(+) Theorycrafting Crafting (and Gathering)

So I'm making this a plus topic, as I just don't have any desire to see the sheer vitriol these kinds of mechanics tend to elicit out of certain people.

But anyway, lately I've been thinking through the theory I've been developing for what will become the overall Crafting and Gathering "Pillar" of my RPG, Labyrinthian. The main philosophy I've taken to when considering these elements is that of volitional engagement. Ie, not merely that you have the freedom to do these things, but that you have a genuine desire to do so.

While one could easily sum up the practical advice in that as "Don't make bad mechanics", I think the practicality comes from treating volition as a constraint. What about your game makes someone want to engage in this specific activity?

And we can measure that by considering if a mechanic or overall design provides for Progression, Autonomy, Competancy, and Relatedness; all four of these are essentially psychological needs we can observe in Players of pretty much any game, and is especially prevalent in RPGs, given the game genre as a whole is laser focused on nailing at least three all at once (Competancy has been contentious in this genre; need only see the war over crunch and the less than stellar taxonomy of GNS and its predecessor GDS to see that).

As to what each refers to, Progression is more or less what you'd think, and easy enough to get right especially with the context of Crafting things.

Autonomy is trickier as though, as thats what we're looking to foster through Volition. Players need to be able to actualize their desires to have Autonomy, but they need desires in the first place.

Competancy is also pretty straightforward. Players will want to demonstrate, if only to themselves, that they grok the system and wield it to their own ends, whatever those they may be.

Relatedness is another tricky one, as this relates to the sort of "internal narrative" of the Player. Players need to feel that their choices make a difference and have consequences, for good or bad, and their choices should feel as though they contribute to the ongoing narrative of their character that they keep in their head.

Presumably, if your design can satisfy all or at least most of these psychological needs, it will be successful. There is, however, no clear cut way to just do that reptitively, so while I could probably go into a long post trying to formulate a methodology, I think it'd be more useful to instead illustrate by example, if only because I just like doing things that way.

=======================
The Core Mechanic: Sequence Roll

This part I have actually tested, and it does work. The idea is you roll nDice, with n going up to 7. The number determines, in order from smallest to largest, what dice you roll out of a standard polyhedral set. Ie, 1Dice is just a d4, 3Dice is a d4,d6,and a d8.

From here, each die corresponds to a specific step in a given Sequence, such as the steps to Smithing a given object (which are understandably abstracted to fit within these limits), and will give you a base number that you can either stick with or modify using a pool of points derived from character stats.

If you stick with the number you rolled, you get whatever Effect that number contributes per the step, which could be something in the Step itself (stat modification for example) or could come from a Material that you're integrating during that step; most of the time, you're using a Material so you'd be deriving what you're rolling for from them. (More on Mats in a bit)

If you don't wish to stick with the number, then you can modify it using your point pool. The costs for doing are high at the low end (I suspect 5 points per +/-1 at d4, and stepping down by 1 with each successive die), and low at the high end, which is more or less balanced given then higher dice would naturally cost more anyway due to the larger values to cross.

As you work through each Die, setting the result you want, you'd be filling out a Stat block for your item so you can reference it later or even gift it to someone else. And once you're done, one of two things could happen depending on the Sequence. Either the Sequence just ends and your item is complete (as will be the case with most Crafting), or the total value of the roll, after modifying it, is added up and converted into a DC (by the GM) that you then make a Skill check against to confirm the result, with your check modifying your rewards (as will be the case with most Gathering).

Using the Sequence Roll as a core mechanic should be pretty potent, as it has the flexibility to do, well, any and every kind of Crafting or Gathering that you could imagine, and lets every one of those activities be very expressive for the Player, given the high degree of customization it affords just in the mechanic.

While fiddly, this is ultimately a boon, as the idea is that while you go through your Sequence, other players can be taking their Turns. The fiddliness gives them the time to do that, whereas something more compressed just begs to be dealt with then and there, making the game stop for your single player experience. Not fun, so instead, you get something more involved to engage with so that other players can keep going while you work on it.

Even if you've got a recipe and have something you're specifically aiming for, it still takes some time to work the Sequence, so at least one player can go while you do that.

So overall, just in the core, we will be hitting a proverbial +1 to Volition, as this mechanic is fun to play around with. (And I've even experimented with branching it out into other activities like real-time lockpicking)

It afford players a high degree of customization in these activities and is simple enough to learn, and thus covers the entire system, leaving the learning to be focused on the actual content of the system, and its products.

=====
Durability

This is the next mechanic thats necessary for this. The reason why is that Durability provides the means of achieving the volition to keep gathering materials and making new items. The key to avoiding the often visceral and vitriolic reaction to such a mechanic existing actually lies in the same thing we're looking to make with it, volition. We have to make people want to have their items degrade and eventually break.

To do this, there's quite a few things that go into how Durability itself occurs, and what happens after it does.

First, how Durability is measured. For physical weapons and armor, each of them carries a specific dice pool (Damage or Defense), and for basic low level items, this pool is your Durability meter. Any time you take a loss, drop a die out of the Pool; if you're down to 1 Die, step it down in Size. Already at a d4? Item breaks.

Crafted items, and higher level items in general, will also have a Durability modifier, which essentially is a both a buff and a buffer. At +5 for example, adds that value to your Damage/Defense rolls, but is also what you step down first when you take a Durability loss.

As to how losses are incurred, the player ultimately has choices. The big mechanic in Combat is my Momentum system; its a variation on exploding dice where each explosion actually generates a temporary currency that you can then spend on various options, which can be just rerolling the die for more damage or defense, but can also be things like inflicting wounds, sundering armor, taking/breaking a Stance, etc.

Whenever a player chooses to go for Extra Damage/Defense, if they roll a 1 on that die, they take a hit to their Durability. (Automated Usage Die, another clever idea of mine)

Meanwhile, when defending, the Player has choice in which part of their armor they use to do so presuming they're able to React against the incoming attack. So even if their enemy is trying to Sunder something specific, if the Player reacts they get to make the choice of what gets hit, and with Sunderijg in particular, if they can negate the attack entirely (roll higher Defense than their Damage), then they can avoid any losses from their enemy's attack. (But would still be bound to any they take from Momentum)

If they can't React however, then their enemy gets to call out an item to take a loss (or losses, if its a particularly nasty enemy).

So overall, having your items break isn't a constant and is pretty clearly signaled by the system, allows for time to be spent at 100% effectiveness, and gives players some meaningful choices in where to take the losses. Which is important for the next part.

Second, how Durability encourages itself volitionally. For this, I came to the conclusion that ultimately, we need to incentivize 5 things more or less simultaneously: items being damaged, items being repaired, items breaking, items being reforged, new items being made.

Fortunately, for the first 4, we can pair them up and hit the mark with one idea. Talk about elegance.

To incentivize damage and repairs, I took inspiration from Tears of the Kingdoms Fuse mechanics and rethemed it towards a Repair theme. Essentially, the idea is that you can take Materials and use them in your repairs to diversify the capabilities of your item temporarily.

If, for example, you take some Springhorn, you can add this to your item as you repair and get a new ability. For weapons, this would be adding a Boomerang property to them; they'll fly back into your hand after you throw them, assuming they don't hit anything else other than their targets. For armor, this would boost your Jump Attacks, giving you an extra use of Momentum when you do so. Most of the time, these would have a number of uses equal to your items' Durability modifier before they wear off.

This is another +1 for volition. You have a compelling reason to keep gathering and to let your stuff get damaged.

Next, this same idea elaborates into reforging. If you let your item break, you can then opt to reforge it and add these abilities to it permanently through the same process. Now you have a compelling reason to let your items break, at least occasionally.

Now, this does introduce the potential for players to cheese it. Easy enough to just start smashing stuff into rocks so you can skip to the juicy parts. Personally, I trust in the fact that that won't be a very fun way to play (particularly given you'll need items to go out and get materials in the first place), and trust in the solution to the 5th concern, how the system encourages new items to be made, to cover the rest.

For this, I imagine that items will have limits to what they can take in when being reforged, putting more or less a hard cap on how many new abilities an item can have. They'd still be able to be reforged anyway, but wouldn't be able to take in anything new.

This would be rendered mostly through different Materials contributing to higher and higher caps. Most likely, this will be something "Core" materials will provide, such as the Core metal in a weapon or piece of Armor, or the magical core in a Staff or Wand. This would incentivize making new items, almost assuredly following your finding of these new materials for the first time.

This solution is a bit more nebulous, but thats to be expected given I haven't designed much of this formally as of yet. But it should become clearer the more I develop.

But, it should hit the mark on covering the need for Progression. As you keep going you'll get better stuff, and in turn could regift your previous items to entities like Followers, Family Members, etc. (+1 for Volition to other parts of the game)

====
Materials

This would be the next big part of this system, the Materials themselves.

There's not much to say that hasn't already. Materials would have different effect lists depending on where they can be used, and these lists would have target numbers that would assist in balancing them into tiers. Ie, iron might have its effects run from 0-9, but steel from 5-15, and so on. Higher tier materials would then necessarily require higher Stats to meaningfully work with. +1 Volition to train.

Materials, however, would have synergies with each other, and I imagine in practice this will develop into a Chemistry system. In particular, I plan on ensuring that wholly different materials where they can be combined are able to synergize with one another.

Case in point, a Sword for example could simultaneously involve multiple Metals, Wood, and Leather, as well as others such as Bones or Gems. All of these would have different effects that, ideally, would provide emergent interactions so that experimentation can be fostered.

Just spitballing a potential example, the previously mentioned Springhorn (a Bone type material) might create an emergent effect when combined with, say, Flyskin, a leather type that increases flight speed. The resulting weapon lets say could be thrown and it'd make several trips around the battlefield before it returns to the user, perhaps even allowing it to hit more than one target.

If this was then enchanted with an AOE lightning spell, where it activates for the duration of an attack, then oh snap, we've basically got a Stormbreaker on our hands.

+5 to Volition, because thats cool as hell and who wouldn't want to Craft when you can make stuff like that.

The key here would be designing these in such a way that they're easy to reference, and while I haven't put much thought into it yet, I trust in my penchant for finding really clever ways to compress things.

====
Gathering

This would be the last big consideration, as it often suffers from the same problems Gathering does, and so this in turn basically doubles the problems and makes the user experience that much worse.

From my perspective, this tends to be in the grind thats all too often made a part of these mechanics, often for no reason at all, not even to artificially inflate playtime. Some devs just do it unthinkingly because thats what other gathering systems look like.

Beyond the Grind, the volition to go gather is mostly rooted in the Crafting System, but also in its integration with other game activities. If you have to stop the games normal gameplay loop just to Gather, thats a problem.

So to square this, we can assume that the Crafting aspects are covered. So that just leaves us the Grind and Integration to consider.

The former is easy. You don't have to Grind period. No Crafting requires more than 1 sample of a given Material unless you're intending to use it more than once, and if you need to be frugal, for some materials (wood, metal, bone; leather for armor, stone for weapons), a single sample of a Material can be used to form an entire item.

What Grind would still emerge wouldn't be much to worry about, given the Integration aspects, and would ultimately be fine. If you want to deck out your entire Party in the best items you can get your hands on, that work will still involve engaging with the overall gameplay loop.

How that'd be the case is through integration. For this, I came to the idea of leveraging Travel Tasks as a means of accomplishing this. Whenever the Party travels, one or more members can engage in a few different Gathering tasks, depending on what they're looking for, or just what they'd be interested in finding.

These would be things like Prospecting, Foraging, Hunting, etc. These tasks would contribute to the overall Pacing of the party (the distance they're able to travel) and would be self-contained within the Turn. Players would be able to coordinate their Tasks and double up on them, generating their own bonuses because they're working together.

As mentioned earlier, Gathering through these Tasks would require a Sequence Roll, which for Gathering would provide the player the means to emphasize either a specific kind of material they want, or a healthy variety of whatevers out there to find, and whatever mix inbetween depending on what the Player (and the Party) want to find and/or keep a stock of.

The former would be a lower yield, but would be reliable especially as your Skills go up, and likewise the latter would have a higher yield, and go up with your Skills.

So now, we've got Gathering integrated with Traversal, and have mostly eliminated a lot of the incentive to just mindlessly Grind. You most likely have somewhere you want to go, so do this on the way, and even if you just want to Gather and nothing but, you're still engaging other loops...

For my Exploration system, Gathering Tasks would also be generating Oracles, so gatherers will be able to contribute Discoveries and general Oracle scenes just as much as players doing something else, so PACR would be getting hit on all 4 fronts for both systems.

Over time, meanwhile, Gathering and Exploration together would integrate with the Settlement and Domain systems. You'll occasionally find (in actuality you'd be creating them) different "nodes" for specific resources, and these would pay dividends for these larger systems, as Settlements would benefit from being near or even built into the same Hex as these nodes, and Domains would be able to draw on these resources for a number of benefits. PACR again gets hit on all 4 fronts for both systems.

Finding the random Diamond mine in the woods isn't just an exciting adventure or an opportunity to get some precious gems, its an opportunity to build up a town and eventually form an economic backbone to a nation. Or perhaps you're a devious Necromancer, and now you have a vast untapped wealth of gems to go into your experiments...

Suffice to say, +10 to volition, at least in my opinion, as thats the kind of stuff that makes a story machine go.

===

And thats about it. While I mostly focused on more mundane Smithing as an example (as thats as far as Ive gotten in terms of having less of a theory and more of an actual design), this overall system goes beyond that. Longer form versions of the C&G loop would be empowering things like Animal Taming (and the more Domain specific versions, like Mages creating monsters), and I'm actually highly tempted to take the same loop and reconfigure it to support my concept for Bloodlines, Race mechanics shifting into Family Making mechanics, which in turn would if successful be important for encouraging groups to keep the same campaign going, rather than starting over.

Particularly with the Magical side of things, though, there will also be some unique takes. Spell crafting will be a thing, as will the creation of magical weapons and armor, such as Wands and Staves, Orbs and Tomes, Robes and Hats, etc etc. Magical Equipment will follow more or less the same routes that physical equipment does, but Spells in particular will be interesting.

There I intend to break from the overall loop. While I could set it up like the rest, using a Vancian esque system for it, I don't particularly care for that as thats a specific kind of Magic that I don't really want to go for. Instead, Spells will always be available and won't degrade (and conversely can't be reforged, but could be augmented with Materials; +1 Volition to Spell Components hah!).

Where the Degradation would come in would instead be on the Caster themselves through Corruptions, physical deformities that induce stat drains and buffs, and the different Mage classes would each have unique ways to deal with them, such as the Wizard who converts them into runes etched into their body, eliminating the drains but eating away at Composure (HP), that they can then purge to empower their spellcasting. Another take would be the Warlock, who instead embraces them and wants to get as many as possible, as each Corruption empowers their Curse mechanics, letting them purge their own debuffs onto their enemies, if only temporarily.

As said though, a lot of this is just a theorycraft. I'm still working on other parts of the system, and so most of this aside from the Sequence Roll is just the ideas I've had for what all is going to go into it. Though that said, nothing I can see so far makes the idea unsound.

Much of the nebulous uncertainty would lie in the actual design of content and how that manifests when the time comes. By my estimation I'm going to want to have a good selection of Materials with meaningful differences between them, and they'll have to be carefully balanced (likely through an MMO style tier system, where low tier stuff gains new importance in other areas as they're outclassed) to ensure that the progression feels right and gathering them isn't an excercise in item spam.

I'm pretty confident though we can square it, so long as the underlying system pans out, which I think it should.

====
And for clarity, the PACR needs isn't something I came up with. A,C, and R come from Self-Determination Theory, and P is more or less implied by it, but is useful to call out specifically when considering games. I got introduced to this, and the idea of calling out P specifically, through this GDC Talk and the comments, which aren't particularly kind to the poor guy.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

kenada

Legend
Supporter
While fiddly, this is ultimately a boon, as the idea is that while you go through your Sequence, other players can be taking their Turns. The fiddliness gives them the time to do that, whereas something more compressed just begs to be dealt with then and there, making the game stop for your single player experience. Not fun, so instead, you get something more involved to engage with so that other players can keep going while you work on it.
I don’t think that’s fiddly per se. It may look like it in comparison to other tabletop RPGs (particularly D&D-likes), but crafting often has very little gameplay associated with it in those games, so adding some may seem like an imposition (or be “fiddly”). However, if people don’t want to bother, can they ignore it? (And it’s fine if not.)

This would be the last big consideration, as it often suffers from the same problems Gathering does, and so this in turn basically doubles the problems and makes the user experience that much worse.
Typo? I assume you mean “same problems Crafting does”?

Much of the nebulous uncertainty would lie in the actual design of content and how that manifests when the time comes. By my estimation I'm going to want to have a good selection of Materials with meaningful differences between them, and they'll have to be carefully balanced (likely through an MMO style tier system, where low tier stuff gains new importance in other areas as they're outclassed) to ensure that the progression feels right and gathering them isn't an excercise in item spam.
How exhaustive is this list going to be? You mention emergent effects, but can players combine items in unexpected/unanticipated ways? For example, several sessions ago, the players used crafting¹ in my homebrew system to combine poison with a corpse to create bait. Would something like that be possible (effectively improvising a trap)?



1: It’s inspired by the crafting in Final Fantasy XIV. Items require materials. You have to balance progress against durability as you work on the item (and can optionally work towards quality to make a better item), but it’s still very heavily WIP and needs documented properly. The closest thing I have to documentation is a post on another forum where I discussed about some ideas, which I then try to recall when it comes up during a session. 😅
 

However, if people don’t want to bother, can they ignore it? (And it’s fine if not.)

They could, particularly if their overall build affords them a way to not need to train up the related Skills, such as the Warrior subclass Commander allowing for Intelligence to sub in for Stamina over either Strength or Agility, which in turn means they don't need to maximize one of those Talents (meaning, train up the Crafting/Gathering skills in them).

But they could also do it if they're okay with technically being sub-optimal. That Commander would probably still want their Strength or Agility to be pretty high, if not as maximal as they can, so while they can deemphasize it for ensuring they're progressing on their Energies, they'd still want it for the respective Passives.

Meanwhile, NPC Crafters (and Gatherers) could be employed, but this would necessarily require some kind of income and finding higher tier NPCs to do higher tier work for you wouldn't be easy, and would take engagement in other areas. (Settlements and Questing for example)

Plus, thats part of the value of having a compelling Repair system in place. You don't have to craft anything to still progress with Smithing, for example, if you're keeping up with your equipment. It may be a little dissonant to then take that experience and suddenly be able to forge the Master Sword, but at that point one has to ask if thats what they actually care about. (And thats without considering the Perk system. Presumably you'd be deemphasizing Crafting perks, so there'd still be a difference between a Maxed Smith who only repairs versus one who Crafts, and a difference in both to one who does Both)

Typo? I assume you mean “same problems Crafting does”?

Affirmative.

How exhaustive is this list going to be?

In terms of how many Materials total? Uncertain. I do know the overall Tier structure would be constrained, probably no more than 6-9 at the most. I also know that I want to ensure that there's meaningful choices within those tiers, so that theres variety in how these Tiers present in the gameworld (ie, little to no monochromatically equipped enemies).

And I also know, especially if I can resolve the reference problem, that I'd prefer to get in as many "superflous" materials as I could; things that'd only exist to add expressive flare even if they don't offer anything different over another Material. For example, Wyvernbone wouldn't be any different than Dragonbone (particularly given Wyverns are just newborn Dragons in my lore), but would present differently "in the fiction" as it were.

These superflous ideas would probably just listed as different names within the same base Entry, but I imagine for many, like the Wyvern vs Dragon example, that I could include some narrative pitches for how these materials could be recognized. For example, people wouldn't find your Wyvernbone armor near as impressive as Dragonbone, despite them being effectively equal in raw mechanical value. That sort of dynamic indeed would be interesting if it was considered in terms of an economy; people have all kinds of irrational valuation models like that, and sometimes it isn't even all that irrational.

Wyverns would be comparatively easier to kill and harvest for their bones than their older kin, and so while it'd be worth less, it'd be considered more economical for those who could afford it and need what they provide, while Dragonbone (and the even rarer Nagabone, Naga being the final stage of life. Think Gyrados from Pokemon) would be seen as more Luxurious.

But! Even thinking through that idea right now, I could probably also designate these as Quality tiers, and could tie the reforge caps to them. Nagabone would allow for the most potential, but would understandably be rarer and thus more valued than the more common and lower potential Wyvernbone.

In other cases though that irrational valuation would be maintained I think. Gems and Stones in particular.
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
In terms of how many Materials total? Uncertain. I do know the overall Tier structure would be constrained, probably no more than 6-9 at the most. I also know that I want to ensure that there's meaningful choices within those tiers, so that theres variety in how these Tiers present in the gameworld (ie, little to no monochromatically equipped enemies).
More so in the sense of whether the list is open or closed. If the players want to combine things unexpectedly or use materials not on the list, is resolving that situation still in scope for crafting, or would that handled a different way?
 

More so in the sense of whether the list is open or closed. If the players want to combine things unexpectedly or use materials not on the list, is resolving that situation still in scope for crafting, or would that handled a different way?

Ah so in that case, closed. Materials would have specific instances where they could be used; ie, leather can be the sole material in a piece of armor but would be nonsensical as a weapon.

And as far as things not considered Materials, most of the time it will be things you could only get ahold of by virtue of the improv game. Common sand or dirt is something you could pick up, but it'd have no mechanical relevance to anything. You'd know these, because you wouldn't have to invoke any sort of mechanic to get a hold of them.

That being said, Materials is intended to be fairly comprehensive, if abstracted, as they'll be applied not just in personal items but vehicles, buildings, and, through resource nodes, as resources for Settlements and Domains to draw upon.

So while a lot of common things could be used as Materials, not every random thing is going to have an effect. There would also be scrap mechanics, which is what would be found much of the time when you're looting humanoid enemies. You could loot armor and possibly even weapons, but they'd mostly be crappy and/or already damaged to nearly breaking. Useful in a pinch, but normally a waste of inventory space.

But if collected in bulk, they can be scrapped and converted into their base Materials. This would be the basis of a number of basic quests and jobs one could do, and a fairly realistic one given that scavenging battlefields was a lucrative business once upon a time, and it makes all the mechanical sense to support it.
 

Something occurs to me that I feel tends to be lost when I talk about my game is that theres a lot of nuance to how its being designed. This is something a work friend led me to after talking about what I was doing.

For example, the subject of this topic is Crafting, and a touchy subject tends to be that of Durability. As described, I think many might not actually realize just how far the game goes towards this being non-abrasive, and while it is mostly my fault for not highlighting this, at the same time, its just a big game, and every part it is interwoven into everything else.

The main thing about Durability that I think I neglected to highlight is that equipment only makes up for part of your overall "power". For weapons and armor, you'll only have up to 3 dice per item as part of its dice pool, and of course the Durability modifier itself. That by itself provides a pretty significant barrier where the difference between optimal, effective, and unviable are a lot less stark.

But what I neglect to mention is that you'll also be getting up to 2 Dice from your Class, as well as an additional Die from your Talents(Attributes), which will equalize to the largest die size your item has, and which are entirely unaffected by Durability.

So even if you take your Maul down to its lowest end, 1d4, you could still be throwing 3d12+1d4 per Attack. Thats not insignificant at all in a system where the maximum HP is going to be less than 200, and where the average mob would have less than 100. Thats another thing that I neglected to highlight.

No doubt some would still have a pretty vitriolic reaction just because its Durability, but even so, these nuances make quite a difference, at least imo, speaking as someone who would be super into conventional takes on Durability.

Edit: I also had a good idea as far as preventing people just destroying their stuff deliberately to skip the intended gameplay. The idea here would be that you can do this, but it takes Skill to do so without inadvertently destroying your item.

So you could just bash it on a rock, but the chances of that succeeding in a way that doesn't just destroy the item would be quite low; you're most likely going to break it so badly it needs to be remade entirely, effectively destroying it and as a consequence wiping out any capabilities you may have accumulated on it.

Whereas with a high skill, you could deliberately and cleanly introduce a break to allow you to incorporate new materials into the item, and this would likely just be the first step in a deliberate reforge for those at that Skill level, whereas in all other cases you'd be starting with your broken item.
 
Last edited:

So today in a fun bit of accidental design, I ended up solving some pretty key issues as I began the actual design work on this system. Namely, the balance between ranged and melee, and how I was going to differentiate between Wands and Staves when it came to Magic.

The TL;DR is, I stumbled into a clever way to leverage real-ish realism, my already existing Combat mechanics, and my in-process Crafting system to balance Melee and Ranged. Melee gets unlimited Momentum (exploding dice), Ranged has to choose between getting that and less damage, and limited Momentum with standard damage. (Or no Momentum with a big damage boost) Realizing this also solved the same issue with Magic, and as an added bonus answered the question of how I was going to differentiate Magical weapons like Wands and Staves.

Much of the overall system hasn't changed, though I have gotten a bit more clever in how I'm going to present the system from a UX perspective; while the system sounds very Crunchy, it actually is going to be incredibly smooth to engage. We're talking singular reference sheets that could fit not just the specific Sequences, but all of the applicable Materials you'd be able to use with those Sequences. Not exactly a one-pager system, but when we're looking at around 7 such sheets that will support the creation of an impractical number of possible creations? Its gonna be nice.

But getting to the important part, as I know I can ramble, today I finished up the Sequences for both Bow Making and Arrow Making. When I started, I had known from when I first conceived of the Sequence Roll how Weapons and Armor were going to work, but Bows and Arrows were a bit nebulous.

So like I initially did for melee stuff, I got to researching to see how Traditional bows and arrows are made. Distilling what I learned about bows down into a gameable Sequence was easy enough, and mechanically the Sequence ended being pretty close to Melee weapons, but modified, as Bows are used in tandem with Arrows, so I had to consider it from the perspective of the two together. As I decided that Arrows will be the weaker of the pair, this did make things a wee bit easier.

For Arrows, like Bows, figuring the Sequence itself was easy, as Arrows aren't necessarily that complicated in terms of breaking down the process into 7 Steps. Mechanics are where I hit a snag, as one critical step was eluding me for a while on what to do with it: Nocking the arrow shaft.

Traditional Arrows generally always have some form of nock or self-nock, and this is what secures the Arrow to the bowstring, and it typically adds some stability to it in-flight. So I wanted to add this as a Step, but as for what to do with it, given its a d10 step, I just wasn't sure.

I won't bother trying to recount how I eventually arrived at the solution (beat my brain like a sibling), but what I came up with was to make the addition and selection of a Nock a matter of how the Player wants to balance their potential Damage.
How this is rendered, for context, hooks into my Combat System. Specifically, my Momentum Mechanic. Momentum is a form of exploding dice, where each max value die rolled acts as a currency to do a number of different things. The main option being, of course, the typical usage of re-rolling the Die to do more damage.

For Bows and Arrows, due to how they work for reasons of Durability (and what the extra rolled damage represents in general), this effectively means you're firing a new arrow every time you use Momentum for this.

But now, with the new aspect to Arrows, Ranged users may have a limit to this. Their Nock will determine their Momentum Limit, effectively saying how many times in a row they can utilize Momentum for any sort of extra Damage, or Stance Breaking (two things that will be vital for winning combat scenarios that aren't about bullying mooks, alongside Wounds, which just rides each attack rather than being a new one), which in turn, affects how many Arrows they could potentially put out in a single Strike (Attack).

For now, how I balanced this is that the lowest value in the d10 roll, 1, will give you a Momentum Limit of 0, but also +10 to your Damage, which is substantial even in my high-octane system. You won't be able to fire off a second Arrow without making a new Strike, but it'll hit like a dragon being suplexed into the mountainside (which you could also do).
Go up a stage, and you get a limit of 1 but no Damage modifications. From there, your Momentum Limit goes up by 1 but also adds -1 damage.

With Arrows that work like this, this actually does quite a lot for balancing the inherent advantage Range has over Melee, as Melee won't have such limits, but obviously, will be dealing with more incoming damage. Range will be at its best with singular targets, and Rogue Assassins are going to really enjoy these, what with the Skyrim style sneak archer gameplay that I built into them.
But for those who will care more about their fire rate, because perhaps the Arrows are enchanted 😉, they'll be able to customize to that end.

From a real-ish standpoint, it is a little shaky as the Limbs and even the String are a factor here, and I think I'll be toying with it over time, perhaps distributing these limits across bow and arrow, rather than having come purely from the Arrow but I am quite happy with it.

As an added bonus, coming up with this idea also answered some critical questions about handling Magical Weapons, that have actually been holding me back from deep diving on that. As I wanted to support the creation of weapons like Wands and Staves, and have these carry meaningful difference, I was never particularly sure of what was going to end up being good for it.
But now, its plainly obvious. Dual Wielding Wands are gonna excel at Momentum, but still have a limit plus the damage penalties, but Staves are going to trend more towards superior firepower with limited or even no Momentum.

And the fun part is, imo, that because Magic was already going to be kookoo bananas in this game, just as Melee already is, these limits really shouldn't eat too much into the overall "fiction" of being a powerful mage, because the different ways to channel Magic convey a general and intuitive logic in how they affect what the mage can do. Of course these piddly little sticks are fast but not that strong, and of course the big honking stick is slow but has a lot of power.

So, overall, just brilliant.

And for some additional context, here are the two full Sequences for Bow and Arrow Making. Obviously envisioning what can be made without the Materials to look at will be hard, so I would suggest thinking about it this way: in each of these Sequences you'll see certain things that scale based on your roll, including the aforementioned Nock step.

Materials are going to work like that, with each Material noting what kinds of Crafting (as well as what specific Steps, if it can be used in multiple ways) it can be utilized in and what effect it adds when doing so, scaling up and down based on the roll you use it with. For example, you could use Bone for both the Arrow Shaft and Arrow Heads. The specific kind of Bone Material will have a listing for a Shaft Effect and as Arrow Heads, among the other ways it can be used.

A lot of these I'll end up finding ways to consolidate into each other; Bone for example is gonna be useable in a lot of different Crafting Sequences, so it might just have a listing that applies to many; for example, the Shaft Effect will probably be the same overall Effect Bone would give Armor.

Anyway, here they are, formatted as best as ChatGPT and I could manage, given I write these in Excel. As an additional note, any Step that states it is refundable means it doesn't have to be used, and the roll can be used as extra budget to put somewhere else:

Bow Making​

- d4: Bow Material – Select a Wood, Metal, or Bone Material to serve as the primary material for the Bow, defining its potential power and durability.

- d6: Limb Shaping – You will select a Limb Shape for your Bow corresponding to the value you roll, which will determine the draw weight of your bow, and the power it will drive through your Arrows:

1: d4; Short Recurve
2: d6; Recurve
3: d8; Deflex
4: d10; Longbow
5: d12; War Bow
6: Experimental Design
When selecting an Experimental Design, you will have two options, but both will require that the Bow Material you selected supports two damage dice. If so, then you may choose any of the 5 basic Limb Shapes, and combine them, giving you one of each respective die size. When choosing this option, your Durability will suffer, depending on the limb shapes you chose.

To determine the penalty, subtract the value corresponding to your highest die size (such as 5 for d12), from the same of your lowest die (such as 1 for d4). This value will be subtracted from your Bow's Durability Bonus. Alternatively, you may choose instead to arbitrarily select a Limb Shape, and may utilize any die size you wish with it, but your bow will suffer the same penalty, this time subtracting based on the difference in value value of your chosen die size and that of the Limb shape you chose.

- d8: Reinforcement Material – select a Material that will be used to reinforce your bow and provide you with a usable grip. This step is refundable to a value of 1, but must be used.

- d10: String Material – Select a Cloth, Hide, or Fiber Material to serve as your Bow's String. Note that among these Materials, you may require at least one of a specific die size in order to utilize them in your bow. This step is refundable to a value of 1, but must be used.

- d%: Tillering - When Tillering the Bow, you are finalizing its shape, and tuning it to your desired capabilities.
From 10-30. the Bow will increase your damage by +5, but will reduce your Wound Die size by 1. From 40-60, your Bow will double the Durability Bonus provided by the Core Material.From 70-90, your Bow will reduce your Critical Hit Range by 1, but give you an Action Rating penalty of -5.At 00, your Bow will reduce your Critical Hit Range by 2, and give you an Action Rating Penalty of -3.

- d12: Finishing – To protect your Bow against the elements, you may select an Oil Material as a finish for your Bow. You may optionally utilize any special or mundane Dyes you have at this stage, at no shaping cost. This step is fully refundable.

- d20: Test and Tune – Before your Bow can be considered finished, you will need to test and tune it. To do so, you will roll 5 Test Strikes using your Bow, rolling 1d20+Strength, and you may also add the total you initially rolled on your d20 to one of these Strikes. No other Abilities or Buffs will apply to these Strikes.

The target number is the total Crafting Budget you have spent on the bow. If you match or exceed the this number with your Test Strike, you will gain +1 to your Action Ratings when utilizing the Bow. Note however that this Bonus degrades with your Durability Bonus, dropping by 1 every time your Durability Bonus does. It may be restored, however, when Repairing or Reforging the Bow, and you will repeat this Testing and Tuning process.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Arrow Making​

- d4: Arrow Shaft Material – Select a Wood, Metal, or Bone Material to serve as the primary material for the Arrows, defining the number of Arrows you might be able to create as well as their overall Durability.

- d6: Fletching – Select a Feather or Scale Material to serve as the Fletching for the Arrows, defining its flight characteristics. Wyvern and Dragon Wing, as well as Kraken Fin, may also be utilized as a special kind of Fletching, but will come at a substantial Shaping Cost, as noted in their respective item blocks.

- d8: Arrow Head Selection – Select a set of Arrowheads to utilize for this stack of Arrows, defining its overall power. Arrowheads are created as part of the general Smithing sequence.

- d10: Nocking Point – You will determine a desired Nocking Point for your Arrows, affecting its draw speed and power.

At a value of 1, you will have a Momentum Limit of 0, but may add +10 Damage, and reduce your Critical Hit range by 1.
At a value of 2, you will have a Momentum Limit of 1, and no damage penalty.
With each successive value up to 10, you may add +1 to your Momentum Limit, and -1 to your Damage.

- d%: Shaft Straightening – You will ensure that each Arrow is perfectly balanced and straightened to guarantee your desired performance, but this may come at the cost of some of your Arrows.

From 10-30. the Arrows will be crudely straight, and you will suffer a penalty of -2 to your Action Rating, and you'll suffer the loss of half of your possible Arrows, reducing their Durability Bonus by half.

From 40-60, your Arrows will be acceptably straight and balanced. You will suffer no penalty to your Action Rating, but will still lose some of your Arrows. Reduce your Durability bonus by 15.

From 70-90, your Arrows will have a well-tuned precision in their make, and you will gain a +5 bonus to your Action Rating. Only a few Arrows are lost, and you will reduce your Durability Bonus by 5.

At 00, your Arrows are immaculate and will fly perfectly true. You have lost no Arrows, and will gain a +10 Bonus to your Action Rating, and may also reduce your Critical Hit range by 1.

- d12: Finishing – While not typically necessary, some may wish to apply a finish to their Arrows. You may select an Oil Material to utilize on your arrows, and may additionally utilize any special or mundane Dyes at no additional shaping cost. This step is fully refundable.

- d20: Assembly – With everything selected and the shafts ready to become arrows, you will now assemble them. Note that even with immaculate arrow shafts, the assembly process may still result in arrows that are useless to you.

From 1-9, you will hastily create a small set of arrows, reducing your maximum Durability Bonus to no more than 25, but this will only take 10 minutes.

From 10-11, you will spend an hour on your Arrows, and will see your maximum Durability Bonus will be reduced to 50, or by half, whichever is higher.

From 12-19, you will spend roughly two hours on your Arrows, but you will still lose a few. Reduce the Durability Bonus by 10.

If you roll a Natural 20, you will only spend 1 minute to make each arrow, and will not lose any of them. If you instead purchase a 20 with your Crafting Budget, you will not lose any Arrows, but will take 2 hours to assemble all of them.
 
Last edited:

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top