So I've been tinkering with creating my own game for a few weeks now and I'm hoping for some feedback/suggestions, particularly on the difficulty curve of the Skill Chart and skill resolution because I'm terribly at the maths. I'm also trying to keep everything to a d6 but I feel that the combat could be TOO lethal (which I don't mind that much).

A GAME
HEALTH
Each character starts with a HEALTH of 15. You die at 0.

CONCEPT
This is where you wrap up your character concept in a sentence, with each descriptor allows your character access to all the knowledge and abilities they may imply (as well as potential pitfalls). If all else fails, choose a race/class/profession combo from other popular games.

SKILLS
All skills start at Terrible and you get 5 column shifts at first level:
ATHLETICS
COMMUNICATION
KNOWLEDGE
SUBTERFUGE
FIGHTING
SURVIVAL
PERFORMANCE
SHOOTING
POWER (MAGIC, PSIONICS, DIVINITY, etc.)

THE SKILL CHART


ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES
Advantage: At level 1, choose 3 separate instances where you get a +2 to the roll.
Disadvantage: For every instance you make that gives a -2 to a roll pick another Advantage.

Either of these may be given as a reward or penalty by the GM as the story dictates.

LEVEL
All characters start at level 1 and max out at level 20. At a time decided by the GM before the game begins (end of a major story arc, certain points on an experience table, etc.), each character increases to the next level. This gives them either +1 Max HEALTH or +1 SKILL shift.

COMBAT & OTHER CONTESTED ROLLS
PCs and their allies go first, everyone else goes after. Attacker rolls their chosen skill then the defender rolls that same skill with the following outcomes:
Both Fail: No one gets hurt.
Attacker Wins: Defender takes damage.
Defender Wins: Attacker misses.
Both Win: Highest roll wins; defender wins any ties.

In combat, ATHLETICS is used to dodge any ranged attacks but uses that character's action for the round. Otherwise FIGHTING can be used to parry melee attacks and doesn't cost an action.

WEAPONS
One-handed = 1d6, Two-handed = 2d6

ARMOR
Armor reduces damage by the amount listed. Shields reduce damage by 1.
Light: -2   Medium: -3   Heavy: -5

MAGIC
Think up a spell and roll on the CHART based on your POWER rating and then the target gets a POWER roll to resist the effects.

Anything with a table required for play is not "simple" in my book. Maybe reduce it to numbers for skill levels (10, 12, 14, 16, 18)? At or below the skill level is success. Above is a failure. Each 1 rolled is a "better success". Each 6 rolled is a "worse success". You can do similar juggling if you want roll over.

Also, notice I changed the skill percentages. Having level 1 characters that fail 75%+ of the time is too weak for me. (Be sure to turn your 3d6 rolls into percentages to check this.)

Rolling a 3 or an 18 is each less than a 1/2% chance - i.e. it happens once in 216 rolls. I suggest those always be at least a simple failure, even for someone "incredi-great" or "terri-bad", just to have there be some possibility.

QuoteSkarg

So if the categories are based off percentage then 9-12 is the most common and things would improve/worsen from there; this also assumes rolling high is best.Perhaps it would look something like this:

QuoteTodd13

Lets assume rolling higher is better. If the entire thing is changed to something more numerical then what would be a fair base DC to test against at level 1? With 9 skills, each starting at 18 and say...36 skill points, one could reduce each skill to 14. I feel like I'm rambling, am I making any sense?

Quote from: Megamanfan;908281Lets assume rolling higher is better. If the entire thing is changed to something more numerical then what would be a fair base DC to test against at level 1? With 9 skills, each starting at 18 and say...36 skill points, one could reduce each skill to 14. I feel like I'm rambling, am I making any sense?

I want to get rid of the table entirely.
For roll over, a 3d6 gives you 50% chance of rolling at least a 10.
Start all skills at level 10.
Roll 3d6 and add modifiers to determine overall success or failure, with target being meeting or beating skill level.
For each 6, if successful, make the success a bit better.
For each 1, if unsuccessful, make the failure a bit worse.

With 36 skill points, all skills can be reduced to 6, which is 95%+ success rate.

If you use 20 (one per level), that gives ample opportunity for players to customize skills between "adequate" and "awesome".
Evenly, 20 skill points gives you 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8. (That's ~90% and ~84%.)
Going for max limited skills gives you 3, 3, 4, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. (That's ~100%, ~99%, and ~50%.)

Quote from: Megamanfan;908281So if the categories are based off percentage then 9-12 is the most common and things would improve/worsen from there; this also assumes rolling high is best.Perhaps it would look something like this:

3d6 Roll        Terrible          Bad              Okay             Good             Great            Incredible
3 or less       Extra Failure     Extra Failure    Failure          Failure          Failure          Failure
4 to 5          Failure           Failure          Failure          Success w/Cost   Success w/Cost   Success
6 to 8          Success w/Cost    Success          Success          Success w/Cost   Success          Success
9 to 12         Success w/Cost    Success w/Cost   Success          Success          Success          Success
13 to 15        Success w/Cost    Success          Success          Success          Success          Success
16 to 17        Success           Success          Success          Success          Success          Extra Success
18+             Success           Success          Success          Extra Success    Extra Success    Extra Success

...

That's better. It's odd that you have "Bad" have one Success/with Cost result below a plain Success result, which would also undermine mechanics that involve an adjustment, for Bad people only. Maybe it was a typo.

I suggest putting the percentages next to the table so you have an idea what the odds are, at least during design, but you could also leave it to help players understand the odds. i.e.:


Note that you have given "terrible" people an over 95% chance to succeed. Is that what you intend? Some game systems actually are like this - it tends to make them grindy, meaning hit points and damage amounts are emphasized, because missing and doing nothing is rare. Some players like that, or think they do, with comments I recall being about how it feels like a waste to have no result from an action. By having moderately low hitpoint-to-damage ratio (assuming you aren't going to hand out many more hitpoints for experience...), you make it more lethal than some pile-o-hitpoint games - but by making everyone succeed over 95% of the time, you make it inevitable and mostly an exchange of death with ability playing little role, kind of like everyone is throwing exploding weapons in a small space with no cover. I'm the opposite - I like combat to emphasize hitting as an accomplishment, and not getting hit as the main way to survive in combat. Hard when even the worst foe has a 95% chance to hit. I would use a table more like this:


Or I'd just combine with Todd13's suggestion, and have:
Terrible: 13+
Bad: 12+
Okay: 11+
Good: 9+
Great: 7+
Incredible: 5+
Incredible+: 4+

With rolling your exact number needed meaning there is some cost to your success.
Roll 10 more than your needed number to get Extra Success.
Roll 6 less than your needed number and fail badly.

Quote from: Tod13;908367I want to get rid of the table entirely.
For roll over, a 3d6 gives you 50% chance of rolling at least a 10.
Start all skills at level 10.
Roll 3d6 and add modifiers to determine overall success or failure, with target being meeting or beating skill level.
For each 6, if successful, make the success a bit better.
For each 1, if unsuccessful, make the failure a bit worse.

This is pretty similar to my original premise, without the rolling of 6s or 1s having any bearing. I'm wondering how exploding 6s and/or cancelling 1s would work but then the math gets crazy and adds potentially unneeded complexity. In that spirit, I want ditch the chart for simplicity's sake (which is the point of this system after all).

Quote from: Skarg;908397Note that you have given "terrible" people an over 95% chance to succeed. Is that what you intend? Some game systems actually are like this - it tends to make them grindy, meaning hit points and damage amounts are emphasized, because missing and doing nothing is rare. Some players like that, or think they do, with comments I recall being about how it feels like a waste to have no result from an action. By having moderately low hitpoint-to-damage ratio (assuming you aren't going to hand out many more hitpoints for experience...), you make it more lethal than some pile-o-hitpoint games - but by making everyone succeed over 95% of the time, you make it inevitable and mostly an exchange of death with ability playing little role, kind of like everyone is throwing exploding weapons in a small space with no cover. I'm the opposite - I like combat to emphasize hitting as an accomplishment, and not getting hit as the main way to survive in combat. Hard when even the worst foe has a 95% chance to hit.

I would like to avoid what some have dubbed "Hit Point Mountain" but I feel it may be the only way to give a character some staying power in a fight. I also agree on not getting hit being the main way to avoid damage; I included armor as damage reduction for that purpose. But a character with Fighting 3 (or +9) is always going to hit the base DC. This is fine because it shows that character is just flat-out good at what they do but it makes combat come down to who rolled higher. But is that really so bad? What about using "Success with Cost" as a possible one-upping mechanic in case of ties or instances where the PC REALLY wants to hit? Sorry, I'm just working this out in my head.

Quote from: Tod13;908201Anything with a table required for play is not "simple" in my book.

In general I agree with this notion -- I prefer a quick equation to a clunky table. On the other hand, this particular table is small enough that it could appear on a character sheet for easy reference. (And it could look even simpler if one would replace words with letters. E.g. EF, F, S/C, S, ES. It might take a bit to get used to, but could be small and compact.)

Quote from: Megamanfan;908459I would like to avoid what some have dubbed "Hit Point Mountain" but I feel it may be the only way to give a character some staying power in a fight. I also agree on not getting hit being the main way to avoid damage; I included armor as damage reduction for that purpose. But a character with Fighting 3 (or +9) is always going to hit the base DC. This is fine because it shows that character is just flat-out good at what they do but it makes combat come down to who rolled higher. But is that really so bad? What about using "Success with Cost" as a possible one-upping mechanic in case of ties or instances where the PC REALLY wants to hit? Sorry, I'm just working this out in my head.

There are many ways to want combat to go, and many ways to achieve that. It's not always obvious what your mechanics and values will achieve. Seems to me that armor damage reduction isn't quite not getting hit - it's getting hit but not being damaged as much. If that's the only way to avoid damage, then there can be no unarmored characters who are good at not getting hit. Similarly, if you make the effect of skill be to increase chances to hit, and not to avoid getting hit, then you can make it so there's no way to avoid getting hit by skilled characters.

So what do your think of ways to actually not get hit? Actions and/or skills that can either avoid successful attacks, or reduce the chances of them hitting, for example.

Also I would think about what the players have to choose to do during play, and if that makes sense to affect whether someone gets hit or not. If the game only asks players whom they attack each round, it may be hard to avoid getting killed, and only be about target prioritization. Too simple a system, and you're not doing much more than rolling to see who's dead at the end. If on the other hand you have a map, then the players can move so as to get into positions that limit who can attack them in what ways and at what odds. Terrain and other figures can be obstacles. Nearby players may help protect you. And/or you could use an abstract system which represents the postions of the fighters, but lets everyone pick a type of activity that determines who can attack them and at what odds. Just some ideas.

Quote from: Skarg;908563There are many ways to want combat to go, and many ways to achieve that. It's not always obvious what your mechanics and values will achieve. Seems to me that armor damage reduction isn't quite not getting hit - it's getting hit but not being damaged as much. If that's the only way to avoid damage, then there can be no unarmored characters who are good at not getting hit. Similarly, if you make the effect of skill be to increase chances to hit, and not to avoid getting hit, then you can make it so there's no way to avoid getting hit by skilled characters.

So what do your think of ways to actually not get hit? Actions and/or skills that can either avoid successful attacks, or reduce the chances of them hitting, for example.

Also I would think about what the players have to choose to do during play, and if that makes sense to affect whether someone gets hit or not. If the game only asks players whom they attack each round, it may be hard to avoid getting killed, and only be about target prioritization. Too simple a system, and you're not doing much more than rolling to see who's dead at the end. If on the other hand you have a map, then the players can move so as to get into positions that limit who can attack them in what ways and at what odds. Terrain and other figures can be obstacles. Nearby players may help protect you. And/or you could use an abstract system which represents the postions of the fighters, but lets everyone pick a type of activity that determines who can attack them and at what odds. Just some ideas.

Under the current system Athletics is used to dodge ranged attacks, but costs that rounds action. Fighting is used to parry melee attacks and costs no actions. A quick look at some other games offer the following:

Movement - moving around; I'm not aiming to use battle-maps and whatnot so Movement may be moot.
Defensive Stance - forgoing action for defense bonus to all attacks.
Aid Others - give bonuses to teammate(s) for a round.
Cover - hiding behind stuff to avoid damage.

Other than that I haven't found a whole lot of options beyond these for avoiding damage. I'm definitely aiming for an abstract system because my players and I just sit around the living room relaxing and no one wants to be getting up and pushing minis around.

For contested actions, it notes highest 'roll' wins in combat.
So guy A has OK skill and rolls a 10 [success with cost], guy B has 'great' skill and rolls a 9 [success]; does A win because their roll is higher [10 vs. 9]?

Is it meant to work that way, or am I misreading this?
If yes, that's pretty interesting. (I don't know if I like it or not, but definitely interesting).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;908612For contested actions, it notes highest 'roll' wins in combat.
So guy A has OK skill and rolls a 10 [success with cost], guy B has 'great' skill and rolls a 9 [success]; does A win because their roll is higher [10 vs. 9]?

Is it meant to work that way, or am I misreading this?
If yes, that's pretty interesting. (I don't know if I like it or not, but definitely interesting).

Under the chart, a result of "Success" beats a "Success/w Cost"; a tie is broken by the highest roll when both get the same result. Though I'm thinking the chart may be an unnecessary complication.

Possibly, but depends what you're trying to do. +1 skill giving you a full 'column shift' does at least make skill-purchasing reasonably granular instead of giving out lots of individual points (if you're especially wedded to 3d6, anyway; smaller amounts can be granular too but rolling d6 or d10 doesn't give a bell-curve if that's what you like.).

The opposed-roll thing is also interesting in that from a min/maxing perspective, a +x to a roll (i.e. an Advantage) is probably better than a 'column shift' for skills that'll have lots of opposed contests.
(It could be a deterrent to people just plonking all their column shifts in one skill - except that players probably won't work that out straight away and would still build Fighty the Fighter with all their picks in Fighting anyway..).


Other than that, I think shields are a bit weak compared to two-handed weapon use (-1 damage vs. +d6 damage). I'd be tempted to treat shields as an Advantage perhaps.
Also, at the moment characters have two..things..'Health' and 'Skills'...maybe you could just define Health as a skill (maybe with the extra rule that a character can't buy Health initially).

Quote from: finarvyn;908497In general I agree with this notion -- I prefer a quick equation to a clunky table. On the other hand, this particular table is small enough that it could appear on a character sheet for easy reference. (And it could look even simpler if one would replace words with letters. E.g. EF, F, S/C, S, ES. It might take a bit to get used to, but could be small and compact.)

That would be worse--because then you'd have these letters that don't have any meaning _and_ a table. If you're going with table, use complete words. :-)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;908722Possibly, but depends what you're trying to do. +1 skill giving you a full 'column shift' does at least make skill-purchasing reasonably granular instead of giving out lots of individual points (if you're especially wedded to 3d6, anyway; smaller amounts can be granular too but rolling d6 or d10 doesn't give a bell-curve if that's what you like.).

Not having a flood of skill points was the initial reason for using the chart, so perhaps I won't rule out the chart entirely just yet. I'm also not completely married to 3d6 but I am trying to keep this little system to a single die type.

QuoteThe opposed-roll thing is also interesting in that from a min/maxing perspective, a +x to a roll (i.e. an Advantage) is probably better than a 'column shift' for skills that'll have lots of opposed contests.
(It could be a deterrent to people just plonking all their column shifts in one skill - except that players probably won't work that out straight away and would still build Fighty the Fighter with all their picks in Fighting anyway..).

I hadn't considered min-maxing but that does make sense. Perhaps a more defined list of Advantages/Disadvantages would be best. But then again my thought process was that most systems like this (Edges/Hindrances, Merits & Flaws, etc.) tend to just end up giving a flat bonus to some skill anyway so just cut out the middleman/fluff.

QuoteOther than that, I think shields are a bit weak compared to two-handed weapon use (-1 damage vs. +d6 damage). I'd be tempted to treat shields as an Advantage perhaps.
Also, at the moment characters have two..things..'Health' and 'Skills'...maybe you could just define Health as a skill (maybe with the extra rule that a character can't buy Health initially).

So shields give +2 to parrying attempts? That makes a lot of sense.

A Health skill is also something I hadn't considered. I have two initial ideas: 1) Health starts at 10 and each column shift increases it by 10 or 2) it acts as a normal skill, acting as a soak mechanic of sorts. Option 1 seems the most simple but option 2 seems rather intriguing and allows for a more...stable levels of hit points. If every character has a max of 10 or 20 HP, has an option to parry/dodge to avoid damage, armor to reduce damage that gets through and THEN has Health as a final chance to avoid or lessen damage then it feels like combat is much more dynamic than simply trading hits back and forth.

Going back to the shield, perhaps sacrificing it could be a last ditch effort to avoid damage if a Health roll fails horribly.