Skip to main content

On Sale: GamesAssetsToolsTabletopComics
Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(+1)

I'll have to give it a read, at 58 pages Into the Woods isn't exactly tiny. Sounds about right though, from your description. Meanwhile, to answer your question, I mean a system that doesn't require decisions to be taken for enemies during combat, removing the need for either a game master or AI. Fewer dice rolls are a bonus, though that's much less important when a computer does all the math for you. So I came up with this concept where enemies have an overall combat score (it's not like you should be able to see their exact stats anyway). You roll the dice; if you beat their combat score, you deal damage. If you fall short, you take damage instead. Variety would come from which of your stats you roll against and various (dis)advantages providing trade-offs.

Of course, as always the devil is in the details, hence why I started this conversation. Thanks for the help!

Haha, well very true! My game is not exactly small. Still, I'm happy to hear you are giving it a look, and I'll be extra happy if it proves useful to you in any way at all. Of course, I'd love to hear if you enjoy the game (if you do give it a shot and not just read through it). As to your explanation, yes, that was much more clear! Thank you for that. Sounds like I did get the general idea then. Sounds like a cool game though, so I look forward to how this all turns out in the end.

(+1)

Oh, 58 pages is small enough, just not possible to figure out at a glance. I left you a comment (and a rating). Other considerations aside, I notice your game does rely on opposed checks after all. And it turns out my rules had a fatal flaw as described earlier. Going to pivot again and try for a rock-paper-scissors system pitting each of the three attributes against a certain other. That should make combat interesting enough: what to do when your favored stat is well-matched by the opponent's?

(+1)

I hear ya. I appreciate the comment and rating, even if the game wasn't to your taste. I'll be responding to your comment there as well (for the benefit of future folks). Anyway, I was perhaps unclear last night, but yes, my game does rely on opposed checks, but only some of the time. Either way, it sounds like you still got something out of reading so I suppose that's good enough lol. Wishing you the best with your own game of course :)