Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;567917Have been a bit busy today sorry...
Mixing the Hybrid idea and New Eden sounds like a great idea! (although perhaps I'm biased - those were the two I voted for ). Still can't see who voted for what, ah well...I'm sure I could see it before I actually cast my vote...anyway.
 
I like the mass combat rules. What I would perhaps add is a system whereby the PCs can keep playing with normal 1-on-1 combat, while the mass combat rages on around them, have the results from their battle flow into the overall battle (enemy units destroyed). At least, that might work fun with smaller units (10 figures), PCs can't be expected to do much at the 100 figure or 1000 figure scale.
 
 
I think the next fundamental questions we have yet to resolve mechanically are.
*#1 random roll vs. point-buy
*#2 what attributes to use.
*#3 what scale should attributes follow i.e. 1-10, 1-5, -5 to +5, etc. Ties in to the question of how much is too much difference in a d10 system. Currently thinking 1-10 would be too much, not sure though. 1-5 with 2 being average?
 
I think the answers to the first two questions are linked together, though it also depends on setting. For a body switching game, it shouldn't matter so much what a character's physical stats are, so it would be fine to randomly roll them. Possibly mentals should be point buy; multiple mental stats would be necessary either way- either a random roll for one mental stat gives a character a single bad stat that is their only 'real' stat that follows them forever, and point buy on one stat would give every character the same score. If you did have point buy for all stats, it'd have to be separate sets of points for the physicals and the mentals - body switching would change the array but not the total point score.
 
Perhaps STR, DEX, CON, INT, PER (Perception), CHA as stats ?
 
Random scores could be determined with [3d4-2] if we had a 1-10 scale, or maybe a dice pool (roll, count successes) if its 1-5. Point buy is fairly easy if scores are pretty low - basically you have something like "split 7 points among 3 stats".
 
If people are really bugged about balance, we could also generate stats by making some balanced arrays and rolling which you got (it needs a table, but before the game), or you could have stats in pairs and just roll for how much of each you get e.g. you might have 8 stats that are something like Size/Dex, Con/Appearance (?), Intelligence/Perception, Charisma/Will...you get say 2d4 for the first stat in the pair, then [10-that roll] for the other stat in the pair.

If we use hybrids we will want to differential chargen for then as opposed to human colonists.

Do we have a summary of what has been decided so far? Dice mechanic, target numbers, skills, stats?

Has anyone brought up Psionics as a possibility?

Quote from: APN;568068Do we have a summary of what has been decided so far? Dice mechanic, target numbers, skills, stats?
 
Has anyone brought up Psionics as a possibility?

On psionics as a possibility - I guess they have now
 
Combed through the thread to see what we'd discussed and any conclusions.
 
Fast, light, easy to play game - see the posts on design goals (yours in #4, my further discussion recently).
 
Feel - leans toward 'gritty' ?
 
Core mechanic d10+stat+skill.
 
Base difficulties proposed - Easy 3, Moderate 5, Hard 6-7, Very Hard 9, Extreme 11. Adjust these up by +average attribute, when we figure out what an 'average' attribute score is. +5 was proposed as a good 'high end' specialized character bonus - giving a 50/50 chance of beating Extreme, fails a Hard roll only on a 1.
Degrees of success debated. No critical failure.
　
Skill-based rather than class-based. (random-roll/lifepath proposed as one option, but I think this is likely to be controversial).
Proposed skills thus far in examples: Tactics, Leadership, Stealth, Rifle, Handgun, Martial Arts, Athletics, Observation, Survival, Explosives, First Aid.
If untrained skill use is possible may vary from skill to skill. Suggested skills be broad (if less broad than say Savage Worlds) that are fairly 'free form' i.e. descriptions have a fair latitude for GM interpretation.
 
Set defense scores e.g. in combat rather than rolling opposed rolls.
 
Hit locations are out - nothing more complex than some some quick rules for special manuevers maybe.
 
Probably mostly static hit points (not escalating much with experience), since I think we're aiming for higher lethality.
 
Toolkit for monster design? Comparison table for monsters - suggested but for later consideration.
 
Mind switching - currently view seems to be against a mental degradation with each transfer.
 
Contents - see post #68.
 
Mass Combat rules- see post #133

Had some comp problems with my laptop so sorry for the late weigh in if anybody was waiting on it. On setting with light rules we should definitely count on the setting to be the interest point for the game.

Psionics is questionable sine we are using techie stuff to move people's brains around but if we are going to use it I think that it should come in the form of biotech. You get some kind of parasite that can catch, read, and alter brain waves. You have to like attach it to your body and blah blah. Of course its a skill and it takes skill to use. Alternatively or in addition to that you can have some tech do the same thing. Since we're assuming a bit of technological advancement in that we have stuff that can record and emit brainwaves any number of "Scramblers" or hacking programs can exist.

HP should be mostly static. Perhaps certain abilities, equipment, etc can be used to alter it but it should largely stay the same.

I personally do not like openly humorous games so I'm against designing for it personally.

I do not really want "random" character gen though I'll work with it if I have to. But just to throw it out there random character gen produces random, unreliable results. Some characters can get rolled up that are usable, unfeasible, and just plain bad ass or under powered. What's more is, I don't think its necessary in this kind of rules lite game. If you hyper specialize too much you won't be able to do much in the game which'll make your character boring. If you just toss your shit around to build a certain character type then that's ok with me and I see no reason to not do that. At best I'd say randomize starting body and just build the mental stats/skills.

Stat wise I thought we were avoiding the echoes of D20. Shouldn't we then be avoiding the standard stat array as well? If we're not then yea I pretty much agree with all those.

I'll run through an idea of what combat *might* (or might not) look like.

Stats:

Agility - hand/eye coordination, balance, dexterity
Perception - judging distance, finding hidden targets, reading an opponents movement
Strength - lifting power, hand to hand skill and damage

Example:

Marine 2nd Class Smith sees a distant Xeno (Perception check passed) and levels his plasma rifle (Range 25/50m/100m/200m damage +7) checking the range through the viewfinder. The enemy is 75m away (long range, very hard difficulty) and there is no speed or cover modifier (it's stood in the open looking in the opposite direction) and its unaware of the attack so cannot modify the difficulty with its Agility score.

He takes a deep breath, then fires...

Roll 1D10 + Agility (2) + Skill (2)

Roll is 8 on 1d10, total 12, exceeding target number (9) by 3 points which is treated as damage. Damage is increased by the weapon (+7) so total damage is 10 points.

The Xeno has 3 points of natural chitinous armour, so takes 7 damage from its health of 10 points. Injured, it screams out loud and drops to the floor, looking for cover and the source of the attack.

=========

Notes - I'm of the opinion that a more successful attack should be more accurate and inflict more damage, hence the base damage of the attack being the difference between target number and roll result. I'd suggest 1 being auto failure and 10 'exploding' so it's possible to pull off the 'impossible'

Open to other ideas/suggestions/comments, as usual.

Quote from: APN;568531Roll is 8 on 1d10, total 12, exceeding target number (9) by 3 points which is treated as damage. Damage is increased by the weapon (+7) so total damage is 10 points.

Minimum damage with this system is full rifle damage, seven points, which doesn't allow any leeway for glancing blows or flesh wounds. I recommend you set up a table so say
1 over target: 1/4 damage
2 over target: 1/2 damage
3 over target: base damage
4 over target: +1 damage

and so on, or modify to suit the range of expected rolls.

Quote from: APN;568531I'll run through an idea of what combat *might* (or might not) look like.

Stats:

Agility - hand/eye coordination, balance, dexterity
Perception - judging distance, finding hidden targets, reading an opponents movement
Strength - lifting power, hand to hand skill and damage

Example:

Marine 2nd Class Smith sees a distant Xeno (Perception check passed) and levels his plasma rifle (Range 25/50m/100m/200m damage +7) checking the range through the viewfinder. The enemy is 75m away (long range, very hard difficulty) and there is no speed or cover modifier (it's stood in the open looking in the opposite direction) and its unaware of the attack so cannot modify the difficulty with its Agility score.

He takes a deep breath, then fires...

Roll 1D10 + Agility (2) + Skill (2)

Roll is 8 on 1d10, total 12, exceeding target number (9) by 3 points which is treated as damage. Damage is increased by the weapon (+7) so total damage is 10 points.

The Xeno has 3 points of natural chitinous armour, so takes 7 damage from its health of 10 points. Injured, it screams out loud and drops to the floor, looking for cover and the source of the attack.

=========

Notes - I'm of the opinion that a more successful attack should be more accurate and inflict more damage, hence the base damage of the attack being the difference between target number and roll result. I'd suggest 1 being auto failure and 10 'exploding' so it's possible to pull off the 'impossible'

Open to other ideas/suggestions/comments, as usual.

I like this. 1 as automatic failure is I think reasonable, even if we don't have fumbles.

Quote from: The Traveller;568532Minimum damage with this system is full rifle damage, seven points, which doesn't allow any leeway for glancing blows or flesh wounds. I recommend you set up a table so say
1 over target: 1/4 damage
2 over target: 1/2 damage
3 over target: base damage
4 over target: +1 damage

and so on, or modify to suit the range of expected rolls.

The table approach is more cumbersome than I'd like.

I think to allow for glancing blows - I think you could have a damage roll for a weapon as well as adding extra points for how much the roll succeeds by.
So say Rifle is d8 damage, you'd get a glancing blow/flesh wound if the damage roll was poor + the hit roll wasn't high enough to further increase it.
I think the 1:1 adding to damage is ideal, indeed probably one of the reasons to go with d10 in the first place (you don't see many d20 systems doing this).

I do like 10s exploding as well, though there's a question of whether it would lead to insanely high damage results too frequently with this system.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;568590I like this. 1 as automatic failure is I think reasonable, even if we don't have fumbles.



The table approach is more cumbersome than I'd like.

I think to allow for glancing blows - I think you could have a damage roll for a weapon as well as adding extra points for how much the roll succeeds by.
So say Rifle is d8 damage, you'd get a glancing blow/flesh wound if the damage roll was poor + the hit roll wasn't high enough to further increase it.
I think the 1:1 adding to damage is ideal, indeed probably one of the reasons to go with d10 in the first place (you don't see many d20 systems doing this).

I do like 10s exploding as well, though there's a question of whether it would lead to insanely high damage results too frequently with this system.

Edit: Reread something I think the example is the way to go. The table is unnecessary. As long as we are keeping things this lethal than it should work out just as planned.

Quote from: MGuy;568610Edit: Reread something I think the example is the way to go. The table is unnecessary. As long as we are keeping things this lethal than it should work out just as planned.

My opinion is to give the rifle a dice damage.
So a laser rifle does 1d10. Then the effect number can be a damage bonus

So in this case the rifle would deal 1d10 +3

Now its an extra dice roll but I think its worth it to get the range of flesh wound through to major hit.

Now if we want to keep the range of dice simple we can have everything deal 1d10 -/+ mods but I think a dice for damage is fine.

Or you can work on a threshold basis. So remove the laser rifle damage bonus and give it a to hit bonus. The roll yields an effect number that compares to a threshold stay the standard is 3. You get a hit then the effect numbner is compared to eh threshold. EN = 1-3  > 1 wound  EN = 3-6 > 2 wounds etc
then we track the wounds on a wound tracker ont eh Character Sheet (say we give 8 wounds with a death spiral).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;568590I think to allow for glancing blows - I think you could have a damage roll for a weapon as well as adding extra points for how much the roll succeeds by.
So say Rifle is d8 damage, you'd get a glancing blow/flesh wound if the damage roll was poor + the hit roll wasn't high enough to further increase it.
I think the 1:1 adding to damage is ideal, indeed probably one of the reasons to go with d10 in the first place (you don't see many d20 systems doing this).

Oh yeah sure, in weapon damage systems there are really only two choices, fixed and random. Fixed damage needs that table, random damage restricts you if you want a wide variety of weapons and adds an extra roll onto the combat. I won't go into the particulars, since one approach is as valid as the other.

My own preference is for fixed damage, I provide a little supplemental table of damage if people want to reference it rather than mentally crunch the numbers. Eg:
Damage (Quarter Damage)
1 (1)
2 (1)
3 (1)
4 (1)
5 (1)
6 (2)
7 (2)
8 (2)
9 (2)
10 (3)
etc

Well, the way I wrote it was that accuracy (attack roll - target number=1 point or more) reflects how accurate the shot was rather than rely on a random amount of damage from a second roll. The damage bonus of the weapon I listed was the minimum amount of damage that weapon causes, increased by accuracy. A dagger might be +1, a sword +3, grenade +10 within 2m of blast, +8 within 2-5m of blast, +6 within 5-10m of blast and +4 from 10-15m of blast.

A single point (or at least, a low accuracy) would represent a glancing blow. Much higher than that and you're looking at a nasty sucking chest wound or whatever. The more skilled you are (and lucky) the more damage you will cause, and a skilled opponent will just about every time (barring horrible dice) inflict more damage than a rookie, which is how it should be in my opinion. Rolling a random die for damage is all well and good (and has served us for decades with most games) but to me an expert warrior should always, consistently, beat the farmer with a pitchfork, barring luck.

Rolling damage for an attack AND for damage requires that the expert be lucky twice to exceed the damage done by farmer giles with the pitchfork in the field (with Miss Scarlett, but that's a different story).

A single roll determines how accurate the attack is, and how much damage it does, is determined by Stat+Skill (higher=better) and luck (from the roll). neat, easy, done.

And yeah, lethal, but combat shouldn't be all about blind luck in my opinion, and two rolls (one for hit, one for damage) does lessen the impact of skill and increase the importance of luck.

Just my 2 cents

Quote from: APN;568677A single roll determines how accurate the attack is, and how much damage it does, is determined by Stat+Skill (higher=better) and luck (from the roll). neat, easy, done.

The problem is that farmer Giles with the plasma rifle always does at least 7 points of damage no matter where he hits, which probably isn't an accurate reflection of some of the possible outcomes of battle. People get grazed and suffer flesh wounds, there needs to be a lesser damage option. Even a two handed greatsword is still able to merely nick someone.

Armour penetrating weapons reduce armour effectiveness. Against Vibro Daggers and Laser swords, you may as well be unarmoured because they can slice through armour so easily!

Things like the energy shields (from Dune, can't remember the name) may be useful in cancelling out armour penetration effects.

Nasty, messy weapons like Chainsaws are horribly inaccurate, but if you can (somehow) strike an accurate blow, you'll cause a massive amount of damage, chewing through armour, bone, skin and muscle, and making a mess in the process, no doubt.

Weapons with a fumble danger should be treated with caution - if you mess up with one of these, you may end up injuring or killing yourself! Also, a miss in close quarters combat may have a chance of striking a colleague!

I'll keep chucking shit out there - some of this might stick to the wall, the rest might just slide off, but if it can be of use, happy to help

Quote from: The Traveller;568680The problem is that farmer Giles with the plasma rifle always does at least 7 points of damage no matter where he hits, which probably isn't an accurate reflection of some of the possible outcomes of battle. People get grazed and suffer flesh wounds, there needs to be a lesser damage option. Even a two handed greatsword is still able to merely nick someone.

Merely nicking would be treated as a miss (rolling a total equal to the target number, for example). A two handed greatsword, if it hits with any degree of accuracy, will probably lop a limb off unless you are armoured (I'm going to the armouries museum in Leeds later today or tomorrow, I'll try to get a picture of a 'two handed greatsword' to post up to illustrate my point )

Quote from: The Traveller;568680The problem is that farmer Giles with the plasma rifle always does at least 7 points of damage no matter where he hits, which probably isn't an accurate reflection of some of the possible outcomes of battle. People get grazed and suffer flesh wounds, there needs to be a lesser damage option. Even a two handed greatsword is still able to merely nick someone.

Agreed so the option is a threshold one or a random roll.

In a threshold the ammount by which you suceed the to hit indicates damage.
In a random one the roll to hit may adjust the damage but the damage is separately rolled.

If you do the threshold option but then add a + damage for each weapon you are removing an entire set of plausible results.

I think referencing a damage table is slow. I think using a divide by threshold mechanic might hurt some poor folks brains (the 3 threshold wound I suggested basically says divide the effect number by 3 and round up to get number of wounds).
The  damage dice idea is well know and easy to understand and its easy to do with no look up.