So are we making an RPG?

Trouncing and bouncing through ol' threads I found some nice reads, and it looks like it has been more than once tried to make a tabletop RPG. Eric, whose awin level is around the highest in here, tried it, for example.

Now, I never saw one of those finished in a satisfactory way, so here's my question.

Who's with me on trying again? I'll get the ball rolling with this.

First of all, we need to know exactly what kinds of things are we gonna ask rolls for, and what kinds of things aren't we asking rolls for.

Second, we need to know exactly what are we going to allow to happen, and what we aren't going to let happen.

Those two things already have some weird implcations in themselves. For example, if we need rolls for vore, that means that if you don't put some limitations, you're going to have someone play a neera and keep trying to scarf down a giant naga until he rolls a critical and his character succeeds. That'd be funny, do want or do not want?

Personally, I thought we wouldn't need rolls for getting shrunk by a fairy. However, Karbo's manga, our Primary Canon, shows that tonorions do need to roll for getting shrunk. That, or Subeta hit a critical, or she was more powerful than she thought, or to create a super-giant tonorion Karbo had to cut corners in all other tonorions. (And in the super-giant tonorion too, because Alvar ruined them forever).

Hey,

Just to ask it, who wants a felarya tabletop RPG anyway? Just if its just the people on this forum for use on this forum, then maybe it would be more fruitful to design a game intended for playing in this environment. If it's for a wider audience, then some thought should be given to, well, vore and nudity elements, see.

Also, regarding critical failures, this is one of the main weakness of the d20 system. The white wolf system, where your statistic tells you how many dice to roll, and an 8+ always succeeds, then you count successes, is much less 'swingy' this way.

Yours,

Ambrose,

Spoiler:

The subject of Felaryan games, less it be in video or tabletop format, has been brought up such a number of times that my persistent arguments against such things have been ingrained into my brain.


Balance issues, possibility funding problems, and general community agreement that it's a bad idea to bring about any sort of Felaryan game would complicate the matter to such an extent that I find it hard to imagine the idea being executed at all, let alone successfully.

Warrior3000 wrote:

Spoiler:

The subject of Felaryan games, less it be in video or tabletop format, has been brought up such a number of times that my persistent arguments against such things have been ingrained into my brain.


Balance issues, possibility funding problems, and general community agreement that it's a bad idea to bring about any sort of Felaryan game would complicate the matter to such an extent that I find it hard to imagine the idea being executed at all, let alone successfully.

Well I wouldn't go that far.

Something like a text-based game, perhaps built under the RAGS game engine (just google it) wouldn't be so hard. Not that I'm offering, you understand. It's still a pain. The 'A Felaryan Adventure' thread already has something of this style, by the way. But note that creating that thread was still much easier than a RAGS game, and I'm unconvinced that even that is an efficient use of volunteer resources, vs people individually creating more stories and artworks.

Yours,

Ambrose,

I don't have much experience with these kinds of games, so I'm afraid I don't have much to offer for it. I would just like to add that it's been strongly implied that Subeta's glove is what is responsible for getting around the tonorion's natural resistance to her magic, since you brought it up.

The biggest problem with the Felarya Game is it tends to break into three camps:
1) Vore can be involved, but it's only there for Felarya's sake. You're meant to be able to go through a campaign without it.
2) You can play as Prey, but Vore becomes something a campaign is built around. Removing / limiting its frequency is seen as a waste of the Felarya title. It isn't a Vore-fest, but you're expected to have it at least once (if not more) per campaign.
3) You're meant to play as a (Giant) Predator, Prey PC's pretty much only there to get involved in a Giant Predator PC's voring. Essentially want the game to be "Roll D100 to see how Prey Struggles, Roll D20 to see how Giant Predator reacts" where pretty much every adventure begins with a "I'm feeling hungry" and ends with a "*Burp!* Tee-hee, excuse me."

Since at times the ideas proposed for the game are mutually exclusive (a Camper 1 member wouldn't want a three page table set on how to resolve Vore, for instance, while Camper 3 would find an extensive list of shop items, rarity, costs, and so on extremely out of place), it leads to issues. Sometimes, very heated issues.

Plus, we're ignoring how crazy-varied Felarya characters tend to be. Coming from a virtually-limitless variety of worlds, one would need a HUGE amount of customization options to remain true to some people's ideas of Felarya.

Malahite wrote:

The biggest problem with the Felarya Game is it tends to break into three camps:
1) Vore can be involved, but it's only there for Felarya's sake. You're meant to be able to go through a campaign without it.
2) You can play as Prey, but Vore becomes something a campaign is built around. Removing / limiting its frequency is seen as a waste of the Felarya title. It isn't a Vore-fest, but you're expected to have it at least once (if not more) per campaign.
3) You're meant to play as a (Giant) Predator, Prey PC's pretty much only there to get involved in a Giant Predator PC's voring. Essentially want the game to be "Roll D100 to see how Prey Struggles, Roll D20 to see how Giant Predator reacts" where pretty much every adventure begins with a "I'm feeling hungry" and ends with a "*Burp!* Tee-hee, excuse me."

Since at times the ideas proposed for the game are mutually exclusive (a Camper 1 member wouldn't want a three page table set on how to resolve Vore, for instance, while Camper 3 would find an extensive list of shop items, rarity, costs, and so on extremely out of place), it leads to issues. Sometimes, very heated issues.

Hey,

The first stage of creating any game has to be to decide what the style of the game should be. I.e. it should be agreed up-front which of the 'camps' we're in. A few notes on the different camps:

1)a) In D&D it's quite possible for your character to get eaten, e.g. by a dragon or similar. This is handled entirely without a specific 'vore' mechanic, and I'd resist the temptation to introduce one. Rather, a suggested methodology of rolls for a predator trying to eat someone could be worked out. E.g. attack/grapple roll (optional for predator), swallow attack (Armour Class falls if grappled anyway), then some saving throws versus whatever. Acid, maybe. Or more grapple checks to try to escape. Or the Players can be inventive and try to use, e.g, a teleport spell or something. Some open-endedness is good if you've got a DM to arbitrate right there.

b) If you're starting with the typical Felaryian adventurer (i.e. low level), then an encounter with, e.g. Crisis (lvl 28?) should be structured by the DM as a non-combat encounter. E.g, the challenge is to negotiate your way out or run away successfully.

2) Paranoia, for example, gives your character ten 'clones', and it's typical for five or six of them to die in the course of the adventure. Dying, in inventive ways, is part of the fun. This is the only way I could see a prey-player vore-heavy RPG working.

3) Not sure how this would work. The object of a game is to overcome a challenge. Prey don't represent that kind of challenge, so it could be tricky.

4) In RAGS style games, its often very much a case of there's only one path to win. So having lots of 'dead end' vore paths isn't a problem in this style of game. E.g, make sure you buy the broken portable TV in Negav so you can negotiate for Anna to save you from Crisis.

Yours,

Ambrose,

Well, how about we try, just for the hell of it? If there's anything more fun than half-finished theoretical mechanics, I don't know what it is.

Isn't Silent Eric working on a Felarya tabletop RPG?

Was, as of late 2008.

HUh, he was talking about it on Vent very recently... Ah well.

Well I was being fueled by your belief in me, but I haven't heard any applause in a while.


Actually, I have been working on making a custom Felarya game for quite some time. And yes, I still am. Any help is of course appreciated. The biggest problems I've come up against are, yes, balance.

Here's what I have come up with. Some of this is tentative, but even still.

All PCs are prey size. Races currently include naga, human, fairy, dryad, neko, elf, and dridder.

Character creation is similar to the most recent 40k rpgs. While race will have an effect on characters, origin is a bigger role. Are you a Felarya native? From an industrialized world? A futuristic world? etc.

Current random event system is leaning towards a target number system rather than a dice pool system. Not D20, though. I'm thinking closer to the Cortex system. That could possibly 'balance' the size differences.

Having a magic system is a problem as magic in Felarya isn't especially fleshed out. But everyone will be able to use it, with varying success depending on character build.

And much much more!

Silent_eric wrote:

Well I was being fueled by your belief in me, but I haven't heard any applause in a while.

I do believe in Eric, I do, I do! I do believe in Eric, I do, I do!

Hm, I agree that origin could prove more important than race. Some worlds are more technologically-advanced, so that character might have much better weapons and armor... but crap survival skills. Contrarily, some worlds might have more magical energy available, so they have a high percentage of casters. Mage characters might find that their spells work much better in a world as densely-magical as Felarya (like being used to Earth's gravity and suddenly finding you can leap ten feet on the Moon).

Silent_eric wrote:

Well I was being fueled by your belief in me, but I haven't heard any applause in a while.
All PCs are prey size. Races currently include naga, human, fairy, dryad, neko, elf, and dridder.
And much much more!

Maybe I'm just stupid, but isn't 'change size at will' a fairy ability. Also, I wouldn't have thought it to be game-breaking if Tinies were included as playable races, but I'd suggest getting the normal-sized player characters working first.

I'm afraid I'm not overly familiar with the systems your quoting, but to use my D&D and white-wolf knowledge as a crossover, origin somehow determines what skills are 'cheap' for you to buy, and also affects your starting equipment and so on?

Anyway, very good that you're working on it. If there are any specific elements you'd like suggestions or thoughts on, happy to help as you require.

Pleased that someone good is working on this, anyway.

Yours,

Ambrose,

ambrose-euanthe wrote:

Silent_eric wrote:

Well I was being fueled by your belief in me, but I haven't heard any applause in a while.
All PCs are prey size. Races currently include naga, human, fairy, dryad, neko, elf, and dridder.
And much much more!

Maybe I'm just stupid, but isn't 'change size at will' a fairy ability. Also, I wouldn't have thought it to be game-breaking if Tinies were included as playable races, but I'd suggest getting the normal-sized player characters working first.

I'm afraid I'm not overly familiar with the systems your quoting, but to use my D&D and white-wolf knowledge as a crossover, origin somehow determines what skills are 'cheap' for you to buy, and also affects your starting equipment and so on?

Anyway, very good that you're working on it. If there are any specific elements you'd like suggestions or thoughts on, happy to help as you require.

Pleased that someone good is working on this, anyway.

Yours,

Ambrose,

Ah. Not all fairies can change size. Some rare few are stuck at a certain height. This would be playable, not size changing ones. Giant preds and tinies are not playable until expansions.

Origin influences many things. Skills, attributes, feats, and drawbacks and so on.

Ideas for how the magic system should work are appreciated. Same with ideas for feats, advantages, drawbacks, skills, attributes, and so on.

Weeeell, Eric, I'd say we'd need SEVERAL magic systems to account for everyone. But after D20 and White Wolf, I think that the thing I'd appreciate the most would be simplicity.

So here's my take on a magic system.


Make wizards pick themes rather than elements, and then assign a group of as few discrete difficulties as possible to accomplish a certain feat through the application of that theme.

So for example, let's say I am a wizard who uses fire. Fire's good for making stuff flinch. It's also good for cooking things. It miiiiight help you kill something, that depends a lot: insects would be easy to kill, but Crisis... if it were that easy, it'd have been done before. Also, fire just wouldn't work for tying stuff up.

Maybe allowing each wizard a number of discrete themes, and maybe a few applications independant of theme (spells), we'd be set.


Also, one thing I'd been thinking would fit Felarya would be, rather than being dealt hit points of damage and dying once you run out, simply use "save or die" situations as a standard mechanic. It fits vore (which everyone would want to see as early as possible in the game), and it fits... well, the anime theme in general. People bleeding through every orifice want to keep fighting.

Hey,

Stabs wrote:

Weeeell, Eric, I'd say we'd need SEVERAL magic systems to account for everyone. But after D20 and White Wolf, I think that the thing I'd appreciate the most would be simplicity.

So here's my take on a magic system.

Make wizards pick themes rather than elements, and then assign a group of as few discrete difficulties as possible to accomplish a certain feat through the application of that theme.

So for example, let's say I am a wizard who uses fire. Fire's good for making stuff flinch. It's also good for cooking things. It miiiiight help you kill something, that depends a lot: insects would be easy to kill, but Crisis... if it were that easy, it'd have been done before. Also, fire just wouldn't work for tying stuff up.

Maybe allowing each wizard a number of discrete themes, and maybe a few applications independant of theme (spells), we'd be set.

I like this idea of 'themes'. I also think the D&D 4th edition is a big improvement on previous editions, with powers divided into 'at-will' (whenever you want), 'encounter' (once per) and 'daily' (once under the sun). I find it much simpler, and many spells can be conveniently abstracted (even easier if 'themes' are used too). Some detail on different options can be found here.

Quote :

Also, one thing I'd been thinking would fit Felarya would be, rather than being dealt hit points of damage and dying once you run out, simply use "save or die" situations as a standard mechanic. It fits vore (which everyone would want to see as early as possible in the game), and it fits... well, the anime theme in general. People bleeding through every orifice want to keep fighting.

I think this is a bad idea. Or rather, in any longer game you're going to have to make many of these 'save or die' throws, and you're inevitably going to fail one eventually. This is one of the problems of D&D 3rd edition where many spells had these 'save or die' affects. This applies when, essentially, all the players including the DM are trying to experience the whole adventure - i.e. they're normally supposed to live, and only die after a long-fought battle, not a single unlucky die-roll.

Its much more successful in a game like Paranoia, where you have many clones of your character so dying is more like restarting the level than losing a big emotional investment. Stabs's core idea - that players should regularly get eaten - go much more towards this style than the D&D style. Which is fine, if it is decided that the game is supposed to be that way.

Yours,

Ambrose,

ambrose-euanthe wrote:

I think this is a bad idea. Or rather, in any longer game you're going to have to make many of these 'save or die' throws, and you're inevitably going to fail one eventually. This is one of the problems of D&D 3rd edition where many spells had these 'save or die' affects. This applies when, essentially, all the players including the DM are trying to experience the whole adventure - i.e. they're normally supposed to live, and only die after a long-fought battle, not a single unlucky die-roll.

Its much more successful in a game like Paranoia, where you have many clones of your character so dying is more like restarting the level than losing a big emotional investment. Stabs's core idea - that players should regularly get eaten - go much more towards this style than the D&D style. Which is fine, if it is decided that the game is supposed to be that way.

Yours,

Ambrose,

My core assumption was that danger is dangerous, not that we're going to die eventually. The best way to survive in this way would be to avoid risks. It'd be kind of silly if you got nailed by a trap and all you lost was a couple dozen hit points.

Hey,

Fundamentally, failing a single saving throw feels like a 'gotcha' moment. Which is only fine if dying is basically consequence free as in Paranoia.

Note that it works if the challenge is to entirely avoid having to make that save. This means a more planning and encounter-avoiding kind of game, rather than a battle-heavy kind of game. If you're rarely making the save, then every time you do does feel like a big moment, which makes it fine.

Losing a few HP works because the Party's resources are sapped leading up to a big encounter at the end of a dungeon (encounter chain/adventure). That kind of build-up makes dying a big moment, all heroic and stuff, which is pretty cool for the player and therefore fun. And if they survive, the danger gives a sense of achievement. It's hard to get that passing a single die roll.

Alternatively, if they're stupid or unlucky enough to get wasted by some trap or mook, then their deaths will hopefully be hilarious, which is also memorable fun.

Hope that makes sense, I'm pretty tired.

Edit: Really, it didn't.

Yours,

Ambrose,

Personally, I'm mixed.

On one hand, I don't mind death being a big punishment. Actually, I encourage it - I like death being something other than a revolving door, and actually being something your character fears before the final chapter. It makes a game much more fun IMO if there's the risk you'll die in the very first adventure. Part of the reason I like multiple-HP minions too: It allows them to be badasses and not just fodder that your uber-leet character wades through. Basically: I like there being a sense of risk.

In return, the argument for it was based on putting vore into the RP not only ASAP, but because that's "what the people want". While I'm all for a sense of risk, I'd rather if it was a sense of risk-risk and not "I'm about to satisfy someone's vore-fetish"-risk. If I'm going to be RPing just to satisfy someone's kinks, why not just do it via PM's or IM's or whatever and let them have it without all the unnecessary dice rolling? Basically, I don't like the implication that the most common type of instant-death will be Vore.

I have such a man-crush on Mal. I mean it.

I agree completely. It's always irked me in RPs, stories, games, etc., when it's just like "Oh I died lemme regenerate now LOLOLOL". Death needs to be avoided at all freaking costs, because it's supposed to be a one-in-ubercrazyhighnumber chance that a spacetime anomaly makes you into a naga instead of you dying in one's stomach.

Magic systems would be tricky... magic in Felarya has never been really fleshed-out, despite the efforts of some people here.

Maybe one thing to consider would be a system to hire mercenaries. Your main character can still experience danger and live, though there are lesser people around him getting nommed, which would add to the... danger. Death should be a real threat, on the one hand, but not an impossible to dodge threat... else there's no point really developing a character...

Let's see what I can do.

First thing seems to be... Stabs and his idea for themed magic. That seems like the way to go, but is it too limiting? Choosing a thematic way magic works on a character to character basis seems to work, but I don't think it should be as limiting as you suggested. Although many mages specialize, they aren't confined to a single school of magic. But keeping it abstract is probably how I'm going to do it. I've been thinking that magic would just be another skill. It's something that anyone can use though, not just professional mages. By putting points into 'fire' as you suggested, larger, flashier, and generally more damaging attacks can be used with fire magic. But there will be a separate skill for 'control', which is a what you actually use to roll. Control lets you be able to successfully make your will manifest. Due to the abundant magics of Felarya, everyone has their latent magic unlocked. But unless you train your magical skills, then you might have lots of points in, say, 'fire', but still be unable to manifest it frequently. What do you guys think of a magic system like that?

As for the idea of doing away with hit points... It's interesting. HP has been around a long time. It's a time honored practice because it works. I'll have to think on different ways it could work.


Ambrose, let's see what you have to say...
I agree. I do like 4th edition greatly. But the power based system is a bit more complex than I'd like anyway. Besides, I'm not going for a class based system like DnD uses.

As for how deaths work, I'll tell you this, death is important. Although death will happen quite frequently, or rather, the possibility of death will occur frequently, clone systems won't be implemented. I'd like people to be attached to their characters. In fact, I want this to happen at character creation ideally. Of course, the frequency of deadly dangers is all up to the DM, not the system. To any DMs, having your party encounter a giant sentient pred shouldn't be done lightly. It should be a punishment for a bad decision, or an intentional well made encounter. And it's probably going to end in either a death in the party, or a narrow escape. But taking a page from 4th ed, there should be several safeguards between you and death. Namely, at least three rolls you can make to avoid death. Maybe Luck should be a stat. Goes towards Plot AC. XD



Mal- Agreed for the first statement, second statement I'll say depends on the game's theme. One hit point minions can take down a party. I've seen it happen.

Vore in this game will be included of course. But it's not a player ability so we can worry about it later. Since you play as a prey race, you will be the one being being eaten, so we can turn the threat of being vored into a few opposed tests against the pred. Example tests you can make to avoid death is diplomacy to reason your way out, escape artist to squirm free from the preds grip, etc. Right now, I'm liking the idea of being able to make three checks to escape. They can be the same, but one failure makes that route even harder. So no instant death. And vore is, once again, as often as the DM makes it.


Zion- Agreed. Wait, you do mean Mal from Firefly, right?


Jaette- Buying mercs would be an effective defensive strategy. You just need to be able to afford them. But I think that should be an option, rather than a mechanic. Mercs of X quality costs XN where N is the number of mercs hired. A daily cost is also payed based upon quality, number, and amount of danger the mercs feel they are in. A skill could exist that would reduce such costs though maybe?



Discussion is good. Please keep it up. ^^

Silent_eric wrote:

Let's see what I can do.
Ambrose, let's see what you have to say...
I agree. I do like 4th edition greatly. But the power based system is a bit more complex than I'd like anyway. Besides, I'm not going for a class based system like DnD uses.

My main point was to encourage you to be 'unconventional', and to push you away from the Vancian magic system which is quite development intensive and clumsy for the user, too. The 'skill points' system, with one for raw power (in each theme) and another for control (separated by theme or not) seems a good answer. It'll require some careful balancing, but that's a development issue.

Quote :

As for how deaths work, I'll tell you this, death is important. Although death will happen quite frequently, or rather, the possibility of death will occur frequently, clone systems won't be implemented.

That's fine. It's only fun if there's a challenge to overcome, and that means their has to be the chance of failing to overcome it too. Especially if the players are stupid.

Quote :

I'd like people to be attached to their characters. In fact, I want this to happen at character creation ideally. Of course, the frequency of deadly dangers is all up to the DM, not the system. To any DMs, having your party encounter a giant sentient pred shouldn't be done lightly. It should be a punishment for a bad decision, or an intentional well made encounter. And it's probably going to end in either a death in the party, or a narrow escape. But taking a page from 4th ed, there should be several safeguards between you and death. Namely, at least three rolls you can make to avoid death. Maybe Luck should be a stat. Goes towards Plot AC. XD

I think encounters with giant sentient predators are something most people are going to expect out of Felarya RPG. Non-combat encounters - i.e. we run away, or we negotiate our way out, or we sneak past - are all fine, but the system needs to be designed to make that kind of encounter easily possible. I.e. rather than the old D&D style with most encounters being the combat-type, there should be a spectrum of encounter types well-supported by the rules.

But I'm very positive about people's comments and your responses.

Yours,

Ambrose,