Some thoughts:
I am probably going to make this game system Maptools exclusive. Now, what do I mean by that? It means including game rules that are relatively difficult to do by hand, but that when you include macros, they can be automated fairly easily. As an example, I'm currently toying around with the idea of having mecha have Armor Ratings. When you attack, the Piercing value is subtracted from the target's Armor Rating, and that gives you the Effective Armor Rating of that attack. EAR is then compared to a flat table, which gives % multipliers on final damage. Doing this by hand would be atrocious, but doing it via macros is really easy. More to the point, using this kind of system makes for much easier math for scaling by level, because damage values are relative. One side effect is that multiple low level attacks aren't tremendously less effective than single high level attacks, so I'll have to consider which dynamic I really want to include.*
edited 27th May '12 10:29:39 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Okay then, going through your post by paragraph, starting with the second:
I honestly don't really get what you are trying to say here, but that's probably my own inexperience. try not to make things overly complicated, though.
On called shots: You could go the Medabots route on called shots. In the GBA game, they gave four sections of the robot (head/torso, left arm, right arm, legs) different hp values. Taking out the head would indeed take out the robot, but whoever is on the receiving end could defend using a different body part, which would take the the damage instead of the head. Losing a part would indeed reduce effectiveness, but not to the point where the bot was completely useless, as the head itself often had a weapon as well (usually of the Awesome, but Impractical or Useless Useful Spell variety, but perhaps still a good idea to jot down), and taking out the legs would drastically reduce mobility, but not completely negate it. This is, of course, a lot easier in a video game where the computer does all the work of tracking all those HP values.
Regarding two sets of rules: A robot is still a robot, and having different rulesets for what's basically the difference between 'big robot' and 'slightly smaller robot' seems overly complicated.
On drives: Could work if they fit the setting, but you might want to make them a little less differentiated from each other when it comes to origin. Having such wildly different types of mechas function side-by-side feels like it could clash. This is great when aliens are involved, but not otherwise.
Having nothing but 'ultimate' drives might be for the best, really. Or only 'infinity' drives. Either way, pick one, and work towards variety within those constraints.
On Levels: I never saw much the point of having your stats change for 'to hit' or 'to evade' (or heck, even HP). Everyone else goes up just as much, so in the end, it doesn't really matter. What I did like about levels, though, were feats. feats are the parts where your character learns exciting new abilities that are actually part of the character itself, rather than his spell list.
Manoeuvre: I have no idea what you are talking about just yet, but keep working on making it elegant simplicity.
On out of mecha roleplaying: I like the sound of dice rolling, so I wouldn't want to play freeform. I am fine with being somewhat squishy outside of the cockpit, however. Encourages some more creative approaches than storming in guns blazing.
And I like the idea of Pilot Talents. Because they sound like feats. And I love feats.
Bottom line: sound good so far. Though you might want to rethink the whole 'drives' thing, the basic idea is fine. Crunch some numbers, and the rest will probably follow on it's own.
The "core" of the system could be played using only Ultimate Drives. Infinity Drives, Void Drives, and Omega Drives are all campaign specific, but would be used in the campaign that I'd ultimately end up using (unless I change my mind about what campaign to run, which is entirely possible).
As an example of the difference between Defense (the DC to hit with attacks) and Maneuver, let's say that a mech has the ability to "Intercept" an enemy. That is, if a mech moves into close combat with an ally, you can make a Maneuver check (1d20+Maneuver) versus the Maneuver Defense (10+Maneuver) of the target and use an Immediate Interrupt. On a success, you intercept the enemy, and prevent it from engaging the enemy.
What does engaging the enemy mean? It's a self-described term, but in short, it means being in melee"ish" range. In addition to intercepting, in order to disengage you need to make a maneuver check.
There are a few other ways in which maneuverability comes into play. I'm currently toying around with the idea of Rush attacks, where you attack an enemy, and if you succeed on both Maneuverability and Stability checks, you throw the enemy off balance and get consecutive follow-up attacks.
Basically, the idea is that mecha will have Maneuverability and Stability as stats, where Maneuverability is "How much can this mech dominate the battlefield" and stability is "how hard is it to disrupt this mech." They apply in different ways thematically, and some effects require you to have both, and also to BEAT both (like Rush); some mechs go all one others go all the other. A build isn't totally useless for doing that, so you can have Glacier mechs, or you can have Fragile Speedster mechs (though JUST having high Mv and low Stb doesn't automatically make you fragile). The idea is to have tradeoffs like that.
You might want to add a third stat to that, creating a rock-paper-scissors triangle. This will create more options for customization, and I can't help but think that having only Manoeuvrability and Stabilty will end up screwing those that prefer a middle-of-the-road approach.
Other then that, I like it, as it seems to reward tactical out-of-the-box thinking that goes beyond 'I hit it with my sword/laser/whatever'.
And now I'm reminded of Tasunoko versus Capcom.
edited 25th May '12 5:05:01 PM by Kayeka
Having only maneuverability OR stability is a pure defense build. Having a good mix of the two is an offense build.
In short, think of Maneuverability as dexterity, and Stability as Strength. It doesn't matter if you're moving really fast-if you have the mass of a housefly, you're not going to barrel someone over. Likewise, if you're a friggin tank, you can't barrel anyone over if you can't make impact. The two stats are a deliberate tradeoff in that way. Maxing stability is useful if you want to have a mech that's not interested in pursuing targets, but has enough close quarters attacks that it's not going to be screwed over if it's caught in a melee. Maxing maneuverability is good if you want to be everywhere on the battlefield.
Still working on the specifics, but conceptually, it's a deliberate tradeoff, not a "maneuverability beats stability" or the other way around.
One thing I'm probably going to steal is the mecha attacks system from Xenosaga Ep 3. In Xenosaga Ep 3, your "Engine" determines how much you can attack each round. Each attack has a cost, that subtracts from your engine (I don't remember what the actual unit for this is-Action points maybe? whatever). Higher level attacks obviously cost more, so there's a tradeoff between using multiple lower level attacks or fewer higher level attacks. For this system, I'm going to call this stat "Processor (Prc)." Processor is used up whenever you make an attack that requires targeting or special features. Probably going to make "Basic handheld attacks" ignore processing entirely, but not 100% certain what to do with that-not sure if I want the verisimilitude element there or not.
One side effect is that Processing can be used to gain bonus non-attack actions, so you can "equip" different modes which, for instance, grant a bonus immediate action each round, at the cost of reducing your processing power.
edited 25th May '12 5:11:14 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Tomu, have you ever played Front Mission Evolved? It's somewhat similar to Armored core but MUCH more tactical. Because the Front Mission series as a whole is a tactical rpg. Pilots level up and get skills, such as accuracy, etc, and the mechs are improved by buying parts. That said, would you be willing to let a player have a normal mecha? I'd really like to play someone from that game, who is of the weak but skilled variety. The character is a civilian, rather than military, but he works within the top mech producing corporation in the world, in both design and testing. As such, he has access to parts most others don't, including the "Edge" system which is a system allowing him to pump his reaction times insanely high for a short period. AKA bullet time.
Any way I could work a character like that in the system? *Really likes front mission*
((That said, the front mission series would be a really good mechanical reference...)
:smug:The campaign I'm currently envisioning is Schizo Tech, though I might switch to space opera. As I mentioned, my primary inspirations are Xenogears and Xenosaga episode 3 (Episode 1 and 2 had quite horrible mecha rules).
The basic "Core" of the system doesn't require "OMFG Super Robots!" or anything mind you-in the same way that there's nothing about 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons that requires the gods to live in some place called the "Astral Sea." Indeed, I'm making an effort to point out in the sidebar that for more "normal" mecha games, just using Ultimate Drives gives a less mystical/supernatural feel.
I tend to subscribe to a "It's the mecha not you" part when it comes to mecha games (which is the opposite of how I like to play Dungeons and Dragons), but as I alluded to earlier, there will be some pilot specific elements to the game.
Right now, I'm just trying to put some stuff into documents and mulling over a good system title so I can start the wikidot.
edited 25th May '12 8:08:20 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Alright, cool. But yeah, if you ever get the chance to play a Front Mission game I recommend it. And might I throw out there Mechas and Madness?
:smug:I am slowly hammering out some of the rules on Ultimate Drives as we speak. TBH, they're the most complicated drives, because unlike the other three kinds, Ultimate Drives use body slot rules. They get some small(ish) bonuses for the limitation, meaning that they're technically more powerful than the other drive types, but I'm trying to strike a decent balance. They are in a way less customizable, but I've found (by something I call "The Theory of Toys") that that is, in a way, MORE customizable-that is, the thrill of building is in the limitations, not in the possibilities. It's why I never got into GURPS and why I found Mutants and Masterminds to be interesting, but never really my type of system.
Alright right now I'm working on some conceptualization of weapons.
I'm going to pull a play from Mutants and Masterminds and have weapons work on arrays. Weapons have two tiers of mutual exclusivity to one another:
1.) Each weapon has an Equipment Cost (like any other piece of equipment-I'll go into the specifics of that later). You can build weapons into arrays, so that when you equip an array, all the weapons that are part of that array are considered equipped. Then, you can trade arrays, so that your mech has multiple different sets of equipment, but can't activate them all at once.
2.) Each attack requires processing power (which is like Engine power from Xenosaga 3 if you've played that game), so you can only use so many attacks per round regardless of what you have equipped. The reason to have multiple weapons as part of the same array is that some weapons have special triggers-for instance, "Follow Up" weapons cost 1/2 the processing cost if you use them immediately following reducing an enemy to 0 HP, and can be used at 0 Processing cost if you take a -5 penalty to hit. I'm still contemplating whether this is balanced, and also whether it's feasible to allow multiple follow-up attacks to all function simultaneously (since they'd all have to be part of the same array, which gets expensive in terms of equipment costs).
It's not unlikely because it's hard or anything. It's unlikely because you probably won't do it. Subtle difference.
Novelists have to write, movie directors have to film, game creators have to do the math. Bouncing ideas is the fun part, but not the part that results in a finished product. This early on, you'll need at least a basic mathematical system in place where you can fit in all those awesome features.
You're so easily disillusioned~
I'm still bouncing around ideas for level and scaling. Right now, I'm using a character points system, but those tend to be really really messy. However, since attack output is based on processing, it's probably less of a problem. Hmmm...
Anyway, all I was saying is that I have previously attempted to build systems but they generally never worked out (Come to think of it, the first build of Trai dX, a stripped down version of Mutants and Masterminds, did eventually see play). But part of that is due to a lack of feedback, which shows a lack of interest, so don't make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm stealing a lot of stuff from Dn D and some other game systems for development of this.
I'm really digging the rules that Dn D Next uses for Advantage/Disadvantage, and the math balancing for defenses and different frame types (Lithe, Normal, Stout) plays around with this by allowing mecha to trade HP for Defense and vice versa.
edited 27th May '12 10:49:57 AM by TheyCallMeTomu
FEEDBACK TIME: How many levels of play should I institute? This is a CP based system, but Engines come in levels, which determine how much CP you have, and some other factors are based on level as well (Maneuver and Stability for instance). The main concept is that Engine Level, Processor Level, and Frame Level are all separate stats (basically representing "Increased versatility and Stability/Maneuverability," "increased attack capability," and "increased HP" respectively).
Currently I'm thinking of only having 10 levels of play. From a balancing standpoint, it might be easier to have more levels of play, but set the "default" starting level as being above 1-so that modeling Mooks and the like can use below starting level stats.

NOTE
Originally I went into this figuring it would fizzle out and die quickly, but I've actually stumbled onto some really elegant and simple math for the HP/Damage ratio that makes me think this might be a lot easier to design than I initially expected, so I'm actually optimistic about where it's going. As always, (constructive) feedback is appreciated-right now I'm still trying to work out a name for the system so I can create a Wikidot page and start actually posting some of the rules I've been working on.
From the Game-Master thread, this conversation spun off. Over the years, I've tried to run Humongous Mecha games of various sorts, so I figured I'd get some feedback. Below are my posts on the subject copied into blocks. It's still very much in pre-development phase:
"Anyway, I'm trying to think of a good level differential system. Dn D Next has been touting the idea that monster stats don't change (ala, an orc isn't a standard at one level and a minion at another), but instead, the primary means of advancement is HP. I'm trying to figure out a way to scale damage resistance and HP and damage so that this kind of model actually works-so an enemy that might be about 1/5 of a PC in difficulty at one level is worth 1/25 of a PC in difficulty level at another level. But there's so many variables to consider... hmmm..."
Haven't decided [on called shots], but probably not as a called shot system. I tend to find that called shot systems just mean everyone always goes for a headshot. I tend to be much more concerned about game balance and narrative than I am about verisimilitude, and blowing off a mech's hands has the tendency to render said mech inoperable, which is kind of a no-no for a player to suddenly have nothing to do.
The system, if I go ahead and develop it, will have rules for both more Super Robot Style, and for more basic low techy robots-with the P Cs piloting various styles of Super Robots, and NP Cs having a combination of the two.
Current idea is a throwback to previous campaigns where there are four types of "Drives" (aka Mechs-I won't go into too much detail here):
Ultimate Drives: Powered by good ol' science. Or Super-science. Fusion engines with 100% efficiency, with frames made out of good old steel and Unobtanium. Uses body slot rules.
Infinity Drives: Powered by a burning spirit, these drives are literal living entities, though they lack a will (hence the need for pilots). Consider it driving your own giant monster, essentially. Think Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, if Gurren Lagann was made of flesh. Main advantage here is regeneration.
Void Drives: Powered by an empty spirit, these drives are unliving entities-essentially, building sized vampires. Paradoxically, void drives are powered by entropy itself. They're created by placing a void drive core into an Infinity Drive's Frame, thus corrupting it. Main advantage here is disintegration, which tends to reconstitute the drive's form.
Omega Drives: Powered by the force of will. How is this different from a burning spirit? Beats the !%^& out of me. I wrote this shit back when I didn't consider "ki" and "psionics" to be the same thing. If Infinity drives are the "soul" I guess you would call Omega Drives the mind? Whatever. The point is, Omega Drives are kind of like Personas (See: Persona3 or Persona4 or-you get the idea); they're projections of the user's psyche, taking the form of liquid metal constructs. Unlike other Drives, they have no physical substance except when the pilot calls upon them (though an "unattended" Drive Core still has a physical substance). Still reworking the specs of these.
A lot of this is a throwback to earlier campaigns. I really like the four drive cores model, but I'm not sure if it really works out-it was derived to be of cosmic significance, but I've since mostly moved away from that cosmic model for my campaigns. More to the point, most people in mecha games would want to play Ultimate Drives, and having nothing but ultimate drives running around ruins symmetry, which rather defeats the purpose altogether.
I won't be running this for (hopefully) a half a year or more. I say hopefully because I only run one campaign at a time, and if I started running this, it'd be because TGD (my current Dn D game) collapsed.
As I mentioned earlier (I think) I want to have "level" be more a factor of resistance to damage, rather than attack bonus versus evasion (though I'll probably involve some of that as well). Right now, my main mechanics concept is "Maneuver" which is a stat that gets factored into a lot of things. Maneuver doesn't affect whether you can hit or be hit (except for triggered powers and abilities that specifically reference it), but it does affect your ability to out-maneuver enemies to avoid being caught in a melee or something.
Still toying with ideas in my head.
I have two possibilities regarding out of mecha mechanics:
1.) Entirely freeform.
2.) Not freeform, but everyone is pretty weak.
This isn't Xenogears or Xenosaga (despite that there are some pretty clear influences from both on the system) where P Cs are superhuman in their own right, so the idea is that you don't want to get into a firefight because it's potentially lethal even with basic mooks. If you've seen my Modern dX work (http://moderndx.wikidot.com)
, I'd likely have some of the same influences, but again, I don't expect PC capability out of mechs to be that important.
That being said, there's an obvious overlap between Mech Types and character types. Ultimate Drive pilots tend to be badasses with guns, and quite possibly cyborgs. Infinity drive pilots are more likely to be ki using martial artist types-like I said, burning spirit-or mutants (not X-men style, but rather "Human and <Insert creature here> DNA" types). Void drive pilots are likely to be corruption be daaaaaaarkness or something-after all, it's a machine that's powered by leeching your life force. And Omega Drive pilots of course are psychics. But the actual real combat ability that comes from these powers is probably sub comic-book level. It wouldn't be the emphasis of the campaign.
THAT BEING SAID, I'm likely to have "Pilot Talents" as a character customization system that transfers to mecha bonuses. However, I should note that the majority of a mech's improvement comes from the mech, not the pilot-this is a "Super Robots vs Normal Robots" game, so while the pilot certainly matters (and more importantly, the pilot is directly proportional to how super the robot is), it's more about the capabilities of the mech itself.
Right now, the model is that Ultimate Drives level up with installed gear, whereas the other three drives level up with the character. I'm not sure how to balance that except as coincidence though.
If there's enough feedback, I'll create another wiki site for the system. So, questions, comments, concerns, etc.
edited 27th May '12 8:04:06 PM by TheyCallMeTomu