|
1,013 posts
|
95 likes
|
Feb 27, 2023 22:33:22 GMT
|
Administrator
|
Post by Seya on Dec 29, 2015 21:02:54 GMT
Okay, so I'm more than a little bit obsessed with games like Monster Hunter and Shadow of the Colossus where you fight BIG SCARY THINGS and feel really good about beating them. My current campaign over on PTf has a little bit of Monster Hunter-esque crafting, and I know there was already a game over there literally called "Pokemonster Hunter!" or something, but... it looks nearly dead, and I really want to make a game to combine three of my favourite games of all time. But I'm wondering how people would want to actually play it. Being a roll-play would be easy enough--less storyline, more numbers and mechanic-based--but how could this be implemented? Also there are TONS of mechanical details to sort through (using Lwmons' wonderful PokeMonster Homebrew page as a starting point, though it'll be heavily changed). Right now I'm just searching for interest and input as to how to handle it. Points of Consideration:- Hunters (players, not the class) will start with a single pokemon companion ("palimon?") and it will be very very difficult to get more, unless you opt to buy them.
- Not all weapon classes will be available. To keep it less mechanically inconvenient, will probably be sticking to GS, LS, S&S, HH, HBG, Bow, and IG.
- Weapon damage will be divided percent-wise into Raw and Elemental damage, affected by Attack and SpAttack respectively.
- There will not be features for Blademaster or Gunner (or Sentinel)... you can switch weapons as needed, though keep in mind you'll only start with Weapon of Choice in one.
- I'd like to merge in the puzzle kinda stuff of Shadow of the Colossus but it's possible that'll be a lost cause. We'll see. :L
- I have a lot of monsters and weapons/armor/weaknesses to plan out oh dear Arceus!
|
|
|
355 posts
|
13 likes
|
Oct 13, 2018 19:33:19 GMT
|
Member
|
Post by David Hilm on Jan 1, 2016 0:18:40 GMT
If you need any help, specifically in regards to making equipment, all you gotta do is ask me. There is a homebrew Monster Hunter for DnD 5e that has a solution for carving parts as well. When you kill a Mon, you roll 1d4+1 to determine the number of carves you get off of it. Then for each carve you get, roll a 1d100 and get a piece of the Mon depending on the roll and the Mon itself. If you capture the Mon instead of killing it you can add or subtract 10 from each roll you get, making getting certain items a bit easier. Here's a link to the Google Doc Page 10 is the section about what you can get off of what roll for each monster. Page 12 has ideas on what parts to use to make each piece of equipment as well.
|
|
|
1,013 posts
|
95 likes
|
Feb 27, 2023 22:33:22 GMT
|
Administrator
|
Post by Seya on Jan 1, 2016 0:19:51 GMT
Brilliant! I'll definitely take a look.
|
|
|
355 posts
|
13 likes
|
Oct 13, 2018 19:33:19 GMT
|
Member
|
Post by David Hilm on Jan 1, 2016 2:49:59 GMT
I tested it out with some friends one time, I'll add this much about the carving mechanics. If each player is going to want to make and upgrade equipment from each monster, the 1d4+1 carves will equate to fighting a single monster probably 3-4 times.
If each player goes into it based on a theme(one player wanting Electric/Ground, one player wanting Grass/Ice, one player wanting Fire/Dragon etc) then you wont have to fight the same monster over and over and over, because after each player Carves from it they can funnel their pieces to the player that it makes the most sense to have it.
I know that actual Monster Hunter encourages fighting a single monster over and over(and over and over and over and over and FUCK YOU APEX RAJANG JUST GIVE ME THE FUCKING PELT!) but in tabletop that doesn't always translate to a pleasant experience.
|
|
|
1,013 posts
|
95 likes
|
Feb 27, 2023 22:33:22 GMT
|
Administrator
|
Post by Seya on Jan 1, 2016 12:49:24 GMT
Yeah, and I'm not sure I'd use the "only getting gem on 100" kinda idea. Like, I'm happy with them being rare, but... that rare? I'd rather use LR/HR values than GR ones. Probably going with Lwmons' idea of only having three armor 'slots': head, torso? (including arms), and legs (waist/legs). Although better words for those will be incoming.... My initial concern isn't mechanics, though, it's story. Even the MH games had something, but they don't really ever end. Games without at least a general idea for an end point make me nervous. Also, how much RP people want as compared to roll-play.
|
|
|
154 posts
|
1 like
|
Jul 16, 2018 14:13:48 GMT
|
Member
|
Post by anonyman on Jan 1, 2016 22:53:39 GMT
I think a big thing about the Monster hunter game though is that each individual 'hunt' has a story, but its quite small. This rich person wants a baby X, go get an egg, this persons field is being ravaged by Y, go kill it.
In a tabletop setting, these stories can be fleshed out past a little job marking, and each one can be its own adventure. PokeMonster hunter may merely be a profession while the players have their own individual goals (Such as 'my father died trying to hunt down a massive Aggron, I must avenge him' or a chef thats seeking to devour one of each monster.)
Depending on how much you stick with the 'plot' of monster hunter (where effectively you're mercenaries) you may need to rely on the players themselves to craft an overarching story if you're too nervous about the idea of substories not being enough RP meat.
And with carves, while RNG can work, I'd advise making it possible to target certain parts to increase your chances. If the player really needs a horn, make it so they can target the horn (Or, perhaps, avoid it if the risk is breaking it). You can artificially set bonus challenges to fights if you make it clear that in order to get the piece they need for a gear they have to beat the boss in a specific way. The Starmie fight may go from moderately easy to hard if they have to take an AC penalty to avoid hitting (and potentially cracking) the gemstone in the center.
(Also, the carve system is in place to encourage replayability...which may not be something you want in a PbP with how slow it goes. Fighting the same monster 3 times isnt a big deal in MH, but that could be another two months in a PbP setting of, effectively, nothing new.)
|
|
|
355 posts
|
13 likes
|
Oct 13, 2018 19:33:19 GMT
|
Member
|
Post by David Hilm on Jan 2, 2016 16:22:41 GMT
The story I was going to go with was in a modified MonHun world. As opposed to a single guild that was in charge of hosting the hunts and whatnot I had there be two dueling guilds. One with more organization and one with more brutal tactics and stuff. This would end up leading to situations where the players would be on a hunt that had been given out by both guilds, and may potentially end up not only fighting a big monster but also competing against the rival guild to be the one to take it out and get paid. At one point they ended up having to fight a rival party during the fight with the giant monster, with both groups having to split their focus between one another and the monster.
From there, building the story is focused more around the conflicts between guilds, or even introducing a third guild with its own motivations or whatever.
|
|
|
1,013 posts
|
95 likes
|
Feb 27, 2023 22:33:22 GMT
|
Administrator
|
Post by Seya on Jan 2, 2016 16:39:08 GMT
Here I was planning something using time and resource management. Like I said, more focused on roll play than roleplay (although certainly having some aspects of the latter). Discovering a new massive island to use as an outpost, but first the area has to be better established. A number of hunter triads sent in to report back on what they've found. There would be small monsters, big monsters, and then colossal ones... anonyman - I definitely agree with the carving issue you listed. And there would definitely be ways of targeting specific parts. Personally I think the bigger the monster, the more rolls you get, but at the same time as David Hilm said earlier, hopefully people won't all be going for every monster. Pooling resources is never a bad idea. I also wanted to give people the option of substituting certain crafting components with a similar piece from a pokemonster with the same element-- although this would have slightly reduced stats, of course, because it isn't a 'pure' (or single-monster) item (i.e., you can use some Charmeleon hide in place of some Charizard hide, but it would cause a slight penalty to armor).
|
|
|
1,013 posts
|
95 likes
|
Feb 27, 2023 22:33:22 GMT
|
Administrator
|
Post by Seya on Jan 2, 2016 22:36:31 GMT
Okay, so I have a map with ten (guh!) different areas now. How many boss monsters would even make sense for each zone? I have 8+ listed (for each) but that seems like a whole lot, as unlike in MH, these ones aren't as likely to overlap... D:
Also plenty of small pokemonsters and a few special ones I have for other purposes.
|
|
|
154 posts
|
1 like
|
Jul 16, 2018 14:13:48 GMT
|
Member
|
Post by anonyman on Jan 2, 2016 23:35:20 GMT
It might be that all 8 may not be there at the same time. If you clear out a Charizard, you might just clear the way for a Magmortar to come in and take the territory where it might not have before.
|
|
|
1,013 posts
|
95 likes
|
Feb 27, 2023 22:33:22 GMT
|
Administrator
|
Post by Seya on Jan 2, 2016 23:53:34 GMT
Well, yes, I just meant as the total number of monsters (to stat out, build stuff for, etc.) might be very high... would it be better to keep a limited number of them, d'you think?
|
|
|
154 posts
|
1 like
|
Jul 16, 2018 14:13:48 GMT
|
Member
|
Post by anonyman on Jan 3, 2016 1:09:50 GMT
Hmm, well i'm not entirely sure what the question is. Having 8 of them running around *at the same time* could be crazy, especially if you're balancing one of them to be a tough fight, too high a possibility of running into two (in which case the players would be screwed if they dont run) could be frustrating. If I were doing it, I'd probably have 4 or 5 possibilities, and add in some more as some are taken out. Save yourself some statting work as well as making it less 'crowded'. Depending on how much ground needs to be covered, maybe even as low as 2 or 3 in one area might be better. This would also cut down the chance of constantly running into the big fellows when someone is trying to hunt smaller pray to fill out what materials they need or such.
I doubt you'll ever run out of mons for an area to the point where you need a 'cap' of how many ever show up, and if so...I guess your players just *really* like the zone? I would just replenish new mons as needed unless something is set up to keep away newcomers (perhaps some kind of 'fake nest' to make roaming giant mons think the territory is taken, or something like that if the players *want* to keep away new giants).
|
|
|
355 posts
|
13 likes
|
Oct 13, 2018 19:33:19 GMT
|
Member
|
Post by David Hilm on Jan 3, 2016 4:51:42 GMT
It depends on what all you want to do with the parts. If Charizard equipment is going to give the same bonus as Magmortar equipment and Houndoom equipment and Heatran equipment, then there isn't much of a point to making them all. But with PTU having the Alchemy stuff, you could believably have Charizard equipment give you vastly different bonuses than the equipment from the other fire types.
Could also consider giving different weapon types some different moves. Dual Blades are crazy fast, but don't deal particularly high damage on their own, while Greatswords are massive and deal massive damage but are slower to attack. Maybe Dual Blades are more inclined to get the mechanically weaker At-Will moves, while Greatswords gravitate towards EoT or even Scene/Daily moves with Smite or something. It could encourage players to use a variety of weapon types depending on what may be more useful in any given situation.
I really like the idea you had of being able to substitute Charmeleon/Charmander parts for Charizard equipment for lesser strength. That is definitely something I would be inclined to use.
As far as the 1d100 roll for parts, keep in mind that if you capture the monster you can add or subtract 10 to your roll after its revealed, making getting those gems much easier. It also encourages at least one extra hunt of those monsters, so you aren't wasting time statting them all up for just a single encounter.
|
|
|
59 posts
|
1 like
|
Nov 26, 2017 10:06:27 GMT
|
Member
|
Post by Nestor on Jan 15, 2016 23:58:01 GMT
Well, I'm not really aware of Monster Hunter, I just looked it up in Wikipedia, but from what I've read of your discussion till now, it seems like a pretty good idea. Now as a environmentalist that I am, I tend to lay out a pretty logical set when it comes to selecting the pokemon/creatures that live in an area. Making a proper food chain. Now if you take out the main predator of the place, what you're gonna get is many opportunistic species reproducing like crazy, and many lower level creatures, which could be also a job for Hunters to clean up. You can also get opportunistic predators roaming into the area from neighboring regions where their alpha predators are dominating. A constant fluctuating environment
|
|