I'm not a fan of the different dice for weapon damage thing, but have to go with the majority, so damage suggestions:

• Dagger, Cosh/Club (1d4)
• Sword, Axe, Pistol, Submaching gun on single fire (1d6)
• Large sword or Axe, Rifle or Laser pistol (1d8)
• Laser Rifle or Submachine gun on auto fire (1d10)
• Grenade, High Calibre vehicle mounted weapon (1d12)
• Needle Gun (2d6) - limited armour penetration. No effect against armour 4 or more (anything more protective than kevlar?)
• Sonic Disruptor (special damage - Endurance check vs target number of 9 or suffer -5 to all rolls for 1d6 rounds)
• Laser Sword (1d6, armour penetrating. Armour is 8 points less effective against this weapon)
• Concentrated Acid for blood (1d6 damage for 1d6 rounds. 'Attacks' armour, so damage reduces armour value before it starts reducing health of target)

Just some top of the head stuff. Do we have enough to start submitting write ups for rules and gameplay examples?

Did we decide on stats?

I suggest a score of 1 to 5, with 1 being below average, 2 average, 3 above average, 4 is excellent and 5 is outstanding.

Skills might be, say, 1 for basic training, 2 for competent, 3 for skilled, 4 for expert, 5 for master.

With a possible +10 for truly talented/exceptional individuals, I think there would need to be extra grades of success possible. In combat every full 2 points above target number might be +1 damage, for example. Out of combat, every full 2 points above target number would reduce time taken to complete the task.

Possible stats:

Strength (used for melee combat)
Agility (used for defence)
Endurance (used to increase health)
Perception (used for missile combat)
Intelligence (used for many skills)
Nerve (check for nerve when under fire, taking damage etc)

Back (had to drive my train round to the next signal. Am in a power station).

With Nerve, I figure a failed check could result in penalties to hit, dropping your weapon in fright, even turning tail and running. Even the hardest, meanest most experienced soldier might get spooked sometimes.

I'd suggest a fairly short skill list, with specialisations possible (+2 to skill checks in one area, -1 to all other areas).

Example:

Vehicles skill (areas: Ground, Sea, Air, Space, Mech)
Weapons skill (areas: Melee, Archaic missile, Ballistic, Laser, Grenade, Special)
Survival skill (areas: climbing, foraging, swimming, trapping, tracking, shelter)
Tech skill (areas: Security bypass, Computers, Vehicle Repair, Weapon Repair, Demolition/Bomb disposal)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;569118FUDGE tried to go with a system where weapons weren't any more lethal from tech level - I forget the details now but it said something like "being stabbed through the kidney is no more lethal than being shot through the kidney with a sonic disruptor", and I think it just reduced armour against higher tech level weapons. It never really convinced me, though.

The US military has been rowing back on more powerful small arms for quite a while now, it was realised that dead is dead, and you won't get more dead from being shot by a bigger gun. Modern weapons, and I assume future weapons, are tailored to the same end, just dangerous enough to do the job properly, any more so is less efficient in terms of ammunition capacity and sometimes accuracy. When it comes to a modern battle rifle, they could easily be more damaging, but why bother? They are already deadly enough to kill anything short of say a whale with a well aimed shot, a direct hit will probably get by even the strongest wearable armour.

So the idea of increasingly dangerous weapons is a bit misleading, after a while things plateau. Laser weapons with no recoil might be more dangerous say, but not because they are intrinsically more damaging, but because they will be more accurate.

Quote from: The Traveller;569169The US military has been rowing back on more powerful small arms for quite a while now, it was realised that dead is dead, and you won't get more dead from being shot by a bigger gun. Modern weapons, and I assume future weapons, are tailored to the same end, just dangerous enough to do the job properly, any more so is less efficient in terms of ammunition capacity and sometimes accuracy. When it comes to a modern battle rifle, they could easily be more damaging, but why bother? They are already deadly enough to kill anything short of say a whale with a well aimed shot, a direct hit will probably get by even the strongest wearable armour.

So the idea of increasingly dangerous weapons is a bit misleading, after a while things plateau. Laser weapons with no recoil might be more dangerous say, but not because they are intrinsically more damaging, but because they will be more accurate.

Re weapons - multiuse is the issue. If you can set a blaster on 4 to kill a guy then maybe setting it to 9 can kill a guy in battle armour or take down a scout ship.
Take Jonny Alpha's Westinghouse pistol the Number 4 cartridge can blow a hole in a wall or take out a tank.

Stat wise I am fine with 0-5 but don;t mind -ves

Quote from: APN;569158I'm not a fan of the different dice for weapon damage thing, but have to go with the majority, so damage suggestions:

• Dagger, Cosh/Club (1d4)
• Sword, Axe, Pistol, Submaching gun on single fire (1d6)
• Large sword or Axe, Rifle or Laser pistol (1d8)
• Laser Rifle or Submachine gun on auto fire (1d10)
• Grenade, High Calibre vehicle mounted weapon (1d12)
• Needle Gun (2d6) - limited armour penetration. No effect against armour 4 or more (anything more protective than kevlar?)
• Sonic Disruptor (special damage - Endurance check vs target number of 9 or suffer -5 to all rolls for 1d6 rounds)
• Laser Sword (1d6, armour penetrating. Armour is 8 points less effective against this weapon)
• Concentrated Acid for blood (1d6 damage for 1d6 rounds. 'Attacks' armour, so damage reduces armour value before it starts reducing health of target)

Just some top of the head stuff. Do we have enough to start submitting write ups for rules and gameplay examples?

Did we decide on stats?

I suggest a score of 1 to 5, with 1 being below average, 2 average, 3 above average, 4 is excellent and 5 is outstanding.

Skills might be, say, 1 for basic training, 2 for competent, 3 for skilled, 4 for expert, 5 for master.

With a possible +10 for truly talented/exceptional individuals, I think there would need to be extra grades of success possible. In combat every full 2 points above target number might be +1 damage, for example. Out of combat, every full 2 points above target number would reduce time taken to complete the task.

Possible stats:

Strength (used for melee combat)
Agility (used for defence)
Endurance (used to increase health)
Perception (used for missile combat)
Intelligence (used for many skills)
Nerve (check for nerve when under fire, taking damage etc)

This is all looking pretty good, I think.
Minor points:
*Endurance/health - did someone want a  fixed 10 health levels? If so, how to reconcile that with variable health off Endurance? - perhaps now is the time to discuss whether Soaking is a good idea...?

*I like the 1-5 stat range. I don't like 'negative' stats so much since with this range you can have a rule like "You can't dodge, so get no bonus to defense from DEX" and it actually penalizes everyone, even if they have a low Dexterity/Agility, without a lot of kludging and fooling around to define what Dex unmoving objects (e.g. barns) have.

*I could go with 2:1 increase to damage off to-hit roll I guess. 1:1 is simpler but perhaps it would give too much damage off a high roll, particularly if 10s explode? If we did want 1:1 the rolls for damage there might need to go up a bit, and hit points a bit.

Maybe time to put our money where our mouths are. I'll start a draft document about abilities, checks and basic combat, then stick it on here for people to pull to bits. Hopefully whatever is left after a mauling can form the basis of starting to get this done...

Quote from: APN;570271Maybe time to put our money where our mouths are. I'll start a draft document about abilities, checks and basic combat, then stick it on here for people to pull to bits. Hopefully whatever is left after a mauling can form the basis of starting to get this done...

I have tomorrow off I'll get to work then on some setting stuff and skills. Today I work and can only get in enough time to post messages and work a bit on my own project.

Thanks again guys. I have a fairly busy week ahead here, so unsure how much I'll be able to appear, but good luck. After next week things return to normal, though.

Anyone have a synopsis sheet for this thread?

@Silverlion: you're definitely welcome to contribute if you're interested!
In answer to your question I did a summary on about page 14 up to that point, and here's some design goals which were informed by discussion.
The last few pages have been discussing armour and how best to handle damage (fixed+amount hit roll succeeds by, rolled+amount hit roll succeeds by, table-based), and attribute score scale (1-5 scale seems to be more popular).
 

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;568217Combed through the thread to see what we'd discussed and any conclusions.
 
Fast, light, easy to play game - see the posts on design goals.
 
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

Here's the design goals:
 

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;567529OK my take on some ‘design goal’ type stuff based on discussion so far, plus my own thought on it. Feel free to critique...
 
Specifications: the system is intended to be designed as a traditional RPG with fairly light rules. As a fairly light RPG it is designed to have fast character generation, run quickly, and require a minimum of book referencing or table lookups during play.
 
Audience: potentially accessible for people relatively new to gaming. As a light system, it is also more likely to be used by experienced gamers for short one-off games or brief mini-campaigns (the rules being light enough to pick it up easily and prep a scenario without spending a lot of time) as opposed to longer campaigns. It might be used for games with only one or two players (the whole group can’t make it) with little setup.
If campaigns are fairly brief, advancement rate in skills/abilities can also be quite fast (i.e. d10 skills/short RNG is fine). This and operating with few players suggests the system does not require substantial niche protection (classes) and can be skill-based. Characters should start out fairly capable, at least in a few areas.
 
Lethality: as character generation is fairly rapid and games are likely to be short-term ( as well as possibly being options to body switch etc.?) combat can be quite lethal/ gritty.
 
Feel: still depends on setting chosen. As an SF game, its likely to be fairly light in tone despite war themes (perhaps humorous?).
 
Goal of play: victory, survival, and character improvement.
 
Points of difference to existing RPGs and likely competitors / Why would I play this?; TBH, currently the main draw would be the setting.
Its usefulness as a generic system would depend on the final quality of the mechanics developed. If other design goals (fast combat, light rules) are met, it might be useful as a general rules-light SF game. Competitors in a similar space might be Savage Worlds, 3:16, and D6 System/miniD6 (Star Wars?), perhaps the Warhammer 40K family of games.
Building off the ‘Hybrids vs. Abominations’ setting would makes the game more specific, but adds rules useful for transhumanist-type SF games (e.g. it would be sort of useful for running an Eclipse Phase type game, perhaps removing ‘hybrids’).
 
Other Notes: as a War themed game, the game should be able to handle lots of NPCs at once without breaking , and probably some sort of mass combat resolution system would be useful.
 
 
Primary Design Objectives – Prioritized
I thought about putting “Fun!” as the #1 option, but I guess all the goals are aimed at fun in different ways. So instead I’ve put as follows:
1) Simplicity - systems should be easy to remember and use.
2) Speed/Ease of Use- combat and basic tasks should be quick.
3) Interesting combat – without classes/levels or a complex system, its likely there would be a few tactical options and abilities that can be used by any character. In keeping with the immersion thing, and to keep the game working for newbies, ideally abilities should be describable by the player as what their character would do and then interpreted into rules by the GM, rather than requiring players to know the rules and apply them in a metagame fashion. Perhaps use of actual military tactics and strategies (allowing for the circumstances and tech) should be rewarded?
4) Immersion (/roleplay) – it should be possible to develop interesting characters with whom it is possible to identify, despite them being of weird races or whatnot. Rules shouldn’t be too intrusive on player’s willing sense of disbelief; setting should be well-constructed and self-consistent.
5) Scaling – the system should be able to handle multiple NPCs/large combats.

There was a vote on settings with #1 and #2 winners being compatible enough to perhaps be combined.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23630

Skill Sets: So we know we're gonna have skills. There should be quite a few. Here are the ones I can think of for now. I tried to make them simple (in both description and conception) assuming we're not gonna make anything too complicated. If we're going to o all GURPs or 7th Sea then I can give it another once over.

Combat: Not gonna cover this. Someone else can do this one.

Defenses – Also not covering this.

Exploration:
Tracking – used for hardcore rustic travel style tracking
Spot – ability to see things obviously
Listen – ability to hear stuff
Forage – For finding stuff that's edible, finding drinking water, knowing what to eat/not eat
Cartography – Makin' maps. Readin' maps.
Acrobatics – Doin' flips 'n' shit.
Pilot – If there are vehicles
Ride – If there are beasts to ride.
Investigate – Knowing how to sweep a place, pick up on slight clues most people wouldn't. Basically what you use to search for stuff
Stealth – Your ability to conceal your presence

Knowledge
Herbology – for poisons, salves, ointments
Biology- For knowing stuff about the wildlife both regular and abomination. Used for biotech stuff
Engineering – For the machines, knowing about and building them.
Programming  - For creating, hacking, and altering software, programs, etc.
Ecology – Knowing about the environment, weather, circle of life.
History – Gotta know your history
Tactics – Knowledge on how military procedure goes both on and off the field of battle.
Architecture – Knowing how structures are built (allowing for navigation inside otherwise unknown structures), how to build them or take them down.
Linguistics – Ability to speak a bunch of languages, decipher codes, even catch on to double talk
Treatment – For the healing, limb replacement, enhancement, etc

Physical
Endurance (If not just an attribute roll) – for hardcore stuff like going days without eating, resistance to poison and disease, shitty conditions and the like.
Climb – Climbing over stuff, swinging from chandeliers, etc
Jump – Vertical movement up and over stuff, across chasms, etc
Swimming – diving, swimming, treading water, etc
(Can't think of any more)
Steal – Your ability to pilfer something whether others know it or not.

Social
Etiquette – Basically knowing how to not piss people off. In refined settings its how you know about dem manners and what not.

Manipulate – Your ability to fast talk someone into believing you or agreeing with you.

Lie – Your ability to act, deceive, and trick You're also able to pick up on what might help a lie and how to spin thins.

Intimidate – Your ability to scare the crap out of someone or to just "be" imposing. You know the body language and can pick up on it from others.

Insight – Your intuition. Its that feeling you get when something just isn't right or when you KNOW someone is lying to you/withholding the truth.

Empathy – Your ability to pick up on slight gestures, movements, signals, allowing you to grasp how someone/ some thing is feeling. This ability allows you to know, by looking, listening, etc, exactly how someone is feeling and what mood they are in.

That skill set looks like a good start, but I think we should have a general discussion about social skills to see if everyone is on the same page there. Also the list needs something for talents like music, art, carpentry, etc.

Insight and empathy seem to have a lot of overlap.

Maybe things pike sciences should be open skills. You cover alot of them on the list, but chemistry, physics and geology may also be important in a game like this.

Ah, I'd like to see fixed damage modified by quality roll is my ideal, most of the time.

Random damage plus quality modifiers creates very dangerous levels of randomness where the randomness will eventually wipe out a PC/NPC who is important in play. While fixed scores plus quality modifiers allow you to more easily fix armor and balance play to be exciting and dangerous without too much "and suddenly Captain Kirk dies.."

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570601That skill set looks like a good start, but I think we should have a general discussion about social skills to see if everyone is on the same page there. Also the list needs something for talents like music, art, carpentry, etc.

Insight and empathy seem to have a lot of overlap.

Maybe things pike sciences should be open skills. You cover alot of them on the list, but chemistry, physics and geology may also be important in a game like this.

This is a military style campaign isn't it? Would there be art checks in game?

Quote from: MGuy;570604This is a military style campaign isn't it? Would there be art checks in game?

That doesn't mean it wont come up. I assume it wont be all military all the time. Even if it is, think of something like star ship troopers where on of the guys played violin in the barracks. Stuff like that can come up. Havin an open skill for things in that category is a good way to accomodate the player who wants his tough as nails marine captain to have unexpected familiarity with shakespeare or a background in singing.