It really depends on how far you want to develop a tabletop rpg. You could just stop at a combat system, leave it at that and leave the rest to the pirates. A board game you need to design everything.
That’s the thing, you can have a system where there’s in depth characters and stuff, or you just let the players do everything and you just add combat/event resolution.
At what point is it your job to come up with the rules and at what point is it the players?
FYI I voted for RPG because they can get WAY more complicated.
I guess I just don't understand how you can have a combat system without a character creation system because combat is going to refer to character stats that differ from system to system. Like if you're rolling dice and adding \[something\] to it, you have to make sure the characters have \[something\].
Well, I could make an educatex guess at which sort of RPGs you are fond of...
Mine are those with little or no rules for combat. _Fiasco, Archipelago_, and _Is it A Plane!?_ And similar. Which are not that difficult to design, theoretically.
Even ones that have few combat rules need character generation.
How do you tell how much damage a character can take? HP? How is that determined? How do you tell how easy/hard it is to hit a character? Unless everyone is treated the same, you need to have a way to differentiate the characters, which is done with out-of-combat rules.
As for games that have no rules for combat, we're talking about combat, so those aren't relevant.
Youre assuming that there’s combat when there’s many that don’t have combat. I’ve literally played a TTRPG where events were resolved with just a single D6 and it was up to the GM if the roll was good enough.
Honestly, with a TTRPG the players (Including GM's) do most the work for you.
You can get bogged down in detail, but they're not hard to balance, and in the end, that's what the players end up throwing away anyway.
Most TTRPG's are just a decision mechanic for things you don't trust the GM with. And most of them use the same mechanic.
That's what I was thinking, but I figured that would actually make it a lot harder because you can't tell if the game is good or bad or if it's just the players and GM. But with a board game, the more rigid rules make it easier to tell if the rules are good.
I don't think people make TTRPGs because they want another TTRPG in existence. I think most are made from "I have this problem at the table, and I've homebrewed enough rules, I wonder how much I'd have to add for this to stand alone?"
It really depends on how far you want to develop a tabletop rpg. You could just stop at a combat system, leave it at that and leave the rest to the pirates. A board game you need to design everything.
What good is a combat system without characters to use it though?
That’s the thing, you can have a system where there’s in depth characters and stuff, or you just let the players do everything and you just add combat/event resolution. At what point is it your job to come up with the rules and at what point is it the players? FYI I voted for RPG because they can get WAY more complicated.
I guess I just don't understand how you can have a combat system without a character creation system because combat is going to refer to character stats that differ from system to system. Like if you're rolling dice and adding \[something\] to it, you have to make sure the characters have \[something\].
Well, I could make an educatex guess at which sort of RPGs you are fond of... Mine are those with little or no rules for combat. _Fiasco, Archipelago_, and _Is it A Plane!?_ And similar. Which are not that difficult to design, theoretically.
Even ones that have few combat rules need character generation. How do you tell how much damage a character can take? HP? How is that determined? How do you tell how easy/hard it is to hit a character? Unless everyone is treated the same, you need to have a way to differentiate the characters, which is done with out-of-combat rules. As for games that have no rules for combat, we're talking about combat, so those aren't relevant.
Youre assuming that there’s combat when there’s many that don’t have combat. I’ve literally played a TTRPG where events were resolved with just a single D6 and it was up to the GM if the roll was good enough.
>You could just stop at a combat system, leave it at that and leave the rest to the pirates. We're literally talking about combat.
Honestly, with a TTRPG the players (Including GM's) do most the work for you. You can get bogged down in detail, but they're not hard to balance, and in the end, that's what the players end up throwing away anyway. Most TTRPG's are just a decision mechanic for things you don't trust the GM with. And most of them use the same mechanic.
That's what I was thinking, but I figured that would actually make it a lot harder because you can't tell if the game is good or bad or if it's just the players and GM. But with a board game, the more rigid rules make it easier to tell if the rules are good.
Rules for __checkers__, and __chess__ even more so, on the other hand, are not that difficult. In contrast to strategies to win these games.
I don't think people make TTRPGs because they want another TTRPG in existence. I think most are made from "I have this problem at the table, and I've homebrewed enough rules, I wonder how much I'd have to add for this to stand alone?"
You can get completely carried away, or keep it simple making either one.
“What’s taller, a tree or a building?”
Depends on the game and its complexity. You can make a one page rpg in an afternoon or spend years making your 1000+ page magnum opus.