Systems of Gaming?

Your new games, homebrews, mods and ideas. Forum games go here.

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby Alcazabedabra » Tue May 12, 2009 6:32 am

Drunut wrote:I do wonder if Jamie and Rob would pop in here. To clarify things and such.

Ok, I like the idea of 8s/h and 24u/s. But what would be the case with Large & heavy units and siege units? It wouldn't make sense to be able to fit more than a few in a hex. I would think that a single siege unit takes up a stack slot, but I don't know about heavy units. It just seems like it would be weird to have more than 192 Dwagons in a single hex.


Good question! I can answer the Dwagon question - the Dwagons stack like normal units. Doesn't seem like they should, does it? Golems too, it appears. Siege engines, like the siege towers full of infantry, being pushed along by cloth golems... prolly not. I'd say those would be limited to one per stack. Big, mobile constructs seem like a one-per-stack thing.

This is hard! But fun! We're having to strike a balance between gaming workability and trueness to the comic. We still haven't worked out exactly how we'll handle casters. It seems they're capable of an amazing variety of things. Perhaps the player could pick and choose what the caster's abilites will be, within its chosen discipline, from a massive list of relevant spells and abilities?

A level 1 caster would start out with maybe 3 spells he could cast unassisted, and the ability to cast level1/2 spells from scrolls. Also a small mana tank. As the caster levels, he picks up passive abilities, and is able to add new prepared spells to his list. There would have to be a handful of spells for every discipline... which is daunting.

Also, I shudder to think of the things that could be done with linked casters. Can you imagine a Foolamancer/Thinkamancer/Shockamancer combination? They could Rickroll an ENTIRE ARMY!

Heheh... naw, I ain't touching linked casters.

Also, love Alcaz's idea on stack heads.


Thank you!

One of these days I might write all this stuff down.


What, you mean keep NOTES?!?! Blashpemy! Nerds don't do that. We come up with awesome ideas, bandy them about, and then forget them. Hundreds of brilliant ideas go down the drain every day. Works better that way, trust me.
User avatar
Alcazabedabra
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 7:52 pm

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby Drunut » Tue May 12, 2009 7:57 am

Np Alcaz.

I shudder when I think of the mechanics for casters. The best thing I could come up with would be to have them like commanders who can cast magic.

First we would need to decide how a caster would pop (like what determines it's ability? Dice roll? How can we determine how good it is at other mancies?) And then we need to figure a spell system, AND what spells they can cast, AND how many of each spell AND scrolls AND outside factors such as emotions AND abilities.

Something wicked this way comes. And Ensign Sanity won't be beaming back up.

SO, at some point later on we need to go through the Mancies one-by-one and make spell sets for them. A tedious but necessary process for the game. Though we should wait until the magics are a bit more explained. (wtf is weirdomancy, and what does Carny-mancy do?) But I don't want this to turn into a "Well Carnymancy could do this..." because there are other forums for that.

And I have to go to school now, I'll update this post later.
User avatar
Drunut
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby JohnnyEgregious » Tue May 12, 2009 9:48 am

Well for spells, we'll need to decide how combat works. I'm not sure if combat rounds should happen instantaneously, some units could have a special ability for first strike. is the game going to happen at a macro level, where formations can play a role? In the comic we can see that they have units arranged with melee units in front, healers, and then ranged units.

The feel I get from the hexes is that they're rather large, with multiple armies in the same hex. And since we can see Stanley fleeing into an adjacent hex and Jillian smacking into an invisible barrier between the hexes. But it would be much easier to create battle lines with melee units shielding others if battle took place in multiple hexes, since the arrangement of tiny stacks in large hexes would be hard to replicate in a forum game or a computer version. Something that may lend credence to this is how the numbers we've heard for the move stat are large.

I would like combat rounds to happen instantaneously, then give units first-strike as a special ability. Forest-capable units in forests could have first strike for example, while other units could just be so fast they have first strike as an ability. Some terrain could nullify first-strike for all units, like a swamp for example.

Combat would consist of multiple rounds. There are three ways I can think of to do this.
1. combat continues until one side either dies or flees. Unled units would not have the option to flee.
2. combat lasts for a set number of rounds like... four after that the attacking units either go back to their original hex, or displace the defending unit, depending on whether the unit was routed ( a function of morale) An offending unit can attack as many times as they have move points, but can only retreat once.
3. Units would have differing numbers of combat rounds, depending on their speed. Speed and combat speed would be two different stats affecting a units move points and number of attacks they have in combat. An example would be a slow moving unit with a bunch of tentacles or a units with a repeating crossbow or flail. Higher level units would have more attack rounds, some destructive casters might have only one round. Having only one retreat before a unit is "spent" would keep someone from retreating and attacking repeatedly with destructive casters that only have one round.

I prefer the third, since it would allow us to tweak the power of ranged units (archers would have more rounds, catapults less)

That brings us to the matter of ranged units. They should not be able to attacked unprovoked as many times as they have move points so I think we should institute an ammo stat. This would limit the number of time a ranged unit can attack at a distance. After the ammo is spent, they can of course close into melee but they would naturally be rather weak. Ranged units closing to melee with flying units could either get ammo for free or ammo could be a requirement for ranged units to attack flyers.

This would allow for melee units with javelins or bolas to attack at a distance once or twice before they close in. These ranged attacks don't necessarily have to do damage. Bolas for example, could reduce the speed of a unit (this would reduce move points and possibly the number of combat rounds). Trapper units could even have a ranged attack like weighted nets, which would remove the advantage of flying units.

Melee units with ranged attacks, like dwagons or sourmanders would have a certain number of melee rounds with a "distance" quality and then normal attacks, depending on their speed. The benefit of distance attacks would be the nullification of units that counterattack or have other defensive countermeasures like pointy spines or fire shields. Also the first few rounds of weaker melee units would be spent in these first few distance rounds, wasting their rounds before these distance melee units get to their normal attacks. This might need work because I would like 'piker-class units' to be able to avoid countermeasures, but still be struck by the enemy during combat rounds.

This would also mean only one hex's worth of units could attack at one time, so if we need to change units limits to reflect that... Warlords would also give their bonus to units in their own hex only. Higher level warlords could extend this aura to adjacent hexes but 'artifact bonuses' would stay in a single hex unless otherwise specified (ex. an Obelisk of the Uncroaked giving regenerative qualities to all uncroaked in an area)

Advice, comments, tweaks, or TL;DR welcome. Also, more unit abilities would be nice. (ex. Regeneration - unit gains a percentage of hits back after every combat round.)
I'm workin' on my thinkin' and I'm thinkin' it's improving.
User avatar
JohnnyEgregious
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:50 pm
Location: The foam atop a child's bedtime cocoa.

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby malekith » Tue May 12, 2009 12:15 pm

Drunut wrote:I do wonder if Jamie and Rob would pop in here. To clarify things and such.

Ok, I like the idea of 8s/h and 24u/s. But what would be the case with Large & heavy units and siege units? It wouldn't make sense to be able to fit more than a few in a hex. I would think that a single siege unit takes up a stack slot, but I don't know about heavy units. It just seems like it would be weird to have more than 192 Dwagons in a single hex.

Also, in regards to the 14,000, you do HAVE to pay the upkeep to those guys and even at 50 schmuckers a pop thats 70,000 Schmuckers per turn. For one stack. That doesn't include the severe movement penalty of such a large group. The larger the group the slower it goes. But yeah, if you give leeway to a player expect it to be abused.

Yuh, i like those numbers too, another reason for a limit is: "where do you get marching lines/trains (like the big coalition one going to besige GK) if you can stick all the titan-damned units in one booping huge stack inside one hex?!?" :lol:

Also, love Alcaz's idea on stack heads. One of these days I might write all this stuff down.

You and me both buddy :D
malekith
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby privatepepper » Tue May 12, 2009 12:52 pm

Alcazabedabra wrote:Can you imagine a Foolamancer/Thinkamancer/Shockamancer combination? They could Rickroll an ENTIRE ARMY!


Heh. I've started writing some fanstuff where the "Chan" tribe, whose chief warlord is Candlejagamesh, uses a lookamancer, thinkamancer, and a shockamancer to stun an entire army.
Nah, if linked casters are used in some gaming system, it should be something that players can't create on their own. Teams can be assigned possible links, or links could be used for campaign-altering purposes like they were in the story.
There's not much to be said. Follow me, and I will teach you the paths of love, of hate, of fire, of death, of life, of ice. Follow me, and I will lead you through years of victory and ruin.
User avatar
privatepepper
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 1:36 am
Location: Northeastern United States

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby JohnnyEgregious » Tue May 12, 2009 4:45 pm

The comic also mentions that led units can be directed in combat. Would it be simple if we made the directions like 'Attack unit leader', 'attack weakest unit', and 'attack strongest unit'? Or maybe focus the attack on different stacks in a hex?
I'm workin' on my thinkin' and I'm thinkin' it's improving.
User avatar
JohnnyEgregious
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:50 pm
Location: The foam atop a child's bedtime cocoa.

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby Drunut » Tue May 12, 2009 6:02 pm

This is a long post. If I need to clarify anything let me know

-Nik

@JohnnyEgregious: It is worthy to note that sub-hexes would only be considered if there was a commander, warlord, chiefwarlord, or some other kind of leadership in a battle. And you are presenting many situations that would only occur with leadership present and could easily be fixed by the sub-hex idea. When battle commences (and there is leadership of course) each sides units in the hex would be on opposing sides of the 7 sub-hexes. Ranged units would be able to fire across all sub-hexes, while melee units would have to be in the same sub-hex to engage. Special abilities (like a Dwagons breath attacks) would be what I call half-ranged. Meaning that they can attack units in an adjacent hex, and if the unit is a flyer it can attack ground units without coming within melee range.

Which unit attacks first would be determined by a speed stat. And Archers would have unlimited ammo (it would just pop in their quivers) because having so many things would be too complicated. And as Parson has said, the system is simple which means that we don't need to go into melee units having spears and bolas. If it's an Axe unit it has an axe. If it's an archer unit it has a bow and maybe a dagger. If it's a swordsman it has a sword and maybe a shield. It's simple, it's easy, and it's good when waging war with more than a few dozen units. (say a few hundred and in some cases more than a few thousand.)

@privatepepper: I would say that linking would be possible but it would require a master Thinkamancer, and two other mancers to cast. AND every turn the thinkamancer would roll a concentration check on the links stability. If the check fails all casters involved are either croaked or have to make a ridiculous sanity check (like needing to roll a 20 on 1d20). The thinkamancer involved however might have a better chance (say needing >16 on 1d20?)

@JohhnyEgregiousx2: I'm doing this in order of post so yeah. I would think it would go like the third option. you would be able to order stacks around sub-hexes and move units between stacks. But the move order would be determined by the speed of the stack leaders.
User avatar
Drunut
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby Alcazabedabra » Wed May 13, 2009 6:10 am

Hmmmm... I think the Thinkamancer should be exempt from the sanity check in the event of link breakage. You saw how Maggie handled it...


Right, so anyone want to start doing some digging and maybe come up with a list of what we know casters are capable of? I don't think we're concerned with linked casters yet, but basic mechanics of what casters do in combat and outside it would help.

We're also going to need a rulebook, with clear definitions of what is canon, and what is fan contribution/fill-in. Prolly gonna be reading and re-reading the Klogs and everything. I'd say anyone interested should be registering and making pages in the wiki linked in the "call for an Erfworld video game" thread. If anyone wants to make another wiki page on a TT erfgame, please do so.

I'll follow up with a summary post on the thread so far, when I've got the time.
User avatar
Alcazabedabra
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 7:52 pm

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby malekith » Wed May 13, 2009 6:14 am

again im with Drunut here :D
things need to be simple, anything too complex makes the whole idea a lot less fun.
damn, everything i gotta say has been said xD

Right, I shall start with some threads/posts/wiki pages and then may start digging and noting it. (klogs + high res strips ftw!)

EDIT: also i posted on the video game thread about someone pming jamie/rob and getting them to look over here and telling us about their view :D any voluteers? ;)

Mal
malekith
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby malekith » Wed May 13, 2009 7:07 am

sorry for double post,
but someone's been kind enough to start the canon notes about the cities on the wiki!
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/City
I may have to start trolling that instead now :D

I think it'd be best for our game to have an Erf rule book/set (from the 'rules' we can find in the comics plus homebrewmancy) and then a GK campaign book which basically uses all the canon locations and sides that we know about from the books (plus some extras we can make up to fill it out).So like sides with bonuses, maps, city layouts, etc.Then we can use that as a 'starter set' and also implement it on the forums by giving people a choice of side and rank, etc. but we can talk about that a bit more, later.

Mal
malekith
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby BLANDCorporatio » Wed May 13, 2009 4:39 pm

Quite a lot of stuff to discuss actually. Here's another-

Ansom used scouting hats. It was, at one moment, a significant plot point that only the Tool had a caster link allowing what we all take for granted in strategy games, which is the ability to instantly see what our units see as well as order them "instantly".

What to do?

1) Ignore this. Simple and efficient.

2) Have the Finda-Thinka-Foolamancer link as a reasearchable upgrade. If a side lacks that, then they will have to use what Ansom used. Let's make Scouting hats bureaucracy free, so that for each stack/hex-stationed army you can have a unit (the smart guy, say) wear it to give you reports every afternoon (after end of all sides' turns) and receive orders every morning (before any side started turns). Or sacrifice some action-points so that information can be sent/received during your own turn, as is usual.

It could also be possible, and it would not be at all difficult in a forum game, to have several players filling the roles of warlords for the same side. They could spend time during the night ("when do you make plans?!" asked Stanley) to discuss the campaign in-character and would be expected to respect what they know (or not) about the others, just like a split up party in a regular role-playing game would.

I'm just saying. There's a reason no strategy game (that I know of) makes any allowance for the logistics of communication; the priority is, games should be FUN, not realistic. Still, is there no way at all to make even that kind of thing ok to play with?
The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.
User avatar
BLANDCorporatio
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 3446
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby malekith » Wed May 13, 2009 5:27 pm

yeah,
that communications thing has been bugging me. Still cant think of an answer

EDIT:
BLANDCorporatio wrote:It could also be possible, and it would not be at all difficult in a forum game, to have several players filling the roles of warlords for the same side. They could spend time during the night ("when do you make plans?!" asked Stanley) to discuss the campaign in-character and would be expected to respect what they know (or not) about the others, just like a split up party in a regular role-playing game would.

I'd already thought of this a few posts ago, so im glad someone else is thinking the same :lol: it's a version of my preferred play style, although im not sure if this would work in a TT/PnP situation...

Also a quick idea of sides and campaign setting:
the first panel on page 11 has an overview of the world we could use, I count 9 sides and we're given the position of the hippiemancers (so plus GK, Jetstone, Transylvito and charlescomm I can fit 5 in - any i missed?) but apart from that we can't decipher a thing. We'll have to use that, but does anyone think we could expand upon it to allow more players, for example make some more islands? If i get chance i can mock up some top-down maps and cover them with hexes.

;)
malekith
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby BLANDCorporatio » Thu May 14, 2009 7:38 am

Alas, the image you refer to is only the Magic Kingdom. There may well be a lot more sides to Erfworld than 9.

Also, quick glossary. I think PbP means "play by post", what about PnP and TT?
The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.
User avatar
BLANDCorporatio
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 3446
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby malekith » Thu May 14, 2009 11:43 am

ahhh yes, i see now :D

Quick glossary for everyone then: Now in it's own thread!
TT = Table Top (generally used for board/war-games like Risk and Warhammer)
PnP = Pen and paper (generally used for RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons [DnD/D&D])
PbP = play by post (a system used to play PnP RPG and similar games over the web on forums)
IM = instant messenger

I will add more as/if we get round to/need it (a shorthand for all the mancies might be an idea xD)

but generally i think what we intend to do is create a generic ruleset that can be used on all the platforms mentioned above (as that seems to be very within the erfworld idea of bringin the games together) and thus I think it would be a good idea to have a set of books/documents to be used like a starter set; one with the core mechanics/rules, one with the specifics for playing on a forum, one for PnP, one for TT and possibly one for IM, and one with the campaign setting from the comics and canon info from rob/jamie. Then the person using the pack could pick and choose how to run the game (thus why IM is only a possibility as it's more like a cross between forum and PnP). Then we could ask an admin here if we could set it up and use this site as an example!
:D

M
Last edited by malekith on Sun May 17, 2009 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
malekith
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby Drunut » Thu May 14, 2009 5:41 pm

Ah I see now.

So we would make a document that we will call "Erfworld core". Erf core would contain basic information that could be propagated across all the systems (PnP,Pbp,TT, and IM) such as a brief world history, general knowledge, creatures, factions, the magic system, and the sort of stuff that would make an Erfworld game an Erfworld game. Like a whole bunch of notes from Parson's breakfast piled into one.

Then (as we could try to figure it out) we make 'specific' documents and specialized rules for the different systems. (So they would be named things like "Erfworld TT", "Erfworld PnP" etc.)

Thought I think most of the info we will need will come from the Klogs over the summer.
User avatar
Drunut
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby malekith » Fri May 15, 2009 3:17 am

agreed.
I think we now have an aim! its time to start compiling info! Who's with me and Drunut then? :D

M
malekith
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby malekith » Sun May 17, 2009 11:30 am

hey guys!
lets not let this die out! Especially not in favour of a video game! :evil:

M
malekith
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby Drunut » Sun May 17, 2009 12:00 pm

Yeah, yeah I'm still here. I'm just thinking of what I'm going to say. I need to word my idea right for it to make any sense. Give me a bit. :lol:

EDIT: WOOPS kill me i'm stupid I though this was the other thread :oops:
User avatar
Drunut
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby JohnnyEgregious » Sun May 17, 2009 2:43 pm

I'm doing this in order of post so yeah. I would think it would go like the third option. you would be able to order stacks around sub-hexes and move units between stacks. But the move order would be determined by the speed of the stack leaders.


Wouldn't a stack go by the slowest unit in the stack? And when a command unit is in the battle, there needs to be a way to attack specific units in a stack. ex. When enemy units are told to engage Sizemore when he is leading a stack of golems. So instead of making it another choice it could be those three general orders I mentioned before, Attack leader, attack weakest, and attack strongest. We could just use attack leader, but the other two would allow a general focus if there were say... Hobgobwin dance knights and dwagons in the same stack. Attack weakest unit would go for the unit with the least hitpoints in the stack.
I'm workin' on my thinkin' and I'm thinkin' it's improving.
User avatar
JohnnyEgregious
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:50 pm
Location: The foam atop a child's bedtime cocoa.

Re: Systems of Gaming?

Postby Marlowe » Thu May 21, 2009 2:30 pm

I personally see the board as a Titan-esque build. You have one large hex-board for the "world" then smaller "battle boards" where the full combat rules come into play. You could have a colour coded movement such as this: coloured lines going to and from each hex, each represents how easy the land is say: White, Red, Blue, Green.

White: All units may cross
Green: Infantry, Cavalry and Fliers
Blue: Infantry and Fliers
Red: Fliers only (picture heavy mountainous terrain, cliffs, oceans/bodies of water...whatever)

Now, along those lines:

Each "army" may only have a stack of "8", per the 'combat' rules to keep things parallel. Each "unit" for the world map corresponds as such:

1 "infantry" = 4 Infantry units on the combat grid
1 "cavalry" = 3 Cavaltry units on the combat grid
1 "Flier" = 2 Flier units on the combat grid
1 "Siege" = 2 Siege units on the combat grid
"commander" or "leader" units = have no effect on the movement of the army, as such, but take on it's "aspect" (such as if they are with fliers, they move as fliers, if they have only infantry, they move as infantry).

They are placed face down with an army marker on top (ala Titan) and are limited in movement to the "slowest" movement type, such as an "army group" with 2 infantry, 3 cav, 1 siege and 1 flier may only take routes that Siege can take on the world map.

I can see this giving quite a few tactical and strategic options.

Man, what a monster of a game this could be...
Billy: "I want to be an achiever. Like Bad Horse."
Penny: "The Thoroughbred of Sin?!?"
Billy: "I meant...Ghandi."
User avatar
Marlowe
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: Most likely at my desk at work...

PreviousNext

Return to Your Games

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 0100010, SeraphRedux and 1 guest