Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dustin DePenning" data-source="post: 6560632" data-attributes="member: 6791549">That seems like quite a lot of status effects. Is each one mechanically unique enough to warrant rules space? It's quite a lot to navigate for your average player.Just a tought, but if enough of those have similar effects, maybe you can roll them all into the same status. Like have a generic "vulnerability to (blank)" status, and have actions give out specific tagged versions (vulnerability to Cold, vulnerability to Lighting). So rather than remembering what drenched does, have a generic effect that drenched interacts with. You can then use that generic effect in more ways "This spell weakens elemental resistances, causing Vulnerability Cold, Lightning, Fire (etc.)"Same goes for Weakened. Maybe that should be a generic effect, with a specific tag of the name of the attribute it effects ("Weakened Strength, Weakened Dexterity"). And it's always -2 or something.Again, just thinking more generic, overarching status effects with specific tags that make the game more intuitive and top down rather than situation-specific. If you take the situation-specific route of design, you'll be tempted to make a status effect for each and every thing that could happen in your game: "What about a status for depressed?" "what about a status effect for concussed?"Also, try to think of stand alone rules that interact with existing conditions rather than making new ones. For example, "pre-fatigued" may not be a necessary condition. Perhaps the rule text just reads: once per day, this character can choose to automatically remove the Fatigued status."Overall your system seems incredibly granular and simulationist – which can be really fun – but streamlining can help make it more intuitive.</blockquote>

Verification