When the old thread died, I think we were discussing the pros/cons of Weapon classes like Heavy Weapons, Light Weapons, etc vs. Weapon sizes and whatnot.

Did we come to an agreement on that before we 404'd?

...also, just as a thought, is it going to be along the terms of 'biggerest is besterest'? Like a human/hylian wielding a bow (greatbow?) would have more fire-power than, say, a Kokiri using a shortbow? Should it make a difference? I'm fine with either approach, just putting that out there.

>>19896647
Aha, a new thread.

In any case, I think the general agreement was
-Weapons have 5 different size/weight categories ranging from tiny to massive
-A weapon is wielded either off-hand, regularly, or two-handed
-A character's race (and therefore size) determines what categories they wield as what. Being Small means you use tiny weapons off-hand, but can't use large or massive weapons at all. Likewise being Large means you can use Massive weapons as two-handers, but can't use small or tiny weapons with any effectiveness.
-Smaller weapons deal less base damage, but the difference isn't notable.

Now here's something I thought of. Should passive items like the Power Bracers/Gloves or Silver/Gold Gauntlets increase the weapon size-range you can use? Because the idea of a Deku Badass running around with an axe a Goron needs effort to lift is hilarious.

>Smaller weapons deal less base damage, but the difference isn't notable.

This seems weird. If the difference isn't significant, why is there a difference at all?

>>19897267
I mean insignificant in that going up or down a step wouldn't likely be all that big a change. Maybe 1/4 a Heart in damage. But if you compound that and compare a tiny sword to a massive sword, that'd be a full 1&1/4H difference between your Kokiri with daggers and that Goron with a crazy-big hammer.

But mostly it's meant to account for how different characters use the same weapons. Kid Link can't use Adult Link's items, etc. etc.

>>19897170
That sounds logical. But there should be (I feel, at least) some compensation. Not sure what/how, though. Like...I would want a Deku to be able to use 'heavy' weapons if he wants, not having to be restricted to basically daggers and/or short swords. But again, I haven't thought about it too deep, so I don't have anything yet.
I think the power gauntlets or bracelets, etc could be cool in that category. Maybe It lets you wield up to one size category higher weapons.

>>19897788
All it is is a matter of perspective. The Deku's heavy weapon is the Goron's off-hand weapon is the Gerudo's regular weapon.

And of course some items are magic I ain't gotta explain shit. Like say the Skull Hammer from WW is likely a Heavy Weapon no matter who uses it.

>>19898103
Okay. I can get behind that. I was in a different mindset like... 'Deku simply can't use a megaton hammer because it's too big blah, blah...'
So I'm guessing we'll be labeling it appropriately when we come up with weapons/items what's viable for whom.
Now as far as armor goes...would there/should there be penalty for different races? Like...should a Deku (or even Kokiri) be able to wear full plate? Are there penalties in general like in D&D and others? Like to skill checks, movement, etc?

>>19898204
I'd say no myself. Some things need a touch of complexity to make them interesting. Some things need simplicity to remain entertaining.

Though it could raise an interesting point in regards to things like Iron Knuckles, but I'd say that sort of thing is way down on the list of importance.

>>19898372
Speaking of 'The List' do you happen to have it? (Or anybody else that happens to be around)
I didn't bother saving it and it seems that there's a seriously diminished count of contributors in this thread. I'm utter shit unless I have an agenda or guideline to adhere to.

>>19898557
The thread's archived on sup/tg/ here suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/19844767
Bit of a ways down the thread though, but every post is saved in it.

>>19898676
Thanks. Well it says
>Scope and impact of the Triforce virtues
Well I think we sorta covered that, but I dunno if we came to a general consensus. A few people wanted it to be similar to 'FATE' points, I think. But TKDB said it was too 'cinematic', which I agree with. I'm in favor of a more direct/mathematical contribution from it, since then it's not left PURELY to interpretation. With that said, do we (I think it's just us two at this point...) agree on that?

>>19898945
Actually, I'm in the cinematic camp myself, but out of principle rather than preference.

Say what you will, the point stands that giving them specific situations under which they can be used honestly limits them more than using them cinematically. If we try to tie them to direct mechanics, those mechanics'll need to not only be worked out but worked in in a cohesive manner, which is something I don't see happening.

Besides, what about the Powerful Mage, the Wise Swordsman, or the Courageous Rogue? Keeping it cinematic keeps them from falling to the wayside as options. There's nothing wrong with encouraging them to be used as archetypes frequently. This is a Zelda game after all, these are effectively the spiritual ideals of Hyrule and much beyond it.

File: 1342409837305.png-(19 KB, 727x574, 4successdicepool.png)

Right. Was gonna let there be a day without threads, but since this one is here, I'll get started.

Standby for summary of what we did last thread, and updated to-do list.

Pic is success probabilities for dicepools at success=4+

>>19899221
True, true...
I mean, I'm open to the possibility of that FATE-ish system. I guess my biggest hangup is, like we discussed, the prospect that it may be more/less powerful between groups and DM's. With a consistent stat/bonus, it's consistently poweful. As a more 'cinematic' mechanic, it could vary wildly. I suppose I'll we'll stand opposites on that 'till we can get more people voting on it or giving their two cents. For now let's chalk that up as 'undecided'.

>>19899221
Oh! Also, not to say that I don't agree with your 3 examples at the bottom. I like the idea that those can exist, in fact I'm excited by that. I'd hate for all warriors to be stuck in POWER. Mages to Wisdom, etc, etc.

what happens with ties? ie, the attacker and the dodger had the same number of successes?

also, so heavier weapons (non magical) do more damage? and smaller races can't use larger weapons, couldn't that be balanced by racial bonus to agility? like +1 to dodge and +1 movement speed? meaning playing a deku scrub means you don't hit hard, but you're hard to hit

do the virtues effect your reactions? like wisdom helps dodge, power helps block and courage helps parry?

So, since the last summary/todolist (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/19844767/#p19880073), we've pretty much agreed on the following about reactions:
>Defensive reactions entail making a skill check, with each success you score cancelling a success of the attacker's.
>Blocking uses Shield (and a shield), and gives you extra armor (damage soak) if you fail to cancel all of the attacker's successes.
>Dodging uses Acrobatics, and allows (rather than requires, for now) limited movement (the details of which need worked out).
>Parrying uses Melee or Heavy (as appropriate for your weapon). If you manage to cancel out your attacker's successes and have any successes left over, you get a one-die bonus to an attack (within your next turn) or an immediate counterattack against that enemy. Might take stamina to parry with a heavy weapon. Can't parry heavy weapons with a normal one.
>Counterattacking is dependent on a completely successful defensive action. It's basically a normal attack. (Should cost another reaction?)
>Preparing is done by spending your reaction on your turn, and either stating or writing down what action you prepare for. If you guessed right, you get to act before the action and interrupt it if the action is applicable. But if not, you lost a reaction.

>>19899429
Especially since the archetypal "Power" guy is Ganon(dorf) who's both physically and magically powerful.

>>19899796
>tie on rolls
On a tie? Hmm...that's hard to say. I'd be down to say that ties could win on the defensive party's behalf. Since hearts/HP are low in general and we're focusing a chunk of combat on it.
>Heavy weapons/compensation
That's what I was voicing my opinion on earlier. Seems that (from what I gather) we're gonna have a range of weapons and a range of sizes. So a Deku could wield a ball and chain, but it would be smaller as a result and probably do like...1/4 heart less damage, but I'm assuming that the smaller races like Deku and Kokiri are naturally gonna be more spry and whatnot. So I suppose the compensation we're looking for won't be fleshed out for a while, until we get to race-creation.
As an afterthought, and I know it's 'further down the list', I forget who put this in their battle example, but I really liked it: They had the Deku had a technique they could learn that let's them spend X amount of Stamina to gain an Auto-Dodge. Stuff like that is what I imagine the balancing force to smaller weapons will be.

So, as for to-do list, we are at triforce virtues. I like the freedom of cinematics, but spelling things out makes things easier to balance. Perhaps we should spell out default uses for virtues(eg, parrying is a courage+agility+melee/heavy roll, but if someone can convince the DS that their goron with a staff would be able to knock away a sword swing with a mighty swing of his staff, they could use power).

We also should put how different-sized races correspond to melee/heavy weapons in there somewhere.

I'm afraid I'm going to go to bed in ~30 min, but I'll be extra active here until then.

>>19900144
Yeah. Perhaps there could be a compromise. We could have it be a mix of cinematic and static. The static could be somewhat broad, like for those counter rolls. While the direct combat effects could be broad as well, but ultimately up to the players and DM (or DS) to determine. Perhaps we could set up a page and describe/encourage/instruct people on some scenarios that could use Virtues.

Yeah we were dancing around the subject of size and weapons. It's a tricky subject, I feel so I'd like more people around before I go assuming this n' that.

well, i just playtested the most basic form of the combat i could, as far as i understand how it works, with the 3 action system

so my basic findings are, you definately need to limit how many of your actions can be attacks. I'm thinking you can attack once per blade you're using. also, it seems to function with prepared reactions being allowed as long as its before the opponent announces their move. parry losing a dice in exchange for the possible extra attack die works, although its common for it to simply tie

techniques for different approach, and approach plus attack, definitely needs to be implemented, like a tactical roll moving you on a diagonal, the corollary to this would be requiring reactions like "if he approaches me i'll stab him" to require stating exactly which square he is threatening

also, can you block with a two handed? with failure meaning you get no damage reduction but success is a stone wall?

also, making a two handed take two actions makes them act like a heavy hitter because they can barely move and keep their reaction

I'm just going to throw some less obvious combat mechanics out there for discussion
>concealment/cover adds 1 defensive die
>movement impairment removes 1 defensive die on evasion
>stun removes 1-3 of your actions depending on severity
>fall damage is 1/4H per square of vertical movement beyond 2
>grappling is an attack that initiates an opposed check (Power+brawn to overpower Wisdom+idk to redirect or something)
>standard movement is 3 squares, diagonal doesn't impair movement
conversation spitballs here

>>19900348
Sweet!

so my basic findings are, you definately need to limit how many of your actions can be attacks. I'm thinking you can attack once per blade you're using. also, it seems to function with prepared reactions being allowed as long as its before the opponent announces their move. parry losing a dice in exchange for the possible extra attack die works, although its common for it to simply tie.
Yeah, only one action per turn can be an attack. Preparing can be pretty much anytime before the enemy action. But It's still preferrable to have it on the player's turn if they cn remember. Or did you meant that it's easier to keep track on things that way rather than 'it also works this way'? The only thing I can think of that's similar to losing a die on parrying is that it doesn't give a bonus on ties. Unless that was a suggestion.

techniques for different approach, and approach plus attack, definitely needs to be implemented, like a tactical roll moving you on a diagonal, the corollary to this would be requiring reactions like "if he approaches me i'll stab him" to require stating exactly which square he is threatening
True, but can probably wait. Also a specific square seems a bit too specific. But things like "in front of me", "behind me" should probably be needed

also, can you block with a two handed? with failure meaning you get no damage reduction but success is a stone wall?
For now, I'll say that you can. Possibly changed later.

also, making a two handed take two actions makes them act like a heavy hitter because they can barely move and keep their reaction
Could you describe more precisely what you mean by 'heavy hitter'?

Going to bed now, sorry.

>>19900771
heavy hitter as in, they are rather immobile, choosing to wait for their opponent to come to them so they can soak one of their measly hits and deliver a crushing blow, that might just be me though

also, you didnt' comment on dual wielding meaning you can use your movement as another attack

the note about prepping your reaction just before their declaration was because i KNOW lots of players will end their turn before realizing that X is totally going to happen so i should do Y!

and glad i could help

>On Virtues
As I've said, I'm firmly in the cinematic camp. What I mean by this isn't that you get Virtue dice when being dramatic, but rather any time you play to a Virtue's theme. It's something that encourages and rewards roleplay, making you weigh the options to act certain ways or not.


You'd add Power when your character has had enough of subtlety and goes to brute force a solution. When they get angry and decide the time has come to Rip And Tear. When they think a swift kick to the locked chest'll do the job faster than the delicacy of a lockpick. To everyone else you're brutish and grisly. To those who see it you have Power.

You add Wisdom when you decide to act with clear planning. When you try to play smart and subtle. When rather than vollying arrows, you wait for the opportune moment to shoot. To everyone else you're overly cautious and slow. To those who see it you have Wisdom.

You add Courage when you're being daring and bold. When you take big risks, deal with your fears, or put yourself in harm's way for an ally. When the Deku bravely charges the Dodongo or the Kokiri challenges the Iron Knuckle to a duel. To everyone else you're crazy and reckless. To those who see it you have Courage.

>>19899796
I was under the impression that we'd come to a consensus of defenses acting as a one-to-one cancellation of successes, rather than a binary matter of "who got more". A tie would effectively mean the defender wins, because each success the defender rolls cancels one of the attacker's. If the attacker rolls more successes, their attack hits, but its effectiveness is diminished -- eg, if the attacker rolls 3 successes and the defender rolls 2, the attack hits as though the attacker only had 1 success, and thus the attacker wouldn't get any bonus damage/effects from multiple successes.

>>19900348
>well, i just playtested the most basic form of the combat i could, as far as i understand how it works, with the 3 action system
>so my basic findings are, you definately need to limit how many of your actions can be attacks.

I thought the system we were doing already did that. Of your 3 "actions", one is exclusively for movement, and the other is a reaction, which can only be used to attack if you declare a prepared attack or you trade your attack for an extra reaction so you can counterattack after a successful defense.

>>19900895
I can definitely get behind those descriptions of the Virtues, but I do think that we should determine which Virtues actions typically fall under -- eg, blasting magic is usually Power, precise swordsmanship is usually Wisdom, etc. Make it clear that Virtues are intended to be flexible, and that the Virtues stated as applying to certain things are guidelines rather than hard-and-fast rules, but provide a comprehensive enough set of guidelines that Sages (personally I much prefer that term for this game's GM) who aren't so good at adjudicating such things on the fly still have enough to work with that Virtues can be reasonably expected to have a more or less consistent impact across different groups, and there's a default to fall back on if an action doesn't clearly evoke any given Virtue. Some groups might be more flexible in which Virtues can apply where, but you can at least count on some Virtue being applied to any given action.

>>19900895
Oh ok. I think 'cinematic' might be bad terminology then. Because perhaps some of us think of Devil May Cry when we think Cinematic Powers.
If that's the basic description we'll hand out, I won't fight against it. Just broad enough to be intuitive, but clear enough to have an understanding.
>>19900865
Thanks for that playtesting, man. It's really invaluable. I like that idea of a heavy hitter. Sacrifice a reaction or movement to split skulls. Gives the player a different play style.
>>19901170
I think we cemented those rules, yeah. Does that mean we could move onto...basically anything else? I dunno if defenses/counters could be discussed anymore than they have. Sorry if I seem overeager.

>>19901507
Eh, in my mind a Virtue isn't about what you do, but rather how you do it. If you aren't showing Courage, Power, or Wisdom, I don't feel you should get the added die. I mean after all, for the most-part it's usually just 1d6 what with how hard it is to increase Virtues. Not only does it encourage the kind of playstyles the system works best for, but it balances itself out in the end to prevent Powerserkers or the like.

The Powerful adventurer needs to know when subtlety works best, and a word does more than a weapon. You simply can't brute-force every problem you encounter.
The Wise adventurer needs to know when instinct is more important then forethought. Waiting for the opportune moment is not always the best soluton, sometimes you just have to act.
The Courageous adventurerer has to learn when caution is the better part of valor. If you throw yourself headfirst at every deadly threat, eventually one of them will do what it's meant to.

>>19901650
>I think we cemented those rules, yeah. Does that mean we could move onto...basically anything else?

Certainly, I was just correcting a misconception. We're pretty solid on reactions and defenses, so on to the Virtues! (And I totally understand your eagerness, that reactions discussion took quite awhile.)

>>19901852
I can definitely see what you mean there, but the main issue is the way Virtues play into our current assumptions regarding dice pool sizes and the resultant probability curves. The main issue here is the 3-point cap on attributes and skills. The upper range of the dice pool size -- the dice pools that would be for very advanced characters -- aren't possible with attributes and skills alone. They rely on getting those rare and valuable Virtue boosts, and applying those Virtue bonuses. Virtues may not be a huge influence for a beginning character, but they're pretty important for providing an appropriate degree of granularity in assigning difficulties for tasks in terms of what's appropriate for an early- vs a late/endgame character. The ability to assume consisten applicability of Virtue bonuses is vital for clearly establishing the difference between an experienced master and a novice who's only begun to master their chosen craft. At least as far as our current caps and expected dice pool sizes are concerned, anyway.

It's all about that pretty rainbow-colored chart up there (>>19899390)...
>(Cont'd)

>>19902936
A starting character optimized for a certain thing can reasonably have 4 or 5 dice for their main focus, before Virtue bonuses -- 3 or 4 from attributes and skills (though chargen isn't quite fleshed out yet, we can reasonably assume players can put up to 2 points in at least one attribute or skill, and possibly in both an attribute and a skill), +1 from race. So the range of difficulties we could assign for early-game tasks would be from 1 (easy for a beginning specialist - 90+% chance of success) to 3 (challenging even for a focused specialist - 50% chance - and nigh-impossible for others). While a beginning character *can* hit 4 successes, the chance of this is so low that setting a difficulty of 4 for a task meant for beginning characters isn't a good idea.
Let's call 5 dice an appropriate estimate for a beginner specialist -- it works if we don't assume Virtue bonuses but do assume starting values of 2 in both an attribute and a skill, and also works if we do assume Virtue bonuses but a starting value of 2 in only an attribute or a skill (but not both).

>(Cont'd)

>>19902943
An endgame character has a max of 3 ranks each in a given attribute or skill, for a maximum dice pool of 7 before Virtue bonuses (with 1 racial die). At a dice pool of 7, tasks that are fairly challenging for a beginning specialist (difficulty 3; 50% chance of success) are reasonably easy (just under 80% chance of success), and tasks that are extremely difficult for a beginner (difficulty 4; ~20% chance) are challenging, but not impossible (50% chance).

However, if we can presume upon (increased) Virtues contributing consistently to an endgame character's area of specialization, then we can reasonably expect endgame dice pools of 9, possibly 10. At an endgame pool of 9 dice, tasks that are challenging for a beginner (again, difficulty 3) are trivial (~90% chance of success), and tasks that are nigh-impossible for beginners (difficulty 5; < 5% chance for a beginner) are merely challenging (50% chance). This strikes me as a more appropriate gap in capability between a beginning character vs an endgame one -- the true master can effortlessly accomplish what the beginner struggles with, and to them things the beginner can only accomplish with a phenomenal stroke of luck are merely challenging. But if Virtues are dependent on doing an action in a particular way, then such a gap can't reasonably be expected to exist, since you can't assume that an expert will always have that bonus. In such a system, the gap between master and beginner isn't all that big.

>(One more)

>>19902946
So yeah, that's my issue with having Virtues as a sort of vague, "only if you really mean it" kind of thing. It skews the whole probability curve in a way that (I think) doesn't allow for enough growth. There's not enough gap between the plucky adventurer just setting out on their journey and the seasoned hero who's truly mastered their trade to make a meaningful distinction between the two. In all the Zelda games (excluding direct sequels, of course), Link goes from a basically ordinary guy (albeit with extraordinary potential) thrust into demanding circumstances to the legendary hero who saves the world. Though he does rely heavily on equipment found along the way, there's always the feeling (in my mind anyway) that he grew in terms of his own personal capabilities along the way as well. I'd like to see that sort of progression from humble beginnings to epic hero happen in the crunch, and with our current setup that can't work unless you can consistently apply your strong Virtue to your chosen area(s) of expertise.

Now, this problem could be remedied by raising the cap on attributes and skills. If we let them go to 4 or 5, then the clear differentiation between beginner-level and master-level capability can be achieved without assuming the influence of Virtue bonuses -- and an experienced master playing to the strengths of his Virtue becomes a true force to be reckoned with. This would mean, however, that overall dice pools will be slightly larger at endgame.

>>19902953
Hmmm...I see whatchu mean. Like I said, I can roll with either side's view. I tend to favor the method you described, again, as I said before, so I'll vouch for that. We can define what pools it increases such as (using an earlier example) Power increasing offensive spell dice, but Wisdom affecting Defensive/other spell dice, etc.
On the subject of dice pools, I've never played a system outside of d20, so I can't say if I do or don't have a problem with a huge dice pool with certainty, but I do say I don't mind rolling 10d6 when it comes down to it. Because if the final game is like we're describing it, the player has pretty much EARNED almost every one of those dice and I'd feel pretty happy to have 10 dice cupped in my hand. As for stat thresholds...I think...maybe five could be safer. It'd only be adding a few dice total and if it can accomplish a higher standard of development like you say it can, I'm all for it.

Final bump before I hit the sack. Hope you guys get some good discussion in.

You make an eloquent point. But it doesn't change the fact that tying the Virtues to specific roles precludes the unusual archetypes I was fairly certain we didn't want to lose. So, I suggest a compromise.

Why not implement both ideas without them being mutually exclusive? That is, we tie the Virtues to certain rolls and also allow the cinematic effect. It raises the end-game dice cap without changing skills or attributes, gives less powerful characters a better chance of success, and allows us to move forwards with mechanical discussion.

Besides, 13 is totally a lucky number to cap a dice pool at.

okay, here's something for everyone to think about, in terms of magic

if you're a power magic user? you're probably going to huge amounts of magic into really powerful attacks to annihilate your enemy in hopefully one hit. So you have a very large mana pool to draw on. Power increases your starting amount

Are you a wise magic user? you know how to work with what you've been given. you have grown very efficient in your use and powerful spells cost less while weak spells come at almost no cost at all. Wisdom reduces the rate of loss

are you a courageous wizard? well, you don't have the pool of a power user, and you haven't figured out how to be as efficient as a wise user, but you just don't give up. through virtue you regenerate your mana faster than anyone else and will just keep fighting despite being outgunned. Courage means finding new strength to keep fighting

the same idea applies to stamina

so chargen for this idea would take the form of
you get 3*Power chunks of magic and stamina
spell cost is reduced by 1 point per Wisdom
when you get to regenerate, you regenerate 1 chunk per Courage

thoughts?

>>19906983
>Why not implement both ideas without them being mutually exclusive? That is, we tie the Virtues to certain rolls and also allow the cinematic effect.

That's pretty much what I was getting at with my post here >>19901507. Provide guidelines for what Virtue typically applies to certain actions, but make it clear that these are merely guidelines, and different Virtues can apply depending on how the action is handled. For instance, while we might recommend that offensive spells generally use Power, it would not be unreasonable for such a spell to use Wisdom instead if you were applying it in a particularly clever and strategic fashion. Stuff like that.
I do think, though, that if we provide comprehensive guidelines of that sort, we should *not* increase the stat and skill caps. Although some groups will be more flexible with it, every group will have that baseline to work off of, so at least the obvious archetypes will be able to hit those master-level dice pool sizes consistently across various groups. Increasing the caps on top of that would (IMO) overinflate the high-end dice pools too regularly. Either raise the caps, OR recommend a default Virtue for most actions.

>Besides, 13 is totally a lucky number to cap a dice pool at.
13 happens to be my favorite number, so I would have no qualms at all with capping dice pools at 13, lol. Though technically if we went with stat and skill caps of 5 and Virtue caps of 3, plus 1 possible racial bonus, it'd be a cap of 14...

>>19907168
I absolutely love the concept, but I'm concerned that it might be a bit too crunchy/complicated for the simplicity we're aiming for. I'm not entirely sure that it really is, though, so I'll go with whatever the group as a whole decides for it.

The exact numbers you proposed could also use probably use a little tweaking, particularly the influence of Power (remember, Virtues start at 0, not 1, so that would mean that you need to get Power before you get any magic or stamina -- addition would probably be better than multiplication) but the idea itself is rock-solid.

>>19907582
No no, I'm saying we combine both ideas as is.

Have specific rolls you always add a Virtue to. Like Power to damaging spells, Wisdom to defensive spells, Courage to utility spells, that sort of thing.
At the same time, you also add Virtue when showing your chosen Virtue.


So let's take a Goron Fire Mage. Assuming 3 Power/Wits/Mysticism and a racial bonus for Fire Magic, he normally rolls 10d6 for sa, a Fireball spell.
But when he gets pissed and decides that he's gonna burn that boss to cinders, he adds Power again because he's showing his Virtue. so he rolls 13d6.

This means that a character can not only add a Virtue twice under the right circumstances, but they can even add two seperate Virtues. Like using a Defensive Spell (Wisdom) in a way that's bold and Daring (Courage). eg, casting a shield spell to charge into danger to save an ally.


Make sense?

>>19907582
I mentioned that,too. I feel a compromise was going to be the best option, that way it can still affect less RP-ish groups but still encourage a certain mindset and appeal to those who wish to take advantage of it. Also, I think it'd still prevent mindless stat focus.
>>19907168
Agreed with TKDB for the most part. Like the concept, numbers might be changed around. Also...have we established exactly how Stamina/Magic will be regenerated yet? Is that an automatic thing or is that gonna spend an action to 'meditate/focus/etc'?

Also, I suppose I could see the logic behind limiting the caps if we provide guidelines. Maybe another compromise of four, rather than five for a cap?? I like the idea of visible character progression, but I don't want either side of that to be left in the dust...

>>19907655
by all means, tweak away, I thought the virtues were starting at at least 1 though

don't forget that in the game you don't start with magic, so maybe we should include that too?

and the extrapolation of my system is as the fight progresses, it changes from power being helpful because of it's massive start reserves, to wisdom because wisdom hasn't exhausted its power yet and ends with courage because courage keeps getting more power, which should definitely help the group dynamic and teamwork.

>>19908268
Ah, additive rather than either/or. I guess if we're cool with Virtues potentially having such a significant effect (ie, as much as attributes and skills combined), that would definitely be a good solution to the dilemma.

>>19908310
We haven't really worked on stamina and magic regen yet. Personally, I'd like magic at least to be regenerated the way it does in the game -- basically like hearts, getting restocked from enemy drops and cutting grass/smashing pots. Not sure how stamina works in SS, not having played it (yet!), but I imagine an innate regen mechanic probably would be more appropriate there. Should probably require actions in combat, I think -- you need to pause for a breather to recover Stamina.

>>19908338
If Virtues started at 1, then you'd need to allow starting characters to have at least 2 in their chosen Virtue to have proper differentiation in style and focus, and that would inflate starting dice pools a little too much.

As for not starting with magic, I always took that as simply being because it's not Link's main focus. And in at least certain games you do get magic quite early on (IIRC, the lantern is one of the first items you get in LttP, and it uses magic). I could see having starting magic based on something like the sum of your Mysticism and Spellcraft (with an additional boost from Power if we decide to go with that system), though it might just be best to simply say that it starts at 3, just like hearts.

>>19908432
Sounds good, for magic n' Stamina. Feel like that'd encourage mage-types not to just chuck spells and hope something sticks if there's an enemy that's not going down through force.
Additive virtues sounds good, but perhaps we should encourage Sages to allow the additional dice sparingly (in the sense that some players might just make up any old reason just for some bonus dice). A cool prospect, because this means that a truly innovative player could (possibly) get a bigger bonus for displaying all the aspects of the Triforce. Considering they have multiple virtues, that is.
I was under the impression we started with 1 Virtue as well. But I can see why not, so I won't really argue for one or the other. I can see magic types starting with some magic (duh), others with none, and as you go along, fighter-types gain access to a magic bar (though significantly smaller).
Also, yes that's basically how Stamina works. Stop for a few seconds (a round in the game, I s'pose) and it starts to fill back up.
For magic, I'd say you could safely add the stats, since with the initially low stat-distribution, it might just come out to 3 or so anyway.
...side note to self: Reading back on my posts, I realize I say 'I can see' incredibly frequently. I still, however, am unable to see why kids love Cinammon Toast Crunch.

>>19908432
Yes but it's balanced in my mind because Virtues are meant to be hard as hell to raise. And the dramatic bonus is meant to be hard to get. It'll vary from Sage to Sage, but it shouldn't be a common thing to add a Virtue twice.

I'd say basic, bare-bones CharGen should be along the lines of a 1/0/0 choice for Virtues and a 4/3/3 choice for stats to allow a wide difference of starting focuses.

I agree on Magic. I don't think it's that you don't start out with any magic power, but that you don't start out with anything that uses it. You can have all the MP in the world, but if you don't know a single spell? Useless.

>>19909286
I think 4/3/3 is rather high for starting stats; while Virtue increases are supposed to be rare and difficult to get (though even there you should be able to hit the cap of 3 in your main Virtue by the end of a really epic-scale game), stats and skills -- while not exactly handed out like party favors -- should steadily increase over the course of the game, and thus should start fairly low to give room for growth. Not to mention that if we're including default Virtues that always apply to given actions, we probably shouldn't raise the cap on attributes or skills -- and especially not if there's the possibility of occasionally adding a second Virtue or the same Virtue twice. That would just make the dice pool sizes needlessly large. As long as you can reliably count on Virtues consistently applying in some form or another, 3 is a fine cap for attributes and skills.

Thus, I'd say basic chargen should be something like 2/2/1/1/1 for attributes, and 1 rank each in around 5 different skills. Potentially we might allow up to 2 ranks in a starting skill if you give up the chance to have one or more other skills, but since skills are supposed to be the easiest to raise and bare-minimum chargen should be for the "ordinary person thrust into extraordinary circumstances" level, I think a starting cap of 1 should be fine. The numbers may seem small, but remember that a 1 or 2 die difference is pretty significant when total pool sizes are pretty low.

Is this a continuation of the same Zelda RPG project from a year or so ago?

>>19909487
why do we have endgame caps at all? No one wants a repeat adventure? shouldn't end game caps be decided by each sage?

>>19909523
Continuation/reboot. Same basic idea, but we've realized the core mechanics used in the original were rather bonkers, so we're trying to rebuild it from the ground up in a way that's more elegant and straightforward.

>>19909539
It's mainly to avoid the issue of rolling huge fistfuls of dice and near-certain success for anything not requiring ridiculous numbers of successes. Of course, if a group wants to go on into even greater levels, it wouldn't be at all difficult to houserule out the caps and make more challenging tasks, but it's probably best that we have a standard expectation in mind of what constitutes endgame character capabilities.

I would look at it kind of like epic level play in D&D 3.5. The standard assumption is that a game ends no later than level 20, but if you really want to go into even higher levels, then that possibility is available -- it's just not part of the core rules. Essentially, the "endgame" cap of 3 on attributes, skills, and Virtues is our "level 20"; anything higher is "epic level".

>>19909487
Hmm? I mean 1/0/0 as in, 'Pick a Virtue at CharGen. You have 1 in that Virtue.'
And by 4/3/3 I'm saying the same thing, but referring to Hearts, Stamina, and Magic. So you could start with 4 Magic Blocks (16MP), and 3 Hearts and Stamina (12 points respectively).

Sorry if that was confusing.

>>19909701
Ah, I thought the 4/3/3 was referring to attributes (and yyou can imagine my confusion as to why there were only 3 numbers listed). Bit of a terminology disconnect, I guess.

But yeah, that sounds like a reasonable way to handle the three resource stats. Though something about being able to start with more than 3 hearts strikes me as almost blasphemous in a way, lol.
I think it might be interesting to just have starting hearts set at 3 and magic and stamina based on your attributes -- something like 1+Mysticism for starting magic and 1+Guts for starting stamina or something? So minimum of 2 blocks for any old schmoe, but 3 if it's something you want to focus on. I guess that scheme would kind of fall apart if we ultimately decide Guts isn't worth keeping as an attribute, though on the other hand tying Guts to stamina would give it some validation for existence in this system.

And of course, I'm definitely with you on the 1/0/0 spread for starting Virtues.

is there any real conversion problem from a square grid to a hex grid? because heroscape boards could be useful at times...

>>19909999
Hexes are difficult to create by hand and relatively difficult to find large sheets of. On the flip side, you can easily create a grid with paper and a yardstick, or just buy a roll of 1inch grid paper.

>>19909999
I've never had much luck with a hex system.
>>19909809
I was confused about those numbers, too.
I like the idea of Guts as a stat and I'd hate to see it go. Tying it to Stamina both makes sense and gives it purpose beyond a 'resist this' stat.
I suppose it doesn't truly matter, but my vote goes with a 3 heart base health for every character. It's heresy if not, I feel. Every character starting out with a magic bar is rubbing me the wrong way, since (I know we don't stick to the games to the letter, but...) the games don't give you a starting bar. I like that mysticism and others stats could give you one and increase it, though. This way the heavy duty Hylian Warrior doesn't really get the same resources (initially, at least) as say...A Kokiri Swordmage.

>>19907168
It's a very elegant system, but I think the 4/3/3 idea, with further upgrades by finding things, is more zelda-esque, y'know?

>>19909487
Upping stat/skill caps to 5 or so seems like a good idea. Truth be told, one of my biggest worries about this system was that the three-cap wouldn't provide enough range.

>>19908432
In SS, after you stop using stamina, it starts going back up. So probably full restore if you get a chance to rest, and a tkaing a breather in combat to regain some.

>>19909286
I really don't like the idea of virtues counting twice. Makes them much too powerful.

>>19910945
>I really don't like the idea of virtues counting twice. Makes them much too powerful.

But again, they're meant to be hard as hell to raise. Like, over the course of a full campaign you might get Virtue 2. If you're awesome. I'm not saying it won't need playtesting, but everything will and we won't know what works until we try something.

Besides, its flaws aside it allows us to have the unusual archetypes rather than Powerfighter-Wisdomwizard-Courageexplorer, encourages roleplay, and keeps a 3/3/3 balance that prevents the dice pool from being consistently large.

>>19910945
If it's mainly the upgrading that you're worried about, I meant those formulas to only be for determining starting magic & stamina. Increasing Mysticism after chargen wouldn't expand your magic meter.

>>19911165
>But again, they're meant to be hard as hell to raise. Like, over the course of a full campaign you might get Virtue 2. If you're awesome.
It seems you have an exaggerated view of how hard Virtues are supposed to be to raise. Yes, they're supposed to be hard, but you should still max them out by the endgame. It's just that in the time it takes you to raise one Virtue one point, you've probably maxed at least one stat and a handful of skills.

Like I explained earlier, we WANT endgame dice pools for your main specialty to be around 9, and with attributes and skills capping at 3, that means having a Virtue also maxed out and consistently applying.

We can definitely make Virtues as hard to get as you're talking about, but if we do then we'll need to raise the caps on attributes and skills to make sure there's sufficient difference between a beginning novice and an endgame master. And if we raise the caps on skills, we may as well make Virtues solely apply in cases where an action notably expresses them, since they're no longer strictly necessary to make appropriately-sized dice pools.

>>19911423
*max ONE out buy endgame, I should've said. Having multiple Virtues maxed at endgame would be excessive.

at it's heart, Legend of Zelda games are action and puzzle solving. which contrasts with most RP systems. How are we going to approach out of combat RP? like usual or do something goofy like your character is automatically a mute and NPC's are just there to advance the plot, like in the game

>>19911879
Well, right now we're going to use a "Presence" skill (probably keying off Wits) that's just a catch-all for any sort of social influence type rolls, but there's nothing too specific or detailed. Alternatively, we could drop it and handle social interactions entirely through roleplaying, with no stats or dice involved. Or we might even split it up into a couple more specific skills (though I don't think that's very likely). Depends on just how much mechanical support we want to provide for games that might want to focus a bit more on social interaction.

At any rate, social scenarios should certainly be a possibility. Obviously not everyone in Hyrule is a mute like Link, and hilarious though it would be to have an entire party of mute heroes wandering around, that's probably not how it will (or should) typically play out. However, the general agreement is that robust social mechanics aren't exactly a priority, and whatever social mechanics we do ultimately include shouldn't be a particularly prominent part of the system.

>>19912257
I'm actually in favor of Guts for social interactions myself. The most vibrant personalities aren't usually the smartest, but the boldest.

so does anybody want to skype or IRC and test some of this out?

>>19912458
I could see that. Maybe it might depend on what you're trying to do -- Wits for something like a bluff or reasoned argument, Guts for stuff like intimidation or leadership.

>>19912691
Seems good to me.

>>19911423
That thing at the end sounds nice. a range of 5 for stats and skills just makes it a lot more open, and the virtues don't really need to apply often anyway. >>19900895 is a good guideline.

>>19913198 is me, forgot my trip

>>19911423
Well, part of it is the upgrading, and part of it is that simpler seems better for starting meters.

>>19912676
We should probably finalize whether the stats/skills cap should be increased.

>>19913287
I'm cool with raising the cap to 5 and making Virtues a rarely-increased, mostly situational kind of bonus rather than an assumed contribution.

>>19912676
My Skype is the same name. Feel free to add me, hombre.
>>19912691
Don't think a catch-all social skill could work anyways. There's time for intimidation and a time for diplomacy. Out of the stats, I suppose those two you provided would be the best to allocate.
>>19913287
I'm for the increase. I like the prospect of more defined character advancement. If the Virtue distribution is to be as sparingly handed out as we're saying, it shouldn't have a profound effect by endgame. (which is going to have a more sizable pool regardless)

>>19913287
I can live with a 3/5/5 cap. It's not as...poetic as I'd like, but then again I was never much of a poet.

Now then, I think we firmly need to give a few examples of Guts, as it's the hardest attribute to pin down.
>Resist harmful effects. (ReDead scream, curses, poisons, some magics?)
>Alternative to Wits for social interaction.
>Parry/Counter? I prefer Parry(Wits) and Counter(Guts).
>Techniques? Techniques.
>Doing really stupid things.

Anyone else got anything?

>>19913499
Redead screams should have a very high Guts value needed, if only to make them properly scary for players. (IC, OCC, and neat flavour)

Maybe decrease the effectiveness of the scream for each failed Guts roll to prevent mass slaughter?

are you guys expecting to still end with 20 shielded hearts at end of campaign like in the games?

or do you want low health all the way?

>>19913499
On the other hand, if there's going to be one major category of stats that caps at 3 rather than 5, it's certainly appropriate that it be the Triforce virtues.

I don't really like Guts for counters, since "counter" is just a term for an action done in certain circumstances (ie, in response to an enemy's action). Counters should just use whatever the normal stat is for what you're trying to do; changing it just because of the context would just be weird. And parrying should definitely be either Wits or Agility.

And while I can certainly see where you're coming from with "doing stupid things", I can't imagine what such things would be -- at least not apart from stuff where there's the issue of changing the stat used for an action due to context.

The rest sounds right, though. Other than that, maybe an impact on stamina regen (and perhaps also healing from rest, if we use such a thing)?

>>19913671
I think something of a middle ground. Endgame characters should be able to take considerably more punishment than beginning ones, but probably not as much as Link manages to get. If nothing else, there's the fact that you'd need a lot of Piece-of-Heart hunting to get that many hearts, which would bog down the game considerably. Since a typical Zelda game has somewhere around 8 dungeons (and therefore 8 heart containers) and you start with 3 hearts, and we can assume there'll be at least one from Pieces, somewhere in the ballpark of 12-15 hearts sounds reasonable.

>>19913499
While I like having guts for social things, using guts doesn't really make sense for all social things. guts is great for stuff like making a rousing speech, but it doesn't seem like it would help with anything that isn't helped by passion, such as lying.

This might fall under 'doing stupid stuff', but continuous extertion, such as hanging on the edge of a cliff or holding up a stone door long enough for the party to go through it.
Maybe a roll to get an extra final heart after the free one you get is depleted?

>>19913819
>While I like having guts for social things, using guts doesn't really make sense for all social things. guts is great for stuff like making a rousing speech, but it doesn't seem like it would help with anything that isn't helped by passion, such as lying.
Hence why it's an "alternative" to Wits. Which one gets used depends on what you're trying to do.

>This might fall under 'doing stupid stuff', but continuous extertion, such as hanging on the edge of a cliff or holding up a stone door long enough for the party to go through it.
Feats of endurance, definitely a good fit.

>Maybe a roll to get an extra final heart after the free one you get is depleted?
Maybe better as a technique, but definitely a good idea.

>>19913499
Certain techniques would be good. Maybe focused on berserker-ish ones that put you in harm's way more often?
As for counters, I think someone suggested it be for Parry, earlier. That'd work, I guess.

In general, 3/5/5 sounds good to me too.

>>19913947
technique for guts? grappling and bullrushing. what takes more balls than that?

>>19913980
The thing is, the real determining factor in whether you SUCCEED in those tasks or not is Strength...

You can be as Gutsy as you want, but if you're a scrawny Kokiri without a scrap of muscle on you, you're not gonna budge that Goron.

>>19913819
I dunno, I don't like the idea of rolling anything while knocked out. Besides, it's a Zelda game; we should probably write down the unwritten rule that, barring high-lethality enemies like Iron Knuckles, most enemies wait to deal with a downed foe when the fight is over. Leaves the final heart for handling stray AoE attacks or giving your allies time to drag you away from environmental hazards.

>>19913789
I mean, if you're doing something and it can't be decided whether it's Agility, Mysticism, Strength, or Wits based, I think it should default to Guts. At the Sage's discretion of course. It's good to have a category for puzzling actions to default to, means we have to be less specific in describing other attributes and bog down that section in details.

after some discussion, i think the virtues need to be split as they apply to combat, in this case melee

you can't have 1 virtue apply to melee because that would be overpowering, so i suggest, in addition to my suggestion on how the virtues affect your mana and stamina for techniques, that two handed weapons are affected by power. sword and board is courage and dual wielding is wisdom

this way you can be a wise warrior, or a wise magician, and with the other two. thoughts?

>>19914110
it's always good to have a catch all, we could just call it luck though if it's going to be a catch all

>>19914110
>I mean, if you're doing something and it can't be decided whether it's Agility, Mysticism, Strength, or Wits based, I think it should default to Guts.

I can get behind that. If it's not really clear what trait is most significant in determining the outcome of something, then it comes down to fortitude and determination.

>>19914145
I think you missed some of the more recent discussion on Virtues. I'm pretty sure the consensus now is that Virtues won't, by default, necessarily apply to any particular roll, but are only applied when you're doing something in a way that displays that Virtue, as described here >>19900895. To compensate for the fact that you can't count on Virtue bonuses consistently adding to your pool, the caps on attributes and skills are raised to 5 so there's still enough differentiation between the capabilities of a beginner and a seasoned hero. And to compensate for the fact that Virtues are inconsistent (and to make them more special), their values will stay relatively low -- hypothetically capping at 3, but in practice more likely not breaking 2, and even that only in the late game after considerable effort.

So, for instance, you might add Wisdom if you're fighting very cleverly and strategically, Power if you're in a berserker frenzy, and Courage if you're charging in headlong and being the big damn hero. What kind of weapon you're using doesn't particularly matter. But if you just go "yeah, I attack the Moblin with X", no Virtues for you.

my suggestion on resting is it takes your attack and reaction, but you can still move, like out of range or behind an ally/wall

>>19914145
Ah, but isn't a duelist-style one-handed also in Wisdom (Zelda, Twilight Princess)? Wasn't Ganondorf dual-wielding in Wind Waker? But then, he did seem relatively less Power than usual there...

>>19914164
You can justify the role of Guts as a catch-all without changing the concept of the stat, and it's a lot more satisfying to say you shook off the dreaded ReDead's shriek through your own exceptional fortitude than it is to attribute it to luck.

>>19914258
Like for recovering stamina in combat? Sounds like a good way of handling it. Makes it a feasible option, but definitely something you have to weigh carefully.

blocking should have a flanking drawback, discuss

>>19914258
>On Recovering Hearts, Magic, and Stamina
I gotta disagree here. I'd say trading your Action and move is enough. Or maybe 1/2 your move. (that is, you can't regain Stamina in a round if you move more than 1/2 your max movement) As to how much... maybe 1/2 max, or a flat 3(12)? Taking a breather for full Stamina doesn't appeal to me honestly.

For Magic, I'd say it doesn't regen naturally, or at least not without a good night's rest. Same for Hearts.

For distribution, let's keep it simple. Roll 1d6 when you kill a monster.
1-2: You get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!
3: Rupees
4: Hearts
5: Magic Jar

Then we just divide monsters into mooks(1H/MJ, low rupees) and elites(3H/MJ, high rupees). Sound good?

>>19914164
No, catch-all doesn't need a stat. Just roll some number of dice, amount decided by the Sage.

>>19914145
What virtue is used depends on how well the players support it. Also, aren't the virtues supposed to be for cinematic actions? In that case, we should probably only allow, say, three virtue boosts a fight. Or tie it to the value of your highest virtue.

>>19913912
I read 'alternative' as 'player gets to choose', my bad.

>>19914465
that sounds needlessly complicated, and if resting doesn't regenerate mana, then it kinda cuts out the courageous wizard

>>19914393
Facing is usually far more trouble then it's worth to include. But in this case I agree. I'd just say you can't block an attack from two opposite directions in the same round (without a technique?) and leave it at that.

Also, some shields provide 360* coverage. Deku Link and a Goron Curl come to mind.

>>19914512
...How is it complicated? It's 1d6. And I thought we were shying away from active Virtues.

>>19914476
I'm pretty sure what Zalus dy Zalus meant by "cinematic" was more "dependent on context/roleplaying" rather than "climactic/dramatic moments".

>>19914512
I fail to see what about that proposal is "needlessly complicated" -- everything there looks pretty simple and straightforward to me. Except perhaps the half move, but personally I'd prefer the stamina regen to cost your action + reaction as you propose. You can withdraw from the fight for a moment to catch your breath, recovering some (but not all) stamina.

As for the lack of in-combat mana regen cutting out the "Courageous wizard", that's only if you're defining that in terms of the proposed bonuses of Power giving more total stamina and magic, Wisdom making the use thereof more efficient, and Courage improving regeneration. We don't necessarily need to use this scheme, and even if we do it's not like Courage can't still affect your magic regen -- it would just be more of a long-term thing than stamina, increasing the magic gained from magic jars, and thus improving your ability to persist over multiple fights.

>>19914640
I don't think he meant complicated as much as he meant just needless in general. Why have a kind of equation or something when you can have a flat rate (possibly increased through courage, etc) that you get from resting a moment. I'm for the sacrifice of action(s) to regenerate it, but there's something about having a forked regeneration system that doesn't seem beginner and/or user friendly.

>>19914640
>I'm pretty sure what Zalus dy Zalus meant by "cinematic" was more "dependent on context/roleplaying" rather than "climactic/dramatic moments".
Ah.

>>19914465
For regen, I'm thinking hearts need an overnight rest, magic needs half an hour or so of actively charging your reserves, and stamina needs a bit to catch your breath. That's of course barring potions, and recharging your magic is included in an overnight rest.

In combat, stamina is the only one that naturally recovers fast enough to have an action. You can't really rest while you're prepared for combat, so resting uses up your attack and any extra reactions you might have.

Thoughts?

>>19914890
this is me.

Since I'm making this post anyway, I might as well say that stamina potions will probably be yellow.

Also I'm thinking about a fraction of max stamina being healed each rest.

>>19914811
By "forked", do you mean how stamina can be regenerated by taking a quick rest but magic requires magic jars from death drops or smashing pots? Because that's pretty much the definition of beginner-friendly -- it works just the same as it does in the video games. Considering that this system is designed to appeal to people who like the video games, basing regeneration mechanics on how it's done in said games seems like a no-brainer. Saying that magic and stamina should be handled the same doesn't make any sense given the source material we're working from.

I can see the argument that a flat amount per rest is simpler than a fraction of your total or something like that, but that was a possibility proposed in the above post anyway.

consider the following

in majora's mask you can easily clear a dungeon in 8 hours, so we have a time frame

to stop excessive rest time between fights for the mage to regen mana, dungeons are assumed to have mana fountains that shut down when monsters are nearby. and you can have bosses that decide to shut off the mana fountains to increase suspense

also, some spells should have cooldown, specifically heal spells

>>19914640
Also: I like the idea of context sensitive bonuses, but like we discussed before, there has to be base uses and contributions for the less RP heavy groups.
>>19914890
Well, the problem I have with out-of-combat exclusive regeneration is that think of it this way, you could be spending DAYS of in-game time just waiting on your mage to regenerate. This leads to other crap like (if we choose to include it) running out of food, mage characters spending heaps of cash on mana potions, and other stuff. I'd hate to see that rift pop up in a group.
What I was thinking was perhaps Wits could give a point of mana regen (spend an action to evoke) and Guts could give a point of Stamina regen (spend an action to rest). Combined with the bonus you could get from Courage Virtue, you could have a system of regeneration while avoiding most complications of the other systems.

>>19914640
>>19914890
Ayup. My wordings may be a bit vague and easy to misinterpret at times, but I like to think my mechanics are usually solid.

Anyways I can get behind any non-combat magic regen. But in-combat I feel it should be limited to magic jars/potions. No Link has ever regained MP without resting or using an item. Just feels too off to me, and I'm the guy who proposed characters having the option of starting with 4 Hearts.

>>19914965
Naw, I meant 'forked' as in having one method of regen for not using 1 action, and regen of a different amount for not using 2. I think it should be a flat amount for a flat sacrifice. Like you HAVE to sacrifice x amount of turns for x amount of Stamina.

>>19915026
Personally, I'd really prefer to just keep mana regen handled through magic jar drops, just like in the games. Sure, it's kind of weird if you think about it, but so are hearts, and both are such an ingrained part of the video games that I think we'd be wrong NOT to include them.

Barring full rests, anyway, since that's such an integral part of tabletop RPGs that it would also feel weird not to include that.

>>19915127
But that's not what Zalus proposed at all -- the "Or mabye 1/2 your move" seems pretty clearly meant as a possible tweak to his proposed cost of trading action + move.
Personally, though, I think spending action + reaction for stamina regen is a better option anyway. If you're going to take a mid-combat breather, you'll probably want to withdraw rather than just stand there.

>>19915221
I can see that, though it runs the risk of Complaining Wizards, though casters always complain about something. We'll likely need to give magic a bit of a kick in comparison to techniques when we get there.

Also, that's the second time this thread other people have referred to what I mean when saying a thing. Is my wording really that bad overall? Eeesh...

So me n' New Guy playtested it a bit and found that Counterattacking is a pretty powerful reaction. We want it to be available to any player, but we found that a good compromise would be to make it a Reaction Technique and have it cost Stamina. Here's the initial idea, we came up with:
Counterattack, Basic Reaction Technique: 6 Stamina- Prepare yourself for an incoming assault. Declare what you defend against and if successful, interrupt opponent's action.
Thoughts?

Sage elements?
Also pondered on the element availability (Fire, Ice, Light, Shadow) and wondered if there should be more variety. Our first idea was to have an element for each sage, i.e: Forest, Fire, Water, Shadow, Spirit, Light. Spirit possibly being a more buff-based magic?

Also had trouble with declaring a reaction/defense against an opponent. Ended up being too hard to declare effective/fair reactions, so we thought that both parties allow the one with higher Wits the ability to declare themselves second. This gives Wits a direct, hand-to-hand application, rather than solely magic.

>>19916091
Isn't your Counterattack just Prepare without the gambler's drawback?

As for elements, I dunno. That seems almost like too much variety, but then again I think it's workable so long as we either fully embrace or avoid multiple overlaps.

And I have no idea what you mean in the third block of text. Can you clarify?

>>19916245
he means that the dodger has to declare where he dodges to, and the attack has to declare what technique he's using, assuming different techniques affect different squares

so lets say the dodger can go left or back while the the attacker can cleave or thrust (threatening the spaces he's dodging to)

>>19916091
>>19916245
I thought what we decided on for counterattack was an attack made against an enemy after a successful defense. So you'd trade your action for an extra reaction, use your regular reaction to defend, and then if you succeeded on your defense (ie, scored at least as many successes on your roll as the attacker got on theirs), you can use your extra reaction for a counterattack (which might be advantageous against certain enemies).
Simply attacking is generally better than counterattacking in most circumstances, since it's not contingent on first making a different check.

I could maybe see prepared actions, where you "lock in" a reaction for a specific purpose triggered by an condition declared in advance and lose that reaction if the condition isn't triggered, posing problems, but I'd need to hear specifics of what exactly those problems are. Depending on what exactly the problem is, there may be a better solution than making it a technique. I'd rather not have something that's intended to be a core part of the combat system and is necessary for beating a number of different enemies be handled as a technique.

As for elements, while it would be kind of neat to have magic divided into different elemental categories based on the OoT sages, I don't think it's really necessary, and I think any mechanical implications it might have would be rather contrived.

>>19916091
>This gives Wits a direct, hand-to-hand application, rather than solely magic.

Wits is NOT the magic stat; that would be Mysticism. Magic in the Legend of Zelda games generally trends more toward the mystical side of things than the tome-studying wizard side, and putting magic under Mysticism rather than Wits keeps the attributes a bit more balanced. As it stands, Mysticism is just for magic and music, while Wits is for the whole gamut of general mental capability, including perception. Putting magic under Wits would leave Mysticism quite anemic in relevance.

>>19916616
Since when were we using such a mechanic? I remember it being mentioned, but never really embraced, and I feel like it would add needless complication to the combat mechanics. Simulationism isn't that high a priority for this system.

>>19916735
threatened squares is a mechanic because of spin attack, you can't sidestep a spin attack and you can't take spin attack out because it is Link's iconic attack

>>19916655
consider the following
A attacks B
B blocks and counterattacks
A blocks the counterattack and i assume you can't counterattack a counterattack
A has 1 reaction left
B attacks and consumes that reaction, A can't counter attack
repeat

the second to attack with that counterattack system gets double the attacks

or lets say you can counter attack a counter attack, no body attacks because its better to wait for them to attack so you can attack them and block their counter attack

and who says core mechanics can't consume stamina? wouldn't sprinting be a core mechanic that consumes stamina?

>>19916814
A fair point. However, I don't think that sort of consideration needs to be applied to regular attacks, and at any rate the dodger shouldn't have a chance of misjudging which way the swing is going and accidentally sidestepping into a space where he'll get hit anyway. Or rather, there shouldn't be any chance aside from the built-in chance of failure from the dodge roll. Otherwise, dodge becomes significantly less effective as a defense compared to the other options available.

Remember how all defenses work: You roll your check, and each success you get cancels one of the attacker's successes. For dodge specifically, you have to move out of your original space (and not into another space threatened by the attack, as you note for the sword spin), and you accomplish this if you make at least 1 success. If you get no successes, that would represent when you goof and jump into the swing. If you get some successes, but not enough to cancel the attack completely, you got out of the way, but not quite fast enough to avoid getting hit entirely -- only enough to soften the blow. If you canceled all of the attacker's successes, you avoided it entirely. Whichever way they're swinging compared to where you're going isn't really relevant -- if they're making a horizontal swing and you sidestepped, you managed to roll under/leap over the swing. Remember, some degree of abstraction is necessary in making an RPG; you need to be able to read into what's being abstracted.

>>19916871
Well, for starters I would say you can't even defend against a counterattack, just because it doesn't make sense -- the point of a counterattack is to exploit an opening just after you thwart their attack, and it's not much of an opening if they can defend as normal. And that would remedy the imbalance in available reactions.

I can see there possibly being issues with this, since playing defensive would mean you get to bypass their defenses...but on the other hand, you're not guaranteed to be able to attempt a counterattack every round, since your defense roll needs to match or exceed their attack roll for that to happen. So it might work out to be roughly even in the end. I'd like to see some playtesting with the ability to react to a counterattack removed before making further changes. If it still proves to be too advantageous, then I can see making it cost stamina (though 6 stamina might be a bit steep -- that's half a starting character's capacity, remember, and it's not like counterattacks will be the only thing using it).

Just don't call it a "technique" just because it costs stamina; that's what threw me off. Techniques are the main use of stamina, but not everything that costs stamina is a technique. Techniques are special abilities that not everyone necessarily has -- eg, a sword spin.

>>19916735
I can see that. Perhaps we'll just say screw it and a dodge is a dodge, which way isn't so relevant.

Moar ideas incoming:

>Dual Wielding: 1 dice penalty offhand. Makes up for attacking twice with the same odds.
Found this to be a pretty effective fix in playtesting. Techniques and everything are capable of being performed by the offhand, but the dice penalty adds more risk for the Stamina you'd spend.

>Rock Paper Scissors Method:
We playtested the different basic melee styles and found this to be true (not speculation).
Dual Wielding out maneuvers 2h. More versatility.
2 Handed overpowers Sword n' Board: So much damage, the soak is less effective.
Sword n' Board withstands Dual Wielding: Less damage allows the shield more blocking power.
Just putting that out there.

>Engaging Power on a dual wielder is diminished.
Engaging on a dual wielder is tricky when engaging another dual wielder. Unless you have a stare-off of nerves, one party is at a loss. An engagement technique will likely be needed to close some distance, while allowing the attacker to retain some reactions.

>Parry may be more effective against offhand.
Choosing which attack to Parry when fighting a dual wielder may be effective/wise. Rather than roll two dice and possibly lose on a main-hand attack, choosing to parry the offhand for an equalized chance of success could add risk to the dual wielder (in a good way, we feel) and strategy to the defender.

>Possible improved dodge technique. Allows use of dodge, plus additional square.
Dodging is awesome, but is there a possibility of an improved dodge somewhere down the line?

>>19916871
But that's only the simplest you can get with the mechanics, and it's hardly a loop as one-side inevitably scores more successes.

If you really want to add depth to the combat system, do like so:

A's Turn
-A attacks, B blocks
B's Turn
-B Prepares something, A doesn't know what
A's Turn
-MINDGAMES

This gets worse the more two combatants know about each other's capabilities.

Regardless, your endless chain assumes 0 techniques, spells, and both sides consistently getting the same number of successess on offense and defense.

Not to mention now that I tink about it that, because B attacked, he doesn't have the two reactions needed to counterattack in the first place,so your entire argument is bunk.

>>19917020
>>19917015
threatened squares never applied to regular attacks, we're trying to solve the problem of; i back flip away! Too bad bitch! i jump attacked!

which happens ALL THE TIME in the ACTUAL game

just to let you know, it's been playtest prooven for non sword and board, that treating your turn as 3 actions that can be attack, move, react (ignoring for now the other stuff like change item) functions perfectly for dual wielding and two handed. think about it, if you don't move, you clearly have time for the rest of your attack, or more prep time for your reactions. the extrapolation is saving 3 reactions, which is useful in case you have 3 guys attacking you.

i gotta hit the sack though, so i'll check this thread in the morning, er afternoon is my morning so then

>>19917020
Well blocking should probably be the only one to cancel successes. It's what gives it the most damage reduction at the cost of movement or attack bonus.

Dodge shouldn't reduce damage since that reduces the strategic value of Block and still gives you the movement to boot. I'd find myself wanting to dodge all the time, rather than deciding between the two.

Parry is pretty much fine. -1 dice penalty for a +1 dice bonus next turn has turned out to be a pretty fair and fun trade off in playtesting.

Are you planning to do any playtesting of your own? It would be very helpful if you were to join New Guy and I for playtesting some time.

>>19917095
The whole 'prepares for something' mechanic is incredibly difficult to apply in-game though. Because (we fear) either the player or the Sage may come up with some 'Oh but I DIDN'T do that' bullshit answer. Without a by-the-book mechanic to enforce that method, it's pretty much relying on good faith on EVERYONE'S part which, sadly, probably can't exist 100% in a group.

And actually, New Guy is right. The 3 action system has proved to be a great deal simpler, rules-wise, and pretty effective and fun in combat. Both for the defending party and attacking party.

>>19917083
The Rock/Paper/Scissors dynamic between Heavy, sword-and-board, and dual-wielding is interesting, and certainly not a bad thing. But it makes me wonder how we should go about enabling one-handed, no-shield fighters to hold their own, and likewise non-Heavy two-handed weapons (like a staff or a spear). We should avoid making certain concepts especially stronger or weaker than the alternatives, after all.

>>19917112
So, only for special attack techniques, then?
Still, I'd say the defender should be assumed to be aware of which space they can safely dodge to, assuming they got any successes. After all, you use your reaction after the foe declares their attack anyway, so you know what they're doing both IC and OOC. If you got no successes, THAT would be the case when you backflipped to avoid a jump attack. If they got some successes, but not enough to negate the attack, that would be a case where you started zigging and realized just a little too late that you really should be zagging -- you still managed to mitigate the attack, but you were too slow to avoid it entirely.

No need to incorporate any extra rules to handle that sort of thing; it's built into the abstraction of the dodge roll.

>>19917179
The one qualm I have about a nonspecific 3-action setup as opposed to our current assumption of move-action-reaction would be the issue of multiple attacks per round. Though I suppose we could always just say "only one attack per turn per weapon you wield".

>>19917210
>Well blocking should probably be the only one to cancel successes. It's what gives it the most damage reduction at the cost of movement or attack bonus.
Well, we want the rules for this system to be fairly simple. We also want defensive actions to be fairly effective at preventing attacks, to make the choice between attacking and defending actually meaningful. Having all three forms of defense cancel successes accomplishes both of these tasks.

Also, blocking still would give more damage reduction than either dodging or parrying. Yeah, you can avoid some of the damage with a dodge or a parry, but you'd avoid even more with the same number of successes on a block.

Having effective defenses might seem like it would make fights drag out quite a bit, but bear in mind that most enemies don't really defend themselves (or at least not effectively). It'll protect the PCs from getting clobbered, but with the exception of certain elite enemies like Lizalfos and Iron Knuckles, the enemies should go down reasonably quick.

As for playtesting, I've never actually done any gaming over IRC, and I don't even have Skype, but if you start something up tomorrow and I'm not busy (I do have a few plans, but not too much) I'll jump in.

Right now, though, I'm off to bed.

Nothing to add, just a final bump before I leave for a while.

>>19917253
So worst case scenario, you write down your Prepred for scenario on a folded slip of paper. Not that hard to solve.

>>19917388
I think we should just have a note under dual-wielding that you can trade a move or reaction for an attack with your off-hand weapon. Keeps the intended balance of the move/act/react system we have in place, and allows for symmetry with two-handed fighters who have to give up a move or reaction to attack.

>>19921274
That would be a good compromise, yeah.

Though on the other hand, I do think we should give everyone, not just Heavy- and dual-wielders, the option of giving up a reaction for some kind of offensive bonus. Like I said in my previous post, we want the choice between attack and defense to be actually meaningful. That means not only making defense a viable and worthwhile use of an action, but also making the use of said action actually come at the cost of a more aggressive alternative. The simplest way to do that would simply be to loosen the action system from move/act/react to 3 actions that can be used as you please...but I still worry that allowing multiple attacks might be a bit too much. For one thing, that would overwhelm an opponent's defenses unless they go full turtle mode and use all their actions to defend (thus rendering them unable to fight back). It would also kind of render the current advantage you get for dual-wielding rather moot.

I imagine a more balanced alternative would be to let you trade your move or reaction (in addition to any such trades you might be making for an off-hand or Heavy attack) for an all-out attack mode, giving you some manner of bonus to your attack(s) for the turn. A bonus die or two, extra damage, or perhaps both, depending on what works best.

okay, i tried to post this but it was consumed some how

using any two handed weapon is unhandy because of it's sheer size or weight, so you wouldn't need to change the mechanics for staffs or something, although you would have to consider giving them reach to make up for the lesser damage

as for just one handers, i view that as intentionally handicapping yourself because you have one hand not doing anything, maybe, maaayyyybe, remove the parry penalty. otherwise i think we should expect them to arm their other hand at least with a magic item like the roc's feather. I'm playing LoZ LA right now so i'm kind of in that mindset

also should we have endgame weapons have virtue prereqs? or just skill prereqs?

i also suggest a terminology change. virtues are virtues, then comes attributes and the bottom tier is skills. i'm getting confused with the current names.

there was something else but i forgot, i'll post it when i remember. also, skype is free, doesn't even require an email, just download it and make a fake account, and Time Pharaoh and Dien.Zora

>>19921782
that would be like a 3 hit combo no? that looks like prime level up techniques to me

>>19921977
Have you ever actually tried to use a staff? It's nowhere near on the same level of unwieldiness as a huge axe or two-handed sword. No weapon outside of those governed by the Heavy skill should take multiple actions to use, and staffs and spears are by no means Heavy weapons.
As for one-handing, while I do see your point, it just really pains me to see a major archetype inherently handicapped. Must all duelists use a main-gauche? At the very least, we should provide some fairly powerful one-hander exclusive techniques to bridge the gap.
Also, I imagine in this game the roc's feather probably wouldn't be an actively used item, but rather a passive benefit increasing your jump, much like the power bracelet/gauntlets work in the 3d games with respect to your lifting capacity. And at any rate, you don't need to have an item ready in your hand to use it, just out on your person in one of your 4 item slots. Again, mirroring how the 3d games work.

As for the terminology, that's what I've been trying to use myself. Though I do sometimes catch myself slipping up and calling attributes "stats". Maybe it's just because "attributes" is so long...perhaps "traits" might work better?

>>19921986
I could definitely see it as a more advanced technique, yeah. Just not as part of the core combat options.

I'm off to give blood, so I'll be back in about an hour or two.

>>19922103
eat all the juice and crackers you can, i'm going to actually go get my staff and my great maul and compare

yes, i have those

don't forget, at Sage discretion, there can be a mask that gives a bonus to whatever fighting style he wants. there's no reason to limit this game to canonical

and in 3D games, to use your C items, you had to put your sword away, i'm suggesting not having an offhand stops that from needing to be done

also, are we assumed to basically have a bag of holding to account for why iron boots only weigh you down when you're wearing them and not when they're in your bag?

>>19922179
okay, my mace is 10 kilo, unlike a 3 kilo claymore, and i can't find my sledgehammer, but yeah, staffs weigh in at like half a kilo so they are pretty quick. the question has become do we keep the rules the same in exchange for the obvious reach bonus.

we might need to be careful in the rule text concerning when a staff uses attacks 2 meters away, is the 1 meter square threatened? in the right context that could hit both of them, for what? half damage each?

and two handed isn't necessarily heavy, i've been treating it as a ruleset penalty in exchange for the bonus of your weapon

we need to do a dev skype

>>19922253
Hey, it's confirmed that several Links had a magic pouch.

>>19921782
I've been toying with the idea of characters starting with techniques and magic rather then force everyone into simple melee at the start.

I'm thinking they get 2 free Teachings, so they can start with two Techs/Two Spells/One Tech & Spell. (Or possibly trading starting skill ranks for starting Techs or Spells? That'll need consideration)

Then we have a general listing anyone can choose from, and a background listing they can choose from depending on where they grew up. Couple this with the possibility of Technique Progression (eg, Spin Attack > Magic Spin > Greater Magic Spin > Hurricane Spin) and we can see interesting developments.

>>19922632
maybe this should be attribute based? like if you have 1 mysticism you can start with all level 1 spells of your background? maybe this is finally what guts is used for?

and since you can't start with more than 2 in a skill, we simply put most of the techniques at 3 and outside of any single background.

just bumping the thread

Well how 'bout this. We have the 3 action rule, however, you can only use an attack action once, unless a technique or other effect rules otherwise.

I like the idea of a free hand fight style. Perhaps remove the parry penalty. Between that and the versatility of an offhand for various, quick item use, that might balance out nicely. Could use playtesting at some point.
Thought: Perhaps you can switch to any item on the other slots you have prepared, giving you the ability to counter with a bomb or escape with a hookshot, but it'll take an action to re-equip your main weapon?

>>19923495
The turn penalty not applying to free-handers on items. Also, just giving the two handed weapons subtext that says 'requires two actions to use'.
And dual wielding with subtext that says 'requires an action for main hand and an action for off hand'.
Obviously dual wielding being a slight exception to the rule I suggested above. Certain other situations could use/apply this rule too, like Dual Clawshots being wield-able, but costing two actions (the second at a penalty) to fire in combat.

Technique Time? I think it's Technique Time.

Pegasus Charge: 6S, Weapon, Pegasus Boots
The character uses the Pegasus Boots to charge forwards in a straight line, smashing everything in their way. Deals +1H Damage and may hit multiple targets.

Deku/Kokiri/etc. Dodge: 10S, Light Weight
The character flips deftly away from danger, using their small size to react when others can't. Allows an extra Dodge reaction in a round, even if the character has no remaining reactions.

Spellblade: 4S/4MP, Weapon
The character enchants their blade briefly, enhancing its damage. Deals +1/2H damage.

Spin Attack: 6S, Weapon
The character quickly strikes all around them with a spin. Make 1 Attack that applies to all enemies within 1 space.

Magic Spin: 6S/4MP, Weapon
The character charges their weapon with magic, then preforms a Spin Attack. Make 1 Attack that applies to all enemies within 2 spaces. Deals +1/2H Damage. Character cannot move on the turn they use this.

Greater Magic Spin: 10S/8MP, Weapon
A more powerful version of the Magic Spin Technique. Make 1 Attack that applies to all enemies within 3 spaces. Deals +1H Damage. Character must spend a turn preparing this Technique, and cannot move on the turn they use this.

Hurricane Spin: 20S/10MP, Weapon
The character unites body and mind, charging their weapon with powerful magics before lashing out with the force of a hurricane. The character moves freely at their normal speed while performing this technique, and makes 2 Attacks against any enemy that stands within 1 Space of their path. By moving away and then towards a foe, this effect may be triggered multiple times. The character must spend 3 Turns preparing this Technique.

>>19923532
what are nun-chucks going to count as?

>>19923574
no, it's playtesting time and apparently only Time Pharaoh and I are doing that...

>>19922253
You do put your sword away, but you get it right back out pretty much instantly as soon as you're done with the item, so I don't see why using one of your "C items" should have any sort of penalty in terms of weapon readiness. But that would be a good way to give one-handed fighting styles a bit of an edge.

And yeah, everyone is assumed to have a hyperspace inventory.

>>19922632
>>19922678
Players should definitely be able to start with a basic tech/spell or two. Considering that both of these (but particularly the spells) are handled essentially the same as items, I'd say they could probably be handled as part of your "starting equipment". Suppose we let starting characters pick 3 "items" from a list of appropriate starting options, and techniques count as half an item each (since they don't typically have as much non-combat utility). So you could have, for instance, a fighter with a sword, a shield, and the Spin Attack and Jump Attack techniques. Or a mage with three different spells/magic items. Or a swordmage with a sword, a spell, and 2 techniques...

>>19923532
Two-handed =/= Heavy. Heavy weapons take two actions to use, but two-handed Melee weapons (such as staffs, spears, and light polearms) should not take two actions. And such weapons should still get some compensation in that they tie up your offhand without dealing more damage (or at least not much more) than a one-handed weapon. Conveniently, reach would be appropriate for most (if not all) of these.

>>19923574
Getting way ahead of things there, pal. Techniques are pretty low on the priority list.

>>19923586
Nunchaku are kind of an odd entity, aren't they? You technically only use them in one hand at a time, but using them properly typically involves switching which hand you're using them in, and certain strikes and most parries take two hands.
I guess given that we're aiming for simplicity over realism, we should just consider them a one-handed weapon. However, it would be pretty neat and appropriate to make a few nifty techniques that can only be used with a single nunchaku wielded with the off-hand free.

>>19923596
I'm gonna go ahead and install Skype here and see what we can do.

>>19923905
God damn nunchaku, what the fuck causes them?

also, fist fighters, should we just treat them as dual wielders that do pathetic damage in exchange for some kick ass techniques? like disarms. cus it would be awesome to play a guy who always goes into dungeons empty handed except for his mind (techniques) and just takes everything from his fallen enemies and such

>>19924020
That sounds like a reasonable way to handle fist fighters. And I definitely agree that they should be a viable character type.

Also, looks like I have Skype up and running. Contact requests should be heading your way shortly; my Skype name is tkdb_13.

Hmm... Might as well hop on too, I suppose.
WolfricTheRed on Skype

I'll hop in as well. Lobster_Horde is me.

I already told New Guy in Skype, but I'm drafting up a document of mechanics we've agreed on (as I understand it) so we can all be on the same page for playtesting. I'll post it as a .txt on Mediafire when I'm finished, then we can clear up any disconnects there may be and get started.

>>19925071
Why not just Pastebin it? Seems easier to me.

Anyways, I'm sadly not gonna make the playtest tonight since I'll be running a game of my own.

>>19925160
Ah, good point on Pastebin. Don't know why I didn't think of that myself.

>>19925205
Dunno what Pastebin is, but...I mean...sure? Whatever works for everyone. Also,
>>19923905
Seems like a reasonable way to handle fists n' nunchaku. Headin' to work now, won't be back 'till later evening (for you, at least) but I'm down to playtest and discuss more then. Later, tater.

Alright, my summary of the rules is up on Pastebin. If there's something in there you think is wrong or missing, now's the time to speak up.
http://pastebin.com/3FKQh8ab

(Note that I have taken the liberty of putting in rules for basic character creation as far as attributes and skills go; I realize we haven't exactly come to a solid consensus on that yet, but it seems like a good idea for playtesting.)

Also, I had some ideas as I was compiling this: I know the current plan is a 4/3/3 spread for hearts, magic, and stamina, and I realize it's important to allow for differentiation among characters, but the idea of starting with anything more than 3 hearts really, REALLY doesn't sit well with me. Thus, I would like to propose a couple alternatives:

Alternative #1: Everyone starts with 3 hearts, no exceptions. The differentiation comes in the magic and stamina: You have 5 blocks to distribute between the two as you please, with a minimum of 1 block in each. So a character that's fairly inept at magic but great at special maneuvers could have 1 block of magic (4 MP) but 4 blocks (16 points) of stamina, whereas a skilled mage with little combat capability could have the reverse spread. And anywhere in between.

Alternative #2: If we want to have differentiation in terms of hardiness of characters, have the spread be 3/3/2 instead -- you can have characters with different amounts of starting health, but never more than 3 hearts.

>>19926255
>the idea of starting with anything more than 3 hearts

It's not unprecedented in the games. Adventure of Link starts you out with 4 blocks of health (basically the same as hearts). I don't think there's any game in the series that starts you with just two.

I have transferred the current design document to the wiki page and archived the content and talk page from the previous project to its own page.

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Legend_of_Zelda_RPG

>>19927847
Whoa, we official now!

File: 1342575003320.jpg-(658 KB, 3600x2700, 1313555922994.jpg)

Are we still going with "no crafting"? That's a bit of a shame if so.

File: 1342575159583.png-(358 KB, 355x501, Zubora_and_Gabora.png)

>>19929346
That's not how you spell hURRRGGH!

>>19929346
I don't see why we wouldn't allow crafting. The mechanics might be odd to work out, and it'd likely be one of the last things done for the system, but I honestly can't think of a reason not to.

Hell, you can't even argue Ancient Magic Only. (At least for musc) Flat and Sharp composed the Sun Song in OoT, and they were killed by Ganondorf.

File: 1342576481608.jpg-(367 KB, 1057x894, Goron Flute.jpg)

>>19929507
Crafting is definitely out for this system, at least mechanically speaking. Item availability needs to be firmly in the hands of the GM, and crafting rules (1) undermine that, and (2) add unnecessary crunch. You can absolutely have a character who crafts stuff, but this would be purely a narrative thing. For instance, rather than doing fetch quests for NPCs to get a better sword, if your guy is a blacksmith you'd go on a fetch quest to get the ore to smith your own better sword. Stuff like that.

Pic unrelated, just something we were talking about this in Skype.

>>19929651
Who says we need complicated rules for crafting anyways? It's magic, we ain't gotta explain shit. There's nothing wrong with a fetch-quest mechanic.

>>19929850
Basically, the philosophy from the original run (which I think is sound) was that we don't need any rules for crafting whatsoever. Just tell your Sage that you want to get items by making them yourself rather than finding them or getting them from NPCs, and work out between the two of you whatever sort of story-based hoops you need to jump through to do that.

The thing is that items (1) need to be earned, and (2) need to be strictly under the control of the Sage. Neither of those are really possibilities if we have rules that say "you can make X by doing Y".

Also, we've just wrapped up a good long session of playtesting and discussion on Skype, so I'll be posting a summary of that here as soon as I get it written up.

So, summary of our playtesting:
For our methods, we gave each combatant 3 hearts and a pool of 3 dice for each action (meaning parrying and off-hand attacks used 2 due to the 1-die penalty for those actions).

We decided on using a grid of 2 meters per side, with a default move speed of 3 squares. We agreed that we want to use metric, but 1 meter squares are a bit too small for a reasonable "personal space" in combat, and 2 meters, while a bit on the big side, are reasonable enough.

The system of 3 actions, spent as you like on your turn or as reactions off-turn, actually works quite smoothly. I don't think there should be any problem with switching to that from the move/act/react setup we were initially working with. Counterattacking is pretty powerful in such an action system, since it can let you get an extra attack, but that's fixed easily enough by making a rule that you can't counterattack if you attack during your turn. Even with that restriction, though, it's still a bit too effective (due to the target being unable to defend), so we concluded that 1 point of stamina would be an appropriate cost for it.

One really encouraging we found is that there really is a significant degree of back-and-forth between offense and defense. You really do need to weigh your options carefully to try to strike a balance between the two, which is great because that's pretty much how it is in the video games. So in that regard, our combat mechanics are a resounding success!

>>19931591
We confirmed the existence of a rock/paper/scissors kind of dynamic between Heavy weapons, dual-wielding, and sword-and-board (respectively) -- after a bit of a tweak. In the initial test of sword-and-board vs Heavy, the S&B had a huge advantage due to its ability to kite the Heavy (meaning the Heavy had no actions to spare for defense) and still defend itself reasonably well. This was fixed by adding a flinch effect to the Heavy -- if you score at least one success on the attack roll, the target flinches (loses an action on its next turn), and this still applies even if the success is cancelled by a block (but not a dodge or parry), because even though the shield can distribute the force so that it doesn't actually hurt you, you're still feeling it. This mechanic turned out not to be particularly overpowering at all in playtesting -- it kept the sword-and-boarder from kiting incessantly, but the fight was still pretty close. Thus, while a rock/paper/scissors dynamic as Time Pharaoh reported yesterday (>>19917083) exists, it's not overwhelming -- each style has a slight edge over another, but not enough that the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

We did find that "engagement techniques" -- that is, techniques that allow you to approach and attack an enemy in the same action, like a Jump Attack -- are definitely going to be important for combat, especially Heavy weapon users. Combat works without it, but adding such techniques will make it a lot more interesting.

We also tried using reach Melee weapons -- the category for stuff like staffs and spears. Same damage as a one-handed Melee weapon like a sword, and still only take 1 action to attack, but take two hands to wield and can reach an extra space. We found that if you include sprinting (which we handled as spending 1 stamina to double the distance you can move for one action), reach weapons are pretty much strictly inferior to the other options. Making them viable will probably require techniques to allow the wielder to "hold the line" and use their reach to keep enemies at bay.

We also discussed (but did not playtest) one-handed Melee (such as a fencer with a rapier in one hand and nothing in the other) and unarmed combat styles, and agreed that these (and especially unarmed combat) would almost certainly require heavy support from techniques.

On a less crunchy note, we discussed how to justify hearts and magic jars (from enemy drops and foraging) behaving in this game as they do in the video games -- namely, why can't you stockpile them in your inventory rather than using them immediately? The explanation we decided on is that magic jars are in fact crystallized jar-shaped chunks of magical energy, and hearts likewise are crystallized life energy. They're quite fragile, vaporizing on touch and quickly dissipating if you don't immediately absorb the released energy. Just an interesting bit of discussion I felt was worth mentioning.

>>19931613
Finally, one thing that wasn't explicitly discussed but I noticed as I was looking over my notes to write this summary is that parrying basically wasn't done. Apparently, nobody really wanted to risk the 1-die penalty (and thus the increased risk of getting hit). (Incidentally, we were allowing Heavy weapons to be used to block, but they gave no soak as shields do.) Personally, I think this is a good thing -- if dodging and blocking are more effective options given equal ranks in the relevant stats, it provides a strong incentive to invest in those rather than pouring everything into your main attack stat for parrying. However, I suspect parrying will become a more viable option for late-game characters, since the 1-die penalty isn't quite so big a deal then, and you have more hearts so you're not quite so bad off if an attack gets through.

>>19931613
Huh, my internal justification was always along the lines that it isn't actually, physically a heart or jar. It's just discarded energy that you perceive as a floating heart or green jar, in a similar manner that the triforce isn't actually floaty golden triangles, you just see it that way.

Either work, though now that I think about it mine sounds more like it comes from a 60's Philosophy Major, man. Or any Philosophy Major really.

night bump with some techs

jump attack : move forward one square and attack the square in front of you
spin attack : attack all adjecent characters
Knight to FU : move forward 2 and 1 to the side
Back Skip : dodge on a backwards diagonal
Back Hand Spring : dodge back 2 squares
Barrel Roll : side step 2 squares around your target
Hit the Deck : Dive to the ground to mitigate splash damage
Two Hit Combo : Hit with your weapon a second time
Three Hit Combo : Hit with your weapon a third time
Heavy Defense : +1 to defense after performing a Heavy Spin Attack
Heavy Thrust : Exit Heavy Defense to attack two squares in a line from yourself
Stunning Blows : Your attacks with a heavy weapon now stun for 2 actions
Heavy Dodge : you can dodge while holding a heavy weapon
My Sword is My Shield : Your weapon now gives X damage reduction from blocking
Disarm : if open handed, remove enemy weapon and equip on self or drop
Trip : knock an adjacent enemy to the ground, stunning for 1 action
Cleave : attack four, connected, adjacent squares
Behind You! : if across an enemy from a teammate, +1 to all rolls
I Like Turtles : spend two reactions to double your dice pool on blocking
CHARGE! : Charge forward until contact. Attack roll is spaces traveled, stamina cost is same, knockback 1 per 5 squares. roll attack on self if contact with object. attack roll also applies to the object
After-Image : +1 to dodge, appear on any square adjacent to enemy

obviously for discussion as to admittance and cost. and that's it for tonight, i'll dream up some more

Nothing to add, since TKDB pretty much explained most of our work tonight. Just a final bump before I call it a night.