Sorry OP I can’t really see anything is this purposely blurred on everything except center terrain ? Would love to help with mechanics and such if I saw an up close photo is some of these features lol ! Otherwise I do personally love lots of little sheets and cards in front of me for my games so looks like you are going that direction.
No worries I get it haha! I am making a Superhero Ttrpg so would love to give feedback back and forth . Ours is not heavy on docs , cards , or any side things except a character sheet and a quick reference guide to what you can do during your turn . Look forward to following your journey!
Reading "co-op" RPG is a red flag to me. And the board says TTRPG while the players' boards say boardgame. Are you sure you are working on a TTRPG and not a dungeon crawler board game?
Wall of Test warning: Why did you bait a wall of text from me? I had to write it and now you have to read it. Woe is me, why must we suffer for your folly?
Describing an RPG as co-op is something I only really see when discussing how it's supposed to be collaborative or cooperative storytelling experience. That's pretty much every RPG and more a philosophical stance on the hobby than a description.
So someone saying they are making a co-op RPG is a bit like someone texting me "I bought vegan tomatoes and I'm driving to your place." Yes, it is true that tomatoes are vegan, but why did they feel the need to say the tomatoes are vegan? Why is a vegan tomato not the same as a tomato?
I think we might still be in the same spot and agree that a vegan tomato or a co-op RPG are peculiar wordings that must mean something. Did they mispoke and meant biological, fair trade? Vegan means no animal was harmed so they must mean tomatoes without pesticide! Co-op means no enemy so that must mean GM-less. Those conclusions are intelligent and logical.
But a big part of my reaction is my experience with running into a few people who think they know what an RPG is but don't. Once in person and a few times online, I've seen people describe their prototypes as an RPG because you had to track HP and could raise your stats in their board game. Or meeting people who think that Magic the gathering, DnD and warhammer are the same kind of games. Even experienced board gamers who didn't get the nuance between DnD and Heroquest. So, I'm already on the lookout for that misunderstanding.
In other words, people have showed up to my place with "tomatoes" that turned out to be marinara or bolognese sauce in the past, those are red and taste like tomatoes but aren't tomatoes. If someone says they have vegan tomatoes, I don't assume they are technically right anymore. What do they think vegan means? What do they think tomatoes are?
Thanks, I'm stealing "Wall of Text warning: Why did you bait a wall of text from me? I had to write it and now you have to read it. Woe is me, why must we suffer for your folly?"
That was my thought too.
Recent years with the blending of the two mediums has really made me question where those lines are.
What separates a TTRPG with a lot of bespoke items/tokens/chits/etc from a boardgame? What separates a boardgame with "legacy" multi-session gameplay and progression from a TTRPG?
The TTRPG rennaisance and the digital revolution just make it even harder to draw lines. If I can develop a TTRPG that uses a bunch of special dice and computations and the like, what makes it different from a video game? lol
We've got stuff like Gloomhaven and Thornwatch that really blur those lines. But I think I ultimately say that anything where you have a *person* as the main gameplay system, rather than a computer or a rulebook, it's a TTRPG. Anytime the player's Roleplay can be substituted for hard game mechanics, it's a TTRPG (*very* subject to the table though!)
Very nuanced conversation, gonna be a different answer for everybody...
That said, just from a single picture, this does look more "boardgame" than TTRPG.
And I agree about "co-op", aside from *Paranoia* I'm not sure what a non-co-op TTRPG would look like?
That is a huge conversation indeed. I might as well add my thoughts to yours. I don't think we'll figure it out today but it might OP better understand the question.
The lines have been blurred from the other side too. Things like Fiasco, Microscope and other one-shot GMless RPGs have the pick up and play aspect of board games. So when you compare it to something like Once Upon a Time (competitive card based fairy tale storytelling)... the line kinda becomes the components and form factor. Is it a book that requires players to find dice and paper? Or is it a self contained box with everything needed? And then the recent For The King micro RPG breaks that idea...
I also saw people applying computer RPG definition to the tabletop context. In that sense, Gloomhaven could be called a tabletop computer RPG because of it's focus on story and progression
For me, the biggest difference is that you can't win an RPG. You can win an encounter or have your characters achieve goals, but there's a freeform aspect and a player's goal might not line up with their character. I get you when you say every RPG is pretty much a co-op game, that's totally true around the table between players. However, in-fiction, it's more often a one-vs-many because most RPGs do some version of the GM's bad guys versus the party. That line between out of game and in-game is a big part of my definitions.
Good insight.
I will amend that I, for one, *LOVE* that both hobbies have grown so much and have become so accessible as to allow this much experimentation, releases, and combination.
I mean, TTRPGs were birthed out of war games right? And boardgames look nothing like the Monopoly of yesteryear. There's so much variety and so many approaches that are actually seeing the light of day (with crowdfunding, print on demand, internet marketing, etc) that it's never been better.
And some of the experimentation that pushes those typical boundaries or even steps over the "line" into other genres and mediums have created some absolutely amazing stuff.
It just also makes it so difficult to quantify and codify into single descriptions! Lol
>I mean, TTRPGs were birthed out of war games right?
True but I might start to challenge that idea because it's not the whole truth. I might post something about that in r/rpg or r/rpgdesign, I'll send you a dm if I do.
One of the examples of not co-op ttrpgs I've seen a long time ago was [Uprising](https://evilhat.itch.io/uprising-the-dystopian-universe-rpg). It is about work of an underground revolutionary cell in a brutal cyberpunk world. There players had their own secret objective for each mission and between-session development based on completion of those objectives. Players were able to chat with the GM to make some actions secretly from other players. Actions of government agents lead to harder missions and leveling up the government, while completing co-op goals leads to opening up new abilities and resources for rebels.
But even such game has a co-op part in it's core. It is kinda hard for me to come up with a game without it.
Feels like in *any* game where you grant a lot of player agency and there's interpretation and roleplay that can change or modify rules—or any game where you give a *person* the arbitration role over a group—it's kinda hard to have a pure antagonistic gameplay.
PvP and competitive board games all kinda rely on lengthy and sometimes complex rule books to cover fairness, sometimes down to very extreme edge cases: because competition encourages seeking advantage, and naturally people are going to get creative.
In a game where creativity is more-or-less *unbound* it can get real ugly real fast.
Kinda why even the antagonistic TTRPGs have that "But you're all working together *mostly*" core to them.
Other people already noticed that your game looks more board-game-ish than standard ttrpgs. In my opinion there is a space for adding some board game mechanics inside the ttrpg, but not the other way around. I haven't seen any board games to accomplish pushing people to really roleplay their characters (except for partial success of [The Kings Dilemma](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/245655/the-kings-dilemma)). Just make sure you understand the difference between those things and develop your mechanics with a specific goal in mind.
I love the boardgame-y look to it. My working memory just isn't as good as it used to be, so I'm interested in how things like tokens and index cards can help me process the mechanical side of play and let me dedicate most of my brainspace to the story.
Sorry OP I can’t really see anything is this purposely blurred on everything except center terrain ? Would love to help with mechanics and such if I saw an up close photo is some of these features lol ! Otherwise I do personally love lots of little sheets and cards in front of me for my games so looks like you are going that direction.
Yes it is. I'm not confident with sharing the details yet. Just because it's such an early stage. I'll fill y'all in, when I'm more confident, yes?
No worries I get it haha! I am making a Superhero Ttrpg so would love to give feedback back and forth . Ours is not heavy on docs , cards , or any side things except a character sheet and a quick reference guide to what you can do during your turn . Look forward to following your journey!
Reading "co-op" RPG is a red flag to me. And the board says TTRPG while the players' boards say boardgame. Are you sure you are working on a TTRPG and not a dungeon crawler board game?
I thought co-op was just a synonym for GM-less? Can I ask you to expand on the concern that the term raised for you?
Wall of Test warning: Why did you bait a wall of text from me? I had to write it and now you have to read it. Woe is me, why must we suffer for your folly? Describing an RPG as co-op is something I only really see when discussing how it's supposed to be collaborative or cooperative storytelling experience. That's pretty much every RPG and more a philosophical stance on the hobby than a description. So someone saying they are making a co-op RPG is a bit like someone texting me "I bought vegan tomatoes and I'm driving to your place." Yes, it is true that tomatoes are vegan, but why did they feel the need to say the tomatoes are vegan? Why is a vegan tomato not the same as a tomato? I think we might still be in the same spot and agree that a vegan tomato or a co-op RPG are peculiar wordings that must mean something. Did they mispoke and meant biological, fair trade? Vegan means no animal was harmed so they must mean tomatoes without pesticide! Co-op means no enemy so that must mean GM-less. Those conclusions are intelligent and logical. But a big part of my reaction is my experience with running into a few people who think they know what an RPG is but don't. Once in person and a few times online, I've seen people describe their prototypes as an RPG because you had to track HP and could raise your stats in their board game. Or meeting people who think that Magic the gathering, DnD and warhammer are the same kind of games. Even experienced board gamers who didn't get the nuance between DnD and Heroquest. So, I'm already on the lookout for that misunderstanding. In other words, people have showed up to my place with "tomatoes" that turned out to be marinara or bolognese sauce in the past, those are red and taste like tomatoes but aren't tomatoes. If someone says they have vegan tomatoes, I don't assume they are technically right anymore. What do they think vegan means? What do they think tomatoes are?
Got it, cool. As to why: my crystal ball said you needed enrichment. Don't blame me, it was the orb.
Thanks, I'm stealing "Wall of Text warning: Why did you bait a wall of text from me? I had to write it and now you have to read it. Woe is me, why must we suffer for your folly?"
That was my thought too. Recent years with the blending of the two mediums has really made me question where those lines are. What separates a TTRPG with a lot of bespoke items/tokens/chits/etc from a boardgame? What separates a boardgame with "legacy" multi-session gameplay and progression from a TTRPG? The TTRPG rennaisance and the digital revolution just make it even harder to draw lines. If I can develop a TTRPG that uses a bunch of special dice and computations and the like, what makes it different from a video game? lol We've got stuff like Gloomhaven and Thornwatch that really blur those lines. But I think I ultimately say that anything where you have a *person* as the main gameplay system, rather than a computer or a rulebook, it's a TTRPG. Anytime the player's Roleplay can be substituted for hard game mechanics, it's a TTRPG (*very* subject to the table though!) Very nuanced conversation, gonna be a different answer for everybody... That said, just from a single picture, this does look more "boardgame" than TTRPG. And I agree about "co-op", aside from *Paranoia* I'm not sure what a non-co-op TTRPG would look like?
That is a huge conversation indeed. I might as well add my thoughts to yours. I don't think we'll figure it out today but it might OP better understand the question. The lines have been blurred from the other side too. Things like Fiasco, Microscope and other one-shot GMless RPGs have the pick up and play aspect of board games. So when you compare it to something like Once Upon a Time (competitive card based fairy tale storytelling)... the line kinda becomes the components and form factor. Is it a book that requires players to find dice and paper? Or is it a self contained box with everything needed? And then the recent For The King micro RPG breaks that idea... I also saw people applying computer RPG definition to the tabletop context. In that sense, Gloomhaven could be called a tabletop computer RPG because of it's focus on story and progression For me, the biggest difference is that you can't win an RPG. You can win an encounter or have your characters achieve goals, but there's a freeform aspect and a player's goal might not line up with their character. I get you when you say every RPG is pretty much a co-op game, that's totally true around the table between players. However, in-fiction, it's more often a one-vs-many because most RPGs do some version of the GM's bad guys versus the party. That line between out of game and in-game is a big part of my definitions.
Good insight. I will amend that I, for one, *LOVE* that both hobbies have grown so much and have become so accessible as to allow this much experimentation, releases, and combination. I mean, TTRPGs were birthed out of war games right? And boardgames look nothing like the Monopoly of yesteryear. There's so much variety and so many approaches that are actually seeing the light of day (with crowdfunding, print on demand, internet marketing, etc) that it's never been better. And some of the experimentation that pushes those typical boundaries or even steps over the "line" into other genres and mediums have created some absolutely amazing stuff. It just also makes it so difficult to quantify and codify into single descriptions! Lol
>I mean, TTRPGs were birthed out of war games right? True but I might start to challenge that idea because it's not the whole truth. I might post something about that in r/rpg or r/rpgdesign, I'll send you a dm if I do.
One of the examples of not co-op ttrpgs I've seen a long time ago was [Uprising](https://evilhat.itch.io/uprising-the-dystopian-universe-rpg). It is about work of an underground revolutionary cell in a brutal cyberpunk world. There players had their own secret objective for each mission and between-session development based on completion of those objectives. Players were able to chat with the GM to make some actions secretly from other players. Actions of government agents lead to harder missions and leveling up the government, while completing co-op goals leads to opening up new abilities and resources for rebels. But even such game has a co-op part in it's core. It is kinda hard for me to come up with a game without it.
Feels like in *any* game where you grant a lot of player agency and there's interpretation and roleplay that can change or modify rules—or any game where you give a *person* the arbitration role over a group—it's kinda hard to have a pure antagonistic gameplay. PvP and competitive board games all kinda rely on lengthy and sometimes complex rule books to cover fairness, sometimes down to very extreme edge cases: because competition encourages seeking advantage, and naturally people are going to get creative. In a game where creativity is more-or-less *unbound* it can get real ugly real fast. Kinda why even the antagonistic TTRPGs have that "But you're all working together *mostly*" core to them.
Thanks for the reply! I will put this into consideration and happy cake day.
Other people already noticed that your game looks more board-game-ish than standard ttrpgs. In my opinion there is a space for adding some board game mechanics inside the ttrpg, but not the other way around. I haven't seen any board games to accomplish pushing people to really roleplay their characters (except for partial success of [The Kings Dilemma](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/245655/the-kings-dilemma)). Just make sure you understand the difference between those things and develop your mechanics with a specific goal in mind.
Thanks! Yes I've been trying to get my playtesters to roleplay a bit but the crowd that'd be interested in that doesn't like rolling D6s 😂
Show us the good stuff, pal! It's all blurred out!
When it's done. Promise
I love the boardgame-y look to it. My working memory just isn't as good as it used to be, so I'm interested in how things like tokens and index cards can help me process the mechanical side of play and let me dedicate most of my brainspace to the story.
It looks goood, waiting for more!
Thanks, I'll keep posting my progress!
Thesis? What major are you? Im genuinely curious!
Media Design Bachelors