>>15846057
I always forget something...
The title is supposed to read "Legend of Zelda RPG Development Thread"

Let me help you by giving you a clever piece of advice:

Stop.

Two words - tunic colors.

>>15846072
Thank you for your concern, but I must decline. I want to see this project come to fruition.

>>15846085
>tunic colors
>not superior "whole different outfits" like in TP
Even in a P&P you somehow manage to be lazy.

>>15846057
I feel that bottles should be valuable like in the game, you can only get them from doing things and the serve a purpose for puzzle solving (bugs, hot water etc.), recovery (potions, fairies) and other wild stuff like that bee from LttP

This might be nice as a idea workshop....
But people seriously want to RP in this setting?

It seems so boring.
I've played most Zelda games and I dont see much of a setting for a wide-scale RPG.Not enough factions, no real governments to have conflicts, no ...anything.

If the place didnt have Ganon and the occasional douchebag with powers fucking shit up, the Zelda world seems like it would be pretty idillic. For one, there's no other heroes other than Link.

Nobody else tries to do or save anything.

How can you build a setting when the source material itself is so....empty? The games dont even have a continuity unless you do private detective level research work.And even then, conflicting sources within Nintendo sometimes say there is a continuity- and others say there is none!

This sounds like fool's work.

>>15846183
see >>15846072

>>15846183
Are you saying that all RPGs must have a solid set-in-stone background? Nothing good can come of making things up yourself? A clean slate is the easiest to work with.

You have to let your imagination fill in where the games don't cover. If you only look at the setting through the game's (Link's) perspective, then of course it will seem like nothing happens because Link is the star when he's around.

If you don't want to help, you do not have to. We, however, will continue until we see fit to stop.

>>15846280
No, I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying it's relatively unproductive, and lacking an ambitiously creative spark.

Instead of crafting your own work, you are piling all your love and creativity into someone else's intellectual property. Moreover it's an intellectual property that has been deliberately left open and inconsistent. Any work you create could easily be retconned , changed or destroyed by the next game. Moreover, since there is little more than the experiences we gain from Link's perspective, any creations you would make would seem little more than baseless fanfiction.Moreover, it is an innocent setting, wherein complex themes like slavery (placing faeries in bottles) are ignored in favor of innocense. Players operating in these conditions would quickly undermine the spirit of the setting.For these reasons and more, I wager all this effort would be best served working on an original IP Setting.

Finally, given Nintendo's sterling reputation for voluntarily crushing fan-projects, I'd hesitate before doing any project on any of their IP's...they seem very fond of sending 'Cease and Desist ' letters, such as the Pokemon incidents.

I was just voicing my opinion, is' all.
Carry on, I suppose.

>>15846371
I see your point, but I don't completely agree. I understand that the work we do may not matter to anyone else, and that the ongoing development of the Zelda franchise may change everything, but I want to put my passion for the games into something good, and I believe that's what we're doing.

As far as the setting goes, it's not a really a "serious" fantasy setting. It's designed to be a light-hearted adventure about a destined boy becoming a legendary hero. It's not supposed to be about tackling deep issues within the human psyche, although any GM could make it so if his players agree.
>Players operating in these conditions would quickly undermine the spirit of the setting.
The same could be said about any setting. Suppose a GM runs a grimdark campaign, and the players all make characters who are children with an indomitable spirit who keep fighting against all odds and believe that evil never wins in the end. Would that not be undermining the setting?

Finally, I don't really believe that Nintendo would shut us down. Who would they send the letter to? We're mostly anonymous and our archives are on a wiki. The worst that they can do is delete the wiki. I believe that if Nintendo shut us down, they would only be hurting themselves.

Anyways, this isn't really the place for an argument about whether we should be doing this. Thank you for your concerns, anon.

>>15846371

A point to consider is that not everybody is a polymath. Some folks are really good at technical writing and rules design, and really lousy at creative writing and world-building; for others, it's the other way 'round. In fact, they're usually mutually exclusive skill sets - left-brain versus right-brain, and all that. If you're in the former group, any game you design is going to be using somebody else's setting, whether it's one designed by your buddy or one designed by Nintendo of America; the only difference is whether you bother to file the serial numbers off.

Midnight bump before I go to bed. Here's the medallion spells from the last thread. If there's no objections by morning, I'll add them to the wiki. I think they look fine.

Ether Medallion (Power)
Single action
8 MP
Duration: Instantaneous
Range: 15 meters
Area: 15 meter radius centered on you
Check: Group opposed (defense)
The air crackles with electricity as bolts of lightning pelt the area.
Make an area-effect |Magic| check with damage increment 1H (electricity), opposed by defense, against each creature within 15 meters. Airborne targets take a -1k1 penalty to their opposing roll for this spell. Creatures damaged in this way are stunned.

>continued

Quake Medallion (Power)
Single action
8 MP
Duration: Instantaneous
Range: 15 meters
Area: 15 meter radius centered on you
Check: Group opposed (|Acrobatics|/Wisdom)
Requirements: Must be standing on a solid surface
Striking the ground beneath your feet, you cause a violent tremor that damages groundborne foes and knocks them off their feet.
Make an area-effect |Magic| check with damage increment 1H, opposed by |Acrobatics|(Wisdom), against each creature within 15 meters. You gain a +1k1 bonus to your roll for this spell if you are in some sort of location, such as a cavern or stone building, where the tremor might dislodge a rain of rubble and debris from above. Each target of this spell is knocked prone unless it makes at least 3 successes on its opposing roll. Airborne creatures and creatures standing on a surface that is not attached to the one you're standing on are unaffected by this spell.
Additionally, this spell destroys all breakable objects in its area, such as pottery, glass, and fragile walls, as long as those objects are connected to the ground in some way (eg, resting on the ground, or set into a wall that is connected to the ground you're standing on).

---------------------------------------------
Bombos Medallion (Power)
Single action
8 MP
Duration: Instantaneous
Range: 15 meters
Area: 15 meter radius centered on you
Check: Group opposed (defense)
Fiery explosions rip the air asunder, devastating your foes.
Make an area-effect |Magic| check with damage increment 1H (Fire), opposed by defense, against each creature within 5 meters. Each target of the spell is also pushed away from you unless it makes at least 2 successes on its defense roll. Treat this as a knockback 1 effect from a Heavy creature.
Additionally, this spell destroys all breakable objects in its area, such as pottery, glass, and fragile walls.

>>15846526
>Anyways, this isn't really the place for an argument about whether we should be doing this.
It kind of is.

Let's be frank here, though: you just want to play a Goron. No, it's okay, there's nothing wrong with that, but as a whole the Zelda universe isn't really deep enough to warrant its own RPG or its own mechanics, and the only things that set it apart are things like different races. Everything else about it is pretty intentionally generic.

I mentioned to a few friends that I was aware of someone making a homebrew LoZ tabletop RPG, and they went wild. They really want to give this stuff a try when it's done (and they're perfectly willing to wait, no rush).

>>15847391
>Everything else about it is pretty intentionally generic.

Yes, yes it is. We're trying to make the system able to handle as many situations as possible while still keeping it relatively rules-light. Being generic helps lower the barrier of entry to the game.

> as a whole the Zelda universe isn't really deep enough to warrant its own RPG or its own mechanics

I disagree. I think the setting is plenty deep enough to make an RPG. You want proof? Enough people thought that it did that they started making an RPG out of it and the development of that RPG is continuing even as we speak.

I'd like to end the argument here to save space for the actual development, if you don't mind.

>>15847692
>You want proof? Enough people thought that it did that they started making an RPG out of it and the development of that RPG is continuing even as we speak.
That's basically the worst argument I've ever heard.

>>15846072
>>15846183
>>15846371
>>15847391
Question to you people: Why?

Why argue this? There's been a considerable amount of effort put into this project, and a considerable amount of support voiced for it -- obviously there are plenty of people who do think it's worthwhile, for whatever reason. If you, personally, think it's a pointless endeavour, that's fine; you're welcome to think that. But what do you or anyone else stand to gain by trying to persuade everybody who's worked on this to just up and quit? Are you really so arrogant that you think your opinion is incontrovertible, objective truth and you're somehow doing us a favor? That when the project is finished, everyone who supported and contributed to it will look at it and think, "wow, this was a real waste of time", rather than enjoying the product of their efforts? That nobody will ever enjoy this system?

Or are you just vile, shitposting trolls who have nothing better to do with your time than try to stir up trouble and tear down the pet projects of others, just for the lulz?

If you really do sincerely think this project is a waste of time, just ignore it. Accept the fact that others do think it's worthwhile even if you can't fathom why, and move on. Hide the threads if they're really that offensive to you.

If you're just shitposting, do us all a favor and die in a fire.

Either way, quit wasting our time.

>>15847808
Yeah... I'm terrible at arguments. My efforts are better spent working the technical parts of the system, like I've been doing.

Congrats, you beat me. But what did you accomplish?

>>15847809
That's a lot of words (that I didn't really read) to talk about wasting time arguing.

>>15847884

Let me give you the short version: FUCK OFF¡

>>15848269
:)

>>15848269
/agree

Why is it that every time we start a new thread, people come in questioning why we're doing it or saying we should stop before we waste time? It's the 21st goddamn thread. We're doing well, enjoying it, and a couple groups of playtesters are already having a grand ol' time with it.

From now on, I say our policy should simply be to ignore the naysayers. Even a passing reference is a waste of our time.

WEAPONS: Have we finalized weapon properties, or was there more to discuss there?

NEXT: I think we should focus on Boss and Dungeon design, in either order. It's the biggest glaring hole in the rules I can see at the moment. That and, of course, actually assigning monetary values to equipment and services. We've got stuff, now we need an economy. Our economy should probably be the most minimalist part of our system, though, really. We just need princes for non-magical equipment, the rest is all loot and treasure-only.

THREADS: Why do I get banned for a day every time I try to start a new thread? It says banned for "Banned Content". What am I doing wrong?

>>15850444
Correction, 22nd thread.

Haven't really worked on this much at all today because I was doing other things, but most of the hard part is done anyway.

I want to move onto Skills next, but the format is something I'm not entirely sure of.

Outside of having six bubbles in a line, I'm not sure how to go about it. Should I put in icons for the different Virtues and Attributes, seeing as they're static variables?

>>15850607
Looks like the image didn't attach properly...

>>15850444
As far as I can tell, everyone is satisfied with the weapon properties. I made my suggestions and most everyone agreed. The parts that they didn't agree with I fixed and posted on the wiki. Nobody had anything to say after that, so I can only assume that it's good.

>>15850607
I'll think about this problem and post an idea if I come up with a good one.

>>15852335
I think that boots should be considered as part of the armor set and iron boots/hover boots/whatever kind of footwear should be considered as a tool rather than equipment.

I think equipment should go like this:
2 hand slots (sword and board, 2 handed weapon, spell items, etc.), 1 armor slot, and 2 accessories. Accessories being things like the power bracelet, Zora scale, magic ring, mask, things like that.

Added the medallion spells to the wiki since no one objected.

>>15850607
How about something along the lines of this? The Attribute used for a skill never varies, but the Virtue does for a lot of them, so leaving space to write in the roll used for different applications would be good. And since we only have 10 skills, it's not a big deal that each one takes up more than one line's worth of space.

>>15851714
I hadn't had a chance to look at the ranged weapon properties yet, and I have a few suggestions:
The first is to make "heavy" ranged weapons like the crossbow add 1/2h to the damage increment rather than 1/4h; I'm not so sure that 1/4h is quite enough to balance the extra action needed to load, even if it is ranged.

Second, the ranges are way too short for a lot of these. Personally, I'd be perfectly ok with leaving range as a specific function of the weapon independent of any strict mathematical relation to other properties, but if we do want to keep range as a function of weapon properties, I would propose the following changes:
>Base range = 20 m
>Projectile = 2x range
>Light = 1/2 range
>Thrown = 1/2 range
>Special can alter range in any way that's appropriate

>>15854620
Then I'd stat the weapons as follows (ignoring properties that don't pertain to range):

Slingshot: Projectile, light - 20 m
Boomerang: Thrown, special - 20 m
>Special: The boomerang has a highly aerodynamic shape, adding 10 m to its range.
Claw/hookshot: no range modifiers - 20 m
Bow/Crossbow: Projectile - 40 m
Seed shooter: projectile, light, special - 25 m
>Special: The seed shooter fires seeds with great speed, adding 5 m to the range. Furthermore, if the seed strikes a flat, solid surface, it ricochets off the surface and continues travelling until it reaches the end of its range.
Throwing knife: thrown, light - 5 m
Deku nut: thrown, light - 5 m
Bomb: thrown - 10 m
Bombchu: special - 10 m
Thrown item: thrown - 10 m

Truth be told, this still leaves them a bit too short for my liking in some cases (primarily the boomerang and the bow/crossbow, which fall short of their real-world counterparts and what I would guess them to be based on the 3d games), but it's significantly better than what we have now.

Finally, not really an issue with the properties themselves, but I don't think hook/clawshot should be considered the same as grappling. A more appropriate description would be "grips onto targets, pulling the lighter of the target or the wielder to the other."

>>15854620
>>15854627
Finally someone gives me the critique I wanted!

Changing heavy ranged to +1/2 works for me, then bow and crossbow would be even with pros and cons on each side.

As for the change in base range and slight alterations to properties, I think those work too. DnD had range increments which could be shot passed at a penalty, but with this system, we only have a max range, so it's appropriate.

About the claw/hook, I don't know what to do about it. Some enemies are grabbed and pulled closer, some it pulls you to it, some it rips off part of their body, some it simply hits and does some damage. It's very situation dependent. Perhaps we should allow the player to decide what kind of action he wants to do with it. It seems like a lot of work for only a single item, do we want it to be that complex?

>>15854865
I think just saying it pulls the lighter object/individual to the heavier one is fine. The exceptions to this -- parts getting pulled off, or creatures (such as keese) not getting grabbed -- should be noted in the descriptions for those individual targets, rather than for the hook/clawshot's ability itself.

>>15855003
These suggestions look good, but I'd like to get more input. If we get more agreement, I'll amend the wiki with these changes.

>>15854430
That looks pretty awesome to me, actually.

>>15855003
As far as the hookshot goes, I'd suggest that the player be allowed to suggest an action, but the DM should have final say on what it actually does. We give a list of things it can do, but the specific situation should be up to the DM's judgment. It's a bit too variable to have a hard description for exactly what happens under exactly what conditions.

As for Ranged weapons, the ranges seem a little short for the bow/crossbow, but honestly I'm okay with that. The battle grid is only so big anyway, and off-grid shooting is pretty easily handled. Can also be techs for increased range, etc.

I'm not sure about having ricochets as a default part of the seed shooter. It's appropriate, sure, but might be a bit of a hassle to handled when actually used in-game. What constitutes an appropriate surface? What angle does it bounce at? I suppose it would be alright for DMs and players to handle something like that on their own, it's just the only thing that stuck out as a potential problem to me. Could just be me.

>>15856017
>I'm not sure about having ricochets as a default part of the seed shooter.

I'll admit that it's kind of complex, but personally, I think it's pointless to have the seed shooter statted up at all if the ricochet isn't part of the statline -- that's pretty much the item's defining feature, the big thing that separates it from the slingshot.

Going through the Skills, there seems to be an imbalance of virtues.

Three virtues:

Melee
Ranged
Instrument
Magic
Sway

Two:

Acrobatics WC

One:

Shield C
Heavy P
Perception W
Stealth W

This adds up to 21 different rolls, which is fine, as I love when things are divisible by three, but currently the most used virtue is Wisdom, followed by Courage, with the least used being Power.

Ideally a good balance would be 3 two-virtues and 3 single-virtues, but I only have part of an idea on how to balance it out. I think the current 5 three-virtues should stay as they are, but I'd have no idea what to add as an 11th skill.

>>15856139
A good point. I'm okay with it keeping the ricochet, it was just a concern.

>>15857090
While I'm a fan of symmetry and everything fitting nicely (I eat my M&Ms arranged by color and number), I think we shouldn't try to force it too much for risk of changing something that works or introducing an element that doesn't need to be there.

We've considered adding several skills, from Athletics to Crafting, but the consensus is we don't need them and including them wouldn't be good for the system. So let's not try to create another skill for symmetry's sake, and just go with what works for the system.

>>15850444

> I think we should focus on ... Dungeon design ... It's the biggest glaring hole in the rules I can see at the moment.

SO YES. I've been racking my brains for weeks trying to get that part finished by myself for that very reason, but I'm pretty stuck (and lazy) so all I've done is on the GM Resources page.

>>15857295
I could see Power being used for Shield. Power not only embodies aggression and offense, but also obstinance - becoming a wall before your opponents.

>>15857178
The ricochet sounds fine to me too. What's the final verdict about the hook/clawshot? Once we get that I can update the ranged properties.

>>15857567
I'll go ahead and add it into the sheet, then.(someone else can add it to the wiki)

Here's my current format, using the longest-named skill we have as an example. I'm considering moving that top small bubble to the bottom right as it kinda throws off the even-odds pattern.

In regards to the hookshot/clawshot, why not just have them be flavor differences and have their action be situational based on the masses of the user and target?

Also, we didn't seem to really talk about electric magic much, so I'll just do a quick copypaste:

>It seems that after a bit of digging at there are indeed more lightning spells in the zelda series, however they don't seem to be named and seem to be mainly used by bosses, including Agahnim, Phantom Ganon, Town Tool Shopkeeper,Ganon, Puppet Zelda, Mighty Darknut and the Black Knight.
>It would seem that electrical magic is certainly that of Power.

>>15858377
>It would seem that electrical magic is certainly that of Power.

see now i wish i had my sidius gif.

>>15857567
I'm not totally sold on the explanation of Power for Shields, but I'm not opposed to the idea. I have no objection to the change.

I still say hookshot/clawshot should list examples, but mention that final judgement should be left to the DM as to what happens.

>>15858377
I agree that the dot should be moved, for ease of use and consistency's sake.

>>15859097
I admit is is a bit of a stretch. The biggest concern I have is that it might upset the balance of Melee combat.

Yep, didn't like the one-off bubble so I moved it down. Gave more room for the virtues too.

Here's what the ten skills might look like on paper. The gap on the right is kinda bothering me some, and I'm not sure what would look good in that place, and spacing the skills far enough from eachother to fill it up might look wonky.

>>15859422

I can see the hearts getting cluttered with erased pencil very quickly, though it looks nice before the players get ahold of it

>>15859509
If I were playing, I would just put an X where my current heart total is.

>>15859509
>>15859661
Or apply some clear box sealing tape to the hearts and magic bar and use dry-erase markers.

Or even use different colored/sized glass counters to keep track.

For digital means of playing, most people would likely use numbers in their token's data.(Like [4 2/4] / [5] or however)

Updated Ranged weapon properties on the wiki with the amendments.

>>15859509
As long as you're just ticking off heart pieces rather than filling them in completely, it shouldn't be any worse than any other character sheet where you have a designated location to track damage. Tick marks should actually result in fewer issues than erasing numerals, I would think.

>>15859422
Looking great so far!
I don't think it'd be a problem to spread the skills out to fill the horizontal space; as it stands right now, I think they actually look a bit cramped, so it should be fine to add a little space between columns to fill the gap on the side.

>>15860049
Tried it, starting to like it. This is about as much I could space them.

Now just to decide on how to order the skills.

This is what I had in mind:

>Melee, Ranged, Magic, Instrument, Sway
>Heavy, Shield, Acrobatics, Stealth, Perception

Any suggestions?

>>15860225
Looking good. The skills look great.

>>15857559
What is there exactly to work on with dungeon and boss design? It seems like what the dungeon design part is going for is just "this is how you make dungeons." That seems a bit formulaic to me, I can't imagine there's that much that is necessary to have to explain in making a dungeon. However, dungeon items, like compasses, chests and maps would be good to have there. I would say several example dungeons would do the job just fine as far as helping people understand dungeon-design. This is even more true for bosses, because bosses vary even more than dungeons, I think.

I personally think monster statblocks/ loot drops could use work next.

A spell proposition:

Thunder (Power)
Attack
Double Action
32 MP
Duration: Instantaneous
Range: 20
Area: Burst centered on you
Check: Opposed/Group Opposed vs Defense
A huge thunderbolt is called, filling the area with a myriad of projections that strike your foes with all of nature's fury.
Make a |Magic| roll with damage increment 4H (electricity) against the target's Defense. If fewer than 5 targets are present, you receive a +1H bonus damage increment and +1k1 bonus to the |Magic| roll.

This is an end-game spell and should not be handed out lightly. The spell is based on Adventure of Link - the last and greatest spell. Even with all of the magic upgrades and maxed magic score, it still takes half of your magic bar to cast. In canon, it instantly slays any non-boss and is required to defeat the last boss, Thunderbird.

Here, have some stuff.

>>15861667
What are you planning on using to fill the lower right space?

>>15862008
Active and Passive techs, inventory, and the spells/songs lists are what remain, I think. Should probably have plenty of space per line so people can fill in notes on effects and such.

>>15860403
A 4H increment is huge. This will pretty much end encounters with any but the toughest opponents. I know it's expensive, but damn. Also, would the target line read "Creatures in area" or "Enemies in area"? And then of course the size of the burst needs to be defined.

SPELLS: Let us not forget that we need to pump out Spell Mastery techs for our advanced spells where appropriate, and keep in mind that the existence of those techs means its okay if the full potential of a spell is not realized in its base description.

The first page is finished.

I figured it'd be best to use that space as a quick list of inventory instead of trying to force alot of templates in there.(which is why we decided on a two-page format)

It's fairly basic for now, but it's usable.

>>15860403
I don't know if we necessarily want to preserve the insta-killy nature of the spells; technically speaking, the magic medallions from LttP were largely insta-kills too (particularly the Bombos), but that really doesn't seem appropriate.

A bigger damage increment than the Ether Medallion would be fine, but 4h is WAY too big.

General interest and support bump

>>15862353
>>15863700
I understand it's overpowered. That's what I was aiming for when I made it. I'm not opposed to toning it down to preserve usefulness. It's almost like Wish in 3.X; it's so expensive you'd basically never want to use it.
The Target would be enemies within range. It seems some of the spells on the wiki are also missing a target line, I'll fix that later.

Random idea: "Gust", which we still have yet to make (I'll get to it pretty soon), and the associated spell mastery. One of the things you could do with the spell mastery is make a Wind Wall (blocks projectiles).

>>15863083
I really like the look of it! Nothing looks out of place or like it doesn't have enough room.

>>15864478
The only spell on the wiki missing a target line is Farore's Wind (which is kind of an oddball thing that doesn't really have a "target" per se); the ones that just say "Area" mean they affect everything within the area, friend or foe. Friendly fire should be very much ON by default, otherwise stuff like Din's Fire and the Medallions would be way too good.

>>15864549
Just got an idea for "Thunder" mastery: Directional area of effect/able to reduce the size and concentrate the effects.

>>15860383

Well, what I'm personally going for with dungeon design is "This is how you make Zelda-style dungeons", because I don't feel confident in that respect without having a guide and because I feel Zelda-style dungeons aren't like D&D-style dungeons, what with the linearity through item-restricted routes, progress-barring puzzles in the majority of rooms, there apparently only being 9 different themes that get mixed and matched, etc.

Since dungeons contain most of the interesting stuff in Zelda games, I think getting them feeling right is pretty important.
I might be the only one here who thinks that.

>>15865351
I definitely agree with the sentiment -- though, if I may be frank, I think all the tag stuff you've been working on is a bit unnecessary. But I guess that's just a matter of personal preference -- I prefer a more fluid approach to the dungeon design process, so I'd be fine with broad guidelines and more narrative-style puzzle descriptions, but I can see why some people would prefer a more systematic approach.

>>15865351

Well, i personally think that a few example dungeons could be very helpful.

>>15865462
>>15865351
I do agree that there should be guidelines, but I also believe they should be broad. I don't really understand what the whole box/arrow thing is about, and I don't know the necessity of the tag system is. To me, dungeon creation can be explained well enough for most with some broad guidelines (including different dungeon items, different types of switches, and the themes of dungeons) and several example dungeons.

>>15866424
Defining common characteristics (bombable walls, map/compass, types of switches, key-restricted routes, etc.) should be plenty to go off of, but only IF we create two or three good examples dungeons for people to see, understand, and use to inform their own dungeon creation.

>>15865462
>>15866424

I'll try writing different degrees of guidelines, so there'd be broad guidelines and narrower guidelines that build on the broad guidelines for people who want that sort of thing.
Because that sounds really freaking tricky so I have an excuse for if I can't be bothered to do it.
...
I mean, um... Totally gonna do that and such... Yeah.
___

I suppose the tag system isn't that good a fit for this game? I mean, you can just say something like "The Hookshot attaches to WOODEN things." and then whenever you mention a WOODEN post or a WOODEN chest when describing a scene, the players know they can Hookshot to it.
WOODEN.
But yeah, I just think of tags as a neat shorthand glossary thing for keeping track of how things interact with each other.
Also trying to have as few tags as possible while still covering everything is a fun challenge for me.
WOODEN.

>>15868132
I think the problem is that it's a bit too advanced. You don't need to make the description for a room read like code.
A simple description of different switches/doors/chests would be easier to understand than "[CHEST][WOODEN][ITEM:MAP:1]".
Or at least be simpler at first sight.

Bah, I'm awful at explaining.

>>15868466
Seems pretty clear to me. Personally, I feel like it would be much easier to have a written-out description of what's there rather than a set of computer-code-like tags. It's one thing if you're designing a video game, but for P&P RPGs, the more nuanced and flexible, the better.

Before we get too far into something else, I want to run the last few canon spells I have written up by you guys:

Cane of Somaria (Power)
Creation
Single action
2 MP
Duration: Instantaneous
Range: 1
Effect: 1 conjured cube.
Check: Unopposed - 2(3)

A cube of solid matter appears out of thin air, then explodes in a burst of flame.
Creates a cube of solid matter, 2 meters to a side, occupying a space adjacent to you. If that space is occupied by a creature, the creature is displaced to the nearest square opposite you from the block, and takes 1/4 heart of damage. This block can be pushed around with a Physical Power check against a success threshold of 4, with each success allowing you to move the block 1 meter (though you may choose to move the block a shorter distance than your check would allow if you wish). The cane can be activated a second time without paying any MP to detonate the block, dealing 1/2 heart of [Fire] damage to all creatures within 2 meters of the block, though you are immune to this damage. Blocks created by the Cane of Somaria also detonate in this way if attacked. You may only create one block at a time.

>>15869119
Fire Rod (Power)
Single action
4 MP
Duration: Instantaneous
Range: 20
Target: Single creature or object
Check: Opposed (defense)
The air shimmers as a searing bolt of flame streaks toward the target.
Roll a |Magic|(Power) attack against the target with a damage increment of 3/4H (fire). Enemies damaged by this attack catch fire, taking 1/4 heart of damage each round until the flames are extinguished (which requires a total of two actions by the burning creature and/or an adjacent creature).

--------------------------------------------
Ice Rod (Wisdom)
Single action
4 MP
Duration: 1 round/success
Range: 20
Target: Single creature or object
Check: Opposed (defense)
A frigid blast of magic encases the target in solid ice.
The target takes 3/4H (cold) damage and is Frozen for one round per success you scored.

^The spells look good, but I feel the MP costs are low. Someone with a Mental of just 3 could cast Fire or Ice Rod 4 times just like that. My concerns mostly lie in Ice Rod, which has the potential to completely shut down an enemy if you have a good Mental Wisdom.

What's more, I'm picturing those spells as being usable by anyone that has the cane/rod, and can be used at least once by everyone in the party at full MP. But a DM could and should just be able to monitor it, or make it endgame equipment. Maybe you have to have the item AND learn the spell? I don't know.

>>15868466
>>15868132
>>15867779
That's what my main problem with it was exactly: having specific tags like that for every item is a bit much, when you could just give a brief description on objects of interest. And as was said, having just the characteristics listed would be just fine with a few good dungeons with explanations. Does anyone volunteer to have a go at it?

>>15869132
The spell for the Fire Rod is basically just Burn with a higher damage increment, so I don't think it warrants its own spell (since Burn can be augmented with Charge spell to do more damage). For the Fire Rod item, we can easily enough describe it as "You cast the Burn spell with a damage increment of 3/4H" or even leave the damage as-is and let players augment it as normal.

>>15870326
The MP costs are converted straight from LttP, and the effects are intended to reflect their video game counterparts as well; however, we could probably get away with nerfing the power level a bit.

Scary thing is, the Ice Rod is even MORE powerful in LttP. Enemies frozen with the Ice Rod NEVER thaw. Ever. For all intents and purposes, it's a 1-hit kill. And it costs the same amount of MP as the Fire Rod...

>>15869132
>>15870464
I had thought that burn and freeze were the stand-ins we had for the fire and ice rod spells. IIRC, the names before we changed them were "Fire" and "Ice".

>>15870464
Personally, I'd prefer to have it in as its own entry because (1) it's a canon item (that actually appears in multiple games -- the Magic Rod in Link's Awakening is essentially the same item), and (2) it's functionally distinct from a charged Burn spell (because it doesn't require the two extra actions needed to get up to a comparable cost/damage ratio). I don't think there's anything wrong with a little bit of light redundancy between basic and advanced spells in terms of having greater/lesser versions of the same basic effect, particularly not when it's a reasonably prominent item from the video games that we're talking about.

>>15870587
Not exactly; I know Fire was based on the Adventure of Link spell of the same name, not the LttP Fire Rod, and the Fire & Ice Rod spells I used as a basis for these were proposed separately in Thread 7 from the Fire and Ice spells, specifically intended as separate (and improved) effects.

Would it be a good idea to use an IRC for discussion?

>>15871070
Somebody set one up for the project way back when, but it never got much use. It's nice using the threads anyway, that way it's not so dependent on people's schedules lining up, and we can have a record of everything.

>>15871309
That makes sense.

My vote for the cane/rod spells is that they get their own spell, but they should be dumbed down at least a LITTLE. I just think this should be settled because I think things like Songs need work much more than spells.

>>15871636
But spells are so much easier to make than songs D:

>>15871678
I dunno. Spells have MP cost, duration, range area, etc. Many songs just do one thing and that's what it does. Like Rider's song.

But yeah, songs like the Song of Time are kind of difficult to convert to P&P.

>>15871636
Agreed, we definitely need to wrap up this magic business. These spells have been floating around in various degrees of unfinished-ness since thread 7. That was a little over 2 months ago.

Let's not forget to save the thread.

>>15870587
>>15870656
As I understood it, what we are going to do is have the magic items that cast spells essentially be spells in object form. In other words, a magic item that freezes people effectively "casts" a freezing spell.

However, there would also be, in most cases, a non-item version of the particular spell that magic-users could learn and perform without the item. In this case, the name of the spell wouldn't be "Ice Rod" it would be something more like "Ice Tomb" or "Frozen Solid" or "Arctic Blast". The item that creates this effect, in its functional description, could simply state that the item "casts the Arctic Blast spell" so we don't have to describe the effect twice.

So, while the item the Fire Rod might be cannon and unique, the effect is incredibly close to the Burn spell and doesn't necessarily warrant a unique description. So, for the Fire Rod item, I suggest a description that reads, "Casts the Burn spell with a 3/4H damage increment."

Sure are a lot of physical abilities in this game. Not a lot of Mental or Spiritual. not a complaint, just an observation.

>>15874664
I'm personally of the opinion that descriptions of things should be self-contained rather than referencing other things as much as possible, but it's functionally the same either way, I guess.

For Ice Rod, since it probably needs a nerf, should we cut it to 1 round of freezing per 2 successes?

>>15874664
Also, with regard to
>The item that creates this effect, in its functional description, could simply state that the item "casts the Arctic Blast spell" so we don't have to describe the effect twice.

I would say in this case the most concise way to do it (assuming we're talking two identical versions, rather than a weaker and an improved version, like Burn vs Fire Rod) would be to simply have a single entry with both the item and spell names listed. Something like:

>Ice Rod (Wisdom)
>Spell form: Arctic Blast
>...

For the case of spells based directly on items from the video games, use the item name first (so it's easier to find for people specifically looking to use that particular item). For spells that weren't items in-game or original spells we've devised, use the spell name first, like so:

>Din's Fire (Power)
>Item form: Din's Diadem
>...

>>15876487
Din's fire was an item. It was a gem-ish thing that you threw to the ground to activate, iirc.
...It had an in-game representation as an item, anyways.

But yeah, that sounds like a good idea. We'll have to figure out names for the various spells, but I'm pretty sure people would do that anyway so whatever.

>>15876574
Personally, the OoT spells always struck me more as abilities that the Great Fairies bestowed upon you rather than physical items containing magic power like the magic-consuming items in LttP, and I just assumed the gem-looking things in your inventory screen were merely stylistic representations.

But anyway, you get the idea.

>>15876757
True. I always saw it as slamming the crystal into the ground, but it might be an innate ability.
Actually, a lot of these might be a bit ambiguous.
Which (canon) spells are NOT items? The ones in AoL, various techniques, maybe the fire/ice arrows?

>>15876893
In terms of actual spells, the only ones that are clearly and unambiguously learned rather than items are the the AoL ones. Fire and ice arrows depend on which game you're looking at -- they're definitely items in MM, but I believe in WW they're a special magic given to you by the Fairy Queen, and the fire arrows could be interpreted either way in OoT (though iirc the ice arrows in OoT are explicitly items).
Other than those and the goddesses' spells in OoT (which I suppose we can rule as ambiguous), everything else is very clearly a physical item.

>>15847391

I want to play a Deku
problem, Gorons?

>>15877258
Having it presented differently just based solely on whether or not something is lifted from canon seems odd. For consistency's sake we should pick one way. The reason we were going to have items refer to the spell version of their effects is simply for the sake of making sense in presentation.

Having an item that says, "Casts X spell effect with Y conditions" just sounds better to me than having a spell that reads, "Duplicates effects of X item with Y conditions". It would still be perfectly easy for people to look up their familiar items in the magic items list, the details of the effect would be under spells.

I suppose that the referencing thing is a bit of a headache. For ease of use (since we don't necessarily mind taking up space) we can simply describe the effects in both places, under spell description and item description, so long as we make a reference in each that the effect is identical to the corresponding item/spell, with perhaps whatever minor changes.

So, the Fire Rod item would have it's full current description, with this additional line that, "This effect is identical to a Burn spell with a 3/4H damage increment."

>>15878703
>For ease of use (since we don't necessarily mind taking up space) we can simply describe the effects in both places, under spell description and item description

Seeing as it's pretty much solely a matter of name and flavor, and every single magic effect will be available in both item and learned form, why have separate "magic item" and "spell" sections in the first place?
Stuff that falls under the |magic| skill all goes under the same section, with familiar pieces from the games listed with their canon name as the primary listing (whether that be item or spell), and original stuff listed under spell name first. It doesn't really make a difference which order the names are given, so just give the name people are most likely to recognize first.

Other items with supernatural effects that don't fall under the magic skill would, of course, be listed separately -- but this wouldn't be the place for stuff like the Fire Rod that consumes MP and requires |magic| skill checks, functioning for pretty much all intents and purposes identically to a learned spell.

Separating spells and magic items makes sense for most systems, but not this one. Either way, your access to the thing is subject to the same limits, and use of it is handled the same way. We want to encourage the idea that an item-dependent mage functions basically the same as one who learns their spells, and keeping it all in one section helps to that end.

>>15879326
Good points. It still seems odd to me, though, listing items and spells in the same section without distinguishing between them. Perhaps it would be fine if we simply make clear the item name and the spell name, as you suggested, but it seems like it would make sifting through the spells and items seem jumbled. Perhaps not, but I thought I'd express the concern.

If we're going to list spells and items together, we need to rename the section on the wiki to "Spells / Items," a very minor change but necessary for clarity, and it should be explicitly written out for folks that any spell listed can either be learned or found in item form.

>>15880220
>If we're going to list spells and items together, we need to rename the section on the wiki to "Spells / Items," a very minor change but necessary for clarity

Hm...I wonder if there would be a single word we could use for that heading? "Spells/Items" seems kind of unwieldy...perhaps "Magic Effects"? Or just "Magic", since we don't have a section by that title? Or "Magics", plural, maybe? Just spitballing...

>it should be explicitly written out for folks that any spell listed can either be learned or found in item form.
That part at least has been covered for awhile. The first two sections of the "Magic Rules" section read:
>Magic may be obtained either in the form of spells learned from study or tutelage, or in the form of magic items. Any spell may be available in either form, regardless of whether the name listed here would indicate one form or another.

>>15880428
Yeah, "Magic" would work.
If we call it "Spells / Items" it just get confusing with non-magical items.

>>15880768
>If we call it "Spells / Items" it just get confusing with non-magical items.

Good point, I didn't even think of that.

Anybody else have feedback on the above magics (>>15869119, >>15869132)? Once we finalize these, that's the last of the canon spells from old threads, so we can put magic on the back burner to focus on stuff that could use more fleshing out, like music.

I think they're a bit OP(especially ice rod), but having them exclusive to the items should be fine with the DM having at least a little sense

CAN WE DO MUSIC NOW GUYS PLEASE

>>15881751
How does Ice Rod sound with 1 round of freezing per 2 successes rather than a 1-to-1 payoff? Still nasty, to be sure, but better, right?

>>15882456
I agree that 1 round/success is too much. 1 per 2 success sounds more reasonable.

>>15882456
That sounds perfect. With that change, the items can be added, I think, along with the change to the titling of the Magic part of the wiki.

I hope one of you guys remembered to archive this thread on suptg.

>>15885329
Got it!
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/15846057/

>>15885252
Agreed.

Late night/early morning bump.

Oh hey guys, guess what?
Easymodo is gone.
Does anyone have copies of the eighth and twentieth threads, or did those just vanish into the ether?
I suppose this is an incentive for remembering to archive threads before they 404.

>>15889024
Should we start a practice of archiving the thread right when it's made? If we do that then we won't be able to properly label what the thread contains.

>>15889024
Hm...it doesn't look to me like easymodo is gone for good, just that there's some sort of problem with the archive servers. The main page loads fine, anyway.

If it is gone for good, it's really just thread 8 we'd need to worry about; thread 20 only had about 30 or 40 posts IIRC, and pretty much no significant discussion.

>>15889205
That might be a good idea, but on the other hand I'm not so sure it's actually necessary. Thread 8 is the only one that was actually lost due to failure to archive; thread 20 was just an issue of early 404 due to lack of activity.

>>15890260
>thread 20 was just an issue of early 404 due to lack of activity.
Bump

I've added the spells from above (using the nerfed version of Ice Rod as proposed here >>15882456) to the wiki, renamed the spell sections, and added clarifications to the magic rules and magic techs sections to reinforce the equivalency of learned magic and item magic.
In particular, I added this disclaimer:
>Unless otherwise noted, the term "spell", when used in the context of this system, may be used interchangeably to refer to either a learned spell or a magic effect cast from an item (such as the Fire Rod), as the two are essentially identical.
I feel like that will help a little bit, though I did still change the "spells" section header to "magic", with "basic spells" and "advanced spells" renamed to "basic magic" and "advanced magic" just to be safe.

>>15894393
One thing that caught my eye as I went through -- the Explosive Shot tech needs fixed. The Channel Spell tech handles adding basic spell effects to a weapon of any kind, and similar applications for advanced spells should be handled through the spell mastery techs or the spell itself. Thus, rather than the current version (which handles both adding magic and adding conventional explosives to an arrow), I propose the following:

Explosive Shot (Active)
Requirements: |Ranged| 3
XP Cost: 3
Action: Single
When you use this tech, you must use both an arrow (or crossbow bolt) and a bomb; by combining the two, you rig the arrow to deliver an explosive payload. Make a |Ranged| attack using the normal range and skill roll for your bow (or crossbow), but instead of dealing normal arrow or bolt damage, treat the attack as though you'd thrown a bomb into the space where your missile struck.

We could also consider making the action to make the bomb arrow separate from the action to fire if this is too overpowered.

>>15894486
I agree with having to make the bomb arrow a separate action. That seems like that's how it would play out, and how a lot of the other techniques work.

Bump before I go to bed, lest the thread vanish into 404.

Now that we have magic pretty much wrapped up, there's a few songs that need work.

The first one is Sun's Song. At its entry on the wiki, it suggests that the two effects(day to night and vice versa & undead attack) could be split into two separate spells. I'm against that change, IIRC the entire reason the song stuns undead is because they're weak to sunlight. It could just be justified by saying that indoors, the song releases a quick burst of sunlight.

The second one is the Song of Healing, which is a bit more complicated. The first effect is the burst healing of 5 hearts to allies. The frequency is clearly an issue, and something like this is hard to regulate. I don't like once per dungeon, it feels really "video-gamey". I suggest once per day. The second effect, I think, can be just have a roleplaying effect. Or maybe a very modest buff.

Song of Time's second effect maybe can have enemies in a certain range get only a single action for a round? I don't know.

And those are the songs that are blatantly not done.

In addition to those, there's the matter of the instrument skill requirements on the songs. I love this idea, but I'm not really the kind of person to be trusted with that sort of thing.

In addition, are there more songs from the games that need added? I haven't played many zelda games, so I'm not sure, but there's significantly more spells than songs. 9 songs just sounds low.

>>15894650
Agreed on this point, separate action to combine is a good idea and just makes sense.

>>15894393
Renaming it to "Magics" would be better, I agree.

>>15896665
Sun's song can go ahead and stay one song, though there could be separate, more common songs that do each individual effect. I dunno, it would be up to the DM, really.

Pretty much, a lot of our songs are going to serve as examples of the effects and rough power songs should have based on the rank in Instrument required to achieve the effect. Songs are very customized to the games they appear in, so DMs will most likely be creating their own songs for their own purposes, much like dungeons and bosses. Our chief concern should be facilitating the "make your own" process.

>>15898431
>Our chief concern should be facilitating the "make your own" process.

Agreed, though it will still help to that end to make sure that our examples are solid.

>>15901649
So what (generic) templates should be made to help GMs make songs? Teleportation to dungeons, environmental, animal-related?
We should probably make suggestions for the power of each rank as well, so weak songs don't get (accidentally) made waaay too difficult.

Another thing to note is that songs are probably the only thing that can't be done without any rank in a relevant skill. Anyone could use a Burn spell if they got their hands on it, but that's not the case for Songs.

>arkinall Research
You are looking for the Ark in all Research? That must surely be a perilous quest.

A though to consider for songs:
Do we want to require any sort of check by default for using a song (either in addition to or replacing the rank prerequisites), or should checks be restricted to opposed cases, such as using the Sun Song to paralyze undead?
If we don't require a check, we should probably add Spiritual requirements to keep the attribute relevant. We can't have some schmuck with only 1 Spiritual running around playing the Song of Time just because he happened to dump a few ranks into |instruments|.

>>15902280
*thought to consider.

>>15902280
So a combination of checks for certain songs, and ranks in |Instruments| to be able to try at all?

>>15902513
>>15902280
Some song effects should just happen, it's in the power of the song itself. A lot of effects will be opposed, and that's when you make the Instrument check. Songs are more utility-based, often more powerful, and in great likelihood much rarer than songs. The rank requirements serve to restrict use, but if you can play a song I think it's fine that succeeding at activating an unopposed effect is just assumed.

>>15902513
That would be one way to do it. Basically, our options are:
>Require ranks in |instrument| and Spiritual to use the effect; only roll a check when attempting an opposed action, such as an attack.
>Require ranks as above, but roll checks for every song (similar to magic -- everything has a check of some sort).
>Drop the rank prerequisites, but require a check for every song (essentially, handle music the same as magic with respect to how stats affect it)

>>15904067
I think we'll go with Option 1, but leave Spiritual requirements for more powerful songs, since Virtues are horribly difficult to raise. That sound good?

I also suppose that we could put some unopposed checks here and there in songs for how long certain effects last. It's mostly just for songs that make temporary stuff, since I suspect that an Ice platform would melt sooner or later and fog would disappear.

Oh, and shouldn't the Song of Healing be Rank 4 if we want to limit it's use, rather than making it an exception to the rule?

>>15904453
How's this sound for Spiritual requirements?
>Rank 1: 1 Spiritual (anybody with 1 rank in |instruments| can do it)
>Rank 2-3: 2 Spiritual
>Rank 4-6: 3 Spiritual

And speaking of ranks and limitations, I think we could probably stand to revise those. It seems odd to me that we jump straight from at-will use for rank 1-3 to 2/day for rank 4. Rank 1 and 2 effects can stay as at-will abilities, but how about making rank 3 effects something like once per hour? It's not spammable, but it's still something you can use quite a lot.

>>15904500
I'd be in support of that change for frequency of use at rank 3.

>>15904453
Good point on song of healing. Perhaps we could put in 2-3 varying levels of healing, assigning ranks appropriately? Maybe the lowest level only heals up to a max of 3 hearts?

The Song of Healing wasn't even used for that kind of healing in-game. It was more interested in spiritual trauma than corporeal; it was used to dispel curses and help restless souls move on. Trouble with that is that there doesn't seem to be much mechanical support for curses or other magical injuries.

If music is supposed to be more mystical, perhaps a spell or a common item would be more conducive to filling the role of the obligatory workhorse healing mechanic, rather than a song.

>>15904842
We could have the Song of Healing be usable at will to remove negative status effects, rather than restore hearts. That would be less abusable and more appropriate to how it's portrayed in MM.

>>15904894
I believe the healing hearts idea comes from Spirit Tracks where that's exactly what it does. I like removing status effects better, but that's probably my bias because I've never played spirit tracks. Maybe just have both abilities at different rank prereqs?

>>15846183
I used the Hyrule RPG system and an alternate storyline inspired by Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced where after the events of Link's Awakening where Kohlant Island doesn't disappear after Link wakes up and is split in half between the elf race and monters. My players have actually been asking for me to run it again for a while, but yes it can be done, just think past Zelda vs playing Zelda.

>>15904894
I really prefer that idea. I don't know why the first person made it actually heal players in the first place.(okay I do but it's still unnecessary)

And I don't fully understand the rank system. I get that the higher the rank, the less often you can use it, but does the same ranking system also govern skill requirements?

>>15905649
Yep, the idea is that you can't use a given effect of a song unless you have ranks in a skill equal to that effect's rank, and higher-ranked effects are restricted in terms of how often they can be used.

>>15905676
And music is the only one with that system implemented?

>>15905889
Currently, yes.
Personally, while I like the rank-based restrictions on frequency of use, I'm ambivalent as to the skill rank prereq side of it. On the one hand, it helps set music apart from magic by making it more reliable and generally work differently, but on the other hand I'm not so sure if it's a good thing to require players to put ranks into a skill to use it at all.

>>15905970
I don't think there's a big deal with having all songs have a skill requirement. Even if a song has a |instrument| requirement of 1, that costs a measly one XP to put it at one. And one XP is practically nothing for someone that uses music even very modestly.

Late-night bump. Just to make it something productive (and hopefully provide some fuel for discussion while I sleep?), I'll summarize our current system for songs:

>Each song has one or more effects, each of which has a rank from 1 to 6.
>In order to use a given effect of a song, your rank in |instruments| must be greater than or equal to that effect's rank.
>Rank 1 and 2 effects are fairly minor, and can be used at will.
>Rank 3 effects are more powerful, and can only be used once per hour.
>Rank 4 effects are stronger still, and can only be used twice per day.
>Rank 5 effects are extremely potent, and can only be used once per day.
>Rank 6 effects are the sort of things that trigger crucial end-game events, such as the Oath to Order from Majora's Mask or the Ballad of the Wind Fish from Link's Awakening.
>Not every song requires you to roll a skill check -- many simply have their effect, no questions asked.

Do we want to go with the idea from >>15904500 for Spiritual prereqs to go along with the skill rank requirements? I think it'd be a good idea, personally.

>>15908069
If many songs are simply effects without a roll, then there would be little point in putting in points in Spiritual in regards to music, which doesn't really make sense as that is a large part of what Spiritual is. I agree with the Spiritual req.

On another point, what effects are instruments going to have? Do magical instruments give a bonus? What to and how much?

For those wondering where that jackass making the character sheets is, I've been around. Mainly holding off on making the second page due to the fact that we don't have alot of mechanics concrete.

Random idea suggestion:
What if, besides having the second page, if we had similarly printable infocards not too much unlike what D&D4e does?

There's alot of items and such that have unique abilities that would be a bitch to have to copy onto a sheet.

>>15910602
Actually, I think that's a great idea. The cards for powers/feats/items are one of my favorite things about 4E. Stuff just isn't uniform enough to all fit on one line or in one format.

>>15908163
I guess a Spiritual prereq is fine, but it shouldn't be too high. As far as magical instruments... I'm not sure. All I've done so far is have an instrument a badguy was using have a song engraved on it. There isn't really much precedent for instruments not being more or less created equal.

>>15908069
Looks good to me.

>>15904894
I think this is the better option, possibly with a rank 5 effect that fully restores the party as if by full rest?

>>15910602
Personally, I'd prefer the trouble of copying it onto the character sheet so I can have it all in one place rather than having to keep track of a bunch of cards, but I can definitely see the benefits of that. It would certainly help for GMs homebrewing their own items and songs and such -- if we made a blank template, they could just write in the effects and hand it to the players rather than having to explain it all and have the players copy it down.

>>15910936
There's enough uniformity to where you could have a separate page on the character sheet for it, mainly being things like magic costs, range, type, etc.

I could see spells, for example, being arranged like this:
[Name] [Virtue] [Cost] [Speed]
[Range] [Duration] [Target] [Check]
Effect: ______________________

>>15912040
It's not that I'm not making the second page, it's just cards in ADDITION to the second sheet. You can still copy everything down on your back page if you'd like.

Making a blank template would be of no issue.