it's pretty good overall, and it resumes what we are trying to do. I don't see what we could add.
>>19854608As was said earlier, a good way to help would be to just shout out any cool ideas you have. We need more content.
>>19854669Enemies and NPCs would be a completely different ball game as far as abilities go. PCs are reliant on items (here referring to all the various "stuff" obtained in-game), but with enemies, all bets are off. They do what they do, and that's that.Also, I don't see why spells not in use necessarily take the form of a crystal. If you were fluffing your character's magic as something learned or innate, you could still have the whole limited item access stuff handled as a matter of needing to call the spell to mind or what-have-you.
>>19854712It's my personal tick here, I know, but I have a problem with NPCs operating on different rules than players. It makes it feel unbalanced in my eyes.
>>19854669Not everything has to be an item. The the old version of the project included Techniques, which were basically like feats. They represented you learning how to do new new things, like the spin attack or those sword skills from TP. Whether or not we will include them in this new incarnation has yet to be discused.
If you want to make a Zelda RPG then you should first write up a little blurb as to what you think makes it "Zelda" and not "Zelda flavored".Like no matter what the Zelda is, all Zeldas have bosses, puzzles, and treasures. So the game needs to include all of those things.The problem I find is that when I think of Zelda, I think of one man against the world with a support system of villagers and wise old people. It wouldn't work so well as a party (3-4 players) because Zelda (barring 4 Swords) isn't multiplayer.Which means you're already deviating from "established" Zelda. So what is it you really want? Do you want to be faithful to the source material or do you want to make a game that's actually fun to play?System limitations could break the whole thing. And the whole "there's only one Master Sword" deal doesn't work so great with a party because you've got one special snowflake shitting on everyone else, or you give everyone else Master weapons, which dilutes the point.
>>19854278Combining magic and stamina doesn't seem like a good idea. Stamina also seems like it would be an annoying mechanic, but whatever we do, we should not combine stamina and magic.>>19854284Any sort of help is appreciated. Playtesting would be wonderful, and even stating your opinion is helpful, especially if you write about why you think the way you do. Other than that, thinking about, say, potential sword techniques and how they would work would be helpful.>>19854259We are using d6s and trying to keep the rules simple, to make it accessible to non-gamers. But our main goal is just make a good game.I'm afraid I'm going to go to bed for the night.
>>19844767>Current ideas for categories are Finesse, Stunning, Forceful, Grasping, and Defensive.So, Finesse would be usually daggers and all that, Stunning hammers, Forceful greatswords, Grasping hook/clawshots and Defensive shileds?What other kind of weapons can we throw in this?Also yeah, I get that weapons can not be in their ''natural'' category.
>>19854913>Other than that, thinking about, say, potential sword techniques and how they would work would be helpful.I'm thinking about it, but shouldn't we first determine how the general combat works first?... I guess there IS a lot to do. On that, I'm going to sleep, and meditate on how we could make this work.
>>19854838I'm okay with this. Spells, techniques, and special abilities are "itemized". Using them requires you to do a skill check. It has a very specific effect.This would mean a player could become a wizard, focusing on learning spells. His focus on Spellcraft to make his spells better would also amp up his use of spell-like items.
If it's called The Legend of Zelda, then the point of the game ran by any DM better fucking be related to saving Zelda. That's the biggest problem I have. I know the series is CALLED the Legend of Zelda, but if it's just set in Hyrule with puzzles and monsters and bosses and treasure but isn't ABOUT Zelda, that kind of pisses me off.It'd be better served as Hyrule Adventurers or some shit. But then you're losing out on the casual people that just know ZELDA and want to play THE ZELDA RPG...In my mind, there's only two options. One, making a loose but close ended story in the sourcebook. It's not absolute but it should at the very least have the same end goal for the GM to run, where the ultimate end goal is the saving of Zelda (the GM can basically put it off as long as he wants by introducing antagonists and dungeons, but when the players save Zelda, there's one final fight and then the game is wrapped up. There should be no post game; if they want to play more Zelda RPG then you role up a new game but twist the setting/timeline like Wind Waker or Skyward Sword, etc)Two, it's called something different and has a subtitle, like Hyrule Adventures : A Legend of Zelda Inspired RPG or some shit.
>>19855044I'll go with option two, personally. Really though, you're hung up on the wrong thing though. I think we're moving on to combat mechanics.
>>19854838I think techniques should definitely be incorporated one way or another; however, if we go with the XP-less system they will effectively be handled as "items", in the sense that acquiring them would require in-game action facilitated by the GM providing explicit access to it. Basically, you'd get them in the same sort of fashion you'd get them in the video games -- by finding down an appropriate mentor to teach you or whatever.>>19854904See >>19854563Essentially, yeah, we're not considering single-player to be a crucial core component of the Zelda experience. As you yourself note, there is precedent for multiplayer Zelda, and I'm pretty sure most people would say that FS (unlike, say, AoL) keeps the same general style of play that the series is known for -- it's just that in multiplayer Zelda, the puzzles require teamwork and cooperation to solve. As long as you keep the items and use thereof in solving puzzles and beating bosses as the centerpiece, it'll still feel like Zelda-style gameplay. The one-man-against-the-world stuff is more plot than gameplay anyway.As for the Master Sword, it doesn't necessarily need to be in the game at all. Not every Zelda game has it, after all. And even if it is in the game, I see no problem giving other players weapons of comparable power and MacGuffinliness (or simply other MacGuffins), because, after all, the Master Sword really isn't that hugely significant in comparison to the various other MacGuffins in any given game.
The Legend of Zelda is about icons. It hasn't always been but after Ocarina of Time, there are things that seem to have been cemented in and are effectively holy by the fanbase. Failing to include them would likely result in fan backlash. It needs :1) The Triforce2) Zelda3) Link4) The Master Sword5) Ganon (or at least reference to his dark works)6) A musical instrument7) Bottles8) Heart pieces9) Rupees10) Shields11) Macguffins (as someone else pointed out, there's no need to say Power Glove or Zora's Flippers as the items generally tend to serve to advance the plot and areas available to explore. The games rarely if ever delve into possible exploitation of Macguffins or how/why they work, ex. why not use the Power Glove when swinging a sword if it makes you 10x stronger and fuck shit up? Why can you not punch through walls with it if you can hold a giant boulder over your head? Etc)12) Wise Old Man/Witch
>>19854917Yep, those are all true. It's mainly a matter of what the bonuses are for getting extra successes on the attack are, though."Finesse" is what we're calling weapons that just straight-up deal extra damage, the idea being that they're weapons you can use to make devastating precision strikes and/or quick flurries of hits. It would also include one-handed swords, probably."Stunning" is...well, basically just what it sounds like. Makes enemies lose an action or two if you get enough extra successes. So mainly bludgeoning implements"Forceful" is stuff that would knock an enemy back and/or down. So mainly big weapons."Grasping" is just what it sounds like, and can trip or disarm the enemy. Hookshots are of course the obvious member, but flails and whips and stuff could also go here."Defensive" is stuff that's good for blocking, parrying, or just keeping enemies at bay, giving you some kind of defensive bonus if you get extra successes. Shields would of course be defensive weapons for a shield bash, but other stuff, like staffs and polearms could also go here.Bear in mind all this is basically just brainstorming at this point (notice there's no specific mechanics, just broad concepts); the only concrete idea for weapon categories is that different weapons will have different rewards for extra successes, but to simplify things we'll group them into categories.
>>19855044So, by that logic, should Link's Awakening and Majora's Mask not have been considered "Legend of Zelda" games? After all, in those games Zelda only appears as a footnote mentioning that she had some involvement with Link prior to the events of the game itself.You're getting hung up on minor details. Either that or you're trolling...
>>19855068Agreed on the subject of it being in the game. It's ultimately up to the GM, but since it's stated it pretty much is destined for The Hero of Time/Chosen One/Link, I don't see the players ever really being able to hold it, let alone use it. I suppose I/we might be thinking too deep on it though.
Back on topic, here are my thoughts on the combat system:We could use a simple one as based on such systems as Savage Worlds and the Unisystem. Initiative (or whatever we'd like to call it) is determined, and each player acts only on his or her initiative. Everyone gets one action for free, be it moving, attacking, or something else that takes an equivalent amount of effort. If you want to take an extra action, you can, but take a penalty to it. Alternatively, you declare all your actions for your turn, then get a penalty to all of them based on the number you're taking. Just tossing the idea out.
>>19855176This may be a dumb question, but where's the line drawn on 'Stunning' and 'Forceful'? Because I could see the Ball and Chain or Megaton Hammer being either of these. I'm probably missing some sort of context though. Perhaps it'll be easier to define once there's a more comprehensive item list and that's getting a bit ahead of myself.
>>19855443>>19855176Ooop. Just read the bottom part and basically answered/deterred myself. Disregard...sorry, it's getting late-ish and I'm losing focus.
>>19855292I'm not getting hung up on minor details or trolling. You're trying to make something without defining what you're doing first, so you're going to get a hodgepodge of mechanics and dice rolls and start trying to glue themes and concepts to them and end up with a poorly disjointed game. Horse before the cart, etc.You shouldn't just randomly start working on mechanics when you don't even have a plan. But it's not my fan game, so do what you want. Generally it's called game "design" though.
>>19855443I guess there might be special cases, but some weapon type can get into different categories, like say, a 1 handed sword is usually in Finesse, but it could be in Stunning, or Defensive, given it has special ability or something.
So if we're going with an XP less system, how will the players advance their skills and attributes? Will they be handed out by the DM or stay static from generation or something else? It's not going to bemuch of an RPG if there is no character progression.
>>19855624Mentioned already. The game's 'progression' will be mostly item-based and will handed out at the GM's discretion. Limited use like that is encouraged, from what I've gathered.
>>19855548I think we should avoid categorizing weapons into multiple types, it might make things a little more convoluted and I, at least, prefer systems to stay as simple as possible. Although, exceptions can be made, of course. Also, if I were writing this, I'd rename "Finesse" weapons to "One-Handed" weapons, but that's just a thought.
Zelda style combat relies on the ability to out-maneuver the enemy. You have to have the ability to move and attack and counterattack. Another important aspect is Dead Man's Volley.So, we could use a turn-based combat. Combatants roll their Wits. Highest total rolls go first. Each turn you can move a certain amount (based off your race) and take an action.So you run up and swing your sword to hit the enemy. They are given a counter, unless they're caught unawares. That counter is the use of an Item or Ability, or an Acrobatics check. In the case of Item or Ability that would normally deal damage, they could choose to use it to stop your attack or do damage. Acrobatics will dodge, and is a Courage-aligned Agility action.But then, say someone throws a spell at you. You have a magic sword, so you counter with it, reflecting back. Since we now have a flying danger going back at him, he gets a counter. He doesn't have anything to block or volley it back, he attempts to dodge. Silly wizard, dodge is for fighters, he fails. Spell has ricocheted.>>19855512No, we pretty well defined that it was a game system that was going to "recreate the feel of an LoZ game". It's been stated. It's not about the stories, it's not about the Master Sword and the Triforce. It's about "Exploring, Interacting, and Experimenting", to quote our discussions on the previous thread... By the by the link to that is http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/19820279/It wasn't placed as a direct link on the first post, so I won't fault you for not reading that.
Good Night, Hylians.
Thinking about it now, training costs would sure make rupees actually useful for something. Other than say buying food and a room and other roleplay-related expenses.
Lets just group weapons as generally as possible and then work on the specifics.Building on the old system, all weapons can be catagorized as Melee, Heavy, or Ranged, and then sub-catagorized as Large, Normal, or Small (all Heavy weapons are large though). Large weapons have benefits like doing more damage or having a longer reach, but also have drawbacks like being slower or less accurate. The opposite would be true of Small weapons. Normal weapons would gain no advantages from their size. Lastly all weapons would have one or more damage type; Slashing, Peircing, Blunt, Explosive, Fire, Ice, Electric, Light, or Shadow. Once each weapon has been catagorized, you canfigure out the specifics and stat them in what ever way makes sense.I appologize for any incoherence. Its 1:30 am over here.
Not system related, but I looked back at a silly post-modern LoZ setting I wrote some notes for a long time ago and did some sketches. I'm sure y'all can use them somehow.
>>19855395I'm not a big fan of that, because it makes Heavy weapons significantly less attractive. The idea for Heavy weapons has always been that they deal huge damage, but they're slow -- they take multiple actions to use, one way or another. That's all well and good when you have multiple actions per turn and using a Heavy weapon just means using your entire turn for one mighty swing, but it's not so fun when it means you can only attack every other turn.>>19855735I like the general idea, though I have issue with some of the details. For one thing, I don't like having intiative based on total roll when everything else is based on successes. A better idea might be to roll Wits + Agility and count successes, resolving ties with a reroll between the tied parties.Also, I think dodging should also be under Wisdom, or allowed to be so, anyway. Think Shiek.But as for the overall setup of move (JUST move, as opposed to D&D's "move action", which adds a lot of complexity that we really don't need) + action + counter (I'm guessing only one counter per round, or do you think we should allow for more?), I like it. Works well with Heavy weapons too -- you can give up either your move or your counter.
Anyway, folks, while I'm not strictly opposed to discussing combat action systems and such, seeing as it is definitely something that does need addressed, I do think it would be a good idea to focus on outlining what various mechanics we'll need to make sure to cover, as mentioned in >>19853545. Personally, though, I'm off to bed. I think I'll check the thread *before* I shower tomorrow, hopefully that way I'll be able to bump it before it 404s again...
>>19855986>(I'm guessing only one counter per round, or do you think we should allow for more?)Perhaps some kind of Technique or training could give one more?
>>19855998I think figuring out the combat will go along way to getting things done. Nearly everything else would just be a test to see if you suceed or how well you do.Maybe stat up a Not-Link sword and board Hylian and a few basic enemies to test how proposed combat ideas flow, assuming we're happy with skills and attributes for now.
>>19855986That sounds like a good sequence for a turn. I think an increase to counters should be available, but should be a blessing or something similar. Maybe a success roll. Maybe something to do with magic equipment. Not readily available to just anyone, but available nonetheless. Perhaps more so to more...'skirmish-y' type characters. Just spit-ballin'.
Morning bump.
bamp
>>19856138Well, once we get combat down, we'll need to stat up the various races, items, special techniques, and monsters from the video games, as well as new stuff for archetypes other than Link to use. And it wouldn't be a bad idea to make a list of things we want to include in the core combat rules as stuff anyone can attempt without items.But yeah, as far as actual base rules go the combat stuff should pretty much round it out.
I've been busy with other stuff so far today, so I haven't had time to think about this too thoroughly, but the thread could use a bump so lemme just spitball some ideas of things we should put on the to-do list to cover as far as core combat mechanics go:>Details for how to handle counters.>Defensive actions (blocking, dodging, parrying)>Details for effects of extra successes on attack rolls>Special combat actions (eg, shoving, grappling, charging, running/sprinting) -- which should be included as universal options (as opposed to abilities granted by items/techniques), and how should they be handled?>Knockback mechanics -- even if shoving isn't part of the core options, these are bound to come up in some form or another, and we should probably factor in some kind of Weight stat.>Death and dying rules (this much we can probably take straight from the wiki from the original project with minimal changes)
>>19863052>Details for how to handle counters.Maybe it could be a wits and/or agility roll and on a certain number of successes, you counter them. Or set a success threshold depending on a stat, perhaps Agility? This could make light, rogue-like classes more adept at it.>Defensive actions (blocking, dodging, parrying)That could probably be a type of alternate counter or prepared action, where shields can reduce damage based on some sort of block number (or power) that the shield has. >Details for effects of extra successes on attack rollsI remember we went into a bit of detail on this before. Depending on the attack type, just throw in some extra effects. The number can change based on the action in question, but it seemed that the numbers before held good. (3 successes, 5, 7, etc)>Special combat actions (eg, shoving, grappling, charging, running/sprinting) All seem pretty simple. Probably simple checks against certain defenses, shoving vs. weight and/or strength. Grapple vs guts (maybe). Charging can be a sort of attack/move combo where a screw up can trip you or something.>Knockback mechanicsDepends if we're doing a grid system or something similar. Figure It could be a basic 1-square push, getting stronger on higher successes or increased item powers.
>>19863663Well, my point with that was basically just to brainstorm stuff that we'll need to make sure to address in detail *eventually*, not necessarily cover all at once right now. Get a bit more of a long-term view of where we're headed so we have a clear plan of attack and can keep things a bit more consistent.On the subject of counters, though, since that's the most current topic of discussion, I don't think it should be keyed to any particular stat, since we want this to be a core part of combat and thus something anyone can do. I think the idea for counters is that you get a chance to respond -- perhaps "reaction" might be the better term than "counter" -- and what you do might cancel their action. An example might be using your reaction to toss a bomb into a dodongo's mouth when it starts to use its fire breath.Perhaps the ability to get extra reactions per round from a special technique could be based on a certain stat, but the basic mechanics of how counters work shouldn't particularly favor any particular archetype over any other, since they're such an important part of combat.What I was really getting at with that point was that we should set out what can and can't be attempted as a reaction. For instance, I don't think it would be a good idea to allow movement as an option for reaction (though perhaps it could be a side-effect of certain other kinds of reactions, like dodging or certain techniques like the back slice).
>>19864927This seem like good crunch?Each time your turn comes around, you get one free counter. To take counters beyond that one, such as if you are attacked by multiple enemies, you roll agility+courage. For the second reaction, it takes one success, third two, fourth three successes, and so on. If you don't make the roll, you cannot take the reaction.Maybe you can try again, but it counts as the next reaction?
>>19866266The Agility + Courage roll seems like a good way of handling extra reactions. I'm kind of ambivalent on whether it should be a default part of combat, though. Getting extra actions like that (even if they are limited in application and not guaranteed) is a pretty significant boost, and basing it on Agility + Courage means characters focused on those stats have a distinct advantage. Seems more appropriate for a highish-level technique.
>>19866538Hmm, that is true.
>>19864927Yeah. I didn't mean to SOLVE everything. It was more of a spit-balling ideas. See what sticks. And that's a good point on the counters. I wouldn't want one class to excel at them, I just had it in my head that light, quick characters should maybe get some sort of bonus or something. But if we're talking interrupts on actions, then I could see how that's abusive.>>19866266>>19866538Maybe agility and/or courage aren't the way to go for counter bonuses. Perhaps it could be one of the other stats like Guts, something that characters may have, but probably wouldn't/shouldn't pour points or focus into.
>>19868514I think as long as it's a higher-level technique rather than a core part of how reactions work, it should be fine. While the nimble character gets the ability to attempt extra reactions, other characters can get other kinds of goodies suited to their own strengths.
There seem to be a few options.We could put in another collectible, that gives you more reactions.We could put in a reaction skill, or something, and have that be rolled against some number of successes to take extra reactions. (we could also use the skill for initiative and maybe some other stuff).Or we can implement is as a high-level technique, possibly upgradable a couple times.\Thoughts on this? Other suggestions?
>>19869303I vote the technique option (which would essentially be a collectible if we went XP-less). Having a reaction skill strikes me as a really bad idea, because it would effectively be a god skill, especially if we also used it for initiative. While I would hope that munchkinry wouldn't happen in a game such as this, realistically speaking that's not a reasonable expectation, and we should try to avoid elements that a minmaxer can clearly exploit for significant benefits right from the get-go, without even needing an item. Also, we should really try to make sure all the skills have at least some use out of combat. In the video games, all of your weapons, are just as much tools as they are combat implements. Even the trusty sword is necessary for certain puzzles -- making a sword spin to hit a number of switches in rapid succession, for instance. While it wouldn't be impossible to incorporate noncombat uses for a reaction skill, the only way I can think of to do it would be for puzzles reliant on timing, which is such a broad and common category that it would only further cement the skill's Ć¼ber status.If we make the ability to take extra reactions an item (or technique in an XP-less system), it's only available if the GM makes it so, and it's balanced by other types being able to get comparably potent abilities suited to their own strengths. Likewise, if we do techniques like the original system did, we can still balance it against similarly powerful abilities.
Sup guys! Long time no see
Oh, this is back? I've never taken a look at the mechanics, but I've always thought this kind of campaign would be pretty neat to run.
>>19869587>>19869600Is that some new drawfaggotry?
>>19869676You bet, I got my tablet and Photoshop up and running, I've been waiting to see this project get revived for awhile.
>>19869780Awesome, nice to have you around!
>>19869780Welcome (back) to the project! >>19869573Very good points. On the subject of techniques, the probably should have required/recommended levels of skills to learn them, like for example Improved Reactions I might need 2 Agility or 2 athletics or something, and Shield Bash would take one rank of Shield.
>>19869920Forgot my trip.Also, do we want multiple counters to be available to a single opponent's turn? The only thing that seems like it would be worthwhile for is enemies with multiple attacks per turn, which we might not even have, and if we do, can probably condense the multiple attacks into a single grouping.
>>19869976Well how long in game time is a turn anyway? Typical few seconds sort of deal right? You don't want everyone dodging multiple attacks in a split second like a Vindicare assassin, especially since in most Zelda games just holding your shield up blocks attacks indefinitely and any of the evasive rolls will get you out of reach of most multi-attacking enemies.What are some scenarios would multi-reactions be used for anyway?
>>19870355Given that evading rolls should work for possible multi-attacking enemies, I can't think of a single thing.
>>19870490And then you got to remember this isn't a singleplayer adventure anymore, a scenario were you might get attacked by multiple enemies from different angles should be countered by the party defending in a cool back-to-back fashion anyway.I'm not outright opposed to multi-reactions/counters but it just seems unnecessary.
>>19870622>I'm not outright opposed to multi-reactions/counters but it just seems unnecessary.I thing we're both saying that, to be frank. Though you bring up a good point. Party members should be able to use their reactions on behalf of each other. That way, the GM doesn't have to remember to have multiple monsters spread out their attacks, and it'd be possible to save a party member if they were about to me eaten by a dragon or something.
>>19870355Limit multiple reactions to players with little equipment (no shield, no heavy armour, maybe just light weapons) so that if they do get hit it'll hurt.
Probably the main use of multiple reactions against a single enemy would be if you were using them to counterattack rather than block/dodge, and for whatever reason your counterattacks don't stop the enemy from making their multiple attacks. But that seems like such a corner case, it's hardly worth mentioning.I'd say, for simplicity's sake if nothing else, if you get the technique or item that gives you multiple reactions per round, you can only react to each individual enemy once. I do think it could have uses in the case of fighting against large groups, though I agree that ideally the best approach to such a scenario would be teamwork.I like the idea of using reactions in response to a threat to an ally, too. It actually seems like a rather elegant solution to something that caused a bit of a snag in the original project -- we wanted a way for tanky characters to protect their squishier allies, and wound up hacking together a rather cumbersome opportunity attack system. The whole reactions setup solves that problem rather nicely if we allow reactions to be used on behalf of allies.
>>19870907Even apart from the balancing factor of it, that seems like a sensible restriction. If you're making multiple reactions per round, even if it's split up between different enemies' turns, that's gotta take some pretty snappy reflexes, so you can't be weighed down by heavy gear.
>>19870994Without a shield all you could use those reactions for is dodging and parrying if that's a thing. I'd like to see a dodge actually involve evasive movement rather than the Agents in the Matrix style dodge tank stuff of most rpgs.I could totally see a small agile character rolling, tumbling and flipping around as enemies chase them which would totally justify having multi-reactions (or whatever we're going to call them).How does giving up your action/attack in exchange for another reaction sound? This would be available to all characters, so a big tanky guy with a shield could focus on protecting his allies while they can focus on attacking during a particularly tense battle.If we're going to use these reactions for out of the ordinary maneuvers like a timed use of an item then rather than pointlessly attacking you instead evade an attack and go for the weak point with your item.
>>19871176Well, I definitely think reactions should be used for a lot more than just defensive maneuvers, so it's not like extra reactions would only be useful for dodging and parrying. Tossing a bomb in a dodongo's mouth, slicing at a boss when it drops its guard to wind up a big swing, etc.As a rough brainstorm, I'd say the main types of reactions you could take would be block, dodge, parry, and counterattack (including using items). Blocking and parrying could be done on behalf of an adjacent ally, and counterattacking could even be done to help a distant ally if you use a ranged attack (for instance, if an enemy is charging your ally on the other side of the room, you can shoot at it with your bow, possibly distracting it and foiling the attack). We could also leave it somewhat open-ended, so if a player has a creative idea and the GM rules it reasonable, they can do it.I do like the idea of being able to trade your usual action for an extra reaction in the round as a default part of the combat system. This could probably be incorporated alongside an advanced, limited-access ability through an item or technique to allow a nimble character to lead a group of foes on a merry romp with multiple evasive reactions.And absolutely dodging should involve movement. I've got some ideas for defensive actions in general, but I'm about out of post length here so I'll put it in the next post.
So, defensive reactions.>BlockingUses the Shield skill, of course. Probably Courage as the Virtue, not sure if Strength or Agility is more appropriate as the base stat. Make your roll, and each success you get cancels an attacker's success. Even if the attack still hits, you soak some of the damage thanks to your shield, with better quality shields providing better soak. We could possibly also allow blocking to be an ongoing effect once initiated, where you can apply the defensive benefits against all attacks against you until you do something else. This might perhaps be best limited to only if you use your on-turn action to block though, rather than for reactive blocking.>DodgingUses Acrobatics + Agility + the better of either Courage or Wisdom. Like blocking, each success cancels an attacker's success, but here the added benefit is some free movement. The total distance you can move might be fixed, or it could be based on the number of successes you get, your Agility score, or your Acrobatics rank.>ParryingUses Melee + Agility + the better of either Courage or Wisdom. Once again, cancels attackers' successes, and additionally puts the attacker off balance, giving a 1 die bonus to the next person to attack that target. Somewhat less effective of a defense, but that's because you're (probably) using the same skill as you do for attacking.
>>19871795>CounterattackUses whatever the usual roll is for the attack you're using. Rather than cancelling successes, this is all-or-nothing: If your counterattack scores more successes than the attacker rolls, and the damage isn't negated by the enemy's armor or what-have-you, the attack is cancelled. Of course, it your counterattack kills the enemy or otherwise imparts some debilitating condition, that would also stop the attack. Might not be effective against all enemies, but on the other hand exploiting a specific weakness of a foe in this way (eg, bombing a dodongo) might automatically cancel the attack and deal far more damage than regular attacks could. If this turns out to be a bit too effective of an option compared to other defenses, we could nerf it a bit by imposing a penalty to the counterattack roll, or adding a bit of a buffer (perhaps based on the enemy's Guts?) to how many successes you need to negate the attack. It's intended to be the least reliable defensive option, since not only does it have the same issue parrying has of not requiring you to spread your skills out, but it also gives you extra damage against the enemy.
>>19869780Welcome back you fabulous bastard.
>>19871798Part of a counterattack could be the requirement to actually have a clever method of counter attacking. Simply slashing back as the enemy attacks you would really be a parry at best. Otherwise it basically equals two attacks a turn.
Here's an idea, built on my original and your input:Block=Strength+Power+Melee/Heavy/ShieldDodge=Agility+Wisdom+ItemParry= Wits+Courage+Melee/HeavyYour roll vs the attack's roll. Block will negate damage, Dodge will have damage fly past, Parry will redirect it away. When dealing with ranged attacks, Dodge and Parry have the possibility of the damage going into nearby characters.Critical effects are triggered by one roll beating the other by two or more successes. A weapon used to block won't do its normal damage, but can still trigger its critical effect. A parry against a melee weapon has a critical effect of disarming the opponent. A critical parry against a ranged attack will result in a reflection. The reflection is treated as a new attack for the purposes of countering. So they can parry it back... Dead Man's Volley.
>>19872014If we were to use the system I just put up, it would mean that the Shield's critical effect should have a backlash against the attacker. Disarm?
>>19872014One or two sucesses sounds pretty easy to do honestly. Also where else do you reflect projectiles with your sword other than energy balls? Normally you use a shield for that sort of thing don't you?
>>19872014Just note the exceptions. (arrows and such)
>>19872014I can't say I'm really sold on most of this. I don't think weapons should be usable for blocking at all -- for most weapons, "blocking" really is just parrying. There are a few exceptions, but on the other hand there are also weapons where "blocking" with them is just downright silly. I'd love to see someone try to "block" with a dagger or a rapier. For the sake of simplicity if nothing else, blocking should be strictly a shields affair. Perhaps specific weapons might be noted as being usable for blocking, but as a general rule block = shield.The stat setups seem kind of arbitrary, too. I don't see what items have to do with dodging at all -- we have an Acrobatics skill, that should be sufficient. While I see what you're getting at with Wits for parrying, I think Agility is more appropriate, since Wits is the mental stat, and even if you know theoretically how to parry an attack it doesn't mean jack unless you have the coordination to actually do it. I also think Wisdom would be equally appropriate as Courage, since Wisdom would be the appropriate virtue for clever duelists and ninja types that would do a lot of parrying. Really, I could see each of the three main defenses using the player's choice of two Virtues: Power or Courage to block, and Wisdom or Courage to dodge or parry.
>>19872586While the detail of dodging and parrying potentially resulting in the attack hitting nearby targets instead makes sense from a simulationist perspective, I feel like it adds needless complexity, and I'd rather not have it in there. Hypothetically you could have certain monsters/bosses where such a mechanic is the key to beating them, but that should be an extra detail for those specific enemies, not a part of the core combat rules.I also don't think Dead Man's Volley should be applicable on all ranged attacks, only on magic projectiles. And while I do think parrying is the appropriate mechanic to use for it, I don't think it should only happen on a critical parry. Rather, I'd say any parry that successfully negates the attack should initiate a Dead Man's Volley.As for critical effects in general, I like the idea of a critical parry disarming the opponent, and that might be better than my idea of giving a bonus to the next person to attack that opponent. But critical effects for other defensive actions don't strike me as a particularly good idea. I suppose a "critical dodge" could mean you move farther or something, but I can't even fathom what a "critical block" would even entail. Blocking is just getting something between you and the hurty bits and keeping it there.
>>19872590Overall, I think there are two main things we need to make sure to address as far as defensive actions go:First, make sure they're balanced. We don't want any particular archetype to be hugely superior to the rest. However, "balanced" does not mean equally effective -- quite the opposite, in fact. Different options have different costs attached, and the payoff for using a certain option should reflect the costs invested. Blocking requires investment in both a secondary skill (Shield) and investment in a secondary item (a shield); thus, it should be a more potent defensive option. Parrying, on the other hand, uses a skill and an item that you're already using for attack anyway, so it entails minimal investment to use effectively; thus, it should provide the most minimal defense of the three main options. Dodging requires investment in a secondary skill (Acrobatics), but not the use of an item, and thus should lie somewhere between the other two in effectiveness.The second thing is to make sure they resemble similar actions in the video games. For instance, it's generally possible to "turtle up" behind your shield and absorb attacks almost indefinitely, so allowing the block option to be effective against multiple attacks is good. Another example would be how dodging in the video games generally involves a sidestep or a backflip or some such maneuvering, so dodging should let you move a short distance. Stuff like that.Pardon my longwindedness. I'm off to bed now.
Ok, so you've a rough idea of how you want character mechanics to work in-game, using an xp-less system. Understandable. Small problem. How do you make a character? Corollary: How do you make characters for different games starting at different 'power levels'?As they say; to truly begin, start at the beginning.
>>19872613I think we touched on this before. It'd just be putting whatever the appropriate amount of attributes and skills where you want them. Not sure where we're at for gear, whether we start empty handed or with very, very basic hand weapons/an instrument/what have you or if you get that stuff as the adventure begins.To be honest I don't think we're concrete on the numbers for attributes and skills yet.
My reasoning for the item would be, for example, the Roc's Feather or Pegasus Boots. They help you move. It's movement Items helping you dodge.I see your point on the block thing, really only the heavy weapons are large enough to outright block.My reasons for the stat choices: Block was basically presenting direct force to stop a direct force. It's the way Power thinks. Power Vs. Power, who wins? It also means you need to use your strength to counter. Wisdom would say that the best was to deal with an attack is not to be in front of it. Wisdom dodges. It requires you to be a bit better at controlling your body, however, so I put Agility down. Parry, turns its strengths against it. Sounds like Courage, who meets its enemies head on, and uses its weaknesses. However, to Parry, you have to be able to think fast. Wits. I chose to also make them different so that players that focus on different stats have a chance to fight effectively.Also, I remember that DMV only happened with magical swords (and the bug net and bottles, but they don't count). Perhaps the volley is an effect of being a magical item vs. a spell effect.
>>19872723Well it seems you have your number distribution down for chances of success, but no method of scaling challenges to those numbers. Everything is just speculation until you have a hard baseline to compare to and adapt to further calculations and modifications. Something like: 'Hit the Dark Nut's weakpoint: 4 successes (Requires successful Defense beforehand)' or 'Dodge Vaati's bullshit spikes from Minish Cap: 7 successes required (ONLY Courage/Agility/Acrobatics or Wisdom/Wits/Perception[If Wisdom=3])'Shit like that. A baseline of difficulty for GMs to offhandedly assign a number of required successes, allowing flexibility for players to use their abilities to respond to certain threats, but equally allowing challenges targetting specific abilities.
Glad this thread's still up.>>19870963>>19872014I'm in favor of how TKDB put it.Byrna's system is nice, but ultimately a little too wobbly for the simple system we're going for.I like the idea of the different reaction types and the strengths and weaknesses associated with them. Of course tests will be needed, but the idea behind each sounds solid.As far as 'critical defense' goes, I don't think it fits/works. I can't see a LOZ game having some 300-Style shield bashing, skull crushing reaction. Defensive reactions should be just that: defensive. With the possibility of criticals, I could see players (and myself) going full defense in the hope of disarming, bashing, or otherwise crippling them, rather than attacking on my own initiative.
Also, what's the current state of Hearts? Should all characters start with (at least) three hearts? How much damage can one reasonably expect to take in an average hit from an average enemy? Is there intended to be armor aside from shields, and what would the advantages/penalties of it be? When acquired, do Heart Containers give the party an extra heart, or just one member? How frequent are heart drops?These all determine the pacing and lethality of combat, and will impact it even further. If, as discussed in the main posts, a Master Weapon (not heavy) deals 3/4 of a heart, this would imply a low health system, and therefore lethal combat, an emphasis on tanking, etc.If however one can expect the traditional loadsahearts Link ends up with, either damage needs to scale upwards rapidly or combat will grind on endlessly.Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking, I'm just trying to identify things that must be done to establish a foundation. These are the mechanics that decide other mechanics down the line after all.
>>19873123For example, if a low-health system is preferred, you could establish a sort of triple-meter stat set-up. Which'd work nicely considering Stamina has been brought up already, were it to be implemented.Something akin to:Hearts: All characters begin with 3 Hearts, plus an extra Heart equal to their degree of Power. More Hearts may be acquired in game by completing Heart Containers.Your Hearts are what keep you alive, and so are important to not dying.Stamina: All characters begin with 3 points of Stamina, plus an extra point of Stamina equal to their degree of Courage. More Stamina may be acquired in game by fuck I don't know.Your Stamina is used to perform most Techniques, and so is important for having multiple options in combat.Magic: All characters begin with 3 points of Magic, plus an extra point of Magic equal to their degree of Wisdom. However, if you have no degree of Wisdom, you do not begin with any points of Magic.More Magic may be acquired in game from a variety of odd sources, from rare magic talismans to blessings from Great Fairies.Your Magic is used to cast spells, and any spellcaster would be lost without it.All this as merely a tenative idea of a base-core for a low-health, three-meter, multi-hyphenated system.
>>19873282Of course that'd need tweaks and is pure speculation, but it'd at least allow a base core to work with, which is something the system desperately needs to progress much further.But that's my take on baseline stats. Or rather this is anyways.Virtues being a bitch to raise, and directly affecting 'stats'. Though I suppose this in part assumes a 2-0 starting spread for most characters. Gah, it's hard to get my thoughts out on this without rambling.
Hmm... In the interests of answering my own questions, how's this sound as basic creation methods?The Beginner's Start:Choose 2 Virtues. You begin with 1 degree in them.Choose a Virtue you have a degree in.-If you chose Power: You begin with 1 point in Strength, and 1 point in your choice of either Mysticism or Guts.-If you chose Courage: You begin with 1 point in Guts, and 1 point in your choice of either Agility or Wits.-If you chose Wisdom: You begin with 1 point in Wits, and 1 point in your choice of either Mysticism or Guts.Choose 3 Skills. You begin with 1 point in each.Crappy Related Equipment Here.The Wanderer's Start: Choose 2 Virtues. You begin with 2 degrees in one of them them, and 1 degree in the other.Choose a Virtue you have a degree in.-If you chose Power: You begin with 2 points in Strength, and 1 point in your choice of either Mysticism or Guts. Lastly you may gain +1 point in any other Attribute excluding Strength.-If you chose Courage: You begin with 2 points in Guts, and 1 point in your choice of either Agility or Wits. Lastly you may gain +1 point in any other Attribute excluding Guts. -If you chose Wisdom: You begin with 2 points in Wits, and 1 point in your choice of either Mysticism or Guts. Lastly you may gain +1 point in any other Attribute excluding Wits. Choose 3 Skills. You begin with 2 points in each. Choose 3 different skills. You begin with 1 point in each.Decent Related Equipment Here.
You know you can type Empty Hearts ā” Full hearts ā¤symbols into most text editors. Nothing for 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 ā¤ hearts but.
>>19873873That's sounding alright, but I'm not so sure if the stat branching is what we're aiming for (in the sense of complexity). I suppose Tea or TKDB would have to come back and speculate too. Though it does seem like a quick (and considerably easier) way to stat and create a character.Perhaps I've just lost track at this point, but I'm not sure if the virtues were going to be a CORE part of character creation. If I remember right, the virtues were more like 'special stats' and given out sparingly as high rewards. But someone correct me if I'm wrong.
>>19872613>>19872928Personally, I think deciding on character creation before the core mechanics are fleshed out is putting the cart before the horse. If you have a solid idea of how the system works, then you can design a chargen process that results in characters capable of a certain level of competence.Likewise for assigning difficulty for challenges -- we have the probability spread figured out, so we can easily refer to that and say "ok, for a character with X dice in their pool, they have a Y% chance of making Z successes".And the number of dice a character can reasonably be expected to have follows logically from what we've already determined. At absolute minimum you'd have 3 in your strong area, most likely 4, and possibly 5 or 6. We need to have a minimum of 1 in each attribute so anyone can at least attempt any task, and a baseline minimal starting character will have 1 point in a single virtue and 1 rank in each of a few skills. So 3 dice at bare minimum in your strong suit. If your race gives you a bonus, that's 4 dice, and if we allow a starting character to put 2 points in a single attribute or skill (I think at least one or the other would be a wise choice to allow greater variety of characters to start off) it'd be 5. If we allow 2 starting points in both an attribute and a skill, you have a max starting pool of 6 for your strong suit.You do raise some good points on hearts and such, though, and that will definitely need addressed in the near future.
>>19876165As I understand it, the idea with Virtues is that they're a pervasive but relatively minor benefit. You'd start with 1 point in a single Virtue, and increasing any Virtue (whether you already have a point in it or not) will be a rare and significant thing.I'm also not too keen on the whole stat trees thing. Part of what we're going for here is to allow players to explore the full range of possible kinds of characters that you could imagine being in Hyrule or the other LoZ settings, so ideally players should have the flexibility to experiment with stat combinations that aren't necessarily immediately intuitive.Plus it's just simpler to say "you have X points to spend, go nuts". So it's kind of a win-win.
Do you have Racial stats yet? I've got a couple hours to kill before work and I'm not doing anything else.My first thought would be to give a simple +1 in a relevant attribute, a few +1's in skills, and one or two special abilities.example: Kokori+1 Wits (they're not particularly strong or fast, but very, very clever)+1 survival (They live in the forest), +1 Stealth (They're quite small), +1 Perception (helps with spotting/hearing dangerous animals in the forest.)special: They always look like a child (but still have a maximum age), Clever (gain extra skill points)Of course, these numbers are tentative because I'm not sure how they'll fit into the mechanics you're building. Just trying to help. My specialty is stating and balancing races and monsters.
>>19876282Oh, okay. That clears things up a bit for me.Yeah. I'm really diggin' the 'simple, but deep' mentality that's driving this along and I'd hate to see that slip, so whenever I see a string of stats I start to freak.I gotta split for work soon (probably a new thread by then) and I'll try to get a sense of how the defense mechanics could work in combat balance-wise. (Though you guys will probably have figured it out by the time I get back)
>>19844767Oh dude, this is back? Awesome.
>>19876493We do need racial stats, though the dice pool bonuses should probably be a bit more limited than what you're proposing there. One contributor last thread suggested using a system somewhat resembling Aspects from FATE, where each race gets a 1-die bonus to any task that fits within a somewhat broad category of stuff the race is good at, rather than a specific attribute or list of skills. I think that's an interesting option well worth exploring, but if it proves too tricky to work out appropriate and balanced strengths for each race, I'd be fine with simply having racial bonuses be an extra point in an attribute that can allow said attribute to exceed the usual cap of 3.And then each race should ideally get one or more unique traits. For some of them it should be pretty obvious -- Gorons can roll and resist fire, Zoras can swim really well and act normally underwater, Kokiri should probably get something related to their fairy companion, Deku can skip across water and spit stuff -- but it might take some creativity for some of the other races (eg, the human subraces). Some of these traits might be weaknesses, too -- for instance, Gorons sink like a rock.Each race will also need a movement speed (which reminds me, we need to decide on a measurement system -- is everyone fine with using metric like in the original system?) and probably a weight rating for working with knockback effects.
>>19876694I'm not familiar with FATE, but I think I get the gist.So with my Kokori example, instead of getting a static +1 Stealth, they'll get that 1-die bonus on Stealth checks when in a forested area, yes?And I totally forgot about the Fairy. I forget how long it's been since I played a Zelda game. I might suggest the Fairy be something like an Animal Companion or Familiar. Has it's own movement speed. Probably has a high Perception. talks to the Kokori in a language only they understand. Shares hearts with it's master. Stuff like that.When it comes to movement, I think a Hex-Grid would work best. Each hex being 1 square meter on a normal scale. the Hex-grid would probably also work best for the dungeon maps. If memory serves me right, Zelda dungeons were pretty fluid and not at all square.
>>19876165>>19876229>>19876282Ah, that clarifies a bit. Looking back, I saw I merely misread the original success%graph in regards to difficulty.As for skill-trees, honestly it was just a quick method for chargen. Which I arguably find just as important as core mechanics, because from my perspective character creation /is/ a core mechanic. Or at the very least, it's not something that can be pushed to the side. How you begin is important because it's a baseline of possibilities in a system that so far seems to emphasize equipment as a means of progression over non-skill growth. Which, my longwindedness aside, seems crucially important to me.As to skill trees, I honestly didn't intend anything of the sort. It just seemed the logical progression for chargen assuming a meter-virtue system base. There's any number of ways you could tackle it, honestly, and that's just my attempt at it.(Cont.)
But my main point is that you're at a stage where everyone seems to be, as you said, putting the cart before the horse. There are core mechanics that need to be decided on, like how exactly Hearts, Magic, and Stamina(?) work, and what -if any- interaction they might have with Virtues. Or hell, just the actual signifigance of Virtues in relation to rolls. When do you add Power as opposed to Courage when using certain skills? Things like that.This seems like an awesom project, and one I'd fully support. But it seems the last few tries at this fell apart as much because no one could agree on vital core-mechanics as anything else.
>>19876943I think the idea for racial dice bonuses would be that they're more broad than skills, and possibly even more broad than attributes. So maybe for Kokiri it might be something like "Clever Forest-Dweller", where they get a bonus on any sort of cleverness-related activity while in a wooded area -- could include Stealth, Perception, Survival, possibly even use of certain items or attacks, depending on context. Kind of flexible and open to creative interpretation.As for the fairy, I think treating it as a familiar might be a bit more complexity than we necessarily want, mechanically speaking. It would probably be a good idea to have it be a bit more abstracted -- for instance, instead of having it as a separate creature with its own Perception skill, it might give its master the ability to reroll Perception checks (or perhaps reroll 1s in a Perception check?) due to providing an extra set of sharp eyes and ears. It would also work well as a way to get hints from the GM about puzzles and monster weaknesses.You do make a good point on the hex grid. Obviously the old 2d games were pretty blocky, but you're right that the 3d dungeons are pretty organic. It might make it a bit trickier for prospective GMs to map out dungeons in advance, though -- hex grid paper is a bit harder to come by than square grid.At any rate, whether it's squares or hexes, what I was really getting at was whether we should use meters as the increment of measurement or something else.
>>19877183Well, you're definitely right in that those are all important things that need to be addressed, but I'm not sure I agree that we're getting ahead of ourselves by working on what we are right now (combat actions/turn setup) rather than those. The stuff we've been discussing isn't particularly dependent on those subjects you mention (at least not in any way that wouldn't be really easy to adjust just by tweaking some numbers), and really I'd say that the combat system is more important. Those are all important crunch issues, but the combat system is not only important crunch, but it's an aspect of the crunch that strongly shapes the way gameplay feels. Making sure the combat system facilitates a style of play that resembles the video games is pretty important to our core goal for this system, whereas the stuff you mention, while important for making sure the game runs properly, doesn't have quite as big an impact on the style of gameplay.Certainly, we should put those issues high on our to-do list, but I see no problem with finishing off the core combat mechanics first. And really, once we get the turn structure figured out, the general topic of combat flows rather naturally into discussion of hearts and magic and stamina and Virtues and all that good stuff.
>>19877365I see your point. I keep forgetting this is only the third thread of this iteration. Anyways, like I said, I'm more than glad to try and help with this any way I can. No sense in merely dishing out criticism and not helping, from my point of view.
>>19874388We had some quartered-hearts in the old character sheet, and there was also shorthand of 1/2H, 1/4H, 3/4H, 1H, 2H, etc. for damage codes.
>>19877802Glad to have you aboard!
>>19877881Also, do we actually have a completed to-do list, like an order of intent? Or are we just still brainstorming ideas before we decide what order of stuff to do?
>>19877917I think we were in the process of making a to-do list, but got a bit derailed. People keep on getting sidetracked wanting to delve into the details of whatever gets mentioned. I'll try to go back and compile a list of things that were mentioned, and possibly add a few if I think of any.
>>19877970Yeah, a to-do list would be helpful. It would allow the focus to stay in order, rather than 'Hey, stats should be like... ooh, stats tie into comba.. ooh SHINY AUGH SO MUCH' that seems to happen in a lot of game design.
>>19877970Say, TKDB, you post in this topic more than I do, and you do all this leader-type stuff, like making a to-do list and design documents. You might be a better choice for leader than me, who reads quest threads all day and doesn't always post often.
>>19879703Of course, some of that is that whatever I want to say has generally already been said by somebody else, so I don't get to do much other than agree with stuff.
Right, so, to-do list. Before we discuss where we're going, I figure it'd also be a good idea to recap the ground we've covered so far:>General system goalsOutlined here >>19854563 and the following posts.>Dice systemd6 pool, 4+ is a success. The size of your pool is equal to the sum of your ranks in the relevant skill, attribute, and virtue, though additional bonuses (and penalties?) may apply, such as from racial traits. More challenging tasks require more successes, and extra successes beyond the minimum necessary may give increased results. Potent temporary buffs (for instance, the Oracle Charms from Minish Cap) may reduce the threshold for success, so 3+ is a success; this makes it easier to succeed on tasks (and particularly to get multiple successes), but does not increase the maximum possible number of successes you can get.>Core statsFive Attributes, ranked 1-3: Strength, Agility, Wits, Mysticism, and Guts. More or less self-descriptive -- Strength is for physical brawn, Agility is for reflexes and coordination, Wits is for cleverness and knowledge, Mysticism is for magic and music (since music is effectively a form of magic), and Guts is for enduring stuff (eg, resisting a ReDead's shriek or some manner of poison). Guts may be cut if we determine there's not enough need for it.>(Hold onto your pants, this list is a doozy...)
>Core stats, cont'dSkills, ranked 0-3. The current list we're working with is: Melee, Heavy, Ranged, Shields, Spellcraft, Instruments, Tools, Acrobatics, Athletics, Riding, Stealth, Perception, Presence, Survival, and Lore. Skills are intended to be fairly broad to ensure that you can regularly find use for any given one, and each skill should have some potential non-combat applications to reinforce the importance of puzzles and exploration. Presence (the catch-all social skill) may be cut or split into a few different skills, depending on how much important we conclude social stuff should be.Virtues, ranked 0-3. Power, Wisdom, and Courage. Each one is broadly applicable in a variety of situations, but it's hard to get big bonuses from them. Start with 1 rank in a single Virtue, and getting more ranks -- whether in the same one or in others -- is difficult.>Character advancementWe'd like to explore the idea of an XP-less system. All forms of character advancement must be obtained through in-game action, rather than spending metagame resources (XP). You acquire the ability to do new things by obtaining items and/or learning songs, spells, and special techniques. Songs, spells, and techniques are effectively considered items in the sense that they must be earned in-game by overcoming the challenges necessary to find an appropriate source (eg, finding the howling stones and sparring with the Hero's Spirit to learn techniques in Twilight Princess).>(There's still more...)
>Advancement, cont'dLikewise, advancing your skills, attributes, and virtues would also require finding an appropriate in-game source for such advancement -- a mentor to train you in a skill, a witch who can brew you a potion that enhances an attribute, a Great Fairy who can grant you a potent blessing, etc. Attributes should be more difficult to raise than skills, and virtues more difficult than attributes.>CombatTurn order is determined by rolling for intiative (tentatively, Agility + Wits), with turns progressing from most successes to least. In the case of a tie, the tied parties reroll for a tiebreaker.Each turn, you can move a distance defined by your race (and potentially modified by items or other factors) and take a single action -- attacking, using an item, etc. You also get one reaction each round, which can be used in response to an enemy's action (including an action directed at an ally rather than yourself) to counter that action in some way. Exactly what you can do with reactions is something we're currently trying to come to a solid conclusion on. You can also forgo your usual action for the turn to get an additional reaction this round, and items or techniques may grant the ability to take even more reactions, but probably no more than one reaction in a single opponent's turn.>(Nope, not done yet...)
That's where we've been. Here's where we're currently at:>Specific mechanics of combat reactionsWe've more or less settled on the main forms of reactions being blocking, dodging, parrying, and counterattacking; however, we have not yet settled on specifically how these things should work.And last but certainly not least, the things that need to be covered, arranged in the order that I think makes the most sense as far as importance to other elements and the system as a whole goes.>Scope and impact of the Triforce virtuesWhat exactly does each virtue apply to? Should each action be clearly and explicitly defined as belonging to a single specific virtue, or should there be some overlap/ambiguity to be left up to individual interpretation?>Health, death, and dyingHow many hearts should PCs have at various stages of the game? Should your hearts total be influenced by any of the Triforce virtues? How easy should it be to get hearts from enemy drops and cutting grass and such? What happens when you run out of hearts?>Magic and StaminaIn a similar vein, how should the size of the magic bar be determined? Do we want to use a stamina bar like in Skyward Sword? If so, how should that be handled?>(It goes on...)
>Character creationWhile there will still be details to fill in for the combat mechanics if we follow this list exactly in order, I think at this point on the list we should have a sufficiently solid enough base to work with, and having at least a working prototype chargen process would be useful for doing simple tests of further proposed mechanics. Plus this should be a reasonably quick subject to cover once we have a solid mechanical base to work with, especially since we want the process itself to be straightforward and painless.>Movement and distanceThis shouldn't take too much effort to work out, but we will need to nail down what sort of system we're going to use for maneuvering in combat and puzzle-solving. Square grid? Hex grid? Something entirely different? What unit of measurement?>Knockback mechanicsA lot of stuff in the video games sends Link (or his enemies) flying, and the amount you get knocked around is usually dependent on weight. A Goron or a Hylian wearing iron boots isn't going to be pushed around nearly as easily as a lightweight Kokiri. We should probably work out some manner of unified knockback mechanics based on a Weight stat. This topic would mesh nicely with...>Special combat actionsStuff like shoving, grappling, charging, running/sprinting -- what all should be included as part of the core combat rules (as opposed to stuff that can only be attempted if you have a certain item/technique), and how should they be handled?>(...and on...)
>RacesWe'll need stats for at least the iconic OoT/MM races -- Hylians, Shiekah, Gerudo, Kokiri, Gorons, Zoras, and Deku. Eventually we'll want stats for other races too, but those aren't so important. I put this topic here because it seems to me that working out rules for movement and knockback will help with setting associated racial stats, and the special combat rules might help with statting certain racial abilities like the Goron's roll.>Special exploration actionsSwimming, jumping, climbing, cutting grass and smashing pots for rupees and hearts -- brainstorm stuff that's likely to come up outside of combat, and work out mechanics for handling them. Most of this should be pretty straightforward, just a matter of establishing difficulties for the appropriate checks. This topic and the ones after it are all pretty much equivalent in priority, and could perhaps be worked on concurrently.>Effects of extra successes on attack rollsWe've got a vague idea of having different kinds of effects based on what general category a weapon fits in, but no solid specifics yet for what these effects and categories are. While this topic would flow organically with the other discussions of combat mechanics, I think it's fine to leave it til later -- we can always just use a simple assumption that extra successes always translate into bonus damage to start with, and diversify from that once we get the more important stuff worked out.>(...and on. Only one more! Promise!)
>Monsters, bosses, and puzzlesStat up the classic challenges Link faces in the video games for use in this system, and possibly come up with original ideas as well.>Dead Man's VolleyWhile this flows nicely from the reactions discussion, it's something of a secondary element, and at any rate should be reasonably easy to work into the reaction mechanics once we get them finished, so I'm inclined to put it down here with the enemies that will be using it rather than among the core combat system discussion.>Items, Music, Spells, and TechniquesI'm lumping these into a single category, since they all essentially serve the same basic role in the game: stuff you acquire in the course of your journey that expands and enhances your capabilities. At this point, we brainstorm all the various toys you get in the video games and convert them to work in this system, as well as new ideas that would have a place in this system.>EconomyKind of hard to place this, since it's sort of a combination of items, special exploration actions, and potentially character advancement. >Tips and guidelines for running an "authentic" Zelda-style gameIt would probably be a good idea to write up some advice for GMs on how to run a game in a way that really feels like the LoZ video games. Even with a system designed to encourage it, ultimately it's up to the GM to fully realize the system's potential....I'm done. Apologies for the massive wall-o'-text.
Alright, let's see...>>19877247Seems like a good idea for racial bonuses, though unique traits would help give each race their 'feel'.>>19876694Metric sounds fine. Imperial should have been phased out by now, really. >>19876943Hex-grid seems like it'd be hard to find. Probably stick with square grid - you can be pretty creative with that too.
>>19880073Wow, that's a lot of stuff. Thanks.So, blocking. Something like a standard shield roll to try to reduce successes so you don't get hit. Possible damage reduction via shield should you fail, compared to dodging, where you should get the full damge minus any armor reduction on failure. Maybe a bonus if you used an action to defend on you last turn?
I recall someone mentioning the effects of the reactions, earlier. I rather liked the idea that based on what was required to preform the action (skills/virtues) blocking> dodging> parrying. So, following that example, my suggestion would be to make blocking reduce damage, dodging moves you (dodges one attack, no guarantee on others) and parrying blocks only one attack.
>>19880233Originally some of our racial stuff mimicked things in the games...Gorons could roll into a ball and move, had Immunity to Fire damage, but took extra damage from Ice/Water. Kokiri's bonus relied on their Fairy Insight, which allowed them to reduce an enemy's Defense, with a high enough roll, determine a weakness or other spot on normal enemies.Zora took extra damage from Fire (as per the game), but functioned Normal underwater and had a built-in 1H Electric Melee that cost MP.Square grids are fine; hexes or squares, doesn't honestly matter to me.>>19880341Are we determining that weapons do damage as a rating + successes, or flat rating? The reason I ask is because having a weapon do rating + successes can theoretically one-shot a starting character with 3H if you are using a full 1H weapon and roll really, really well. And it's hard to be one-shotted in Zelda barring you being dumb or sequence-breaking. Armor should, as in LttP, reduce the amount of damage that you take. Blue Ring/Blue Mail/Hylian Mail reduces damage by 1/4 (so a 1H weapon does 3/4H); Red Mail/Red Ring/Twilight Mail reduces by half (1H becomes 1/2H).
>>19879703Heh, cancel that, I ended up motivating myself to stop just hanging around other threads with this lying open in another tab. You'd still make a sweet leader, though. Don't get me wrong.
>>19880395Well who says damage (or health) has to be high? I'm in favor of a low heart, low damage system. One where a character with, say 6 hearts is one who can take a really heavy beating. But that's just my perspective. I'm just trying to prevent massive health and damage bloat. Long term attrition is exceedingly difficult to do right in a party-centric game.
>>19880368I tried to follow that suggestion - blocking reduces damage even on a fail (though that might be too OP, depending on if it's a straight success-subtraction system or a custom thing), whereas dodging gives you the damage if you fail.Also I can't beleive I forgot the moving after a dodge thing:On a successful dodge, you have the option of moving 1 square or remaining in your orginal square. AOE and dodging:You can't dodge AOE attacks unless you are on the edge of the effect, and in that case you have to move out of the range.
>>19880450Here's a prototype combat summary, with what I feel might be a decent setup for Zelda-style combat.Roll Initiative (as determined above), acting in descending order from top of the queue to bottom. Any ties of initiative are determined by highest Agility; if Agility is tied, by highest Wits. If Wits is tied, roll a d6, highest goes first.You get one Action and one Reaction for free during combat. An action can be an attack with a weapon or other combat-capable item (Bombchu, Bomb, Bomb Mask, Hookshot, Clawshot, etc.).Action: Roll for the appropriate action (Attribute + Skill + Virtue + Racial Bonus); the target defends appropriately with a free Reaction (Dodge, Shield Block, Parry, Technique - Attribute + Skill + Virtue + Bonuses). Whichever has greater success wins the contest. If damaging, damage is done equal to the Rank of the weapon (1H, 1 1/4H, etc.), with an additional 1/4 Heart per success over the Defender (so an attacker with a 1H Kokiri Sword and 3 successes over the target does 1 3/4H damage) subtracting the Rank of the worn Armor (Wearing Ring Mail, which subtracts 1/2 Heart, leaving damage as 1 1/4H). Additional reactions can be performed at a dice penalty. The first reaction is free; the second levies a -2 dice penalty, with each reaction levying another -1. You cannot take more Reactions than you have Agility.
>>19880571Ehhh, seems like a silly distinction. Makes more sense to just let you use dodge to move a set portion of your regular movement (maybe with techniques or degrees of success increasing the amount?).If someone throws an AoE at you, I think you should be able to dodge regardless. Doesn't mean you'll move far enough to escape the effect.
>>19880569It doesn't. I'm just trying to think in terms of 'Aaaand... welp, TPK 'cause I rolled really stupid high when the Gohma Spawn was attacking the party'.
>>19880630You could do some dodging in OoT; the Iron Knuckle's Wide Swing, or some other effects. It was harder (so perhaps AoE has a higher success threshold than just 'beat the attacker successes?), but it was possible.
>>19880157Alright. Sounds like a lot was discussed/thought about. I'll start reading through the list, trying to figure some stuff out. I'm gonna take a name in the off chance we start assigning tasks or something.
>>19880619When using an item in combat, the item should have some noted particular use. Shots either Stun or Drag (based on target Size); Spinners do damage; Bombs and Bombchus do damage; Boomerangs stun. In the instance of Stun, the Defense roll determines how long the target is stunned, Attack Success - Defense Success - turns stunned (5 - 2 = 3, for example). This could be used to build the basis for any combat-application of non-combat items.
>>19880395Weapons do a set amount of damage and various extra effects for more than one success depending on what type of weapon they are. One of those types does extra damage per success, but it the damage will probably either be toned down from the weapon or simply a set amount.I think current model for armor, which I believe was inherited from the previous runs of this project, is that armor takes off a certain amount of health from attacks, but not to the point where it's no damage.For example, Lunk and Lonk are each hit by a 1 heart attack.Lonk's leather armor reduces hits by half a heart, so he takes .5 hearts of damage.Lunk's 1H plate armor would reduce the attack to zero, so he takes .25 hearts of damage.Is it better than what you suggest? I dunno. I think it is, but I could be wrong.
>>19880749The armor that you mentioned is essentially the exact same thing I mentioned (Armor reduces damage total). Reducing it not to 0 is fine by me too, with the minimum being 1/4H.
>>19880749ARGH, STUPID BUTTON.I also like the idea of extra successes being more effects based on the weapon (knockdown/knockback for a Megaton Hammer or a Ball and Chain, or Bomb).
>>19880619Hmm... I think it's important to work out Virtues here, since they're gonna have an effect on rolls.Way I see it, I'd use Virtues like so:Power: Add to any non-magic roll that deals with damage (basic attacks, damaging items, Blocking) or uses Strength but no skills (Goron Sumo, for example)Wisdom: Add to any magic roll, and to any roll using Wits or Mysticism but no skills (identifying ancient ruins, figuring out enemy spells, etc.)Courage: Add to any non-magic roll that doesn't deal with damage (using non-damaging/magic items, Stamina using techniques?) or that uses Agility or Guts but no skill (resisting adverse effects?)
>>19880450Personally, I prefer being merely an active contributor rather than a designated leader anyway. Particularly since I'll be starting grad school in a few weeks, so there's no guarantee that I'll be able to keep up my current level of involvement. The only reason I'm able to do that is because I'm unemployed for the time being and have literally nothing better to do, lol.>>19880619I don't think free reactions to every attack is really a good idea. Combat in the video games is pretty binary -- you either actively defend yourself (which generally negates the attack entirely), or you don't (in which case you're probably going to get hit). The chance of missing is built into the attack roll mechanism. Granted, it's a small chance once you get past 2 , but that's because we want to encourage active defense, rather than the usual RPG method of abstracting defensive action into a default part of the attack roll.And I think we've pretty well established in this thread that multiple reactions probably shouldn't be a default part of the combat system, but rather something granted by an item or technique.I do like your ideas on damage and armor, though.
>>19880881That's kindof what I was trying to model a little bit with the 'reaction to attack for free once,' since you can choose to roll or backflip out of the way, block with your shield or just take it and plow on. Having additional reactions be contingent on an item is alright. Armor and Damage was pretty much a variant of what we designed last time, with some lessening of the 'successes are more murderface' down to 1/4H for each success over the defense roll. Perhaps a second contingent, that your extra damage cannot exceed your Strength + Power (so you have a Str 3 and Power 1, and a 1H weapon, the max damage you can do with one hit is 2H before armor reduction?)
>>19880874I think that's a good approach to virtues. It's not overly complicated, but doesn't affect stats in a completely black n' white fashion, which could help prevent exploitation.On a separate subject, I think Guts should be more defined. I'd hate to see it cut, but it seems like a very niche use so far. Especially early game where it seems status effect defenses might not seem so necessary. Could it maybe have some sort of natural damage reduction? But have it very miniscule like 1/4 heart reduction per point? Or per two points?
>>19880874Thinking way too narrow. Virtues are supposed to be pervasive and applicable in a variety of contexts. Magic is not exclusively the domain of Wisdom; think of the three OoT spells, each one associated with a goddess, and each goddess with a Virtue. Fighting is not exclusively the domain of Power; it could be any of the three, depending on the style of combat.I rather like the descriptions that were used for the original project:>Power is associated with pure force. It is blunt and straightforward, not bothering with finicky matters of subtlety and finesse. It is aggressive and imposing. Ganon exemplifies the virtue of Power.>Wisdom is associated with contemplation and manipulation. It is refined and precise, preferring to take the time to analyze a situation rather than forcing its way through. It is defensive and discerning. Princess Zelda exemplifies the virtue of Wisdom.>Courage is associated with heroism and a balanced approach. It bridges the gap between Power and Wisdom -- not as brutally aggressive as Power, but much more straightforward and action-oriented than Wisdom. It is persevering and straightforward. Link exemplifies the virtue of Courage.More of a matter of general ethos than a specific category. We might refine and tweak exactly what that ethos is for each one, but I personally think they're best handled in that sort of way -- something that determines not necessarily what you do (in terms of broad categories) but rather how you do it.
>>19881028Honeslty, virtues should be like stunting in Exalted or stunting in dream combat in Changeling. It's wide and varied, and it should be suggested by the player but ultimately allowed by the DM (are we going to use a term, like Sage for our word for DM?) based on the player justification. If I'm a Kokiri and I'm shit-mad, and I describe myself as rushing the Moblin and ducking under his spear and with a warcry unheard of from a Kokiri, gut the tar out of it, should I be allowed to add my Power to it?
>>19881028While I agree with the sentiment, I think that has a high chance to lead to 'Everything I do is X' rationalizing.
>>19880780Well, I interpreted it as armor lowering damage by percentage (so 4H to 2H, 1H to .5H, or .5H to .25H) rather than by amount, so I thought you meant something different.>>19880874I wouldn't have the virtues' benefits defined, personally. Maybe give them a writeup for the kinds of actions they'd be for, a la the yozi excellencies in exalted.Power, for example, is a pretty broad concept. It could be muscle power, or raw arcane might rather than skill, or an number of other things.
>>19881028So ultimately, should we not even give direct bonuses with a virtue (including dice pool bonuses?) and rather give final judgement on its application to the GM? If it's gonna be a somewhat abstract mechanic, perhaps it's best to not try and 'figure it out' in a strict fashion.
>>19881080>Tenative Dungeon Master titles>KG (Kaepora Gaebora)>WF (Wind Fish)>DS (Dungeon Sage)
>>19881140Ahh, yeah. My shorthand was different from your shorthand, and I can see what you were reading from my shorthand. Essentially everything I write about damage, I write in terms of quarter-hearts ala most of the games, where each heart = 4HP, essentially. I'm also going to still advocate the use of the 4-sectioned hearts on the character sheet, when we get there, and do them as 'mark an x in the heart box when you take damage, one x per 1/4H damage, moving from leftmost heart to rightmost heart, when rightmost heart is filled, character goes unconscious/is dead/whatever'.
>>19880994Ah, did you mean by "the target defends appropriately with a free Reaction" that the target can use the one reaction they're usually allotted to defend? I thought you meant you get a free reaction to every attack. In the former case, that's pretty much what we'd agreed on already, so no problems there.And yeah, I definitely saw what you did there with the damage and armor. I don't think a secondary restriction on maximum damage will really be necessary, though -- with the way our probability curve runs (>>19846906), the amount of extra damage shouldn't be too bad if we're going with +1/4H per extra success.>>19881116How I mainly look at it is that these should be guidelines we use for determining how to assign Virtues to things, and provided to GMs to adjudicate ambiguous cases that aren't covered in the rules we put together. For instance, I see nothing wrong with saying that, say, offensive magic is always Power, and a given weapon (say, a longsword) is always Courage. The main point (as I see it) is that you can have room for each Virtue in any archetype. You can have a Powerful mage, or a Wise warrior, or a Courageous rogue. I just don't want stuff like >>19880874 that excessively pigeonholes characters based on their Virtues -- all Power characters are combat brutes, all Wisdom characters are mages, etc. Too limiting for my tastes.
>>19881273Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I meant. You get an opposed roll/defense roll automatically, and you can choose the reaction type (Evade/Block, Parry, Counterattack), with varying effects based on your type of reaction (Evasion/Block nullifies damage, Parry cuts damage somewhat, Counterattack takes all damage and does some back to enemy?) I'm trying to find a way to make Block and Evade separate in my head since in game they essentially do the same thing.
>>19881316There can possibly be some unblock able things such as massive fists while evade requires a place to well evade to. If you can't move from a spot to one that gets out of the attack you can't evade it.
>Dice systemSeems simple enough. Just make sure the system doesn't become like ork rolling. (Granted, I love dropping 60 d6's in my dakka phases, but that's a different game)>AttributesIt feels odd to have some "cute" names and others more standard. May I suggest Brawn to replace Strength? Agility is a hard one to replace, as it's fairly broad in definition and we seem to be using it for broad coverage.>SkillsAs long as the final list is not prime, I'll be happy. Then again, I'm thinking from a character-sheet-designing perspective, which might be considered selfish.>VirtuesUnsure about the downsizing from 6 to 3, but it's still devisable by three so I am happy.>AdvancementThe aquisition of Statics and Abilities(as I will now coin them) over EXP might ultimatly be benifitual for the system and its players in regards to the overall expirence.>Combat basicsSeems simple and solid. Cetainly will need tests, though. I might suggest Agility+Wits+D3 if not just for the sake of some veriance in the party's order.>Virtues pt2Bonuses that they give should be small, and I would think apply based on certain things. For example: A sword is a fairly common weapon, but some Techniques might reflect a certain Virtue more and get a slight bonus. The Spin Attack, Link's trademark, would likey get a bonus based on Courage(+0,+1/4h,+1/2h,+1h damage). An exploitive precision stab might get improved rerolls based on Wisdom. (Starts at 6+ reroll, improving each point) I don't have an example for Power off the back of hand but hopefully you see what I mean.>HealthWe've established that Virtues are to be difficult to improve, and everyone starts with one. Them effecting Hearts might be slightly redundant seeing how many other ways there are to get Heart Containers.>cont.
>>19881372 continued>Magic and StaminaHaving a bar for both might ultimatly allow for some creative Abilities to be made. While they both are basically the same sort of resource, it's a nice little fluffy bit that's easier to do to manage than a single resource.>RacesStarting small is likely for the best for now. I will say one artifact I rather liked from the previous project is how Humans were handled, like with being raised elsewhere from your race's homeland.>EconomyWhen we get to the point of creating item lists, we could easily have three prices for the item on there to represent Low, Normal, and High Economies.>GM Tips and guidelinesCertainly something we will need for the release, but too soon to even draft it.
>>19881080I'm not particularly familiar with Exalted or Changeling -- how does stunting work in those, exactly?>>19881140Likewise to you, Tea -- what are these "yozi excellencies" about?>>19881316>You get an opposed roll/defense roll automaticallyWait, see, no, this is a problem. The way it works in the video games is that you need to be deliberate about defending. If you go charging in all attack, all the time, you'll typically get clobbered. So giving free defense rolls against every attack doesn't fit. You get one reaction per round; if you think you'll need more, trade your action for an extra reaction. That's the setup we'd already pretty much agreed on.We'd also pretty much settled on defensive rolls cancelling an attacker's success for each success you make; the part that needed worked out was exactly what kinds of additional effects the different kinds of defenses should have. We had some ideas (blocking gives extra armor soak if you don't negate all the successes, dodging lets you move), but it wasn't really solid on that point yet.
>>19881273So wait, how are we handling extra successes? Added effects, extra damage, what? Or give players the ability to trade extra successes for these advantages.Maybe something like 'Trade 1ES, +1/4H Damage. Trade 2ES, +WepEff. Trade 3ES, +?' Hmm...
>>19881372>InitiativeConsidering that it's roll Agility + Wits, it's not always going to come up the same successes every time, so there's some variance there.>SkillsI'd just like the list to be generalized for good use, rather than every athletic thing you can do being a separate skill ala OWoD.>Magic/StaminaThis make sense for people who use heavy physical techniques that are not magic (or even neat combination techniques that are Magic AND Stamina-derived, like a Gerudo sword-dancer's Scimitars being enchanted by a Zora mage's ice magic in the Fire Temple). >RacesThe ones that have appeared in the most games really should be the first that we do, with additionals done afterwards (Rito, Korok). At that point, do we also want to do writeups for PC playable versions of the Beast Races (Moblin/Bokoblin, Goriya, etc.)?
>>19881431Essentially, you describe what you're doing to the Storyteller and they give you a bonus of +1/+2/+3 dice, at least in Exalted and NWoD and Scion. It's a very arbitrary thing that allows you to do cool shit and get a bonus.I... thought that's what I said in the post you quoted, that you get a free reaction against the FIRST attack you get swung at by.
>>19881439I think we were talking about it being automatic. You roll, and you successfully hit, getting 5 successes, while your enemy got 3 on their evasion (using evasion as a basis, anyway). Therefor, you have 2 successes over the enemy, giving you an extra 1/2H damage (2 x 1/4H = 1/2H) added to whatever the Rank of your weapon is (so a 1H weapon would deal 1 1/2H damage, before accounting for armor). That's all I had worked on, though I would assume htings like knockback would result from 'exceed your targets Size or Weight or whatever in successes and knock them back 1 square,' or knockdown 'exceed targets Size/Weight/whatever and they lose their next Reaction'.
>>19881439If you take a look at the 'importance list' It was pretty low on there. And I abide by that. I think bonuses on successes aren't really high priority right now. We have the basic idea of improved effects depending on the action in question, but I don't think brainpower has to be poured into that now.With all the talk on Stamina, I thought I'd touch down on that: I wasn't all for a stamina bar at first, considering it's only been a part of (I think) one game so far, not really making it a CORE piece of Zelda play. Though in it's defense, if it is agreed to make it in the game, perhaps we could make it the equivalent of the magic bar, but for physical abilities. Sword techniques, savvy use of character actions, etc could all use up Stamina. And (this could go for Magic too, if not already) it could be regenerated by spending your action to 'rest' and refill 'x' amount. (maybe the regen amount could be determined by a stat? Agility for Stamina or Wits for Magic?)
>>19881439It's kind of fuzzy right now. I was thinking for the time being we could just assume it's automatic extra damage scaling to the number of extra successes (since that seems to be guaranteed to be something at least SOME weapons will do in the final product), and then once we have a bit more of a handle on how combat in general goes we can try to come up with fancier stuff. The fancy stuff is a bit further down the line, though.>>19881486See, you gotta quit using the word "automatically", because it's confusing the hell out of me.Here's how I'd describe the combat system, as I understand the consensus to be; tell me if we're on the same page:You roll for initiative, as described above.Each round, you get a move, an action, and a reaction. The move and action are taken on your turn, though you can choose to forgo your action to get a second reaction. Reactions are used on opponents' turns, but only in response to something an enemy does (eg, attacking you or an ally), and are limited to certain actions.Nothing "automatic" about reactions -- it's entirely up to you when, whether, and how to use them.
>>19881569Yeah; we're saying the same thing, just saying it with different terminology.Also, Bunny Hood's effect definitely should include one extra Reaction.
>>19881431An excellency, in Exalted, is a technique one can buy that gives you a bonus to rolls for certain skills. Yozi excellencies are the kind gotten by a type of character called an infernal, who has the favor of these powerful beings known as yozi. Each Yozi has a theme (for example, one has a theme that includes poison, the ocean, clinginess, motherhood, and hatred), and the excellency of that yozi, instead of being for a specific skill, provides a bonus when an action fits the theme of that yozi. The crunch text for these excellencies includes a long list of examples of the theme.
>>19853717>personally, I like the idea of abilities based around items and objects, but that's just meWhat I want to see is people arguing who gets the hookshot. The agile hylian archer or the tough goron brute. The hylian would use it in a way that's obvious but the goron would instead drag the enemies to them like if the hylian had the iron boots on in some cases.
>>19882047I could see the coolness of swapping out inventory items in combat.
>>19881442Well, we may as well, but that's pretty low importance.>>19881569So then , using a heavy weapon would use up your action, and also either you move or your reaction?
>>19882114Yeah, but it's an 'add to the list' consideration, primarily.
So, bosses...Should we encourage the puzzle-boss thing, or have it semi-enforced?
>>19882160Encourage, and with options for how to design them. I like the idea of the boss from TP that you had to use the Dominion Rod to beat by activating the stuff around the temple. Or using items in direct ways, like the Helmasaur from LttP. Just give guidelines along the same method as a normal monster creation guide.
>>19881857That sounds like a good way of handling the Virtues, I think.>>19882114>So then , using a heavy weapon would use up your action, and also either you move or your reaction?Yeah, that's how I'd handle it. Seems like a pretty good setup to me.>>19882160Honestly, I'm not sure how one could "enforce" such a thing but it should definitely be very strongly encouraged, with lots of examples and such to facilitate designing such a boss battle.But that's all down-the-road stuff. We really need to get reactions pinned down first, and a lot of other core stuff after that.Can we all agree to the following points?>Defensive reactions entail making a skill check, with each success you score cancelling a success of the attacker's.>Blocking uses Shields, and gives you extra armor (damage soak) if you fail to cancel all of the attacker's successes.>Dodging uses Acrobatics, and allows (or requires?) limited movement (the details of which need worked out).>Parrying uses Melee or Heavy (as appropriate for your weapon). While no specific additional effect have been decided yet, it should be the least potent of the three main defenses since it uses a skill and item that you're already using anyway for attack. So you don't have to spread your resources around at all to be able to parry well.
>>19882160Definitely encourage. It's nice to have the option to just have a boss that just hits hard and has a bunch of hearts.Also, there should be puzzle monsters, too. Like those green blobs that shock you if you hit them with your sword.
>>19882939Since a Parry in fencing places you within a closer striking distance of an enemy, perhaps enough successes on a parry (greater than the opponent's attack roll) grants you an extra die on your next attack against that opponent? But you can't parry Heavy weapons or certain other attacks (brawling weapons, bombs, arrows).
>>19881196I like Dungeon Sage, or possibly just Sage.>>19882939The seems like the page we are on right now, yeah.>>19881564I also didn't like stamina because it's change(which is evil and bad), but it seems like a good way to keep techniques and stuff from being spammed. But I'd rather finish combat before thinking about it in depth.
>>19883032Addendum to this: you can't parry a Heavy weapon with anything else but a Heavy weapon.
>>19883119So essentially we're looking at starting Hearts, Magic and Stamina as being 3 each (so a total of 12 individual 'points' of each, considering 1 = 4), perhaps? Gives enough MP for a starting character to have a few castings of a 2 or 3 MP or ST cost spell or skill.
>>19883032I'll have to think about the bonus, but not being able to parry heavy weapons with normal ones seems like a sound idea.
>>19883370That bonus was about the only thing that I could think of, One die isn't too overwhelming (which is why I suggested +1 die, not +1 die per success), though, but your call.
>>19883032That was my initial thought on parrying too, giving a bonus to attacks against that enemy.And it definitely makes sense to have it only applicable in limited circumstances. I think the simplest way to express it would be that you can only parry Melee attacks, or Melee and Heavy if you're using a Heavy weapon.I don't think brawling weapons should be un-parryable, though -- it seems a bit counterintuitive, but you can absolutely parry a punch or kick (in fact, if you ever study a martial art that includes "blocks", that's really more what they are -- parries, redirecting force). Plus it's just simpler to classify it by the skill used, since that's generally pretty straightforward.
>>19883444This is true, about parrying brawling attacks. Just a thought I had.
>>19883444Also, on the note of blocking. Are we going to have a 'Shield Structure' ala Skyward Sword, which depletes, and your shield can be shattered (barring crazy magic shields like the Mirror Shield(s)) and you have to get a new one? Or is that too simulationist for people? It would be one drawback for people with a high Shield rating, keeping them from being potentially super-invincible.
>>19880106Concerning TKDB's To-Do'sAs always, just my take on things>Specific mechanics of combat reactionsBlock: Guts+Shield. If you get at least (Opponent's Successes)-2, reduce damage by your shield rating. If you block successfully, you continue to block all incoming attacks until you take another action or fail to block a hit.Dodge: Agility+Acrobatics. If you get at least (Opponent's Successes), pick a direction. You move 1 space in that direction at your regular speed. If you are still in the attack's range, you still get hit. Uses X Stamina.Parrying: Wits+Melee Weapon. If you get at least (Opponent's Successes)-1, reduce damage by 1/4H for a small weapon, or 1/2H for a regular weapon.Counterattack: If you successfully blocked, dodged, or parried an attack and have an extra reaction, you may counterattack immediately after your successful defense. It takes an extra success to pull of a counter, but certain enemies are weak against counters. Uses Y Stamina.>Scope and impact of the Triforce virtuesCurrent consensus *seems* to be keeping Virtues vague and more 'rule o' cool' moment bonuses as opposed to constant benefits. Not every roll adds your Virtue, but playing to your Virtues makes you more likely to gain their benefit. You add Power when brute-forcing things, Wisdom when being subtle, and Courage when being the goddamn hero. Or something like that anyways. Cont.
>Health, death, and dyingSo far all numbers thrown around have been low. I haven't seen many damage references above 1H. So it seems the consensus is low numbers. As for Death and Dying, well, this is meant to be a LoZ game, but also a group game to boot. I'm in favor of Fairies Fix Everything in regards to dying. For combat purposes, I'm thinking along the lines of unconsciousness at 0 Hearts for PCs, with an additional 'Final Heart' for when you're KO'd. Cheap, simple, and probably in need of playtesting. >Magic and StaminaI'd say keep it simple. 3 blocks of Magic, 3 pieces of StaminaPie (since we seem to agree that even though it only shows up in SS, it's a nifty mechanic that lets us do nifty things), each breaking down into 1/4's like a heart. Keeping in mind canon Din's Fire takes 6MP, it drains a basic mage's meter by half. Combat Techniques and the like that'll drain Stamina'll need to be playtested of course.
>>19883762Din's Fire is also a pretty strong AoE effect, one of the few notable AoE spells outside of the late-game, very powerful Medallion Spells from LttP. Besides, I think we'd probably be writing up a few low-powered spells to fill out the space, otherwise mage-types have less to choose from. As far as damage codes, I keep mentioning 1H weapons since those are pretty standard basic weapons, like the Kokiri Sword. Larger weapons would do more, obviously, like the Razor Sword (1 1/2H) or Gilded Sword and Master Sword (2H), while smaller weapons would do less, like the Slingshot (1/4H) or Boomerang (1/2H).
>>19883762I'm good with the 'final heart' for dying and 'fairies fix everything', as well, which also should extend to consumables (Lon Lon Milk, Chateau Romani, Granny's Tasty Soup, Green/Red/Blue Potions).
>>19883762Welp, that's what I get for taking forever to type. I arrive after consensus, matching consensus.As for the defensive actions seemingly being weak, that's where further techniques come into play. You might see something like:Iron Wall: When Blocking, if you match your opponent's success #, negate ALL damage. Takes X Stamina.Or further stuff to increase the viablitity of dodging closer to a character's full speed, for example.On a side-note; personally for parrying I'm against Heavy Weapons being able to parry right off the bat or free of charge. Shit is heavy and hard to move, parrying is about moving your weapon between you and your opponent's.Doesn't help that when I think HWeapon I think the TP Ball and Chain. Which'd be silly to parry with.
>>19883925Perhaps it takes Stamina to parry with a Heavy weapon. That'd be a balancing factor.
>>19883537Definitely not. Even if that mechanic wasn't a piece of shit that should never have been in a Zelda game, it would add complexity to the game without added fun.... I really hate that mechanic.>>19883439Yeah, that seems balanced. the question is whether it applies only to the parrier vs. the parried, or if it applies to anybody attacking the parried creature. I'm leaning toward the former
>>19883992Heh. I wasn't the hugest fan of it, but it bears bringing up. And my intent with the 'parry bonus' was only against the parrier, not against everyone, since not everyone has just stepped within your reach to stab you in the giblets.
>>19883992>>19884008I agree. We've already decided equipment is a big intended part of this game. Breaking someone's equipment is just plain dickish (unless it's a wooden shield, in which case you deserve it for blocking fire)On the note of SS shields though, I do think the different varieties of Shields can be used nicely in regards to elemental attacks and what not.>>19883949Oooh, I like that. Hell, it may be pushing it a step too far, but what if all attacks with HWeapons took stamina? Not a lot, but enough to act as a further drawback for Hammerspam.
>>19883750I'd prefer to keep the three main defensive reactions all working on the same basic method of cancelling attackers' successes, differing only in what the added bonus (if any) would be. For one thing, it keeps defending a very effective option (which we definitely want to be the case, even for parrying -- and as a default part of the system, not dependent on techniques), and for another it keeps things simple and straightforward.I do like counterattacks being generally dependent on following up a successful defense, though we might want to make exceptions for certain cases. For instance, the main thing I have in mind when I think of counterattacking is bombing a dodongo, which is more of a proactive than reactive thing, and I could also see counterattacks being used proactively to protect allies (eg, slice at a Moblin as it tries to move past you, or shoot at a flying enemy that's swooping down at an ally). Also, if we do make counterattacks (if only in certain situations) dependent on a successful defense, I see no reason to make the counterattack harder to pull off -- you already have a reduced chance of taking the counterattack since you need to succeed another check (with uncertain difficulty, since I assume "successful defense" means "completely negating the enemy's attack"), so there's no need to penalize it further.>(Cont'd)
I'm not quite sold on Virtues as a stunt-type system. It's definitely the simplest way to handle it, no doubts there, but on the other hand it's more of a cinematic-style mechanic, and Zelda gameplay isn't particularly cinematic. It also would mean the value of Virtues varies signifiacntly depending on the group -- it's entirely dependent on the players' ability to utilize it, and the GM's interpretation of what qualifies. At the very least, if we use Virtues in this way, we should increase the caps on attributes and skills so we can make more accurate predictions from our probability spread (since currently, the assumption is that characters will be getting Virtue bonuses in a fair number of cases). I think I'd prefer a system where the Virtues have some wiggle room for interpretation, but generally are explicitly stated to apply to specific things, so most things you would do have a listed Virtue that automatically applies.>>19883762It's worth noting that most of the damage quotes mentioned so far have been drawing from the original system, which assumed multiplication of damage based on the number of successes, which I doubt we'll use. So I wouldn't make any assumption about heart totals just yet solely based on the numbers being spitballed thus far.I'm with you on the dying stuff, though. I don't envision this as a very high-lethality game. But at any rate, that whole to-do list was intended to be long-term; we'll cross this bridge when we come to it.
>>19876943I suggested a triangular grid to go with the zelda feel but everyone agreed it would be retarted.
>>19884204>Oooh, I like that.Agreed.>Hell, it may be pushing it a step too far, but what if all attacks with HWeapons took stamina? Not a lot, but enough to act as a further drawback for Hammerspam.Not agreed. Definitely too far. I think giving up your move or reaction, ruling out blocking (presumably, Heavy weapons would always be two-handed, meaning you can't use shields), and penalizing parrying is drawback enough to make Heavy weapons properly balanced, assuming we don't make the damage they deal too absurdly huge.
>>19884239Actually, upthread the lead dev and I were talking about damage, which doesn't work on multiplication but straight addition. It still uses the same 'this many sections of a 4-section heart' shorthand like 1/2H or 1/4H, but the 'extra successes' each just add a 1/4H incriment (so a 1H weapon, with 2 extra successes, does 1 1/2H damage (or six heart sections), before accounting for armor).
>>19884290Damn it, 4chan. I thought the way he talked those would be workable damage ratings for playtesting, at least, and in-line with the games.
>>19884008That parry rule sounds cool. As a suggestion/thought, would it be sound to suggest that perhaps all counters require some amount of Stamina? And if so, would the more 'sound' ones require more? Like in order from most to least beBlocking > Dodging > ParryingPerhaps that'd make it too difficult, though. Although did we cover if there's a stat or something similar that increases Stamina?
>>19884386If anything, we should only make Techniques cost Stamina and MAYBE requiring it to parry Heavy vs. Heavy.
okay, this thread is a monster to read, but I did it, now i can post what I've been thinkingfirst, it doesn't make sense to use a quarter of a stamina point, just give us 12 stamina points and 12 magic points, but thats with your systemmy spitballing is : your stamina points are treated as action points. every turn you get half of your stamina points back, or all if you don't attack. (if you're stunned, you don't regenerate stamina and lose your attack) action points are used to determine what it is that you actually do when they attack you. (heavy weapons depleting stamina regeneration works this way)keep in mind, i'm an avid Magic the Gathering player, so think of this in terms of a stackfor instance, they attack, you can use 6 points of stamina to initiate a block. After you spend your stamina, they can spend their action points on a double attack if they have the technique, and you better have another two points of stamina left to block with. Are they cheap as hell and have a third? you'll need 9 of your points to block that.the same would apply to dodgingI think the idea of parrying should be replaced with Dead Man's Volley, which would function something like, if the situation allows for it (ie magic sword + magic attack or slash battle), you spend 1 point of stamina on DMV, they can spend 1 point in response, you can respond to them with another point and this continues until one either gives up or runs out of stamina and they are hit for normal damage plus a round of stun, which is extra devastating for not regenerating their stamina points that roundthe final option would be if your teammate is in danger you can spend 9 points to interrupt and cancel the stackthis is just to determine WHAT happens, not how THAT happensobviously the actual numbers are up for change but you get the idea
>>19884415working with this system, those rare bonuses to virtue would directly increase how much stamina/magic/health you have, while your items would make your use of them more efficient, ie, a good shield only requires 5 points to block with while a clunky shield could take 7also, will out of combat scenarios default to using physics?
>>19884290Ah, true, I forgot about that. Those would be good numbers to go by for this system, and promote a decently high-ish hearts total. If a low-grade sword deals a base of 1H, and you deal an additional 1/4H per extra success, then you can drop a starting character in a maximum of 3 hits, and possibly 2 pretty solid (3 successes) hits.Another thing worth noting as far as heart totals go is that (1) the party-based nature of the game will enable focus-fire tactics that will mitigate high heart totals in enemeis, and (2) enemies encountered in the later stages of the game when PCs have more hearts can have whatever base damage is necessary to make them a threat given the number of hearts the PCs have.But at any rate, we're getting ahead of ourselves again. I feel like the to-do list did rather the opposite of what was intended -- rather than giving us a long-term plan of attack so we can stay organized and on-task, it's just giving people ideas of tangents to take the discussion on. I'd really like to see us get the whole reactions/defense stuff figured out sometime in the near future...
>>19884280Eh, I supposed I'm biased after Demon's Souls against Heavy Weapons. Though I also inherently picture something like a HWeapon Hammer doing 2H a hit.>>19884230Hmm. I see where you're coming from. But from my point of view, defense should be less effective then offense for most situations simply because if it ends up with NPCs using the same mechanics (Which is usually -though not always I'll admit- a good thing), then combat has a higher chance of dragging on into a sword v shield grindfest.Not to mention most combats in an LoZ game are over quickly. There's just a lot of them.
>>19884541Well, if Heavy uses your Move when you attack with one (which makes sense, Link seemed to recover much slower in OoT when using the Megaton Hammer), then that could also be its balancing factor. I think we could also get around the fact of 'sword vs. shield' grindfest by remembering that not all enemies defend. Peahats, Stalfos, Wolfos and Lizalfos do, and probably some others, but not all enemies do much other than dodge.
>>19884386>>19884415I...don't think you guys understand what we're trying to accomplish with reactions here.In the Zelda games, you usually can't get away with going all offense, all the time, right? You have to balance attacking with blocking or dodging, otherwise you'll get clobbered.That's what we're trying to get at with reactions here. They're supposed to be a core part of the combat system that happen regularly and are pretty much necessary to have any hope of evading enemy attacks. Remember, with the probability spread we're working with, any enemy with a dice pool of 4 or more is basically guaranteed to hit, barring mitigating factors like the target taking defensive action. Making defensive reactions cost Stamina is not a good idea, because it turns reactions from something you'll be doing a lot to something you'll have to use sparingly, with a limit on how much you can do it.
>>19884415don't you just love when posting something makes you figure out what's wrong with it?for the people saying you need to choose between attacking and defending, standard block stamina should be 8+ which should be less than you generate each turnbut dodging should still be doable with an attack, maybe something like it takes 6 to attempt a dodge, but if you fail you take complete damage where as blocking failures result in reduced damage
>>19884630and the other thing i forgot, enemies can have huge stamina bars, which makes sense because Ganon is power and his monsters would represent him usually. meaning the enemy could possibly attempt to block all of the player's attacks and get to attack
>>19884541I don't imagine enemies (outside of a few elite exceptions, like Darknuts) would use defensive actions the way PCs do. And there's nothing saying weaker enemies that might occasionally try to dodge will have the dice pools for that action to actually do so consistently. I agree it's odd to have enemies use different mechanics, but that seems like a necessity for a Zelda game.>>19884630Honestly, the biggest issue I have with your particular system, even moreso than the limitations on defending, is that the way you're handling Stamina will require a tremendous amount of turn-to-turn bookkeeping. Remember, one of our central design goals is to make a system that's simple and painless to learn and play. Your methods might work well for a crunchier system, but not this one.
>>19884679The enemies really don't need different mechanics. Just 0 ratings in a skill, which makes it unable to be tried. Keese and Dekubaba don't have any ratings in Shield, so they can't block, for example. >>19884512Thank you, I'm finally glad I got that point across.
>>19884601I know what we're trying to accomplish and I wasn't trying to deviate from that core aspect, I was just suggesting that (from what I gather, Stamina as a resource seems to be widely agreed upon) Stamina could be used to help govern those. I'm all about countering being core gameplay, since I despise brainless hack n' slashing, I'm just worried players would utterly 'turtle up' and never want to strike out on their own volition. Balance is everything.
>>19884679well, wouldn't the stamina bar need to be changing constantly anyways? and it's just a counteralso, other people brought up the need to choose between defense and offense, if you want, the costs can be totally revampedthe basic idea is, it takes X stamina to attempt a block, add Y to counter their techniquesimple turn by turn regen and DMV is basically a bidding war of stamina pointsi personally think we should have 6 stamina points, 1 to dmv 2 to block/evade and 3 to interupt, getting 3 back a turn or all if you dont' attackwith the introduction of a stamina bar at all, wouldn't something like this need to be done anyways?
>>19884803What had been being discussed was for Stamina to power techniques, like MP for magic, with perhaps one or two other uses (Heavy parry). Originally, it was mentioned somewhat that you could 'rest' as your action in combat, to regain your MP and Stamina, which essentially prevents the 'round per round up and down' of Stamina that you're proposing.
>>19884785>>19884512Also, just a couple more thoughts:The list you posted is awesome and it's great for getting some perspective. Honestly, I feel like from the perspective of one of the guys spitballing, it's hard NOT to shoot out ideas for random mechanics because your mind just bursts with ideas to test and share with the thread. But anyway...What exactly is left on the counter mechanics to discuss? Seems like a lot is gotten through and honestly, I'm getting a bit lost on what we've decided to keep on it. I'll stay on track with helping out, I think we may just need a summary here and there to keep organized. Maybe I'm just a little feeble, mentally.
>>19884873I honestly think that the reaction mechanics are, at least at the most base level, probably ready to playtest in an actual combat situation (which would also allow us to see roll variations, and how the damage works).
>>19884734>The enemies really don't need different mechanics. Just 0 ratings in a skill, which makes it unable to be tried.Right, my bad. I was using the same terminology used in the post I was replying to, but it kind of came out wrong the way I used it.Point being, enemies fight differently than PCs.>>19884785>I'm just worried players would utterly 'turtle up' and never want to strike out on their own volition.Personally, I'd say that's a perfectly valid option...but it doesn't accomplish much, so I don't really see it as an issue. Remember, you only get 1 reaction per round, or 2 if you trade your regular action. If you get attacked more than that...Though I do kind of see where you're coming from. It's kind of why I'd like counterattacking to be a more flexible option, so that choice between offense and defense is more pronounced.An alternative might be some kind of "all-out attack" option, where you can trade your reaction for the round for a bonus to attack, or maybe even an extra attack on your turn.>>19884803I'll admit that, having never played Skyward Sword (can't wait for those sweet grad school stipends to start coming in...), I don't know about Stamina regen and whatnot, but even apart from that I really don't like having standard stuff you'll probably be doing regularly costing Stamina. ESPECIALLY not if the Stamina you spend will just regen next turn, since then you're just spinning your wheels on bookkeeping that's ultimately rather pointless.
>>19884873The main things that I see still need covered for reaction mechanics are:>Movement from dodgingFixed distance? Distance based on some variable (Agility, Acrobatics rank, successes scored)? Should the movement be a required part of the dodge (ie, you must be able to move at least one space to attempt a dodge).>ParryingWe seem to be more or less agreed that the added benefit for parrying is that if you succeed (ie, completely negate the attack), you get a +1 bonus to attack that enemy on your next turn, due to putting the enemy in a disadvantageous position. I'd personally just like to make sure everyone really is on board with that, rather than assuming.>CounterattackingWhat restrictions (if any) should there be on counterattacking? Only if your attack roll gets more successes than the attacker's? Only if you succeed on a defense action first?>Other reactionsShould we allow other things as reactions that don't fit the categories of block, dodge, parry, or counterattack? For instance, respond to a charging enemy by using a hookshot to GTFO? If so, what restrictions (if any) should such things be under?
>>19884840well, i posted it because, aside from number tweaking, i felt it was a good option that worked with what was proposed, covering several ideas that hadn't been worked in yet. I implore you to at least bastardize the ideas behind it, or just fix the numbers and use it outrightperhaps i'm skewed because I'm used to just rotating dice to act as health counters on my enemies and I find it simplealso, quarter points of stamina and MP is stupid and confusing, stick to integers for them, hearts have traditionally been quartered so leave those. I will not relent on this one
>>19885043why not combine parry and counterattack into a DMV style slash fest?also, hookshot should be a modifier to dodge, changing what modifier is used to determine success, i think
>>19884906I suppose that could work, if attacks are being focused by the enemies. I admit, I'm thinking more in a 1-on-1 setting rather than say...3-on-5 or some wacky scenario, so I'm probably a little off.I think an all-out-attack could be a neat option. I could think of a player or two wanting to maybe be a sorta 'berserker' type character who'd love to RIP AND TEAR rather than 'waste' time countering or some such.As for Stamina costs, I can see counter options being free, and Stamina being a predominantly technique-based resource system. But I think I'm starting to veer off track again. Damn you, brain...>>19885043Thanks for organizing that for me...>DodgingI think movement should be a requirement, since in the games it is. Dodging in the games (this is sounding familiar, I think we've touched on this before...) almost always means sidestepping or leap back. This would also make certain (rare) circumstances like being cornered even more dire. (Constantly aware of your surroundings)>ParryingI could get behind the attack bonus, but as long as it's still the least advantageous defense, because I thought that was sound logic. Perhaps you can't counterattack if Parry is your chosen counter?
>>19885059I think the idea for Stamina and MP was more to simply have them obtained in blocks of 4, but still expressed in numerical units when you talk about how much MP is used by a spell/item (or restored by a potion or other effect). So you wouldn't say that Din's Fire takes 1.5 blocks of MP, but rather just 6 MP (which happens to be 1.5 blocks in terms of how you obtain it and how it's visually represented on the character sheet).For reference, here's the character sheet from the original system, which shows what I mean by dividing the magic meter into blocks. In that version, it was in blocks of 6 rather than 4, since it was determined that a max of 60 works best for adapting stuff from the games, and we wanted it divisible by 10; this time around, the push seems to be for blocks of 4, to keep things consistent with hearts.>>19885088>why not combine parry and counterattack into a DMV style slash fest?Personally, I'd rather keep DMV restricted to DMV. I feel that the concept would lose its impact if it's applied to every little thing, and to be honest the idea of a "DMV style slash fest" just seems silly to me.The idea of using the hookshot example as a modified dodge has merit, though. Instead of Acrobatics, you used Ranged (or perhaps Tools, but I assume point-and-shoot style devices like the hookshot would use the Ranged skill), and the movement is based on where you hookshot to.
>>19885175>I could get behind the attack bonus, but as long as it's still the least advantageous defense, because I thought that was sound logic. Perhaps you can't counterattack if Parry is your chosen counter?I'd say parrying is definitely least advantageous, since its added benefit is dependent on you completely negating the enemy's attack. Even if you don't completely avoid the blow, dodging still gives you the movement, and the additional benefit of blocking is all about what happens if your roll doesn't completely negate the attack, but you only get the attack bonus from parry unless you completely turn aside the attack. Plus parrying is restricted to only specific attacks, whereas blocking and dodging can be used to defend against most anything (or at least blocking can so long as your shield is able to handle the attack in question, anyway).And I just can't see parrying precluding a counterattack. After all, nothing goes with a good parry like a swift riposte.
>>19885208have you ever played Dragon Ball Z Budokai 3 and gotten into a punching fight? its a balls out spin fest on the analogue stick because both combatants are on full offensive and evenly matched until one pulls ahead and does full damage to the opponent while only suffering ki lossthat's what i envision when i say DMV slash fest.going with my previous idea on stamina, perhaps every point of stamina you invest is a dice you roll, and you can keep adding dice as you start losing. i think it would add excitement considering the amount of damage/stun that would be at stake
>>19884906I don't see why there have to be counter attacking. Why not just give whatever benefits you get from it to an attack after a successful defense, or whatever the requirements you want is?
>>19885293Well alright then. You do know best in the end. (not sarcasm)I don't really know much about sword fighting and/or fencing so I don't really think or know about things like parry or riposte or summat. I suppose with that said, I'll withdraw from voicing in on things of that nature, as I'll just be makin' myself look dumb.Though with my newly acquired education, perhaps I'll give myself more opportunity to do so. On the subject of parries, if I were to counterattack, could that +1 we're talkin' about go towards that, or just the next turn-based attack?
well, i'll be doing a LoZ RPG some other guy designed, assuming it's similar enough i'll report on functions that seem to work and those that don't
Okay, I'm back, and a little earlier than before. I tried to catch up but seriously, 135 posts since my last. A bit TL;DR, but I tried. Also, in between writing this, I was playing Skyward Sword, so let me just throw this idea out there, see if it sparks anything. It may be rendered obsolete by the time I post it. When your turn comes, you are given a total of three actions, to use as you please. You can use them on your turn, or in reaction to someone else's actions. The action list is either move, swap your inventory items, use a technique, or use an item (which would include attacking, blocking, or parrying). You cannot use two actions to react to the same danger.Yes, this means you can use all three for movement. That means that you effectively used up your "stamina". Moving is an Agility+Acrobatics action. Up to 5 ft/success. You can also move in reaction to a danger (a dodge) subtract the DC of the danger or the opponent's roll from your movement roll to see how far you can move. This will negate your opponent's attack.
Attacking with a slingshot, zipping along on the hookshot, blocking with a shield, parrying with a sword, cancelling with a spell, are all Item actions. Again, you could use all three of your actions in a turn on Item Actions. This means you stood still the whole time while waving your sword. As they said above, blocking is Guts+Shield. Parrying is Wits + the appropriate Item skill (Melee, Heavy, Ranged, Tool). Counter-attacking is the same as an attack with the item.Techniques and spells are "itemized" as actions. In order to learn one, you have to have a certain skill level in the appropriate skill. Spin Attack (requires Melee 2) allows you to use a single melee attack action to attack all adjacent spaces as a strength+melee action. Riposte (requires Melee 1) allows you to react to your successful parry with an attack with the same item, even if you don't have another action available. The attack is done as normal, but with a bonus die.
>>19885340Putting aside the issue that you're trying to put in DBZ-style combat an a Zelda tabletop, allowing people to put in stamina as they're losing means that the person with more stamina to burn wins every time. I don't think your idea is gonna work.>>19885208Yeah, magic and stamina will come in bits of four, but each one will be one point of each. Stamina will probably come in a circle with four sections in it.I'm going to go to sleep for the night. See y'all tomorrow.
>>19885340See, that's DBZ. Legend of Zelda has a vastly different style, and our #1 core goal with this system is to emulate the gameplay style of the Legend of Zelda games.Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting mechanical idea, but it's really a poor fit for this particular game.>>19885447Tossing a bomb in a dodongo's mouth just before it can unleash its fire breath. Slashing at an otherwise impervious enemy's weak spot when it drops its guard to attack. Stuff like that is a very prevalent part of combat in the 3d Zelda games, and thus is something we want to be able to emulate. Reactions seem like an excellent way to handle such things, and thus having an option to make a reactive attack -- a counterattack -- would be a good idea.It also helps to fill the role of a way to protect other members of the party, which we resorted to patching together a clunky attack of opportunity system for in the original project.Plus it helps accentuate the choice between defense and offense, as I mentioned here >>19884906.>>19885475I think the +1 from a successful parry should absolutely apply on a counterattack made immediately after the parry.
do you need to be skilled in an item to use it?the only way that would jive with the mechanics of this game and how LoZ plays is if items fall into use categories, ie ranged/1handed/etc, or you can use an item with no skill in it at no penalty, or there has to be a way to remove penalties to train with all the new weapons, mid dungeon
>>19885623Due to the broadness of skills ,rather than granularity of them, that's less of an issue. Pick up a Hookshot? It's a Tool. Pick up a Sword? It's Melee. Pick up a Spinner? It's a Tool. Pick up a magic wand? It's Spellcraft. So there's so much item/object overlap with skills you're likely to have ANYWAY, that's not too much of an issue.
>>19885623I don't think you should need to be skilled in an item to use it. But, not getting any dice but your basic ability dice will make it less likely that you'll succeed. Especially if you focused on Strength and Melee and you find a bow.
>>19885593>>19885594i feel like there was one LoZ game at one time where button mashing won a slash fest, but i might be mistaking the vague memory of a similar game for a vague memory of LoZalso, if the stamina point equals a roll, then theres a chance for significantly less stamina to win, also, the idea is to hopefully win, but more importantly, burn his stamina. it could be tweaked by putting in a point cap though, like, you can only use 1 stamina point while he uses 5.
>>19885550>>19885558I think by this point we're pretty invested in the move + action + reaction scheme we've been working with, and personally I think it's a bit simpler in execution than having three floating actions. I'm also not a fan of having movement speed based on a check.>>19885656>>19885676What they said.Of course, the GM should really be designing dungeons with the party's capabilities in mind. If nobody in the party has points in Mysticism or Spellcraft, and the GM gives them a magic rod, something has gone very wrong.>>19885713I think you might be thinking of the sword lock bits in the battle with Ganondorf in TP. Not exactly the kind of thing that should be coming up every time two sword-wielders clash -- after all, you fight plenty of other sword-wielding enemies in that game without any similar thing happening. Something of that nature could be used sparingly for specific boss battles like that, but it doesn't fit in the core system.Anyway, I really should be getting to bed. I'm running a D&D game tomorrow, so I likely won't be around as much as I have been lately. I believe we're pushing autosage, though (I honestly forget what the limit is on /tg/, since I'm not usually in threads here where it becomes an issue), so someone else might need to make the new thread when that happens.
>>19885594Sounds good.>>19885713I just don't think that's a good direction to go in general. It's simply not fitting the theme of LOZ and on top of that, just seems like a needless heap of complicated combat mechanics. (Well...more like comparisons, but it's just time-consuming anyways)If there were some sort of gritty, deadlock scenario like when Link is struggling sword-to-sword with Ghirahim, that's something the GM could/should resolve in his own session. Though that's not exactly what you're describing, I think.
>>19885800Night, man. Send those troggs to their death!>>19885558I agree with TKDB. I think the turn actions that we established are pretty sound and I think deviating from that would start to delve into the scary complicated zone.
okay, so before the night ends, lets try to sum up?so, there are 3 virtues, Power, Wisdom and Couragethose virtues relate to the Attributes Wits, Brawn, Agility, Guts and mysticismthen skills, Melee, Heavy, Ranged, Shields, Spellcraft, Instruments, Tools, Acrobatics, Athletics, Riding, Stealth, Perception, Presence, Survival, and Loregenerally it's XPless with leveling coming from techniques and itemscombat rotates via initiative giving each player 3 chances to move, use an item, change an item, use a technique or save for a reactionthere will be 3 hearts + power3 chunks of magic + wisdom3 chunks of stamina + courageusing techniques and certain items exhausts stamina, spells and certain items exhaust magicwe have a funky dice system racial bonuses apply to alot of stuffam i missing anything?
>>19885918K, whatevs. Like I said, I'd throw the thought in. Personally, I don't see how it's more complicated. It's simpler, and with more player options. You get three actions. Use them as you want. That's all I got to defend it. I won't push it any further.
>>19885998Well I can't say that it's more COMPLICATED. Rather that it's just needlessly broad. And probably more viable to exploitation if it's that open ended (in my opinion).Giving a solid definition of your capabilities in combat gives that simplicity that we're going for and that guideline that will help fresher characters settle into sequence of their turn. Don't feel like you're being ganged up on or anything. It's a good concept, just not a direction we'd wanna go for this game.
>>19886287Ganged up on isn't an issue. My pride is not injured. We're working together to get stuff done.Besides, I'm taking the ideas I've come up with that have been rejected and writing them down to make a different system. Nothing wasted.
>>19886378Alright! Some things I was thinking of:For counterattacking, is it going to (or should it) use your attack action for that round? Or is that going to be another 'situational/GM discretion action'?Also thinking about more unorthodox things like the hookshot counter idea. Should those sort of things be open to anyone with the said item? Or should they require certain prerequisites like a capable surface for the hookshot (or claw shot) or enough space/room to make a quick dash with pegasus boots, etc etc.
>>19887305Personally, I'm in favor of the parry/counter requiring two reactions to pull off. As to tool use via reactions in combat, here's my thoughts. We add a new reaction type, but one that happens *before* an enemies action and thus that you declare before an enemies turn. Something like this:Interrupt: You ready yourself to deal with a specific threat. When the Dodongo opens its mouth, you toss in a bomb. When the Dark Nut raises his shield, you slash him. When the dragon readies itself to charge, you're already ready to hookshot away, causing it to slam into the spiked wall behind you. Regardless, Readied Actions are gambles. The Dodongo may charge, and if you don't have another reaction, you get hit. The Dark Nut may pass a Wits roll, see what you're doing, and smack you in the face with his shield. The dragon may breath flames at you.I see Readied Actions as being about phrasing. If, for example, you say "I'll hookshot away when the dragon charges" and the dragon fire-breaths, your Interrupt doesn't cover that, nd you get hit. But "I'll hookshot away when the dragon attacks" would work, since you were prepared to escape. It'd balance out, as most mooks lack varied actions to plan against but have numbers that make trading your defense for an offense risky, while mini-bosses and bosses have more varied options.See, I think that a big part of the game's combat isn't just reacting, but pre-emptively planning a response. And then going 'Oh Shit!' when things don't go as planned.
>>19890169We basically have two options:1) As Zalus said, you use your standard action to ready an action. You must describe the trigger for your action, and what you'll do. This gives low level players more power of choice.2) Reactionary attacks are techniques. You have to learn them. "Chew On This" (Ranged 1) allows you to make a Ranged attack a creature in its mouth just before a bite or breath attack. To do so you must make an attack check opposed by the target's attack check. Your attack does an extra heart of damage. This method of handling reactionary attacks makes techniques more powerful, and encourages players to seek out trainers and do quests for them.
>>19890169>A Hypothetical ExamplePrince (Deku Swordsman), Dalbas (Goron Brawler), and Nazi (Zora Mage) have found themselves in a room with a Wizrobe and two Dodongos. The door seals shut behind them as the Wizrobe laughs. Initiative is rolled.Nazi goes first, followed by Prince, then the Wizrobe, then both Dodongos, and finally Dalbas. Everyone laughs at Dalbas being fat around the table.Nazi, playing up her Wisdom, trades her action for a reaction and Readies Nayru's Silence if the Wizrobe tries to cast a spell (4MP, enemy cannot cast spells). Prince, seeing himself against Dodongos, grins and charges in, activating his Deku Charge technique (6SP, +1H Damage, requires Pegasus Boots) and slams into a Dodongo.The Wizrobe raises his staff, but the DS thinks it smart enough to get a Wits+Spellcraft roll to spot Nazi's glowing hands. It passes, and then teleports forwards to whack Nazi with its staff instead. Thankfully both Nazi and Dalbas have their regular reaction. Nazi manages to Dodge, leaping away sideways. Dalbas rolls to Counterattack but fails, the Wizrobe dodging his swing.Cont.
>>19890294The Wounded Dodongo turns and breathes fire at Prince, who easily Dodges and flips away whistling. The second Dodongo also goes to breathe fire, and Prince activates his Deku Dodge technique (10SP, Dodge an attack even if you're out of Reactions), barely managing to flip away. Realizing he's almost out of Stamina, he yells at Dalbas and Nazi to stop fooling around and kill the floaty bastard before he's turned into Charcoal.Dalbas responds by swinging his hammer. This time he hits with several extra successes, and crushes the fragile Wizrobe. He then pulls out a bomb and readies to "Chuck it into the mouth of the next bastard who tries to breathe fire."Nazi casts Nayru's Freeze (6MP, Stun Target) at one of the Dodongos, which since she never cast Nayru's Silence leaves her at 10MP. She succeeds, and one of the Dodongos is stunned.Prince, seeing things are good to go, aims to finish the unfrozen Wounded Dodongo. He activates his Deku Spellblade technique (4SP4MP, +1/2H Damage) and rolls well, finishing off the Wounded Dodongo.Dalbas turn comes around since the other Dodongo is still stunned, so he walks over, opens its mouth forcibly, and shoves a bomb down there. It explodes and the fight ends.
>>19890405>Our ActorsPrince, Deku Swordsman1 Courage. 3(12) Hearts, 5(20) Stamina, 3(12) Magic.Items: Deku Blade, Deku Light Armor (Wooden), Pegasus Boots, Roc's Feather, 2 Stamina FruitsTechniques: Deku Charge, Deku Dodge, Deku Spellblade, Deku Flower, Deku ShotSpells: Deku Spellblade, Deku Shot, Farore's JumpNazi, Zora Mage1 Wisdom. 3(12) Hearts, 3(12) Stamina, 4(16) Magic.Items: 5 Bottles (1 Red Potion, 1 Blue Potion, 1 Green Potion, 1 Purple Potion, 1 Fairy), Magic CloakTechniques: Zora BoomerangSpells: Zora Shock, Nayru's Freeze, Nayru's Silence, Nayru's Shield, Frost Bolt, Witch FireDalbas, Goron Brawler1 Power. 4(16) Hearts, 4(16) Stamina, 3(12) Magic.Items: Goron Heavy Hammer, Goron Heavy Armor (Metal), Big Bomb Bag (20 Bombs), Goron Crossbow, Small Quiver (15 Arrows), Drums, Magnet GauntletsTechniques: Goron Spike RollMagic: Goron Spike Roll, Din's Blessing of Strength, Fire Fist
I can see the "readied action" sort of mechanic working -- after all, most of that sort of stuff in the video games does take a bit of advance knowledge of the enemy's tactics/capabilities and planning ahead based on that knowledge.Suppose we have a general class of reactions called "counters". These are typically attacks, but could also potentially be other kinds of actions, like the hookshot example. There are two subcategories of counters.Preemptive counters interrupt an enemy just before it does something. To use a preemptive counter, you have to declare what you want to do, and under what conditions you'll do it (within the limits of a simple sentence, of course). I'm not sure if this bit is necessary/a good idea, but we could have preparing a preemptive counter "lock in" one of your reactions for the round -- if you declare a preemptive counter, you can't use your reaction for the usual applications, only for the declared counter, and if your counter conditions aren't triggered your reaction is wasted (though if you have extra reactions from an item/tech or trading in your normal action those function as normal). Alternatively, just have using a prepared preemptive counter cost a reaction -- if you use your reactions to defend, tough luck.The other class is reactive counters. These are done immediately after successfully defending against an attack, and don't need to be declared in advance (though it does mean you need an extra reaction).
>>19890989Honestly, we REALLY only need to add Interrupt as a reaction (with the mechanic that you declare an interrupt, and declared Interrupts, only act on that trigger; if an Interrupt happens, you use up your reaction for that turn, barring enhancements like the Bunny Hood). IE: I hookshot out of the way, I toss a bomb into the Dodongo to make him dislike smoke even more. Since we were already discussing a Counterattack type of Reaction. So that gives us 5, which I think is a good amount without getting into too many semantics. Dodge, Block, Parry, Counterattack, Interrupt.
In hindsight, perhaps both Interrupt and Ready are simply bad terminology. How's this sound?Prepare: To prepre an action, you simply use your reaction during your own turn, preparing to respond to a situation. (If X tries to do Y, I'll do Z) Preparing to do something is a double-edged sword however. If you're successful, you act before your opponent and may interrupt their action, but if your opponent doesn't do what you Prepared for, you just wasted a Reaction.>ExamplesIf the Dodongo tries to breathe fire, I'll throw a bomb.If Beast-Ganon tries to charge me, I'll grapple him.If Bongo Bongo tries to grab me, I'll shoot his hand.If the ReDead tries to scream, I'll attack it.If the Wizrobe tries to cast a spell, I'll cast Nayru's Silence.If Bill tries to take my chips one more time, I'll slap him.
>>19891614if then formal logic, i like it
>>19891614>>19891650I can get behind that. So Prepare can be a 5th reaction, rather than an alteration of Counterattack and/or Parry. Also liked the gamble aspect of it. You'll have to learn it's techniques and stuff before you can really (safely) declare Prepare against it.
>>19891702sounds like combat is done then, anyone want to jump into IRC/skype and playtest this quickly? kind of just skimming over what hasn't been covered ie how dual wielding will work
>>19891702Way I see it, Prepare also allows for tanking, via 'If X tries to Attack Y, I'll block their attack.' This relegates Counterattack to responding to an enemy's action with one of your own *after* they do something, making it more flexible then Preparing, but with no chance of an interrupt.If we can all agree to this, we can finally put Reactions and Defensive Actions to rest for now and move on to other aspects.
>>19891783I thought we had to give items stats and whatnot first? Maybe I'm behind.Also, (just as a side thought) I was thinking maybe dual wielding could be along the lines of you choose which hand to attack with, but certain techniques could allow you to swing both at once? Also gives some versatility to dual wielders (in the sense of items and/or weapon properties, i.e finesse weapon in one hand and a stun in the other).
>>19891844like i said, skim over things, couldn't we run an encounter just giving everyone sword and board? all 3 heart, 3 chunk mp, 3 chunk stam and fight each other?also, consider dual wielding gives you an extra action per turn that can only be used to attack or stun but at a penalty to damage
>>19891821I'm fine with that. Of course we'll need the blessing of Papa Tea or Father TKDB to finalize it, but sounds like every reaction has strengths and/or weaknesses associated with them and I'm alright with that.
>>19891821the problem with this kind of thinking, is what if your GM is a dick? oh? you prepared for X? i guess that means i'm using Y!perhaps put in a footnote saying it is acceptable to right down your prep and not showing the GM till it's necessary
here's a thought; most of the zelda puzzles require ignoring things that could normally be done, like why do i have to wait for hookshot to get up that cliff when i can just climb it? or use a grappling hook?just up to the DM to work around the power of physics?
>>19891844Here's some basic items based on the formulas I proposed, that TKDB and Tea seemed to be fine with.Slingshot: 1/4H, Range 3Boomerang: 1/2H, Range 5Short Sword: 1HLongsword: 1 1/2HHalberd: 1 1/2H, Range 1 (does not need to be adjacent to attack)Hammer: 1 3/4HMegaton Hammer: 2H, KnockdownCloth Armor: -1/4HLeather Armor: -1/2HChain Mail: -1HRing Mail: -1 1/2HPlate Mail: -2HThough, we never decided what KIND of stats a shield needed, so that's something that should come up.
>>19891876Weakness might be bad terminology. Drawback might be better. Risk. Etc.>>19891869I see where you're coming from on that. Though perhaps it'd confuse players if it was labeled as 'extra action' because they might wanna try and reallocate that to something else. Though I DM for really picky/finicky players, so I tend to always assume the most tedious bickering will happen.Also, yeah. Sword n' Board would work. Just didn't know if everything were 'combat ready' as it were.
>>19891908we're playing an RPG, so... ignore physics? Or assume that the things that Link required a Hookshot to get to were unscalable (which, in a lot of instances, they were; random jutting out platforms and stuff, yeah, I know people climb mountains like that, but... it's an RPG based on Zelda, realism has no great place here)
>>19891885That's why, upthread, I suggested Interrupt and suggested that you 'declare what you are doing,' but if the monster changes its pattern and doesn't do that thing, then you don't waste your Reaction and can still have a normal reaction. BUT, if your Interrupt triggers, then your Reaction is used up.
>>19891911i thought the stat for your shield was the damage reduction given for each success? as in, my deku shield protects for 1/4H! i rolled 5 successes and absorbed 1 1/4H! while his superior hylian shield protects for 1/2H and 3 successes protects for 1 1/2H!it seems to work mechanically and the explanation could just be you're taking bashing damage through the shield
>>19891908Well I imagine that some surfaces are just more 'unclimbable' than others. There's a post atop a large slab of smooth marble. A hookshot could grab it and zip you up, which may be a better idea since the marble has no areas ([nigh] impossible skill check, basically) to grab. Or perhaps even on craggy surfaces where climbing is more encouraged, it's simply quicker in general if the player has the opportunity to hookshot up and away.>>19891885It's the risk associated with playing with any DM. If you're playing with a DM you think is purposely undermining players, perhaps it's time for a talk or to find a new DM.
>>19891942What you posted doesn't jibe with what we discussed having Block do, which completely blocks damage if you roll higher than your enemy. However, having each shield have an extra rating of reduction so that, if you don't out-success your enemy on your Block, you have additional reduction as well as your armor is totally fine and fitting. It was just never specifically spelled out upthread (at least that I recall). IE: Enemy rolls 7 success on attack, you block with a Hylian Shield for 5 success, not enough to stop the attack completely, BUT you take 1/2H less damage due to the shield absorbing some of the blow. That fits with everything else we've determined on combat successes. So... basic shields. Remember, ALL FRACTIONS are a heart section, not division. So 1/4H means '1 section of a 4 section Heart'. Small Shield: -1/4HMedium Shield: -1/2HLarge Shield: -1HTower Shield: -1 1/2HMirror Shield: -1H, Reflect Spell
If we determine that what we have for testing is alright, I'll do some more detailed weapon writeups with various special effects (like a Master Sword's Sword Beam), and denotations of what skill each uses.
>>19891844Speaking of, are we making any distinction between item sizes? I'm picturing 5 categories held a possible 3 ways: Tiny, Light, Medium, Heavy, and Massive weapons, wielded as either an Off-Handed, One-Handed, or Two-Handed. A character's size determine's what weapons they can use. Small characters (Deku, Kokiri, etc.) wield Tiny and Light Weapons one-handed, and Medium Weapons two-handed. Then just scale upwards, meaning a Two-Handed Hammer for a Hylian is a One-Handed Weapon for a Goron.Off-Handed- Easier to hide, deals less damage, bonus to parrying?One-Handed- Average all around.Two-Handed- Deals more Damage, must choose between moving or reacting in a round, penalty to parrying?
>>19891989you don't want failed damage reduction to be a factor of your success roll? although i suppose 1/2H is ALOT to reduce considering we only have 3
>>19892047That's why if you fail on a Block, you're still getting the shield damage; because, honestly, if you fail your roll, your successes on the Block roll shouldn't matter beyond 'I got the shield in the way, but not enough to stop the Stalfos from stabbing my giblets'. Hence why they get a flat reduction rating, ala Armor, in my design for them. And yeah, with 3H as a starting character, having more flat damage reduction is helpful, but not breaking. PLUS, that's why we're playtesting. If we determine that successes from the shield need to matter, then we'll alter the formulas and playtest again.>>19892031We are at least making a distinction between Heavy weapons and others, due to the Heavy skill. The game has a lot of examples of two-handed (Great Fairy Sword, Biggoron Sword, Megaton Hammer, Ball and Chain). That'd be up to the two lead devs to determine, but I assume that it would make sense in the context of what we see in the games.
>>19892031sounds goodare we going to have grappling though? TP had some sumo wrestling and goat smashing. perhaps an opposed Power check to hold them in position/stun while your teammates hammer them?
add my shell skype account dien.zora if you want to playtest in a bit, i'm off for a bit though
>>19892105I say let's just test and make sure weapons work, before we get into grappling, which is usually a great big cluster in most RPGs.
>>19892031Maybe (maybe) not a penalty to parry. Because I think the drawback to 2 handed weapons is having to decide if you want to sacrifice an action just to be mobile or reactive. But perhaps something along the lines of 2h can't counterattack after a parry or something, because I can't see a lunkin' Greatsword or Warhammer offering a swift riposte after a successful parry. I know that's my 2nd time suggesting '...X can't counterattack' but it's just what I'm puttin' out there.
>>19892031Sword Size Scaling ExampleTiny Knife (Tiny)>Kokiri Sword (Light)>Hylian Sword (Medium)>Biggoron Sword (Heavy)>Koloktos Sword (Massive)Koloktos being the name of the Mecha-Shiva from Skyward Sword. Who knew?
perhaps we should look at situational penaltiesblocking heavy weapons is harder because they are like to deal damage directly through the shieldlong weapons are harder to dodgequick weapons get around your block so you better hope you can parry themthoughts?
>>19892254or better yet, penalty to blocking off hand because you don't have a shield on the left, and a penalty to parrying weapons two sizes larger than one's own?we're forcing all players to be left handed right?
>>19892254Hmmm...I can see the two handed rule. Like it could still block damage, but if there's a secondary effect (like knockback) it may still apply (perhaps at a diminished effect?). I remember a few times in Zelda where you can try and block a big enemy's attack, but you'd still get thrown down or back. The long weapon is something I can abide by, but I have no real opinion on. The quick weapon thing is sorta a 'nope' for me though. I can't see a stubby little dagger or something getting 'behind' a block, at least not without getting yourself killed. Still though. Opinions. Perhaps I'd need a situation described to me where that would make sense.
>>19892254Nah, Blocking Heavy Weapons is harder because they default deal more damage, meaningit's harder to soak it all.I don't think we need to touch Parry right now, that can probably wait for playtesting.As for dodge though, you have me thinking. What about a bit of Rock-Paper-Scissors?Now hear me out here. We already decided Dodge requires you to move as a part of it, right? Well, effectively, you have three directions you can dodge/swing. You can jump left, right, or back. But what if your foe swings to the left, right, or thrusts forwards? At worst you're rolling right into the swing anyways.So play RPS. Rock as Swing <, Paper as Swing >, Scissors as Thrust ^. Or if defending, Rock as Jump <, Paper as Jump ^, Scissors as Jump >.It's fast, simple, fun, can take terrain into account, and shouldn't come up all that often.Or is it too gimmicky?
>>19892402yeah, I see your point on quick weapon, that's why i changed it to off handed. I don't know why i initially said quick weapon. the idea being the shield is situated for guarding the front of the right so it doesn't protect your left well. now you may say thats what a sword stance is for, but it still favors your shield side over your sword side. My thinking is that if you're confronted with an enemy that is dual wielding or has the opposite grip than you, they can aim for your weak spot and you theirsi hope i explained that properly. not quick, just better placed because of which hand its in i guess
>>19892516Ehhh, that feels a bit too complicated for me. Remember, we want to lean towards simple on the simple<>realistic scale. The less bookkeeping, the better.
I'm trying to respond, but 4chan thinks i'm linking to a referral site somehow and wants to ban me. wtf
>>19892516Yeah. I get what you're saying now. I suppose that could work. Though (and perhaps it doesn't matter in the end) is everyone okay with everyone being left handed or something? Like is that something that's going to affect play-by-play actions? I feel like that might be thinking too deep into things like...'Well I'm left handed and he's left handed so THAT side is left open and if I use THAT technique against him it has an X amount of bonus...etc etc.'For such a simple and quick system as we're trying to implement, I think getting caught up in hands, inherent open spots (except for the ones GM's decide is combat appropriate) and more miniscule tid bits might just be needlessly crunchy. Sorry if that what rant-y.
>>19892635I think the whole discussion of left handed/right handed/whatever is getting way too into simulationist. Simple is better. Guard Break, Quick Attack, etc. should be done through techniques rather than bonuses and penalties to basic combat attacks.
>>19892505Oh, and in regards to reach the solution is simple. If the weapon has reach, attacker wins RPS draws. If not, dodger wins.
>>19892890What I was thinking. Weapon properties are cool, but I was pretty content with them just staying more in a bonus success context. If that makes sense.
>>19893027Well, we do need some weapon/item properties, but ones that directly effect how your rolls work aren't really what I think works, honestly. Properties like Range # (how many squares away you can strike something), Reach (can attack one additional square away), Stun # (denotes inflicting Stun damage on enemies of Size #, regular damage to enemies smaller, like how a boomerang will kill a Keese but only stun Skulltullas), Blast (destroys destroyable objects/walls), AoE # (# of squares from blast starting point, IE:AoE 3 blasts 3 squares in all directions from center), Heavy (denotes using both Move and Action)...
>>19893275Ehhh, I don't think Heavy should be a weapon quality because, again, not all characters are the same size. No matter how much skill a Kokiri or Deku Scrub has in Heavy Weapons, they can never logically lift a Koloktos Sword or the TP Ball and Chain. It's silly.Rather, I think we should rename Melee Weapon and Heavy Weapon to be One Handed and Two Handed, respectively.
>>19893358I'll agree to disagree on that point, but I end up feeling that a limitation like that falls back into heavy simulationist territory. Besides, at that point are we removing the 'must use Action and Move' to use Heavy weapons restriction that was put into place upthread?
>>19893439Oh nonono. It's simply a change of terminology, not the mechanics we have in place. While a Hylian holding a regular sword treats it as One-Handed Weapon (No changes to Parry, etc.), a Kokiri treats the same blade as a Two-Handed Weapon (Penalty to Parry, etc.) because their respective scales are different. Make sense?
>>19893559Makes sense to me. It's basically the same idea as Versatile weapons in D&D. Halflings simply can't wield the big ass Mordenkrads that a human can, but they can use a battle pick as a two handed weapon. Still deadly with it, just a cost for their smaller size (and therefore [usually] greater speed/maneuverability)
>>19893900Wait, wait. Not Versatile. Wrong keyword. I think...I think it just has a 'Small' keyword. Whatever. The point is made.
>>19893559So in the hands of Moblin or a Goron, that same sword would become a throwing knife or a dagger of some sort?
>>19894331Indeed that's my take on it. All weapons do a static amount of damage based on their size/weight, increasing as one slides up the scale. So wielding a Two-Hander doesn't increase your damage because of how you're holding it, but because it naturally deals more damage then its smaller counerparts.I'd put it down as maybe 1/4H increments, but that both needs playtesting and solely reflects my own preferences in regards to the damage system.
>>19894456Well I could see the worries of D/C Guy on a simulation-heavy approach, perhaps wanting a campaign where you may just say 'screw it' and just have (for example) a Deku wield a miniaturized Ball n' Chain. But I identify with a static size/damage system. Thinking about it, you still have a Biggoron Sword as young Link in OoT, but it's simply to big and heavy to wield, so you can't equip it. Same for the Hylian Shield, (as far as effective use goes) Megaton Hammer, Bow, etc. Though that brings up the question if something like a bow is beyond (sorry to keep using them) a Deku or Kokiri. Which loops us around to size categories, rather than static. I think I'm rambling.
>>19894894Ah, but that's not actually a problem. You can't wield the bow in OoT because it's sized for Adult Link. But in MM there's a bow sized for Kid Link. Likewise the parallels between the Biggoron Sword and the Great Fairy Sword; both are Two-Handers, but Kid Link doesn't have a chance in hell of using the Biggoron Sword.I'm not excluding the possibility of a miniature Ball and Chain, simply considering the impact of using a weapon designed for someone bigger or smaller than whoever is actually using it. Which is something that'll come up when we get around to Race, ergo I intend to try and nip it in the bud here before we have to go back and rework Melee Weapons Vs Heavy Weapons.
I would personally prefer keeping "Heavy" over one- and two-handed skills.Heavy implies aptitude with abnormally unwieldy weapons on a personal level, such as Adult Link using the Megaton Hammer or Biggoron Sword, or Young Link with the Great Fairy's Sword.(if memory serves, it's just small enough to where Adult Link would be able to easily use it)This would also let us have normal proportioned polearms along with the like of Long Spears from Wind Waker.
>>19895219Hmm... I suppose the personal preference of the terminology is solely a part of my long-winded and asaninely verbose self. I'm more than willing to concede that point.The only issue is that I took to classifying weapons into 5 categories based on weight (mostly because while the Megaton Hammer is the same size as the Master Sword, it's so heavy it requires two-hands) and it rubs me oddly to refer to a medium-weight weapon as a heavy. But that's just personal preference.
