Heavy Damage in Steampunk

[Vulpinoid]

My goal is to be less Crunchy than D&D, but more crunchy than WoD.

Even WoD has Bashing, Lethal and Aggravated damage to simulate different types of weapon wounds.

V

[Ken]

I have thought about having a shock stat. This would work so that an amount of damage equal to or greater to your shock value causes you to succumb to shock or give a penalty. I go back and forth on the idea, in part, because I don't know how much more "crunchy" I want to be.

Having a system that allows characters to be incapacitated without being killed may be worth the added rules complexity.

Adding steps to anything in an rpg can sometimes be a painful process (more so, if you are want your system to be rules light), so its important to pick your battles. I think most designers have a clear cut idea of what they want their end result to look like, but its not hard for a rules system to take on a life of its own ( a cute little mechanic here, some extra texture rules there, and poof, your game is a giant rules monster). What I like about rpg design (and this is probably true with lots of things) is that it is modular; if you want your game to do x, you add x rules. Having said that, I think crunchiness comes in when your added modules don't mesh right with existing system elements, though the sheer weight of a games with hundreds or perfectly calibrated modules could be crunch too.

The best advice I can give is to put on paper the things your game to due, or how you want it to function. I usually go with an outline-style format; cover character creation, task resolution, and combat. I will list the things that need to be covered and then indicate how I've done that.

Also, playtest; even if its just you running numbers in your head over a hypothetical combat or scene: see how it well it flows, and whether the outcome makes sense. Here, I usually start with all average stats & skills against the same; then I'll make one side better than the other, and keep sliding combats up and down the scale to see how it works. This is a great diagnostic tool, and has helped me a great deal in calibrating my rules, and pinpointing system elements I need to add and those I can ditch. You may also stumble upon cooler ways to do things that are more organic with the rules set you are developing. Hope that helps.

Take care,

Ken

[David C]

Even WoD has Bashing, Lethal and Aggravated damage to simulate different types of weapon wounds.

Having a system that allows characters to be incapacitated without being killed may be worth the added rules complexity.

In my game, you "save for death." After you hit 0, you're unconscious and for any extra damage, you roll "level+vitality+misc+die." If you exceed the extra damage, you live, if not, you die.

The best advice I can give is to put on paper the things your game to due, or how you want it to function. I usually go with an outline-style format; cover character creation, task resolution, and combat. I will list the things that need to be covered and then indicate how I've done that.

Also, playtest; even if its just you running numbers in your head over a hypothetical combat or scene: see how it well it flows, and whether the outcome makes sense. Here, I usually start with all average stats & skills against the same; then I'll make one side better than the other, and keep sliding combats up and down the scale to see how it works. This is a great diagnostic tool, and has helped me a great deal in calibrating my rules, and pinpointing system elements I need to add and those I can ditch. You may also stumble upon cooler ways to do things that are more organic with the rules set you are developing. Hope that helps.

Wow! What great advice. Especially the part about scaling the different sides up and down.  I've actually done an extensive amount of play testing, but the guys I play tested with weren't very open to giving feedback.

[Ken]

[I've actually done an extensive amount of play testing, but the guys I play tested with weren't very open to giving feedback.

Yeah, I've been there and that can be rough. Vague feedback can be very frustrating, but I think its just part of the road game designers have to walk down. Have you passed out feedback questionaires? Those can help answer specific questions and deal with concerns you may already have about your game.

Another thing, I'm finding that playtester opinions don't mean as much to me as seeing them play the game; you've already got a pretty good idea whether the game works or not, you just want to see if your system breaks. Streamlining your system will come after continued play, as you see the things that hang up your testers (whether they bring it up or not). Also (and you may be doing this already) vary your playtest groups as much as possible. I run an open demo at my local gaming store and a buddy of mine has a regular game of Ten-Cent Heroes going on in Jacksonville Florida. I try to get anyone who stops and looks at the game to make a character and join us; I'm not always thinking that they are going to have some profound feedback (but they are welcome to), but I'm hoping they are going to build the character that exposes weak spots in my system.

Driving this back on topic a bit here. When I playtest with others, I try to field as many different mechanical aspects of my game as possible, and encourage players to go in as many directions as possible when building their characters. For damage types, I try to get as many types of attacks and damage out there as possible; see how targeting works, the effects of range, types of damage vs. types of defense, wound complications, anything I can think of.

This goes for terminology too. I created a pretty long list of specific terms for Ten-Cent Heroes and try to get it out there in play as much as I can. Some lingo can be clunky or confusing; or a better word may come along. Its all part of the process of refining a game; not just the system, but concepts, text, everything.

Take care,

Ken

[Seth M. Drebitko]

For example, "The Auran creates a rust cloud 10' in diameter, the rust cloud deals 1d6 _____ damage to all metallic objects within."

Reading your example leads me to think first off corrosion damage, which is not applicable in all situations, and thus lends itself to a personalized damage system. Some thing similar to D&D’s damage system may not be bad in which many different types of damage are used, and can be reused in new abilities. This can (and does) insure that attacks have a very personal feel, and if executed well like the above is a self contained thing which does not need endless flipping to find out what “corrosion damage” does.

If your worried about people not having a list of the different types of damage a quick easy solution is a wiki page listing the updated growing types of damage that would exist, and can easily be printed out over and over. 

Regards, Seth