Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Dungeon of Bad Ends (Homebrew System)

Morathor

Morathor

Supernova
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Location
Midwestern USA
This is the OOC and planning thread for Dungeon of Bad Ends. Current players:
--Morathor (DM)
--Sync
--Jovialtraveler
--freeko
--SoupIsGoodFood
--Kaybee

Related threads:
--Game Thread
--System Rules
--Character Profiles
--Dice Log

I'll try to get the full rules organized into a thread today after work, and put a link to them here. In the meantime, though, we can talk about setting, plot, and character ideas.

We currently only have two players; I should certainly be able to balance encounters for two characters, or you could each play several characters if you prefer a larger party.

Another thing to think about, which will tie into setting and story, will be what we want to do after a bad end, since the defeated characters aren't rejoining the party. Do you want to put together new characters if your old ones are defeated, and keep the RP going indefinitely? Or do we want the party to have to continue on with reduced numbers, and only run the game until they achieve their objective or fail completely? We can also have defeated characters return as villains, if you would like.
 
Last edited:
I feel like making new characters in a new party (including any survivors) would work best, in between dungeon runs.
I’d also be happy to play up to two characters at a time - for as long as we only have two players.
 
Hey!

I vastly prefer playing only one character at a time. I think that we could do a mix of going indefinitely and complete failure by adding a sort of 'rest stops' functionality. From my experience, in established systems, most of the time when a new character is necessary they get pseudo-retconned in and there is no risk of losing the entire party unless a tpk occurs; however, with the theme of this RP being bad ends it might be interesting to limit when new characters can arrive to keep up the risk of a total bad end. So if we can only recruit new members to the party a 'rest stop' like, a town, or other designated points throughout the adventures it would keep that risk while still allowing the narrative to continue unbroken.

I think that having at least three characters in the party would be a good idea as opposed to two because it is very possible that the characters won't have time to form a partnership, which is usually the benefit of a two person party. Whether we hit three or more through Davian_Veq playing two character, another player joining, or something else, regardless they all seem good to me.

Oh, having old characters come back as villains, or bosses, is a fantastic idea! Although if we have lots and lots of characters having bad ends it might be a good idea to limit the amount of them that are re-introduced to only characters that were significant in some way.
 
Well, it looks like a third player may be joining us, so even if everyone only plays one character we'll still have a party of three. That said, while this roleplay is probably going to be fairly heavy on both combat and smut, I do hope to make some breathing room for roleplay between characters. I'm not sure if that was your concern with a two-character party, or if it was just that interpersonal developments are frequently going to be cut short by characters' defeat.

It sounds like you both would like to have breaks from the dungeon setting in a safe haven, rather than a continuous dungeon crawl with a brief respite between challenges. I can certainly work with that. This could either entail multiple smaller dungeons, or one larger dungeon with a sort of "checkpoint" system. For example, if the dungeon were originally a holy place that has been corrupted, there may be altars or artifacts in key rooms that can be activated to purify or ward the area you've already fought your way through.

Do you guys want this to just be a perpetual RP, that will keep running as long as we're all still interested, or did you want to have some sort of endgame? A win condition, like collecting a set of rare artifacts or beating a certain number of bosses? There could also be a lose condition, such as a TPK or the fall of a certain number of heroes. We could use one or both, or of course neither, depending on what you would prefer.

Also, I agree that probably not every fallen hero should return as a villain. I think it's going to depend on both the character, and the nature of their fall. In particular, a hero captured by enemies with low intelligence is probably looking at more of a mindbreak scenario than a corruption--ravished and abused until they lose all hope or sense of self, but in no shape to become an agent of evil. A more intelligent villain would probably be needed to get into the character's head.
 
Awesome! Yeah my concern was more of the latter, that there wouldn't be much time for a partnership to develop if one half of it was defeated often.

That sounds like a great setting! A fallen, corrupted holy-place that still has remnants of goodness that can be used to generate safe havens! :D

I'd be fine with any of these options. We could also just have the goal of surviving as long as we can as the dungeon gets harder and harder, but once again I have no preference.
 
I had hoped to get most of the rules up tonight, but I'm getting very groggy and will have to call it for now. (Knowing my sleep patterns, I may well be up again in four or five hours.)

For now, though, I thought I'd leave a link to the game rules
 
I like the idea of safe havens or shortcuts back to civilization in the dungeon, if for no other reason than it makes it easier to justify getting new recruits. I like the holy place theme, and getting to purify it a section at a time helps us keep a sense of progress even as our characters fall to the dungeon. Maybe we lose ground if its a tpk? Or that the place shifts around If we havn't purified it so if we flee we never know what to expect when we return?
 
My general thought would be that, once you have gone into the dungeon, you wouldn't have the option to retreat until you have purified the area. At the very least, you would have to retrace your steps to your previous checkpoint--and new enemies may have entered the rooms since you last left them. So even when things look bad, there's a chance that pressing on is safer than backing out.


So, I've made some more progress on formatting and posting the rules, if you want to check the link I left above; I'm about ready to polish the character creation rules and put those up, but before I do I want to get final opinions on kinks and lust-based attacks. To reiterate (and clarify, since I'm not sure I made a lot of sense the first time I brought this up), the options I'm considering are:

1) Some enemies (and PCs, if the player wants) will have special attacks or abilities that do Purity damage. This might mean groping, aphrodisiacs, erotic illusions, etc. In addition, players are welcome to give their characters weaknesses which cause them to take Purity damage in circumstances they might not otherwise.

2) There will be no attacks that explicitly deal Purity damage. However, each character must have at least one weakness that outlines a circumstance or scenario where they will take Purity damage.

caelcormac expressed a preference for the second; I'd like to give Davian_Veq and Rosina a chance to weigh in before I post the character creation rules.
 
I think that option two is probably the preferable option unless there were some benefit in option one that would encourage players to take weaknesses.
 
By default, every character gets three special abilities and one weakness. If we go with option one, that weakness can be sexual, but it doesn't have to be. If we go with option two, it does have to be sexual.

Either way, though, you can take extra weaknesses to get more special abilities. So there's always a benefit to them.
 
Oh, okay!
Hmm...
I think that I'd prefer option one then. Enemies that have sexuality based attacks fits with the theme of this RP, and if they are to be included, it would make the most sense to have them attack the 'purity' stat directly instead of a base attribute that only effects purity if it aligns with the character's weakness. My vote goes to option one!
 
Alright. Since two out of three players prefer the first option, I've written up the rules with that in mind. I can change them later if we come to a different consensus. And with that, I think I've posted everything I've got, rules-wise, so please feel free to peruse the rules thread. Let me know if you have any questions, if there are things you think aren't covered or adequately explained, or if I have any glaring contradictions or typos.
 
Well that works just fine for me.
Now, to the rules, Robin!

EDIT:
Loving the way the system works. Not too complicated, and leaving it very open for much more roleplay rather than power-gaming.
 
@Rosina: All characters and enemies have a Purity defense, which is 10 plus their current Purity. As much as possible, I'm building the enemies using the same fundamental rules as the heroes--although they may have different stat totals and numbers of talents/weaknesses than the PCs. I might also give the enemies traits that I wouldn't recommend for PCs, like a weakness of "rooted to the ground, can't use reposition", but nothing that actually uses different rules than you guys.

@Davian: I'm glad you like them! Like I've said, I've used an older draft of this system before, and it worked reasonably well, but there were cases where I felt like there wasn't enough structure and I thought it was confusing. Hopefully I haven't gone too far in the other direction, so I'm glad to hear you say it's not too complicated.

@All: Oh, this is a pretty minor detail that probably won't come up very often, but I did leave out one rule that I meant to include. I've now added this to the advantage, disadvantage, and inspiration section:
--When you Tease a willing target (but not a helpless one), you have advantage on the roll.
 
Morathor said:
@Rosina: All characters and enemies have a Purity defense, which is 10 plus their current Purity. As much as possible, I'm building the enemies using the same fundamental rules as the heroes--although they may have different stat totals and numbers of talents/weaknesses than the PCs. I might also give the enemies traits that I wouldn't recommend for PCs, like a weakness of "rooted to the ground, can't use reposition", but nothing that actually uses different rules than you guys.

@Davian: I'm glad you like them! Like I've said, I've used an older draft of this system before, and it worked reasonably well, but there were cases where I felt like there wasn't enough structure and I thought it was confusing. Hopefully I haven't gone too far in the other direction, so I'm glad to hear you say it's not too complicated.

@All: Oh, this is a pretty minor detail that probably won't come up very often, but I did leave out one rule that I meant to include. I've now added this to the advantage, disadvantage, and inspiration section:
--When you Tease a willing target (but not a helpless one), you have advantage on the roll.
Click to expand...

Yay rules. Should We post our PCs here?
 
I'm going to put up a profile thread soon, since it's part of the rules for this part of the forum, but for now yeah you're welcome to put them here.

Also, a fourth player has expressed interest so let's welcome Sync
 
Yay! Welcome to me - and thanks for letting me squeeze in. :)

I'd be looking at playing a rogue-type here initially, so would have to tinker with the game rules (which look interesting, btw ;) ) to work out stealth-oriented skills and the like.

I'm sure we can make it work. *nod nod*
 
@Sync: To represent stealth out of combat, I would suggest some sort of reconnaissance ability, where you sneak ahead to the next area and report back. So like, once per scene out of combat, you could make a mobility roll to gather information on an adjacent area.

Stealth in combat is trickier; it's hard to just slip out of sight in the middle of battle. Still, you could use a technique that allows you to hide from one enemy at a time, preventing them from targeting you with their attacks or abilities while you remained hidden. I think you would stop being hidden after making an attack, though, against any target; that just draws too much attention to yourself.

And then you could capitalize on that with some kind of backstab ability, where you would either have advantage, or deal extra damage, against the enemy you're hidden from. (Again, once you attacked, they would be aware of you again, so you'd have to use your hide ability again if you wanted to keep doing backstabs.

What do you think? Do any of those sound good for your concept? Also keep in mind that, while it's not absolutely necessary, a rogue might want lock-picking or trap disarming abilities as well.


@All: So, I wanted to get some feedback on what types of sexual stuff you all are interested in/expecting to see during combat--that is, before the captures and bad ends. I had mostly been envisioning teasing and foreplay type stuff during combat, and figured enemies would want to separate their target from the group before going farther, rather than risking being attacked by the other PCs in the middle of intercourse.

However, that's not necessarily the type of logic this game/these enemies should be operating on. Considering that Purity damage can bring a character to orgasm during combat, it might be a better fit for the tone of the game if at least some of the enemies did go farther, with stripping, penetration, etc. What do you think? What are you all looking for in terms of sexual content during combat?
 
For Stealth ability - that sounds much like what I'd already worked out; I'll PM you my character thus far and you can give me a Yay or Nay, and we can negotiate from there on any Nays. :)

For the Smexy stuff - the idea of orgasm during combat does have its funny (and sexy) side, and might depend on what brought about the orgasm: if from a touching/teasing attack, it might be enough to have the "afflicted' PC incapacitated for a few combat turns while they recover; whereas a tentacle-like monster (or otherwise-horny creature and an appropriate appendage) might attempt penetration to bring orgasm to a PC, in which case any companions of the "attacking" monster might work to protect their lucky buddy. I'm all in favour of a PC being removed from combat via unintended intercourse. ;)
 
I do love lewd combat - with relevant RPed attacks related to the attacker.

Current idea for a character is a thuggish dwarf lass, working as a punishment for her role in certain organised crime back in her home city. So strength, minor street-smarts wits, and lacking in agility. Probably a 2-0-1 spread, likely to have things like an attack using the environment, brawl-y fighting style, and a rough-and-tumble attitude.
 
@Sync: Yeah, currently the rules for an orgasm include that you can't take an actions on your next turn; I thought that would be a good time to play out their climax. But I don't want to make people sit out of combat for too long, so one turn sounds good to me. (That said, a possible weakness to take for somebody who takes longer to recover is that, in addition to the turn where they can take no actions, they have a turn or two where they can only take one. Doesn't leave them sitting out of combat completely, but shows that they're still affected.)

@Davian_Veq: I like your character idea. And yeah, I'll be sure to give enemies a variety of sex-based attacks suitable to their nature.

@All: We are now joined by Tenshi, so welcome. I had honestly expected this game not to get this much attention, and I am both excited and nervous, but I think I can handle a party of up to six players/characters. (Plus, if anyone has to bow out in the future, we'll still have enough of a party to continue on.)

Also, some questions that have come up through private messages:
--Someone wanted to know if their character needed a picture or backstory; my answer is no, but you are welcome to provide either. Even with a picture, I am looking forward to seeing descriptive language in the RP. And it would be great to flesh out your characters' backstories through roleplaying--an offhand comment, a flashback, a confession. However, given the nature of this game involves PCs frequently being defeated and replaced with new ones, I think it's perfectly reasonable to not want to put a lot of effort into the backstories. So there's no problem keeping your writing focused on the present.
--With regards to the defeat and replacement, one player was wondering about a Talent that would let them escape and rejoin the party at the safe haven after some bad ends; this would be depending on what sort of ending they faced, or just have a limited number of uses, and they would return in pretty bad shape. Mechanically, I don't think this is too powerful, considering that if they didn't come back they'd be making a fresh new character; in terms of tone and narrative, it felt to me like something that needed the input and approval of the rest of the group. So what do you think?
 
So I have a sheet more or less done. Do you want a PM or should I post to the other thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom