This may be a stupid idea, but just wondering if anyone might be vaguely interested in designing an rpg as a group effort here?
I know most people have their own projects they're working on, but I thought it might be interesting as an experiment - even if it doesn't get completed, people might enjoy bouncing ideas off each other and learn something from it, or might branch off and take a framework for their own design in the off chance we make substantial progress before hitting some sort of irreconcilable creative difference.
Personally I'm fairly flexible as to setting or core mechanics or whatnot for this (I have my own other projects to obsess over every detail of too, of course).
Sign me up! I am working on a random generator at the moment, but that is largely done with the preliminary stuff, just need to arrange it and make it work.
Great! :) Feel free to put up any details you don't mind sharing, if its something that could be used for the project. Any preferences as to what sort of setting or other details of what you'd like to work on, too? (I usually tend to default to fantasy since thats what I play the most of, but I'm easy).
Anyone else? I expect people are lurking and will probably only appear if this thing looks like going in a direction that interests them, which is fair enough. (If anyone wants help building something unusual, now could be the time to float your idea of a post-apocalyptic space cowboy d14 game, before too many other people appear who need to be convinced its a great idea..? ;)).
I've toyed with home brewed systems for over 30 years (though back then they were all more or less a clone of D&D and whatever game I could read about in magazines because I couldn't afford to buy them). Happy to pitch in - I've always got 3 or 4 home brew games in writing at any one time, but a joint effort could be fun, if the work load isn't too high and a common consensus can be reached on what is wanted/required.
For me (any/all of these are what I aim for, others may have differing opinions):
- Ultra fast character creation
- Probably stat as bonus
- I don't mind either realistic/gritty or cube o hit points thing, but my own home brew efforts are leaning towards static hit points at 1st level on, and the character just gets better at avoiding blows through skill or luck
- Any genre, cross genre, anything interesting, different, based off a book or film with serials filed off?
- cards, dice, resource management, coin flipping and count heads or tails, any other mechanics out there?
- Easy to read and play, even for a novice (so it might need an optional 'this is what roleplaying is' bit, and that could be fun to invite people on the forum to write the clearest, easiest to understand section to put in as a bit of a no-prize competition)
- Art - stick men style as in order of the stick, or best effort elmore/otus knockoff. Anything to spice the pages up from dry dull reading.
- Keep the page count low
- sample adventure or campaign
If anyone needs an example of low page count multi genre rpg take a look at this (mini six) (http://antipaladingames.com/minisix.html)
Excellent, free, multi genre, works. Job done.
Could we (as a group) match or dare I say, better that?
Quote from: APN;565962I don't mind either realistic/gritty or cube o hit points thing, but my own home brew efforts are leaning towards static hit points at 1st level on, and the character just gets better at avoiding blows through skill or luck
This is important I feel. Of course monsters and weapons plus armour need to be scaled accordingly.
Quote from: APN;565962I've toyed with home brewed systems for over 30 years (though back then they were all more or less a clone of D&D and whatever game I could read about in magazines because I couldn't afford to buy them). Happy to pitch in - I've always got 3 or 4 home brew games in writing at any one time, but a joint effort could be fun, if the work load isn't too high and a common consensus can be reached on what is wanted/required.
For me (any/all of these are what I aim for, others may have differing opinions):
- Ultra fast character creation
- Probably stat as bonus
- I don't mind either realistic/gritty or cube o hit points thing, but my own home brew efforts are leaning towards static hit points at 1st level on, and the character just gets better at avoiding blows through skill or luck
- Any genre, cross genre, anything interesting, different, based off a book or film with serials filed off?
- cards, dice, resource management, coin flipping and count heads or tails, any other mechanics out there?
- Easy to read and play, even for a novice (so it might need an optional 'this is what roleplaying is' bit, and that could be fun to invite people on the forum to write the clearest, easiest to understand section to put in as a bit of a no-prize competition)
- Art - stick men style as in order of the stick, or best effort elmore/otus knockoff. Anything to spice the pages up from dry dull reading.
- Keep the page count low
- sample adventure or campaign
If anyone needs an example of low page count multi genre rpg take a look at this (mini six) (http://antipaladingames.com/minisix.html)
Excellent, free, multi genre, works. Job done.
Could we (as a group) match or dare I say, better that?
Welcome aboard! I'm all for consensus - it'd have to be done democratically I think, I don't want to assume any sort of authority just because I started the thread.
Checked out Mini6 - nice system. As far as matching or bettering, you don't know until you try...
On the design aims you put forward, there's nothing there I don't like. I'd be happy with fast rather than super fast for character generation.
Flexible on hit point methods - it depends a bit on genre but I usually like decent HP to start and slow increases (maybe a really tough person has double or triple the starting HP) but with a critical/ high attack roll adding bonus damage so that after gaining some experience and fighting skill, a hero gets the ability to take down weaker foes in one blow. But there is something to be said for gritty HP or just subtracting it off CON.
On stat as bonus I often agonize over this - the main issue for me is the tradeoff between having a big enough stat scale that ability damage works, and a simple to use bonus system.
Also, hi Traveller :)
I'm certainly ineterested.
Not really looking to do a collaborative fanstasy game though as working on my own heartbreaker.
The genre I think I could really buy into would be a Scifi future war.
I posted on the 'are military RPGs dead' thread that I think a futurewar game using the "biochip" concept would be intetresting.
Mechaincs wise I tend to move toward
- Stat as bonus
- Multiple chargen paths - random, lifepath, point buy - that all end up witha similar final outcome
- Dials for combat and skills - that is to say a simple core that you can dial up the complexity on
- Not a fan of hit points for this genre - but generally don't mind them provided they don't escalate too high
- Templates/archetypes rather than classes
- Prefer toolkits over splat - so 2 dozen 'monsters' and a toolkit for building more rather than 2000 'monsters'
From a design perspective I am good at working fast to get a lot of stuff covered. I am bad at the final draft.
QuotePrefer toolkits over splat - so 2 dozen 'monsters' and a toolkit for building more rather than 2000 'monsters'
I guess you could just use stats for this as you would an ordinary PC, save for the addition of stats such as Ferocity, Size and Cunning, or some such, specifically for monsters, with a list of special abilities that activate or can be used in certain circumstances. Example (off top of head):
(http://s11.postimage.org/h1wbr3sj7/sample_sheet.gif)
I guess by presenting a few monsters in a side by side comparison table, then having a separate list of special abilities to draw on, or weaknesses (marked by !) you can easily compare the monster you want to make against an existing one. Is it stronger than an Orc? Weaker than an Ogre? Give it strength 3. Go down the list, give it any special abilities then give it a name. Done.
(These stats and numbers were reeled from my brain - I have no idea how they work or fit into a game system, but most are self explanatory I guess.)
Quote from: jibbajibba;565974I'm certainly ineterested.
Not really looking to do a collaborative fanstasy game though as working on my own heartbreaker.
The genre I think I could really buy into would be a Scifi future war.
I posted on the 'are military RPGs dead' thread that I think a futurewar game using the "biochip" concept would be intetresting.
Mechaincs wise I tend to move toward
- Stat as bonus
- Multiple chargen paths - random, lifepath, point buy - that all end up witha similar final outcome
- Dials for combat and skills - that is to say a simple core that you can dial up the complexity on
- Not a fan of hit points for this genre - but generally don't mind them provided they don't escalate too high
- Templates/archetypes rather than classes
- Prefer toolkits over splat - so 2 dozen 'monsters' and a toolkit for building more rather than 2000 'monsters'
From a design perspective I am good at working fast to get a lot of stuff covered. I am bad at the final draft.
Nothing here that I don't mind, either. As regards 'dials' perhaps meshing that with what APN suggested would mean a pdf of basic rules, then more rules elsewhere, or rules with a basic section and then a later elaborations section?
I went and looked over the future war thread and was surprised how much interest that sort of idea generated..interesting, though I guess depends what everyone wants to do.
I'm almost entirely ignorant as regards modern-day firearms, but if its a bit more futuristic/SF, maybe my biology background might come in handy for doing some aliens or something:)
On other skills, I think I'm fairly good as far as editing goes (picking up typos and spelling errors, or just mechanic nitpicking), but sadly no artistic ability or graphic design skills over here.
Quote from: APN;565993I guess by presenting a few monsters in a side by side comparison table, then having a separate list of special abilities to draw on, or weaknesses (marked by !) you can easily compare the monster you want to make against an existing one. Is it stronger than an Orc? Weaker than an Ogre? Give it strength 3. Go down the list, give it any special abilities then give it a name. Done.
(These stats and numbers were reeled from my brain - I have no idea how they work or fit into a game system, but most are self explanatory I guess.)
The comparison table is a good way to get a lot of benchmarks together in one spot to help the GM judge good values for monsters, and pretty efficient with space.
A few systems would even have monsters and PCs just draw off the same special ability lists - 'effects based' systems like Hero or Savage Worlds. It does depend a bit on what you expert PCs to look like, though (I think the single list for both works best for supers or multigenre games where a PC might be anything).
I'd be into any of the following:
Lifepath or retroclone (I have an idea I can't use for my FRPG) chargen.
Anything that isn't high fantasy or near future scifi.
I'll chip in when I can in any case.
It really depends on the leadership. I've been interested in getting into a project or having a team help me on mine but things always fall apart without a strong dedicated leader with a vision. So unless someone has those qualities the thing is bound to fall apart. I'm willing to help (since I got set back 7 months on my own thing) as long as someone capable is taking up the position.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;565995The comparison table is a good way to get a lot of benchmarks together in one spot to help the GM judge good values for monsters, and pretty efficient with space.
A few systems would even have monsters and PCs just draw off the same special ability lists - 'effects based' systems like Hero or Savage Worlds. It does depend a bit on what you expert PCs to look like, though (I think the single list for both works best for supers or multigenre games where a PC might be anything).
Its simple givbe it that ends up a bit bland perhaps but we are so moving to cart before the horse :)
First stuff is the basics
- Genre
- Game flavour
- Core mechanic - target number, dice pool, roll under, diceless, roll under etc
Quote from: MGuy;566033It really depends on the leadership. I've been interested in getting into a project or having a team help me on mine but things always fall apart without a strong dedicated leader with a vision. So unless someone has those qualities the thing is bound to fall apart. I'm willing to help (since I got set back 7 months on my own thing) as long as someone capable is taking up the position.
Lets kick some ideas round see the concept has any legs or if we can agree on a core idea. Then we can think about roles and tasks. Its BSJ's baby as far as I can see though.
I like the future War idea. I would want to avoide Mecha, just cos I think its been done a bit to death, and go down a nato / bio tech route.
Playing off the Rogue Trooper idea of genetically altered soldiers and the idea that your personality can be digitised and implanted ala the Biochip idea.
This opens up the following design spaces in the game
- It explains a point buy Chargen as an option because you can literally be built
- Allows you to use a random chargen option through experimental gene splicing with animal/human/alien hybrids
- The lifepath chargen remains viable because bodies become commoditised its training that actually matters
- Mitigates the 'Death Risk' - fantasy games use resurrection or raise dead this would let you port your PC to a different body
- Any killed opponent develops a usefulness as a possible host body - this in turn means that weapons that blow everything to scree and plasma can be diminished in dominance because the dead (injured ?) soldiers you recover can be used to enlarge your army if their meat is intact.
Just making he beginings of a pitch :)
You can kind of see how a PC might be a commando occupying a leopard human hybrid body, or how all the PCs might start like that as part of a unit. then as the game plays out the get switched to the bodies of fallen foes that can be patched up and their phyiscal stats change.
You can also see how they could get carted round in equipment to keep them alive (like rogue trooper) and how they would be pushing the team to keep fighting to get them a working body.
You could also see how androids, Dr Who syle gangers, an array of clone bodies and lods of other ideas would work.
then a battle fatigue / sanity mechanic for covering the mental effect it might have on you.
Lots of ideas in that soup.
just like I said just a single possible concept.
Its hard to get people behind one idea when kicking around ideas. I still say I would like to see someone taking charge because , at the end of the day, someone is going to have to just take the lead and lay down some definite design goals. I am capable of lending my hand towards making a game but I need a direction to go in and sifting through everyone's preferences, while fun, is going to bog things down. I at least need to know what genre we're going for, what kind of playstyle (even if generic) we're going for, how detailed the rules are supposed to be, and important info like that. I feel as if I just toss my ideas into the ring it'll just be geared towards making my own RPG. I at east need to know if its going to be a rules lite game or not so I can know whether or not I'd be helping with more fluff or more mechanics.
Quote from: jibbajibba;566069First stuff is the basics
- Genre
- Game flavour
- Core mechanic - target number, dice pool, roll under, diceless, roll under etc
Genre - I'm happy with future war (maybe the characters are soldiers on a far flung planet left behind when the army got its ass royally kicked, now living off the land as mercs) maybe sci fi with a nod to blade runner. Or maybe something in the other direction - Ancient Roman Empire, some bright spark opens up gates to other dimensions and nasty things crawl through. Ancient Greece, god of war/clash of the titans style jumping and chopping and fighting things bigger than buildings. Anything that gets the most votes, happy with.
Flavour - I'm more a fan of 4 colour than grit/grim/dark.
Core Mechanic - How about rolling for activity points every round? You roll, say, 2D6, then spend them on various actions. The more you pile into an action, the better chance of success, but don't forget to spend on defence, initiative, climbing that wall, outrunning those guards etc. Match each point you spend with a point from any relevant stats, skills or powers then compare to target number or opposed total, exceed to succeed. Easy, fast, no real maths to sort out. That's a top o the head thing.
I agree with some others on here - decide first of all the setting and genre for the game. Get a poll on, or ask opinions. Once that's decided, move onto the next section.
I may be able to be lightly involved here. Agree mcguy that a clear creative director needs to be identified, and I assume the OP will serve that function.
For genre future war is fine with me. But where and when is important and I would also like to have an idea of where the typical adventuring party fits into things. I like some of the ideas so far, the personality chip seems kind of nice.
Gettng core mechanics is going to be tough because I suspect we have a range of preferences. I would like something very simple and straight forward, nothing fancy. I would go with a simple meet or exceed your skill rating (or possibly a roll under), a die roll plus modifier against a tn or a dice pool (been wanting to do a d4 dice pool for some time now).
Fin terms of rules light, medium and heavy...i think rules medium for character creation itself but rules light for stuff like combat and skill rolls. Just my two cents though.
The character chip could sort of be like a resurrect spell - you lose a certain portion of experience and memory of what happened, then download into a new body. It might not have to be the same kind of body either, just whatever is available. Talking animals, side by side with blue and green skinned alien warriors, battling against intelligent dinosaurs packing rocket launchers and the deadly intelligent alien gelatinous cubes that have come to serve notice on the planet.
Hmmm, lack of food is making my head go funny. best go have my dinner.
I can't help on a future war game as it runs a bit too close to what I'm working on at the moment, but I will say it could be a good idea to come up with a different wear and tear avenue than sanity or depression or what have you, it has been done to death.
Have a seperate mirror AI "ghost" that grows with certain triggers, not neccessarily through constant use, which might vary for each person (geas), and it tries to take control or influence the character at certain key moments as it emerges. An evil twin? Your darkest desires made flesh? Something completely unknown? Can you control it or someone else's? Pysch mysteries can be fun.
This also opens avenues to futurify necromancy, or any spells (technology) that deals with spirits, although technically while inexplicable its not metaphysical.
Maybe it might even be an important part of the game, spirit hackers or something, like Eclipse Phase did transhumanism, exploring the eerie outer fringes of what intelligence is and does.
Just spitballing... as mentioned I can't really contribute anyway, but I'll watch with great interest.
I think I'd prefer a generic system that could be adapted and changed to a number of different genres (including maybe the aforementioned future war, Caribbean pirates and zombies, supers, crimson skies pulp 30s, time travel cop, ancient roman empire with an alien invasion thrown into the mix, mythic greece with shapechanging aliens setting themselves up as titans and gods with 'magic' (technological) weapons and items thrown in, vampire apocalypse horror, attack of the mutant gelly cubes from outer space...)
A basic system could be worked out, agreed upon, then people can pitch in with settings and the best ones get picked to stick in the document?
I would at least like some framework to operate in rather than go full generic. Even if it is just Fantasy, Sci-Fi or Modern.
Quote from: APN;565962Ultra fast character creation
I don't think it has to be
ultra fast, but certainly something in line with 1st Edition AD&D.
QuoteProbably stat as bonus
It's a little early for that decision, I think. We should wait until we figure out what stats we want, and what they are going to do. I am not averse to something along the lines of Fudge, but if we can get stats to do double duty, that would be better in my mind. So, as a lookup for bonuses and a target number in their own right. Depending on whether or not skills are going to be used, of course.
QuoteI don't mind either realistic/gritty or cube o hit points thing, but my own home brew efforts are leaning towards static hit points at 1st level on, and the character just gets better at avoiding blows through skill or luck
I wouldn't mind something like a dual track system. Defence or Luck or whatever as traditional hit points, then a static-ish pool of 'wound' points. That way, someone who wants to play gritty can just limit or ignore the Defence points, and someone that wants to play cinematic can boost the Defence points. It gives more flexibility.
QuoteAny genre, cross genre, anything interesting, different, based off a book or film with serials filed off?
I think we can make a generic set of rules, and have different genres as 'plug-ins'. I dig GURPS and all, but three ability scores? Not enough to really define a character.
Quotecards, dice, resource management, coin flipping and count heads or tails, any other mechanics out there?
I think standard dice and target numbers will be fine. Oddball resolution mechanics will make it seem gimmicky.
QuoteEasy to read and play, even for a novice (so it might need an optional 'this is what roleplaying is' bit, and that could be fun to invite people on the forum to write the clearest, easiest to understand section to put in as a bit of a no-prize competition)
I think we can keep this to a minimum-ish. Certainly, something about how it words on a table top as opposed to a computer. But I think most people that would find this are already pretty aware of what role-playing is.
QuoteArt - stick men style as in order of the stick, or best effort elmore/otus knockoff. Anything to spice the pages up from dry dull reading.
There is all kinds of great public domain stuff like Gustav Dore and the like.
QuoteKeep the page count low
I would rather get the rules hammered out and see where we can condense or trim from there than set a page count ahead of time. That said, I think 128 pages or less would be a good eventual target (rules permitting) and perhaps 32-48 pages for a 'quickstart' or 'basic' set of rules. Along with Art, this tends to be pretty fluid, and trying to lock in a number now will cause heartache later.
Quotesample adventure or campaign
Separate from the main rules book, but absolutely.
Quote from: jibbajibba;565974Multiple chargen paths - random, lifepath, point buy - that all end up witha similar final outcome
More or less by definition, they aren't going to have similar outcomes. Lifepath essentially requires a skill system and something like ads/disads. You can get something like similar results with point buy, but that starts to bog the system down and buying ads/disads starts to bog down character generation. But I do think we can incorporate all of these in some manner. Perhaps the random generation in the 'Basic' rules and lifepath and/or point buy in the 'Advanced' rules. They would have to be compatible sets of rules, so the 'Basic' should probably be a sub-set of the 'Advanced', meaning working on the Advanced first would be a better plan.
QuoteDials for combat and skills - that is to say a simple core that you can dial up the complexity on
I prefer to think of them as 'add-ons' rather than 'dials'. Dials would indicate a smooth progression, and I don't think that is a good paradigm to shoot for.
QuoteNot a fan of hit points for this genre - but generally don't mind them provided they don't escalate too high
If we go 'generic', hit points can be gritty or cinematic.
QuoteTemplates/archetypes rather than classes
I would prefer templates/archetypes in the background as a GM tool for making new classes. Classes would be the 'player facing' set of rules. Fiddling around with templates during character generation can drag things a bit as well.
QuotePrefer toolkits over splat - so 2 dozen 'monsters' and a toolkit for building more rather than 2000 'monsters'
That depends. Taken to a logical extreme, there would be no monsters, just a blank template to fill in. I think that, like classes, the template should be in the background to create some monster listings which would be used to present an initial set of opponents, and include guidelines for 're-skinning'. So, there would be a basic Orc listing, then perhaps the changes for an Orc Archer and an Orc Shaman so GMs can see how and what to change for their needs. Let's face it, not all GMs have the time to even create 2 dozen of their own monsters.
Quote from: beejazz;566004Anything that isn't high fantasy or near future scifi.
Genres can be modular if the core system is a solid set of rules, which I think we can accomplish.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566091I may be able to be lightly involved here. Agree mcguy that a clear creative director needs to be identified, and I assume the OP will serve that function.
For genre future war is fine with me. But where and when is important and I would also like to have an idea of where the typical adventuring party fits into things. I like some of the ideas so far, the personality chip seems kind of nice.
Gettng core mechanics is going to be tough because I suspect we have a range of preferences. I would like something very simple and straight forward, nothing fancy. I would go with a simple meet or exceed your skill rating (or possibly a roll under), a die roll plus modifier against a tn or a dice pool (been wanting to do a d4 dice pool for some time now).
Fin terms of rules light, medium and heavy...i think rules medium for character creation itself but rules light for stuff like combat and skill rolls. Just my two cents though.
Sorry been sleeping.
I was hoping for democracy - though it depends how many people end up involved. As a genre Future War seems to be getting some interest - although that puts The Traveller out - but I think perhaps we should list some other options and do a poll? If we have enough people that it starts getting unwieldy we could always have two separate projects e.g. future war/general SF and a fantasy/multigenre game.
I expect core mechanic is going to be a difficult topic, yar :)
I guess I lean toward [roll dice+bonus] rather than roll-under or dice pool, and normally avoid rolling multiple dice (slows down when you have to roll a lot of 2d6s).
I think putting everything to a vote could yield peculiar results. You could also get the problems of design by committee. I really think this is going to work better if you function as creative director BSJ. Where everyone contributing is sort of your design team but you call the shots (for example you narrowing down the choice to a core mechanic like dice roll plus modifier is great because otherwise we would be debating the relative merits of different approaches forever).
With that said I would like to see a d10 + modifer as the core mechanic if possible.
Leader is necessary, trust me on my word if not by logic.Logic wise, with a leader you get definite project goals, a final arbiter for split or contested decisions, and someone who can reliably keep the project up should individual members fall in and out. I think a genre should be hammered out to see who all wants to definitely jump on board then we get a project lead after that churning out the rest by committee will be much easier.
Edit: I'd go for the dice + bonus roll over mechanic as the core since its the easiest to do numbers for and have people understand. If we're not doing dice pooIs I also suggest doing a d20 since it has a wider range and thus can be fiddled with the easiest without going up to d100s or some such.
Quote from: MGuy;566158Leader is necessary, trust me on my word if not by logic.Logic wise, with a leader you get definite project goals, a final arbiter for split or contested decisions, and someone who can reliably keep the project up should individual members fall in and out. I think a genre should be hammered out to see who all wants to definitely jump on board then we get a project lead after that churning out the rest by committee will be much easier.
Edit: I'd go for the dice + bonus roll over mechanic as the core since its the easiest to do numbers for and have people understand. If we're not doing dice pooIs I also suggest doing a d20 since it has a wider range and thus can be fiddled with the easiest without going up to d100s or some such.
Needless to say I agree on the point about a leader, but I find myself not very enthusiastic for d20. Something smaller gives more weight to skill and talent over random chance. Of course I suppose this will boil down to what we are shooting for. but if we are going to go with a bigger die (whoch does have its wn advantages) I wouod rather it be d100 or something other than d20. If we do go with a d20 I suggest at least doing somethong other than the core d20 system of d20 + bonus (maybe roll over your own skill rating).
Maybe setting the grittiness factor is a place to start: how lethal and realistic are we shooting for?
OK, I'd said I wasn't taking charge, but if people think its necessary and are happy with me as 'creative director', I can do that. In part I hadn't known how many people would be interested, since we haven't had a group project here before.
I think more debate on core mechanic and setting would be good before we settle definitely on a decision here though, either way.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566170Needless to say I agree on the point about a leader, but I find myself not very enthusiastic for d20. Something smaller gives more weight to skill and talent over random chance. Of course I suppose this will boil down to what we are shooting for. but if we are going to go with a bigger die (whoch does have its wn advantages) I wouod rather it be d100 or something other than d20. If we do go with a d20 I suggest at least doing somethong other than the core d20 system of d20 + bonus (maybe roll over your own skill rating).
Maybe setting the grittiness factor is a place to start: how lethal and realistic are we shooting for?
D100 is too wide for my tastes. It can be done and leaves a lot fo room for minor throw away abilities that give youa minor bonus between them. D20 is a bit harder on the math (5% per point instead of direct 1%) but its still easy to do the math on. D10 (when not a Dice Pool) makes the room for maneuvering a bit too small unless there are no levels and this is a down and dirty game. It does indeed put a lot of weight on what would otherwise be more minor bonuses but that means things have to be a lot tighter because of the smaller range.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566170Needless to say I agree on the point about a leader, but I find myself not very enthusiastic for d20. Something smaller gives more weight to skill and talent over random chance. Of course I suppose this will boil down to what we are shooting for. but if we are going to go with a bigger die (whoch does have its wn advantages) I wouod rather it be d100 or something other than d20. If we do go with a d20 I suggest at least doing somethong other than the core d20 system of d20 + bonus (maybe roll over your own skill rating).
Maybe setting the grittiness factor is a place to start: how lethal and realistic are we shooting for?
My 2c is that I do like d10+mods since this works well with say a 1-10 stat range, which is perhaps just wide enough to have the same number work for both ability damage and as a bonus without going via a modifier table (you know, like d20s [stat minus 10, halved = bonus]. Edit: I don't particularly like d100s either.
Setting: I'm flexible. I can deal with future, fantasy, or modern. Generic is also ok with me as I don't make completely generic abilities though i get the feeling most people will want something more focused.
Core Mechanic: D20 is my favorite because of its simplicity and linearity. I'd go for Dice Pool otherwise though bell curves are a bit harder for me to wrap my linear geared mind around though it is far from imposible. Dice pools are also easier to do for "gritty" games because it obfuscates the math enough where you can do a lot of things to the math and dice loadouts without damaging the your range.
For dice pools the math is tricky and I think most designs that use them basically ignore it and just create mechanics as a matter of convenience. I'm not sure how you'd go about exploiting the obfuscation, though the idea is interesting. Normally I find them good for 'how much' questions (like damage) more than 'what if' questions (do I hit?).
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;566179For dice pools the math is tricky and I think most designs that use them basically ignore it and just create mechanics as a matter of convenience. I'm not sure how you'd go about exploiting the obfuscation, though the idea is interesting. Normally I find them good for 'how much' questions (like damage) more than 'what if' questions (do I hit?).
Exploiting it is super easy. Most people don't even understand how the math works (I didn't and am still blurry over the subject but I can do a personal refresher course to handle it). The fact of the matter is because most people don't know how the math is "supposed" to work you can write a bunch of minor abilities that give you different kinds of bonuses and give them away for free without damaging your system at all. Basically I'm saying that its a lot sturdier than linear dice. It gives the "feel" of having a unique, highly customizable character without breaking your system in half. Also people like rolling more dice believe it or not.
Quote from: MGuy;566172D100 is too wide for my tastes. It can be done and leaves a lot fo room for minor throw away abilities that give youa minor bonus between them. D20 is a bit harder on the math (5% per point instead of direct 1%) but its still easy to do the math on. D10 (when not a Dice Pool) makes the room for maneuvering a bit too small unless there are no levels and this is a down and dirty game. It does indeed put a lot of weight on what would otherwise be more minor bonuses but that means things have to be a lot tighter because of the smaller range.
I am not a fan of going d20 for two basic reasons. The first, and probably my primary reason, is i dont think the world really needs another d20 system at this point. I would just find it hard to get behind a mechanic like that with any ethusiasm unless it was something like an OSR game. My second reason is I really would prefer a smaller range. D10 provides a much tighter range which I see as a huge plus here. It keeps the math a lot more contained. Something about rolling d20 +17 just seems messy to me. Sure you have to be careful where the numbers come from but it is quite manageable. I also really like skill and talent having an equal or greater impact than randomness. But BSJ can make the final call. If d20 I would definitely suggest not doing d20 + number but shift to roll under a rating on the d20 ( a bit like attribute rolls and nwps in ad&d). To me that is a lot smoother than 3e style d20.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566184I am not a fan of going d20 for two basic reasons. The first, and probably my primary reason, is i dont think the world really needs another d20 system at this point. I would just find it hard to get behind a mechanic like that with any ethusiasm unless it was something like an OSR game. My second reason is I really would prefer a smaller range. D10 provides a much tighter range which I see as a huge plus here. It keeps the math a lot more contained. Something about rolling d20 +17 just seems messy to me. Sure you have to be careful where the numbers come from but it is quite manageable. I also really like skill and talent having an equal or greater impact than randomness. But BSJ can make the final call. If d20 I would definitely suggest not doing d20 + number but shift to roll under a rating on the d20 ( a bit like attribute rolls and nwps in ad&d). To me that is a lot smoother than 3e style d20.
I can certainly agree with you on the d20 bloat but i think that just goes to show how fleible the desiign prospects of d20 are. Its simple, lineare, and the range is wide enough to play with. I also do not have a problem with reduced randomness. I'd feel uncomfortable with the smaller range of the d10 because it doesn't leave a lot of room for playing around but that can be avoided by focusing onn hhaving a larger list of abilities and provides more reason to not make +1 or +2 abilities while at the same time giving those abilities a helluva lot more meaning. however, if we do go d20 I staunchly am against rolling under. Rolling under is a bit more complicated than rolling over and there is no solid real benefits to rolling under instead of rolling over.
Quote from: MGuy;566186I . however, if we do go d20 I staunchly am against rolling under. Rolling under is a bit more complicated than rolling over and there is no solid real benefits to rolling under instead of rolling over.
this can easily be reversed. I just said roll under because it is easier on the character creatin end. But you can invert the formula. All skills start at 20. From that you deduct attribute + skill rank. So if I have a 5 in Dex and take 5 points in climb, my score is 10 (20- 5 -5 =10) and I have to roll ten or over to succeed on a climb roll. I just find this a much more contained system than the d20 approach of adding a potentially large modifier.
Have to see what other people say also and unfortunately they're probably spread out across multiple time zones.
As an idea to add more detail to the d10 you could have say percentile-rated abilities but only add the 10s place to rolls, with the 1s place being rolled against if the target number is rolled exactly, or in order to break ties...that would give more detail at the exact percentage level than d20, allowing for gradual skill improvements and the like. Or is that too complicated?
Dice pool is probably OK if you're a player who likes rolling lots of dice, but its bad if you're the GM and controlling heaps of guys - particularly a worry if we end up doing a future war scenario. Even a player might end up rolling dice for their whole platoon.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;566192Dice pool is probably OK if you're a player who likes rolling lots of dice, but its bad if you're the GM and controlling heaps of guys - particularly a worry if we end up doing a future war scenario. Even a player might end up rolling dice for their whole platoon.
I find a cap of six dice works pretty well, but it still doesn't help if you are worried about large scale combat.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;566192Have to see what other people say also and unfortunately they're probably spread out across multiple time zones.
As an idea to add more detail to the d10 you could have say percentile-rated abilities but only add the 10s place to rolls, with the 1s place being rolled against if the target number is rolled exactly, or in order to break ties...that would give more detail at the exact percentage level than d20, allowing for gradual skill improvements and the like. Or is that too complicated?
Dice pool is probably OK if you're a player who likes rolling lots of dice, but its bad if you're the GM and controlling heaps of guys - particularly a worry if we end up doing a future war scenario. Even a player might end up rolling dice for their whole platoon.
Dice pool games usually don't involve big combats or are abstract and count "groups" of enemies as one to mitigate that issue. I believe just about everything has a work around but that can't be discussed until we get the group together.
I think a single die or small number of dice are best to keep things simple. Another possible alternative is rolling a die (or dice) and using the result as activity points in a set period of time.
Example:
Legionnaire Horatio of the 3rd Deaths Head legion 3rd Cohort attached to planet Arcturus Rann IV comes across a vile Xenomorph.
The GM rolls 2D6 for each side. Horatio gets 7, the Xeno gets 8. Horatio puts 3 points into initiative, adding to his Speed of 3 for a total of 6. He then puts 2 into attack, adding to his Laser Rifle skill of 3 for a total of 5. The final 2 go into defence, adding to Agility of 2 for a defence of 4.
The Xeno blows 4 points on Initiative, adding to its speed of 2 for a total of 6. It then throws caution to the wind and sticks the remaining 4 points into attack, adding to its Strength of 5 and leaving nothing for defence.
Compare totals:
Horatio Initiative 6 vs Xeno 6 - tied, so highest speed goes first (Horatio)
Horatios attack is 5 points. The Xeno threw nothing into defence.
Adding his accuracy (difference between attack and defence, 5 points) to weapon damage of 5, Horatio inflicts 10 damage on the charging Xeno.
Its armour (3 points) drops that to 7, but the Xeno only has 5 Body points anyway. At -2 Body, it gets sliced into ribbons.
=========
Dropping to his knee, Horatio unleashes bolt after bolt from his Laser Rifle, shouting "Die in the name of the Empire!!!" and chops the charging Xeno into a pulped mess. The Blue skinned, four armed, tentacled face Legionnaire walks over to the sliced up thing on the floor. "Ugly bastards" he squawks from his tentacled mouth and he prods it with one of his feet. He can't stand the relative lack of arms and legs, only two eyes and two ears, or the vile words the so called "Hu-man" makes. With a shudder he slithers off to kill more Xenos in the cause of the empire.
I think so long as the mechanics are simple to understand and easy to resolve, I don't really mind what dice are used, or what the task resolution system is *shrug*
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;566192Have to see what other people say also and unfortunately they're probably spread out across multiple time zones.
As an idea to add more detail to the d10 you could have say percentile-rated abilities but only add the 10s place to rolls, with the 1s place being rolled against if the target number is rolled exactly, or in order to break ties...that would give more detail at the exact percentage level than d20, allowing for gradual skill improvements and the like. Or is that too complicated?
Dice pool is probably OK if you're a player who likes rolling lots of dice, but its bad if you're the GM and controlling heaps of guys - particularly a worry if we end up doing a future war scenario. Even a player might end up rolling dice for their whole platoon.
A d10 with another D10 to break ties is okay the bousus bit might get confusing is you refer to it as a % though (a bonus of 30 % might make folks blanche :) ). 1-10 skill + 1-10 ability + 1d10 random makes a nice symetry and I think somoen came up with it on another thread somewhere.
I too am in the avoid d20 because its done to death. The danger with a d20 system is that you end up just pulling in all the d20 mechanical bagage almost unconsiously.
The idea of a AP pool might be worth a look as its a bit different. Although I think the 'difference' might be a bit too great if its a variable pool becuase then cruching of numbers gets a bit much.
I think focusing on a genre even if its wide like 'scifi' will be more rewarding than going all out generic. Of course the mechanics engine can always be reused for something else so keeping it generic makes sense but I think if you want to come out with a playable game we have to bake some setting concepts in early.
Future War was just an idea because I think the market isn't saturated. Going down a fantasy route is a bit like trying to introduce a new tomatoe sauce on the market. Historic stuff is an option but I know Brendan has a Roman game and I think those projects are really quite personal and require in depth research so maybe not the best for a collaborative effort. (and I totally saw the PCs as rements left behind on some fringe world after the major powers had reached stalemate and moved on, some strong factions, bands of renegades and the dream that the major powers might be back to save them all at some future point).
Quote from: jibbajibba;566244A d10 with another D10 to break ties is okay the bousus bit might get confusing is you refer to it as a % though (a bonus of 30 % might make folks blanche :) ). 1-10 skill + 1-10 ability + 1d10 random makes a nice symetry and I think somoen came up with it on another thread somewhere.
Its classic Cyberpunk - I think The Traveller uses it in his own system as well.
(I guess we were bound to have something that looked like what someone was doing!). I do like the symmetry...I'm sure there's some use to having stat and skill have the same range...
QuoteThe idea of a AP pool might be worth a look as its a bit different. Although I think the 'difference' might be a bit too great if its a variable pool becuase then cruching of numbers gets a bit much.
I think focusing on a genre even if its wide like 'scifi' will be more rewarding than going all out generic. Of course the mechanics engine can always be reused for something else so keeping it generic makes sense but I think if you want to come out with a playable game we have to bake some setting concepts in early.
Future War was just an idea because I think the market isn't saturated. Going down a fantasy route is a bit like trying to introduce a new tomatoe sauce on the market. Historic stuff is an option but I know Brendan has a Roman game and I think those projects are really quite personal and require in depth research so maybe not the best for a collaborative effort. (and I totally saw the PCs as rements left behind on some fringe world after the major powers had reached stalemate and moved on, some strong factions, bands of renegades and the dream that the major powers might be back to save them all at some future point).
I think that makes sense. I think at this stage (given a few good reasons to avoid fantasy, no one picking that as a primary choice except maybe me, and the various ideas already floating around in the thread), a SF setting/game looks like the winner. Some votes toward generic but I think (without rereading the thread to get an accurate count, though) that as many people have been opposed.
Quote from: APN;566226I think a single die or small number of dice are best to keep things simple. Another possible alternative is rolling a die (or dice) and using the result as activity points in a set period of time.
Example:
Legionnaire Horatio of the 3rd Deaths Head legion 3rd Cohort attached to planet Arcturus Rann IV comes across a vile Xenomorph.
The GM rolls 2D6 for each side. Horatio gets 7, the Xeno gets 8. Horatio puts 3 points into initiative, adding to his Speed of 3 for a total of 6. He then puts 2 into attack, adding to his Laser Rifle skill of 3 for a total of 5. The final 2 go into defence, adding to Agility of 2 for a defence of 4.
The Xeno blows 4 points on Initiative, adding to its speed of 2 for a total of 6. It then throws caution to the wind and sticks the remaining 4 points into attack, adding to its Strength of 5 and leaving nothing for defence.
Compare totals:
Horatio Initiative 6 vs Xeno 6 - tied, so highest speed goes first (Horatio)
Horatios attack is 5 points. The Xeno threw nothing into defence.
Adding his accuracy (difference between attack and defence, 5 points) to weapon damage of 5, Horatio inflicts 10 damage on the charging Xeno.
Its armour (3 points) drops that to 7, but the Xeno only has 5 Body points anyway. At -2 Body, it gets sliced into ribbons.
=========
Dropping to his knee, Horatio unleashes bolt after bolt from his Laser Rifle, shouting "Die in the name of the Empire!!!" and chops the charging Xeno into a pulped mess. The Blue skinned, four armed, tentacled face Legionnaire walks over to the sliced up thing on the floor. "Ugly bastards" he squawks from his tentacled mouth and he prods it with one of his feet. He can't stand the relative lack of arms and legs, only two eyes and two ears, or the vile words the so called "Hu-man" makes. With a shudder he slithers off to kill more Xenos in the cause of the empire.
I think so long as the mechanics are simple to understand and easy to resolve, I don't really mind what dice are used, or what the task resolution system is *shrug*
Looks interesting. What the AP system seems to do is give you a choice between a hit bonus and an initiative bonus; you could perhaps get a similar effect with less rolling by giving characters the option of a 'snap action' that has a penalty to the action but a plus to initiative, or conversely a bonus to hit if you take a penalty to initiative (aiming). However, I don't mind the system you've outlined here - it could work.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;566251Looks interesting. What the AP system seems to do is give you a choice between a hit bonus and an initiative bonus; you could perhaps get a similar effect with less rolling by giving characters the option of a 'snap action' that has a penalty to the action but a plus to initiative, or conversely a bonus to hit if you take a penalty to initiative (aiming). However, I don't mind the system you've outlined here - it could work.
I agree its a bit different and might be worth a look.
i) 2d6 + bonus (say a typical 0-5 bonus) actually gives you a wide range this might make combat variable - not a bad thing might even be entertaining
ii) I can see APs being spent on move, initiaitve, defense, attack, non-combat actions ie skills. For example 6 APs lets you use a skill at full benefit 3 lets you use it at 50%, direct spend on defence, init or attack. Its quite flexible
iii) There might be a risk of it getting slow. A lot of options is good but can get slow.
I am not really a fan of the activityoints approach.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566260I am not really a fan of the activityoints approach.
What are your reservations?
Too fiddly?
Quote from: jibbajibba;566261What are your reservations?
Too fiddly?
Fiddly is one part of it.
I think it goes down the path of turning the action roll (which in my opinion should be simple and directly correlate to what your character is doing) into a subgame on its own (where you are allocating results strategically...a bit like playing a hand rather rolling a die). Just personal preference but these kinds of approaches are really not my cup of tea.
Quote from: jibbajibba;566244Future War was just an idea because I think the market isn't saturated. Going down a fantasy route is a bit like trying to introduce a new tomatoe sauce on the market. Historic stuff is an option but I know Brendan has a Roman game and I think those projects are really quite personal and require in depth research so maybe not the best for a collaborative effort. (and I totally saw the PCs as rements left behind on some fringe world after the major powers had reached stalemate and moved on, some strong factions, bands of renegades and the dream that the major powers might be back to save them all at some future point).
Historical is definitely a possibility. But like you say it requires research and one thing we'd probably run into is disagreements over the history.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566262Fiddly is one part of it.
I think it goes down the path of turning the action roll (which in my opinion should be simple and directly correlate to what your character is doing) into a subgame on its own (where you are allocating results strategically...a bit like playing a hand rather rolling a die). Just personal preference but these kinds of approaches are really not my cup of tea.
I can see it feels a bit gamist. The points do become a hand in effect. You decide whether to all out attack, defend, go first at a lower chance to hit or wait and take an aimed shot. However, I think there is a degree of reality to it. The choices are choices you make in an actual conflict its just the mechanics are gamist.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566264Historical is definitely a possibility. But like you say it requires research and one thing we'd probably run into is disagreements over the history.
Over the interpretation of it for sure :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;566265I can see it feels a bit gamist. The points do become a hand in effect. You decide whether to all out attack, defend, go first at a lower chance to hit or wait and take an aimed shot. However, I think there is a degree of reality to it. The choices are choices you make in an actual conflict its just the mechanics are gamist.
I think it is only realistic if the choices reflect real ones, but I am not seeing the connection between what action points represent and your decision to put them in initiative or attack. I am sure folks could come up with explanations, but I doubt they would hold in all cases. Especially when the AP are keyed to a random roll. I real life I might be able to opt to attack with lighter and faster strikes over heavier more potent ones, but I am not drawing from a randomized resource pool in order to make that choice. But my bigger issue is the management of these points will become its own game (regardless of how realistic or not realistic it is).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566268I think it is only realistic if the choices reflect real ones, but I am not seeing the connection between what action points represent and your decision to put them in initiative or attack. I am sure folks could come up with explanations, but I doubt they would hold in all cases. Especially when the AP are keyed to a random roll. I real life I might be able to opt to attack with lighter and faster strikes over heavier more potent ones, but I am not drawing from a randomized resource pool in order to make that choice. But my bigger issue is the management of these points will become its own game (regardless of how realistic or not realistic it is).
All fair points.
I think it was snap attack versus aimed attack.
I agree its a gamist apporach
Quote from: jibbajibba;566275All fair points.
I think it was snap attack versus aimed attack.
I agree its a gamist apporach
I think another important consideration is this will be viewed as an rpgsite game if we end up actually finishing and taking a gamist approach does run counter to the site's overal philosophy of gaming. While I personally think there is nothing wrong with gamist design if that is what people want, I do think we should make an effort to make a game that reflects the site's spirit.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566279I think another important consideration is this will be viewed as an rpgsite game if we end up actually finishing and taking a gamist approach does run counter to the site's overal philosophy of gaming. While I personally think there is nothing wrong with gamist design if that is what people want, I do think we should make an effort to make a game that reflects the site's spirit.
Not sure I want to sign up for a OD&D retroclone that tells people to Fuck off if they say the word story or refuse to smoke pipes in any public place they happen to be in .....
If we make a game it should be one that is well designed, original and fun... everything else I am not worried about ....
Quote from: jibbajibba;566291Not sure I want to sign up for a OD&D retroclone that tells people to Fuck off if they say the word story or refuse to smoke pipes in any public place they happen to be in .....
If we make a game it should be one that is well designed, original and fun... everything else I am not worried about ....
I hear you and I do think original and fun should be our priority but...
I think we need to respect the reputation and atmosphere of the community here because anything we design collectively will be seen as a reflection of the site. I am not saying it has to be a retroclone but making a storygame or something heavily gamist in my view wouldn't be something I think is appropriate for this venue. I wouldn't want to work on anything that might be perceived as a slight against therpgsite community.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566314I hear you and I do think original and fun should be our priority but...
I think we need to respect the reputation and atmosphere of the community here because anything we design collectively will be seen as a reflection of the site. I am not saying it has to be a retroclone but making a storygame or something heavily gamist in my view wouldn't be something I think is appropriate for this venue. I wouldn't want to work on anything that might be perceived as a slight against therpgsite community.
I don't see anything heavily gamist emerging to be honest but I don't think we need to be precious about the site. The people that post here are actually quite mixed. Anyone that takes this concept seriously has a voice here even if that is a voice of dissent. I actually think the fact that a group of people from here could end up with a retro OD&D clone, a 2e Clone, a version of Traveller, or a new spin on savage worlds is a strength of this site rather than a weakness.
The one commonality we share is dissent. :)
I'm not going to use GNS theory buzzwank in any of my posts because GNS theory is bullshit. Just getting that out the way.
As for AP, I think its an interesting idea. It evokes strategy and tactical depth to the game but I don't think this team is going to be to "up" for acical depth or strategy in the game. I have a good feeling that we're going to be going rules-lite here and that we're going to have interests spread over in more than combat. My primary concern though is the fiddliness of it. Because of the extra step that basically decides what you can do for the turn and that lenthens turns. We're going to want fast and hard resolution mechanic here.
Scifi is a good genre to run on so I can handle that. If we're going twith a "D10" mechanic then we're going to have to have a lot of skills and horizontal abilities so we don't suffer from the tiny range. Additionally, it seems like it would be better to make a classless system. Lastly the debate over the "feel" of the game should just be put to a vote or decided upon by the project leader. We all have our tastes, what we need is a focus.
For feel I vote for gritty, naturalistic, with pcs and npcs being on equal footing. But I am game for alternatives. I think if we go dice pool (and I am not really clear on which mechanic has the most popularity at this stage) having npcs and pcs follow the same rules (same number of hp, same basic attacks, etc) goes a long way to reigning in concerns about the gm juggling enormous dice pools (because it tends yo produce fights with smaller numbers of combatants....PCs are less apt to take on twenty opponents at a time).
I am on board for no classes and having a focus on skills. I do thin we should tread cautiously on social skills however and am more in favor of these being a last resort when the GM is unclear outcomes. For knowledges, I would like to suggest doing something similar to what i did in slayers, which only has you make a knowledge roll when you are operating outside of your skill level.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566363For feel I vote for gritty, naturalistic, with pcs and npcs being on equal footing. But I am game for alternatives. I think if we go dice pool (and I am not really clear on which mechanic has the most popularity at this stage) having npcs and pcs follow the same rules (same number of hp, same basic attacks, etc) goes a long way to reigning in concerns about the gm juggling enormous dice pools (because it tends yo produce fights with smaller numbers of combatants....PCs are less apt to take on twenty opponents at a time).
I am on board for no classes and having a focus on skills. I do thin we should tread cautiously on social skills however and am more in favor of these being a last resort when the GM is unclear outcomes. For knowledges, I would like to suggest doing something similar to what i did in slayers, which only has you make a knowledge roll when you are operating outside of your skill level.
I agree the same mechanics for PCs as NPCs monsters. I would keep the biochip idea as the PCs ace in the hole as only their side has this tech. Makes them special and its a useful game tool for a bunch of reasons.
I think its shaping up. No need to worry about social skills if its a scifi military campaign as we know soldiers have no social skills :D
So we need to take a vote on
- Genre - so far the options are SciFi, Historical, Fantasy, generic - with SciFi currently carrying the day
- Mechanic - AP pool, d10 +skill + stat , d20
Generally the board has kind of decided on
Crunch - low, a fast game is desired any extras should be clearly optional
Feel - Gritty seems to have been the only one hinted at.
Re team roles and the like. It's BSJ's baby as far as I can tell. I would vote for him as team leader. If he gets fed up with it or whatever we can change it but if he is happy to lead the process. I have some Project Management experience if its needed.
so vote
genre - I go SciFi with a future war setting
mechanics - I go d10
- Genre - so far the options are SciFi, Historical, Fantasy, generic - with SciFi currently carrying the day
- Mechanic - AP pool, d10 +skill + stat , d20
Genre: i am on board for future war (post apoc as well) and I would do historical if the concept were solid and interesting enough.
Mechanic: d10
I would vote
Genre: SF
Mechanic: d10
Complexity: Light(ish)
Possibly a variant of the AP system could be used in combination with a d10 system (just providing an extra bonus on rolls, rather than being the main core mechanic). However not sure about that either - as Brendan suggests its an extra metagame resource to manage, and that would end up as an extra dice roll as well.
Quote from: MGuy;566345I'm not going to use GNS theory buzzwank in any of my posts because GNS theory is bullshit. Just getting that out the way.
As for AP, I think its an interesting idea. It evokes strategy and tactical depth to the game but I don't think this team is going to be to "up" for tactical depth or strategy in the game. I have a good feeling that we're going to be going rules-lite here and that we're going to have interests spread over in more than combat. My primary concern though is the fiddliness of it. Because of the extra step that basically decides what you can do for the turn and that lenthens turns. We're going to want fast and hard resolution mechanic here.
Scifi is a good genre to run on so I can handle that. If we're going twith a "D10" mechanic then we're going to have to have a lot of skills and horizontal abilities so we don't suffer from the tiny range. Additionally, it seems like it would be better to make a classless system. Lastly the debate over the "feel" of the game should just be put to a vote or decided upon by the project leader. We all have our tastes, what we need is a focus.
Assuming the d10, yep a skill-based rather than class-based system would probably provide more options for 'horizontal' advancement - i.e. character advancement giving the option to increase various things (skills, attributes, etc) - Savage Worlds is a good example of a mostly horizontal advancement system. I got the impression quick/ rules lite was the favored crunchiness -I've gone back and added that to my vote.
Sorry to triple post but since things have slowed down a bit...
That's probably enough consensus as to genre and core mechanic, then - I think it'd be difficult to beat the existing majority there since the other options for both are open-ended.
Someone did bring up the 'feel' of the system which is a hard question to answer for me. On lethality - If there's the ability to backup character personalities then it doesn't matter so much if the base combat system is a bit deadly, though I'd suggest that perhaps the transfer process isn't 100% effective, or has side effects like losing some points off a 'psyche' type attribute. I do like the idea of PCs and NPCs by default using the same character generation rules. Another question specifically for an SF game is how hard or soft the science is?
Next question I would normally tackle design-wise might be what attribute scores to include.
After resolving the basic questions how best to proceed with dividing up the rest of the work? Break it up into sections and have one person do Races, another do Equipment, another Skills and another Monsters? Keep brainstorming and create some sort of open document everyone can modify, as well as continuing to discuss things in the thread?
I was away most of yesterday so didn't really chip in. A few ideas on using D10s.
You could generate stats on 2D10 (and point swap 2 for 1 to bring rubbish stats up), skills by point buy or roll (level 1 skill roll 1d10, level 2, 2d10 etc)
Task resolution (roll equal to or under stat + modifiers)
Easy task 1d10
Moderate task 2d10
Hard task 3d10
Extreme task 4d10
Trying two tasks in same round: +1d10 to each task after 1st, so add +2d10 to each task
Example:
Sergeant Vorr'Splung of the third oozing pyle regiment shouted for the guards to fortify the flanks. He then ducked down from the criss crossing laser fire, and returned fire himself.Actions:The Sergeant tries three actions (Order the troops to move under fire, dodge incoming fire and shoot back). That's 3 tasks (+2d10)
Use his Presence (14) + Command Skill (6) and try to equal/roll under on 4d10 (moderate task and he's trying 3 in the same round)
Use his Agility (9) + Dodge (4) and roll equal/under on 3D10 (easy task, 2nd task in a round). If he succeeds, add his Agility+Dodge to any target number to hit him.
Use Agility (9) + Laser Rifle (11) and roll equal under on 4D10 to shoot a Xeno at medium range. If he hits, the difference between the roll and the target number is added to damage. Let's say the target number (9+11=20) is rolled under with a roll of 14. That's 6 points of difference to add to damage, so the lower you roll, more accurate you are. Or you can use that to modify a hit location roll (with lower numbers indicating the head, so you'd roll 2D10-6 in this case, and hit the head on say, 3 or less)
[/LIST]
Just brainstorming. From the looks of things people want to keep it simple on 1d10 and low/no math anyway, so the multiple dice might not go down too well. Right, best go to work :(
Quote from: APN;566681I was away most of yesterday so didn't really chip in. A few ideas on using D10s.
You could generate stats on 2D10 (and point swap 2 for 1 to bring rubbish stats up), skills by point buy or roll (level 1 skill roll 1d10, level 2, 2d10 etc)
Task resolution (roll equal to or under stat + modifiers)
Easy task 1d10
Moderate task 2d10
Hard task 3d10
Extreme task 4d10
Trying two tasks in same round: +1d10 to each task after 1st, so add +2d10 to each task
Example:
Sergeant Vorr'Splung of the third oozing pyle regiment shouted for the guards to fortify the flanks. He then ducked down from the criss crossing laser fire, and returned fire himself.
Actions:
The Sergeant tries three actions (Order the troops to move under fire, dodge incoming fire and shoot back). That's 3 tasks (+2d10)
Use his Presence (14) + Command Skill (6) and try to equal/roll under on 4d10 (moderate task and he's trying 3 in the same round)
Use his Agility (9) + Dodge (4) and roll equal/under on 3D10 (easy task, 2nd task in a round). If he succeeds, add his Agility+Dodge to any target number to hit him.
Use Agility (9) + Laser Rifle (11) and roll equal under on 4D10 to shoot a Xeno at medium range. If he hits, the difference between the roll and the target number is added to damage. Let's say the target number (9+11=20) is rolled under with a roll of 14. That's 6 points of difference to add to damage, so the lower you roll, more accurate you are. Or you can use that to modify a hit location roll (with lower numbers indicating the head, so you'd roll 2D10-6 in this case, and hit the head on say, 3 or less)
[/LIST]
Just brainstorming. From the looks of things people want to keep it simple on 1d10 and low/no math anyway, so the multiple dice might not go down too well. Right, best go to work :(
I think that does get a bit more complex than the general concensus. If we can extract some of the ideas and pare them down we can feed them back in. I think threshold values and effect numbers generated by overhitting a target number are a cruchy mechanic that add a lot of head math that some people aren't keen on.
You could use part of the idea. How about a set target number but you get to roll more dice depending on difficulty, rather than adjusting the target number.
So for a hard task you get 1d10, -> 4d10 for an easy task. You take the highest value dice each time. Mathematically I am not sure what that does but it feels like its a suitable hike in success.
You could feed it back into the copmbat mechanic with an option to aim adding a d10 or even an option to spend from an AP pool to add more dice. Just an idea.
On races I vote for everything being vat grown hybrids. So both sides in the 'War' used genetic spicing to develop super soldiers. The PC side the 'goodies' went down animal hybrids (just so we can use Dog Soldiers, Leonine colonels and wolverines :) ) the badies just chucked everything into the mix to produce abonimations.
Now the downside is this is a pretty specific setting however it means that you can build creatures in a random way and its logical within the setting.
The Rules engine can still be SciFi generic but this model means we don't need to worry at this point about space travel, FTL and all that stuff we are bound to a single planet. You can hint at the universe beyond and maybe there are races and space ships and all sorts but we can keep this component tight and focused.
So rather than races you have abonination generators and the PCs take a template/archetype hybrid then randomly generate the 'FLESH' portion of their PCs.
Then they need to generate the skills portion. Here I say 2 options. Random/lifepath and pointbuy. Random Lifepath is you have a bunch of occupation tables and you get to randomly roll skilsl on that table.
Point buy is for the Charop guys but they get less skills, but can specialise.
Means that my Dog Soldier rolls say 10 skills.
Opts to take the 'Commando' skill table rolls
Stealth - 2
Rifle - 2
Handgun
Martial Arts
Athletics
Observation - 2
Survival
The Point buy guy gets 8 points to spend from the general skill list.
Chooses
Explosives - 5
Stealth
Observation
Rifle
So the Point buy guy is more focused but less overall
We stick up a dozen careers but cross reference 30 skills.
Numbers of skills and maybe a base skill list for each career (commandos always get 1 rank in stealth, medics get 1 rank in First Aid etc etc ) can all be finished off later.
Was thinking rather than degrade with each transfer there should be a chance of developing a psychosis and a threshold level. I think its interesting to not punish players for individual deaths as it creates an unusual dynamic. You sacrifice becuase we plan to cath a live bad guy to swap you into . Of course you build your PC round the robust Elephantine artilerist Flesh body and now you are going to be in a flying abomination or something.
Generic, Sci fi, future war, rules-lite single d10 (+attribute + skill) game. I think if we're going to do future war I'd like to know clearly if its just soldiers or not. I also need to know if we're talking a single planet (I assume we are).
If its single planet (still assuming it is) I motion for just humans. Additional races don't seem necessary to me in a generic, rules lite game.
Moving on, Attributes, we need a set. I suggest keeping a low number of them (say 4 Brawn, Wits, Agility, and Endurance).
Too tired to think of more right now. I'll be more involved on Wednesday. Work and lack of sleep is keeping me brain from workin' good.
How about a twist to the game? Have two sections in the rules, one for playing and running aliens, along with all the various different types, motivations and equipment they might use ("the Gelatinous Quarb'Snaggles of planet Slurm clearly would have no use for magno sticks or plas rifles...") and have one for Humans and their genetically enhanced/bionic offshoots.
If an average stat for a human adult is 2, average roll on D10 is 5 (or 5.5 but I see no halves on a D10) that'd make a 'moderate' task somewhere around 7 or 8 Target number, yeah? Going on from there:
(http://s11.postimage.org/rcwa0oxhf/difficulty.jpg)
Target numbers modified for poor light, weather, being wounded, under fire, rushed etc
I'm not suggesting or talking about an encyclopaedic tome you can stop bullets with here. One page of rules, another for special situation handling, a few for character creation, couple for equipment, then fluff - a few pages for that, then a sample (3 page incl map?) adventure - journey to the heart of an alien jungle behind enemy lines to retrieve a crashed ships flight recorder, facing enemies, natives, the environment, and one or two surprises or dilemmas along the way. For example, taking shelter in a cave, there's evidence of an ancient civilisation with advanced technology or psychic powers. Stick to the mission or investigate?
Just sat on my train, throwing thoughts/ideas out there. Next stage might be to get an contents list written up and start each section so as not to look at the whole, feel overwhelmed, and not get anything done.
e.g.
Contents
=======
- Introduction
- Game History/Background
- Character Creation
- Skills, Talents and Powers
- Equipment
- Rules
- Combat
- Special Situations
- After the adventure
- GMs section - Campaign/Adventure ideas
- Monsters/Aliens/Enemies
- Vehicles and Vehicle combat
- Inspiration/Appendix N
Some of those might be a few pages, others just small sections. Start small, throw ideas out, get a group agreement, write it down, next section...
Oh, and whilst I'm sat on my train, I'm not driving it or moving or anything, so no lives were endangered in the making of this post (that comes later when I fire it up and start shunting about)
If it is skill based with stats then the roll will be d10 +sta +skill. Five possible ranks in each give us up to 1d10+10 is we have situational/environmental modifiers alter TN rather than the roll as APN suggests. This keeps modifiers nice and tight (otherwise you would be deaing with something like d10 up to +15 and I think 10 or less is much faster and contained in practice.
This means an unskilled person with no natural talent cannot hit an 11 without some favorable conditions so 11 needs to called out as a major difficulty breaking point in my opinion. A person with the most possible skill/training but no natural talent (or vice versa) can never reach 16 or more without favorable conditions (though that is only because those conditions lower the TN) so that should be another breaking point. 20 is only possible if you have max skill and attribute. So i think we need to consider these when we address setting TNs, and we should keep this in mind as we decide how combat works.
We could always do an exploding d10, whoch would make a result of 20 possible (if unlikely) for even the least gifted and skilled. But that is an added complication to the core mechanic.
Breaking this into sections since a few different things to address here.
On core mechanics: d10+stat+skill still seems best to me.
For the multiple dice additive roll-under system - I'm not sure what advantages there are to such a system (I do like the flavour of the examples though ).
The other variant where you roll 3d10 or 4d10, take highest, my feeling after running some numbers very briefly is that the system isn't random enough - you'd nearly always roll 7-10 (on 4 dice the chance of your roll being a "10" is 34%, and its a "9" another 25% of the time). I wouldn't mind occasional rerolls or take-highest as some sort of special situation/ability, though.
On settings: I guess I think a variety of alien races over multiple planets might be more interesting, and I like the idea of being able to play aliens, although it would be a harder task to design than a humans-only or anthropomorphs vs. abominations game (a bit like Vance's Dragon Masters? - not that I've read that). A multiple races game might need more explanation around the idea of infantry being effective if there are space ships ...perhaps most of the space travel is via star gates or something like that. You could still have anthropomorphs as one race option and body swapping though..
oh and I like the option of random-roll skills since its handy for quick/fair NPC creation as well, though vat-creatures you might not expect to really have "lifepaths" since they're just bred as soldiers and then trained in a few appropriate skills.
On attributes...random roll attributes/type may work fairly well in a body switching game since its easy to replace the random rolls with a new set, but mental stats are a bit problematic - if there's one mental stat, its the only stat thats really important for min/maxing since all the others can be replaced... (and now I'm having flashbacks to this GURPS Supers game I ran where someone took the Horseclans body-switching advantage and eventually transferred into the body of the planet's Superman equivalent.. I should've read the fine print on how the target needed to be unconscious ...).
PS the Contents plan looks pretty good I think.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566721If it is skill based with stats then the roll will be d10 +sta +skill. Five possible ranks in each give us up to 1d10+10 is we have situational/environmental modifiers alter TN rather than the roll as APN suggests. This keeps modifiers nice and tight (otherwise you would be deaing with something like d10 up to +15 and I think 10 or less is much faster and contained in practice.
This means an unskilled person with no natural talent cannot hit an 11 without some favorable conditions so 11 needs to called out as a major difficulty breaking point in my opinion. A person with the most possible skill/training but no natural talent (or vice versa) can never reach 16 or more without favorable conditions (though that is only because those conditions lower the TN) so that should be another breaking point. 20 is only possible if you have max skill and attribute. So i think we need to consider these when we address setting TNs, and we should keep this in mind as we decide how combat works.
We could always do an exploding d10, whoch would make a result of 20 possible (if unlikely) for even the least gifted and skilled. But that is an added complication to the core mechanic.
You need to be careful that skill use doesn't end up too easy. If you make a target number say an 8 then a skilled PC with some talent might have skill +2 Talent +3 so they will get an 80% chance of success.
We need to decide a whole host of stuff round skills. includingbut not limited to
i) can non-skilled folk try all skills or a subset
ii) what is a reasonable degree of sucess on differnet difficulties
iii) do we want opposed rolls eg detectvr stelath etc
Quote from: jibbajibba;566727You need to be careful that skill use doesn't end up too easy. If you make a target number say an 8 then a skilled PC with some talent might have skill +2 Talent +3 so they will get an 80% chance of success.
We need to decide a whole host of stuff round skills. includingbut not limited to
i) can non-skilled folk try all skills or a subset
ii) what is a reasonable degree of sucess on differnet difficulties
iii) do we want opposed rolls eg detectvr stelath etc
I think whether this is good or not depends on what we envision tn 8 as and how hard in general we want skill checks to be.
1) i think this depends on the skill. Everyone should be able to try to jump even if they are unskilled, but not everyone should be able to try to navigate and land a commercial airliner. For the later you need skill.
2) do we want degrees of success?
3) i can go either way on opposed rolls. If you don't have them for detect v stealth, one of those needs to be a passive defense of some kind. This will also impact combat. If people have a dodge skill that is rolled, that can bog down combat in my opinion. So we may want to look at having static defenses.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566745I think whether this is good or not depends on what we envision tn 8 as and how hard in general we want skill checks to be.
1) i think this depends on the skill. Everyone should be able to try to jump even if they are unskilled, but not everyone should be able to try to navigate and land a commercial airliner. For the later you need skill.
2) do we want degrees of success?
3) i can go either way on opposed rolls. If you don't have them for detect v stealth, one of those needs to be a passive defense of some kind. This will also impact combat. If people have a dodge skill that is rolled, that can bog down combat in my opinion. So we may want to look at having static defenses.
by degrees of sucess I was being unclear me bad. I meant what % sucess do we want for the different difficultly slots. 50% sucess for easy? etc
I agree with the rest.
Combat wise I like a defense score that becomes a target number cuts down on multiple roles.
Optional Hit locations ? Wound system with a death spiral? Armour absorbs?
I like degrees of success for some things. It may be that its something that's considered on a case-by-case basis; some skills or situations will benefit from a high roll (such as a good hit roll increasing damage?), others won't.
Opposed rolls are a useful mechanic as well, though passive defenses are probably a good idea for combat (and a couple of other cases like Perception). Perhaps have a default passive defense that's fairly low i.e. gives better than a 50/50 chance of an attacker of the same skill hitting, but also give the option of spending an action to make an 'active defense' (opposed roll to parry or dodge) if the defender wants ?
I think whether skills can be used untrained will vary from skill to skill. As an aside I don't think 'Jump' should be a skill - perhaps just a function of Strength.
On APNs task difficulties table note that APN was assuming an average human attribute was 2 (so by default a normal character would get a +2 bonus). What scale to go for is a good question I think - a 2 average maybe doesn't leave much room for representing low attributes (e.g. small creatures with low Strength, or animal-Int creatures) unless creatures can have negative stats...
The original idea of a 1-10 scale (Cyberpunk) does look like it might be a bit too extreme, unless using modifiers rather than adding the score to the roll directly which is a bit cumbersome.
Quote from: jibbajibba;566749Optional Hit locations ? Wound system with a death spiral? Armour absorbs?
I like hit locations. On damage - in an SF game, I guess the bad guys are probably going to packing really nasty weapons that you'd expect to vapourize an unarmoured target, or at least really mess them up. Maybe armour absorbs from damage, or even armour having its own built-in Hit Points (a la Rifts) probably wouldn't be unreasonable.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;566755I like degrees of success for some things. It may be that its something that's considered on a case-by-case basis; some skills or situations will benefit from a high roll (such as a good hit roll increasing damage?), others won't.
Opposed rolls are a useful mechanic as well, though passive defenses are probably a good idea for combat (and a couple of other cases like Perception). Perhaps have a default passive defense that's fairly low i.e. gives better than a 50/50 chance of an attacker of the same skill hitting, but also give the option of spending an action to make an 'active defense' (opposed roll to parry or dodge) if the defender wants ?
I think whether skills can be used untrained will vary from skill to skill. As an aside I don't think 'Jump' should be a skill - perhaps just a function of Strength.
On APNs task difficulties table note that APN was assuming an average human attribute was 2 (so by default a normal character would get a +2 bonus). What scale to go for is a good question I think - a 2 average maybe doesn't leave much room for representing low attributes (e.g. small creatures with low Strength, or animal-Int creatures) unless creatures can have negative stats...
The original idea of a 1-10 scale (Cyberpunk) does look like it might be a bit too extreme, unless using modifiers rather than adding the score to the roll directly which is a bit cumbersome.
I assumed a stat mod of -5 to +5 with 1 as the SD from a median of 0
I assumed a skill mod of 0 - +5
Quote from: jibbajibba;566749by degrees of sucess I was being unclear me bad. I meant what % sucess do we want for the different difficultly slots. 50% sucess for easy? etc
I agree with the rest.
Combat wise I like a defense score that becomes a target number cuts down on multiple roles.
Optional Hit locations ? Wound system with a death spiral? Armour absorbs?
I think I am still unclear on what you mean by degrees of success; do you mean how challenging in terms of probability each TN level would be? In my opinion something that is labeled Easy should have an 80 percent chance of success or more. Definitely shouldn't be failing easy tasks half the time in my opinion.
Defense scores work for me.
I don't think hit locations are good for a rules light game. I am fine with wounds and death spiral. We could also just do a really low hp total that doesn't advance over time (something around 10).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566762I think I am still unclear on what you mean by degrees of success; do you mean how challenging in terms of probability each TN level would be? In my opinion something that is labeled Easy should have an 80 percent chance of success or more. Definitely shouldn't be failing easy tasks half the time in my opinion.
Defense scores work for me.
I don't think hit locations are good for a rules light game. I am fine with wounds and death spiral. We could also just do a really low hp total that doesn't advance over time (something around 10).
Yes I mean how challenging eg -
So Easy = 75% Moderate = 50% difficult = 25% Very hard = 0% (based on an average of stat + bonus)
Quote from: jibbajibba;566775Yes I mean how challenging eg -
So Easy = 75% Moderate = 50% difficult = 25% Very hard = 0% (based on an average of stat + bonus)
I think we are in the same area but Inconsider fif percent rate of failure hard, so I would probably lean on 100% routine, 80 (maybe even 85%) easy, 65% moderate, 50% difficult, 25% very difficult, 15% overwhelming, 5% darn near impossible, 0% impossible.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;566757I like hit locations. On damage - in an SF game, I guess the bad guys are probably going to packing really nasty weapons that you'd expect to vapourize an unarmoured target, or at least really mess them up. Maybe armour absorbs from damage, or even armour having its own built-in Hit Points (a la Rifts) probably wouldn't be unreasonable.
Hit locations can work but I do think we need a much simpler and more intuitive method for it if the goal is rules light. When I think hit location, i think crunch.
Edit: how much control do you want pcs to have when they target? What kind of mechanical effect do you want from hitting someone in the head versus the legs or the torso?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566804I think we are in the same area but Inconsider fif percent rate of failure hard, so I would probably lean on 100% routine, 80 (maybe even 85%) easy, 65% moderate, 50% difficult, 25% very difficult, 15% overwhelming, 5% darn near impossible, 0% impossible.
rember modifiers might get quite bit if you have a possibel +10 then what seems Very hard becomes no need to roll at the top end.
Say if typically we are looking at +5 total for a typical high end skill + stat kind of the PCs specialism. In that case an impossible 11 becomes 50% success. I have no issue with unskilled no talent guys not being able to complete very diffcult tasks. so set that at TN = 10
Quote from: jibbajibba;566816Say if typically we are looking at +5 total for a typical high end skill + stat kind of the PCs specialism. In that case an impossible 11 becomes 50% success. I have no issue with unskilled no talent guys not being able to complete very diffcult tasks. so set that at TN = 10
sure but the probabilities we are talking about are relative to talent and skill. We were just discussing probabilities in the abstract without settling on a base. I think its easiest to speak in terms of the average character.
I have no issue with something that is described as impossible for an unskilled guy being a fifty percent chance of success for a skilled and talented guy.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566809Hit locations can work but I do think we need a much simpler and more intuitive method for it if the goal is rules light. When I think hit location, i think crunch.
Edit: how much control do you want pcs to have when they target? What kind of mechanical effect do you want from hitting someone in the head versus the legs or the torso?
D10 for Hit locations body block appears on the characters sheet with space to apply armour.
roll the D10 with the shot.
Head > L arm > R Arm > L Chest > R Chest > L Abdomin > R Abdomin > Groin > L Leg > R Leg
If you want extra complexity you have a separate socre for melee where you add upper and lower legs and have 1 chest and 1 abdomin
I agree we dont; want to track HP in different locations or record effect of a wound in the leg/ wound in the arm etc but .... we can have the effect of final wound to certain locations and it enables us to use piecemeal armour and tie armour back to the genetic splice and have abominations with natural armout on certain locations.
But again we start to toss around specifics :) So now we need some structure.
I will write a setting tonight when I get home. Its goign to be rough and feel free to tear it apart :)
Once we have that we need to set individuals areas to look at.
They should go away and bring back a page on their topic. At this point it all has to be stawman so we can't get too precious but we need a framework of ideas before we move forward to detail.
i) Character gen
ii) Combat
iii) Skills
stick up any setting ideas and I will incorporate them into the backstory
In terms of concrete levels of difficulty, 1-20. 1 is anything so routine no one would need to roll. 20 is nearly impossible. I would actually want to do some number crunching before settling on a label for the middle zones. But for me the important thing is those probabilities i mentioned earlier line up. So that an average character has something like an 80 percent chance of success for whatever we identify as Easy. i think it is alsi very important to call out those key break points for the GM so he knows once you "go to eleven" that is when things become impossible for the unskilled and unalented.
Quote from: jibbajibba;566827D10 for Hit locations body block appears on the characters sheet with space to apply armour.
roll the D10 with the shot.
Head > L arm > R Arm > L Chest > R Chest > L Abdomin > R Abdomin > Groin > L Leg > R Leg
If you want extra complexity you have a separate socre for melee where you add upper and lower legs and have 1 chest and 1 abdomin
I think that is fine but I it doesn't feel rules light to me. Maybe something simpler: d10: 1-4 appendages, 5-9 torso, 10 head. It is easy to keep three things in your head at a time and after a few uses you wouldn't need to consult the chart for it. The downside is you dont get specifics like left armor getting blown away. Mind you I am open to more robust hit location but I think by that point the game really becomes more of a rules medium system.
Quote from: jibbajibba;566827Once we have that we need to set individuals areas to look at.
They should go away and bring back a page on their topic. At this point it all has to be stawman so we can't get too precious but we need a framework of ideas before we move forward to detail.
i) Character gen
ii) Combat
iii) Skills
stick up any setting ideas and I will incorporate them into the backstory
Right now I have too many projects to engage in any writing on this one (unless it becomes clear this will be something we actually intend to publish, then I can probably jstify shuffling my schedule a bit).
For skills i think we need some concrete notion of the setting before we flesh that out. But generally how broad do we want each skill to be? I dont want quite as broad and lean as savage worlds, but also dont want as detailed as gurps.
No hit locations please. If we're going to do rules-lite let's do it right. If we're keeping combat as lite as everything else hit locations only add a bunch of complexity. It adds specifics to where you want a character to hit, makes bigger or odd shaped creatures "weird" necessitates special rules for what happens when you hit someone in a specific place, etc etc. People want their rules-lite comat quick and dirty.
The set up should be 2 rolls a to hit roll and a damage roll. The target/defender rolls a saok damage" roll and that's about it. We decide on lethality from their to get how many hits a character can take before doubling over and we'd be about done. If you want status effects then we'd make special rolls and defenses for that as well but we still don't make it too complicated.
We also have to keep in mind that we're working with a very small range so a skilled and talented character who specializes in something is going to quickly accrue bonuses necessary to pretty much do whatever that thing is well every time. not a bad thing but we have to always bear with the fact that we can't do a lot with the numbers.
Now if we ARE going to do the hit locations thing on the other hand there are certain then things are gonna get a little more complicated.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566836Right now I have too many projects to engage in any writing on this one (unless it becomes clear this will be something we actually intend to publish, then I can probably jstify shuffling my schedule a bit).
For skills i think we need some concrete notion of the setting before we flesh that out. But generally how broad do we want each skill to be? I dont want quite as broad and lean as savage worlds, but also dont want as detailed as gurps.
You want a bunch of skills (because we want a vague game) and you want them free form. You give a vague description of what each one does then alow players to talk with their GMs about whether or not they can apply them to a given situaton in some fashion. Baically think GURPS. In a game like this you seriously will have an "etiquette" skill and it will do some vague thing like teaching you how to be mannerable in various situations and you use it whenever you're in a high profile or foreign situation when diplomacy is needed or a knowledge of a culture's customs becomes an issue, or whereever else you can squeeze them in. What specific skills we include can be come up with at any time.
Quote from: MGuy;566887No hit locations please. If we're going to do rules-lite let's do it right. If we're keeping combat as lite as everything else hit locations only add a bunch of complexity. It adds specifics to where you want a character to hit, makes bigger or odd shaped creatures "weird" necessitates special rules for what happens when you hit someone in a specific place, etc etc. People want their rules-lite comat quick and dirty.
.
I have to agree with this. If its rules light a to hit location rule feels very out of place to me.
Quote from: MGuy;566889You want a bunch of skills (because we want a vague game) and you want them free form. You give a vague description of what each one does then alow players to talk with their GMs about whether or not they can apply them to a given situaton in some fashion. Baically think GURPS. In a game like this you seriously will have an "etiquette" skill and it will do some vague thing like teaching you how to be mannerable in various situations and you use it whenever you're in a high profile or foreign situation when diplomacy is needed or a knowledge of a culture's customs becomes an issue, or whereever else you can squeeze them in. What specific skills we include can be come up with at any time.
I am assuming combat will also be skills and how that is cut up will be very dependant on the setting. Same with many of the tech skills. I would like to avoid skills with too much cross over if possible.
Quote from: MGuy;566887The set up should be 2 rolls a to hit roll and a damage roll. The target/defender rolls a saok damage" roll and that's about it. We decide on lethality from their to get how many hits a character can take before doubling over and we'd be about done. If you want status effects then we'd make special rolls and defenses for that as well but we still don't make it too complicated.
.
I am not in favor of a soak damage roll. It is an extra roll (which adds up) but it also could be better handled by some form of static dr for things like armor.
For lethality I say keep it pretty lethal, especially since the setting allows swapping out bodies. I think a bullet should always have a chance of killing you. In fact most violent attacks should always at least have a shot at that.
With damage rolls i think it is always good to have the most range possible. It would be tempting to simply have the damage roll mirror the attack roll but in my experience this can seriously handicap your ability to customize damage.
Quote from: MGuy;566887complicated.
We also have to keep in mind that we're working with a very small range so a skilled and talented character who specializes in something is going to quickly accrue bonuses necessary to pretty much do whatever that thing is well every time. not a bad thing but we have to always bear with the fact that we can't do a lot with the numbers.
.
This is a consideration but it isn't as narrow as it may seem. I have some experience with this in my own games and can probably offer some insight as Ive run some lengthy campaigns with them. Our system has a small number of ranks in each skill using a dice pool (which is different but the concept here is scope and progression). Everything is rated zero to three. So just four increments. An expertise can effectively give a four rank for special actions so in some cases this range expands to five increments. Our game has about forty skills, but they are siloed a bit so it is harder to put all of your points into clusters of combat skills or knowledge. In general characters start out pretty competent with this range, because off the bat you can make a guy who has three ranks, a good expertise in a number of skills. Also we have no attributes.
We focus on keeping advancement very slow but allowing characters to begin the game pretty good. It works well for a more down to earth and gritty setting. People can grow, but it is mostly about expanding into new areas of development rather than jacking up your sword skill over and over again. We keep cost of skill increases quite high post character creation and xp per adventure is pretty lean (1-3 points).
BSJ: ultimatley these are all your call. On board whatever choice you make here. Just stating my preferences.
Another thought to throw into the mix for skills.
For task resolution Roll 1D10+Stat
If you are trained in a skill, roll 2D10+stat and pick the highest die to use (and discard the other die)
If you are expert in a skill, roll 3D10+stat and pick the highest die to use (and discard the other dice)
If you are master in a skill, roll 4D10+stat and pick the highest die to use (and discard the other dice)
You could also have Basic training. This gives no extra dice to use but nullifies any non skill penalty you'd get for trying an action that requires a certain skill.
Example:
Sergeant Bloogflub shook one of his heads in disgust, purple skin oozing in frustration. "By all the moons of Filgro!" he muttered, grasping the rifle and turning it round, pointing it towards the target before handing it to the cadet. "At least point it in the right bloody direction! Now! Fire!"
Cadet Bloggleflub narrowed the eyes on his left hand head and ignored the other head muttering in his ear as best he could, then squeezed the trigger.
Mechanics
The target is 30m away. The Target number is 8. Bloogleflub has 2 Agility and Basic Training with the Laser rifle. If he had no training, the target number would increase (double? +50%? Depends on the task.)
The roll is 4. Add Agility 2, total 6. Miss.
The sergeant threw three of his arms up in disgust. Snatching the rifle away with his other two arms, he pressed a button that sped the target out to a distance of 60m. The gathered cadets squinted at the distant flurgboard cutout of the Xeno and it's horrific pink skin, two arms and two legs and - shock, horror! Only one head!!!! The sergeant calmly fired a round off, then another.
Sergeant has Agility 3 and He's expert with laser rifle (+2D10). Roll 3D10, pick best die, add 3. Target number is 9 (he's showing off). Roll is 4, 7, and 5. Pick the 7, plus 3 from agility, total 10.
He fires again, rolls 3, 1, 8, hits again.
Tossing the gun to the cadet he splutters "Now get it right! Those things out there.." he says, pointing to the now headless, and missing most of its midsection, target "want to invade our worlds and infect us with their Murk Doh Nalds and Starb Ukks outposts! We must stop them, at all costs!"
I'll have to read back over all the probability discussion I think before commenting on that.
On hit location, I don't really like a separate random roll for it, but you could maybe have called shots like 2E (take a penalty to shoot at an arm or leg or head, and list the additional effects) without too many extra complications?
Quote from: jibbajibba;566827I will write a setting tonight when I get home. Its goign to be rough and feel free to tear it apart :)
Great! :)
Will come up with a rough draft of a possible setting/genre too, not to compete, but hopefully to throw more ideas into the pot and give things to pluck and pop into the final write up. It'll be a day or two before I come up with it though - work is strangling my free time at the moment :(
Sorry this was rushed only got 30 mins to do it :(
Just some ideas
Meryck IV, Noah’s World, was a nowhere place. It had been important thirty years ago. A tactical nexus between systems, both sides had seen it as a staging post. They had plundered it’s raw materials, built factories, command complexes and fought ceaselessly over control.
The world was toxic, the atmosphere, flora poisonous to both sides. The cost of protecting troops was too high, shipping in troops was wasted resource so they plundered the local fauna using genetic splicing and biotech to create their armies from the world itself.
The first attempts spliced the predators of the world with DNA to create the Hybrids, creatures with the physical attributes of animals but the intelligence of their masters. Obedient, able to follow orders they were prefect soldiers. The Opposition mimicked the techniques but disregarded the limits of nature and created creatures more powerful and more extreme. The Abominations were as varied in form as they were alike in cruelty. Developed for maximum aggression they were raw killing machines.
Hybrid technologists realised that the meat of their army was just that, meat, it was the training and skills that gave them the edge. They developed the PRISM (Personal Replicant Interactive Storage Module) a device that recorded all of a Hybrid’s experiences, their training, skills, personality onto a crystal. Now they could harvest PRISMs from fallen Hybrids and redeploy them into new meat. With this technology they started, slowly to win the war. The Opposition countered with even more numerous and extreme Abominations.
The War raged for 20 years, tides of devastation moving back and forth across the planet. Then it stopped. New drive technology meant Noah’s world was no longer tactically relevant. The War moved on to new worlds, new systems. But neither side told the troops on the ground. So the War was done with them but the Battles continued. The Abominations struck at the Hybrid deployment centres and destroyed the vats. The Hybrids retreated into secret lab and development centres. Stripped of the ability to produce troops in enough numbers they looked to other options and focused on their advantage training and inteligence and developed the IMP (Invasive Meta PRISM) which enabled Hybrids to take control of Abominations through transferring their PRISMs into Abomination Meat.
The sides have fractured, mixed groups of renegades make bases in abandoned facilities and mountains fastnesses. The jungles, deserts and forests are littered with materiel and unheralded dangers.
The Battle rages, each side looking for tactical gains but each side having no overall criteria for success. Instead they look simply to control Noah’s world until their creators return from the Stars.
Thanks jibba jibba, looks pretty good (not to discourage anyone else from writing up ideas - perhaps even multiple settings are possible?)
Also, thanks again everyone for your help so far! Good work and the discussions have been interesting.
I think my fairly light management here has slowed things down a bit, but I think at least we've been able to build a fair degree of agreement on the basic ideas, and the decisions we've made thus far all have some solid reasons behind them.
BTW, no one should feel too discouraged if their ideas haven't always been used; I think its the nature of the project that with five-plus people participating we generate five times as many ideas as we actually can use...
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566804I think we are in the same area but Inconsider fif percent rate of failure hard, so I would probably lean on 100% routine, 80 (maybe even 85%) easy, 65% moderate, 50% difficult, 25% very difficult, 15% overwhelming, 5% darn near impossible, 0% impossible.
Can't do the 5%s easily with d10 but then that's TN 3 for easy, 6 for difficult, about 9 for very difficult, and 11 for 'extreme' if there's no modifier for attribute.
A PC with a +5 has a 50/50 chance to accomplish an extreme task which is probably OK for a hero...if skill was capped out at +5 though that leaves no room to have an attribute modifier?
Possible options here, maybe:
*reduce the skill modifiers a bit, say to +3 max. rather than +5? Attributes might have a different bonus on 'attribute checks' (the full rating) and 'skill checks' (half, or use a modifier?). However that might get a bit complex for rules-light.
*Rolling up on a '10' would let us set TNs much higher than 10 before they became impossible, and so we can have bonuses range higher.
*set extremely difficult tasks as >10 anyway. Some tasks are just impossible for starting characters, and highly trained characters still struggle with them. Basically the D&D approach.
*limit the bonus by making it not +skill+attribute, but having one of them do something else. Twilight 2000 for instance was a d10 roll under system, and stat never added to checks, it was just the cap for buying up skills - over that they cost double to raise. (Or APNs idea does this as well...it would mean stat is much more important than skill though, I think).
*have higher target numbers, and also add metagame fudge points (luck points or something) to let characters potentially do impossible tasks sometimes.
I guess I lean towards having characters roll up on a 10.
What are the design goals?
Quote from: chaosvoyager;567084What are the design goals?
More or less what APN put back on page 1 looks like a reasonable set of objectives. They're in sync with rules-light which is I think the preference.
Other than that, for myself I find your question hard to answer since I just have preferences that are sort of hardwired in to any designing I do.
Quote from: APN;565962I've toyed with home brewed systems for over 30 years (though back then they were all more or less a clone of D&D and whatever game I could read about in magazines because I couldn't afford to buy them). Happy to pitch in - I've always got 3 or 4 home brew games in writing at any one time, but a joint effort could be fun, if the work load isn't too high and a common consensus can be reached on what is wanted/required.
For me (any/all of these are what I aim for, others may have differing opinions):
- Ultra fast character creation
- Probably stat as bonus
- I don't mind either realistic/gritty or cube o hit points thing, but my own home brew efforts are leaning towards static hit points at 1st level on, and the character just gets better at avoiding blows through skill or luck
- Any genre, cross genre, anything interesting, different, based off a book or film with serials filed off?
- cards, dice, resource management, coin flipping and count heads or tails, any other mechanics out there?
- Easy to read and play, even for a novice (so it might need an optional 'this is what roleplaying is' bit, and that could be fun to invite people on the forum to write the clearest, easiest to understand section to put in as a bit of a no-prize competition)
- Art - stick men style as in order of the stick, or best effort elmore/otus knockoff. Anything to spice the pages up from dry dull reading.
- Keep the page count low
- sample adventure or campaign
If anyone needs an example of low page count multi genre rpg take a look at this (mini six) (http://antipaladingames.com/minisix.html)
Excellent, free, multi genre, works. Job done.
Could we (as a group) match or dare I say, better that?
I've only skimmed the thread. So sorry if I missed anything important.
For core resolution, has rolling over and under simultaneously been considered? As in roll over difficulty and under skill? Something I've been thinking on for a percent system, but could work for D20 as well. In combat, it could be roll under with (roll+mods) for damage. So one roll for attack and damage, then we could tack things (wounds? dodging?) onto that slimmer base if need be.
For setting, what's the reason consciousness can't be dubbed onto abominations? I'm assuming short range? Might attempts have been made at this?
I think the goals, as APN laid them out, are too vague. From how the discussion going we want things to be simple, freeform, and easy to understand. The task resolution system should be kept simple and freeform, in that the results are vague. Perhaps hadd a "Degrees of success/failure" thing on top that ticks off how far over/under you roll. People like that for ome reason. However it should stick to 4 degrees as in 2 degrees of failure (failure and catastrophic failure) and 2 degrees of success (success and critical success).
Again, hit locations add more comlexity then is necessary and the returns are not worth it. Have "called shots" just come in the form of status effects, give'em a special roll to see if they go through, and let that be it.
I don't mind having soak be static, works out well either way.
jibba, I'm not going to be producing any setting stuff for right now so I'd ask you to flesh out the setting a bit more. I don't quite understand what you have so far.
Quote from: beejazz;567104I've only skimmed the thread. So sorry if I missed anything important.
For core resolution, has rolling over and under simultaneously been considered? As in roll over difficulty and under skill? Something I've been thinking on for a percent system, but could work for D20 as well. In combat, it could be roll under with (roll+mods) for damage. So one roll for attack and damage, then we could tack things (wounds? dodging?) onto that slimmer base if need be.
For setting, what's the reason consciousness can't be dubbed onto abominations? I'm assuming short range? Might attempts have been made at this?
I think that mechanic seems more complex than the consensus is after. We are looking for a mechanic that fades into the background as opposed to a mechanic that defines the game. This I think is line with the general view that the game avoid getting to gamist .
Setting -
So the theory is that in order to IMP an Abomination, or indeed any creature you need to capture it alive than then insert the IMP into its central nerous system. So the IMP will be a small box with an extendable needle the needle is inserted into the neck between the vertebrea. Once inserted a PRISM which is about the size of a standard d6 can be placed in the IMP the personality matrix on the PRISM then takes over the host body.
So that is the 'science'. The game effect of this is that you can't just impose a personality and range. So you can't create blank personalities then deploy them enmasse. You will have weapons that deliberately scramble the opponents nervous system so you can take them alive and it gives a reason for PCs to get involved in hand to hand combat thus widening the viable skill pool. You could use the computer skill (skills? ) to allow PCs to generate drone personalities or even to copy their own PRISM and create other thems...
So in game terms trying to encourage different types of play, encourage a wider skill base, and create a unique setting feature that itself generates other tactics and options. This is in addition to creating a resurection mechanic for the game.
Quote from: beejazz;567104I've only skimmed the thread. So sorry if I missed anything important.
For core resolution, has rolling over and under simultaneously been considered? As in roll over difficulty and under skill? Something I've been thinking on for a percent system, but could work for D20 as well. In combat, it could be roll under with (roll+mods) for damage. So one roll for attack and damage, then we could tack things (wounds? dodging?) onto that slimmer base if need be.
For setting, what's the reason consciousness can't be dubbed onto abominations? I'm assuming short range? Might attempts have been made at this?
I don't quite get what you mean by 'simultaneous rolling over and under' sorry? Example maybe?
IIRC the plan was that its possible to capture abomination bodies, and that would be a sort of 'treasure' you can get during play.
(EDIT: scooped by jibba)
Quote from: MGuy;567110I think the goals, as APN laid them out, are too vague. From how the discussion going we want things to be simple, freeform, and easy to understand. The task resolution system should be kept simple and freeform, in that the results are vague. Perhaps hadd a "Degrees of success/failure" thing on top that ticks off how far over/under you roll. People like that for some reason. However it should stick to 4 degrees as in 2 degrees of failure (failure and catastrophic failure) and 2 degrees of success (success and critical success).
Again, hit locations add more complexity then is necessary and the returns are not worth it. Have "called shots" just come in the form of status effects, give'em a special roll to see if they go through, and let that be it.
I don't mind having soak be static, works out well either way.
jibba, I'm not going to be producing any setting stuff for right now so I'd ask you to flesh out the setting a bit more. I don't quite understand what you have so far.
Simple/fairly freeform sounds good to me as well and I think jives with other suggestions in the thread.
On combat stuff:
*I'm not sure yet as to soak - perhaps a bit early to say without more concept of how a damage/HP system would work?
*On called shots, I think after more pondering I agree - a problem with having them in the 2E fashion is that the system assumes normal hits would just go for the main body, but the GM might want to describe a hit as being for a specific location i.e. a massive blow decapitating an opponent. Having some abstract effects to choose from would interfere less with description. Maybe Trip, Disarm, and Stun instead of leg-arm-head shots (it might be too detailed for this system - if so ah well, will just steal it for my own games).
About the setting:
Pros
1) The reasoning behind war and the grim darkness is elevated enough where i could really get into playing it. Post apocalyptic abandoned warzone on an alien planet/ Yea things can be done with that.
2) There is reason to have a bunch of techie stuff. Both techie stuff at a distance and techie stuff that can have nigh magical effects.
3) Alien pokemon battles? Yea, I'd do that.
Cons
1) Its too combat focused to allow for a wide range of skills which a system like this must have. This wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for 2.
2) I'm still against this not being human centered. It seems like most of it is going to be roving packs of personality implanted creatures infecting other personality implanted creatures and I don't think that flies.
Changes I'd make: Coming soon. Too late at night for me to put for the effort. I'll get something together tomorrow.
Quote from: MGuy;567146About the setting:
Pros
1) The reasoning behind war and the grim darkness is elevated enough where i could really get into playing it. Post apocalyptic abandoned warzone on an alien planet/ Yea things can be done with that.
2) There is reason to have a bunch of techie stuff. Both techie stuff at a distance and techie stuff that can have nigh magical effects.
3) Alien pokemon battles? Yea, I'd do that.
Cons
1) Its too combat focused to allow for a wide range of skills which a system like this must have. This wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for 2.
2) I'm still against this not being human centered. It seems like most of it is going to be roving packs of personality implanted creatures infecting other personality implanted creatures and I don't think that flies.
Changes I'd make: Coming soon. Too late at night for me to put for the effort. I'll get something together tomorrow.
The idea was to leave the reasons behiond the war vague for 2 reasons.
i) The PCs really don't know. They don't have the details of the why they are really at the bottom of this food chain the grunts on the ground so to speak.
ii) From a design perspective the War and the parties fighting it are deliberately vague so the system can be expanded into a generic Scifi game. You will notice that neither side in the war is refered to as Human. The war could be between senient gas clouds and giant insects. The wider setting could be a huge populaose universe of a few systems lined by wormholes or anythgin in between.
On the Cons
1 - I agree. You could easily expand it to include settled groups of noncombatants. Did they build farms, mines, settlements. Did they construct a wider range of creatures for a different series of tasks. Etc. Easy to do. I think the combat focus is still valid. I think the core party is probably a Hybrid squad. Doesn't mean that that squad can't be independed workig for a settlement etc. But at that point you move much close to a post-apoc game style. The way i see it now is there is still a military government even if tis fragmented with no real control. That group still has objectives and sets missions and that is somethign diffetrent to most post-apoc games.
2 - Lack of Humans is deliberate. But the idea is that the Hybrids look feel and act like humans just extraordianry humans. So the Leonine Colonel, is a great visual image with a uniformed lion headed biped walking round a command room smoking a cigar with various other animal headed creatures taking his orders. I don't think you need actual humans so long as you establish the humanity of the Hybrids.
The Abominations are supposed to be monstrous. Giant bulked up critters with cyborg elements, giant octopoids that occupy polluted swamps etc etc
You could add human settlers as a passive population but a bit like D&D the human is the bland option why play a human when you can play a Cheeta-like assassin etc ... what does a human population add to the setting?
Quote from: jibbajibba;567158The idea was to leave the reasons behiond the war vague for 2 reasons.
i) The PCs really don't know. They don't have the details of the why they are really at the bottom of this food chain the grunts on the ground so to speak.
ii) From a design perspective the War and the parties fighting it are deliberately vague so the system can be expanded into a generic Scifi game. You will notice that neither side in the war is refered to as Human. The war could be between senient gas clouds and giant insects. The wider setting could be a huge populaose universe of a few systems lined by wormholes or anythgin in between.
On the Cons
1 - I agree. You could easily expand it to include settled groups of noncombatants. Did they build farms, mines, settlements. Did they construct a wider range of creatures for a different series of tasks. Etc. Easy to do. I think the combat focus is still valid. I think the core party is probably a Hybrid squad. Doesn't mean that that squad can't be independed workig for a settlement etc. But at that point you move much close to a post-apoc game style. The way i see it now is there is still a military government even if tis fragmented with no real control. That group still has objectives and sets missions and that is somethign diffetrent to most post-apoc games.
2 - Lack of Humans is deliberate. But the idea is that the Hybrids look feel and act like humans just extraordianry humans. So the Leonine Colonel, is a great visual image with a uniformed lion headed biped walking round a command room smoking a cigar with various other animal headed creatures taking his orders. I don't think you need actual humans so long as you establish the humanity of the Hybrids.
The Abominations are supposed to be monstrous. Giant bulked up critters with cyborg elements, giant octopoids that occupy polluted swamps etc etc
You could add human settlers as a passive population but a bit like D&D the human is the bland option why play a human when you can play a Cheeta-like assassin etc ... what does a human population add to the setting?
Didn't know the hybrids were actually bipedal. Generally it doesn't need to be "humans" in the setting but some analogue close enough that I and other players can super-impose themselves onto. If they are just "furries" then that'll do. With the rest, sounds good. Still going to post somethign to help setting wise after I finally get some sleep.
So - what stats would the PRISM itself have ?
Quote from: Sean !;567167So - what stats would the PRISM itself have ?
So I figure a PRISM contains all your skills, memories and "mental" stats. Since we haven't defined them yet its hard to say much more.
From a game perspective it means that you build the character in 2 halves. There is no concept of playing a mental character or a physical character of putting stats into Strength or Intelligence doesn't happen.
The idea I had was to generate a 'meat' build using random rolls off a template. So you use the Leonine template or the Bovine template or the Simian template. That gives you the physical stats.
Then you determine your mental stats (random or point buy, I prefer random ) and your skills. those parts form the stuff that gets recorded on a PRISM.
Now in play this is going to be interesting because you might decide you want to play a simian science guy, think Cornelius from Planet of the Apes, then due to combat whatever you end up getting smoked and IMPed into a tentacled abomibination with hyped reflexes and 5 arms or something.
From what I can gather thus far the system involves rolling 1D10, plus stat, plus skill, to equal or exceed target number for success.
As for extra successes:
Rolling what, equal tn to +2 is 1 success
Rolling +3 to +5 is 2 success
+6 or more, 3 success
Successes could be used to reduce time for most tasks, and to either inflict more damage or hit in a specific place in combat.
Example:
Climbing a cliff takes ten hours for 1 success. For each additional success remove 2 hours from the time taken.
Decoding a door lock takes five minutes for 1 success. Every success after the 1st removes 2 minutes from the time taken.
In combat, 1 success with a sword inflicts a wound on a limb, damage as usual. 2 successes inflicts a more serious wound, with either a penalty to actions or losing hit points per round, the victims choices. 3 successes inflicts a nasty injury with penalty to actions, loss of hit points per round AND some lasting injury - a scar or limp, for example.
Depends on how nasty you want combat to be.
Possible setting suggestions:
- The far future. Mankind has spread through the stars, and the far flung colonies have turned resentment at the far off seat of Empire into open rebellion. Fight for the glory of the empire, and rise from a lowly legionary to a Centurion, Legate, or higher, whilst sidestepping or participating in the political intrigue and backstabbing. As a rebel, you are outgunned, have uncertain allies with families, homes and crops to tend, and face death if caught, as an example to others to be vigilant, be loyal, and behave, in the Emperors name. You have no choice - fight, win, or die!
- Mankind first encountered Alien races over 100 standard years ago. The first encounters were nervous, sometimes disastrous affairs. Over time, the exchange of language, technology and culture took place, before the warlike humans killed everyone and took their stuff. Now, the aliens, facing extinction or subjugation, have only one thing to decide - bow to the Humans, or fight back? Players pick from a choice of alien races, or play as the bad guys (humans) with a choice of cybernetic enhancements and genetic tampering to increase their chances of purging and burning in the name of humanity!
- We thought we were alone. We paid for that naivety when the colony on Therus Prime squawked a hasty mayday, and described hordes of insectoid creatures overrunning the peaceful mining settlement. The mines supply Tribillium, a vital fuel source, and there is a significant credit value attached to the installation. A fear unvoiced is that the Aliens will use Therus Prime as a staging post to spread their hives deeper into human colonies, until it's too late to fight back! The marines are despatched to investigate, thinking they'll have a holiday with what they regard as a 'bug hunt'. They will find out they are wrong, and they'll need bigger guns...
- People sang and rejoiced in the streets when scientists discovered another planet suitable for human life. Now, after hundreds of years in stasis, the colonisation fleet nears its destination. The planet, nicknamed Eden, is everything it was promised, and more besides. With genetic modification, the population in 20 years will become self supporting, and life will begin anew for the human race, and the 10,000 brave colonists who said goodbye to life on Earth. However, Eden is already home to a race of sentient and they aren't happy about the newcomers... lock and load! It's all out WAR!
Just a few top of the head things. All will be familiar in some way or another from books, films, comics and so on.
My thought is if we want stuff like degrees of success/success counting and hit location that is fine, but even though those seem like small things, I feel they are pushing us well out of the realm of rules light. Tabulating successes can be especially time consuming when you have multiple characters doing things. I would suggest a simple system of critical failure, failure, success and critical success. To keep it very simple just go with a natural one is crit failure, natural 10 a crit success (regardless of you modifier).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;567201To keep it very simple just go with a natural one is crit failure, natural 10 a crit success (regardless of you modifier).
I think giving the PCs a 1 in 10 chance of crit failure each roll is too slapstick unless the game is set to gonzo gritfest, especially if their foes have 1 in 10 chance of crit success in combat.
But - If this is what you want then go for it :cool:
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;567140I don't quite get what you mean by 'simultaneous rolling over and under' sorry? Example maybe?
IIRC the plan was that its possible to capture abomination bodies, and that would be a sort of 'treasure' you can get during play.
(EDIT: scooped by jibba)
Think how roll under works. Now to adjust difficulty you apply penalties, right? Instead of subtracting you can tell a person to roll over what would be a penalty.
So a guy's skill is 15 and the difficulty of the task is 7. He has to roll over 7 and under 15 (instead of subtracting and rolling under 8). The odds are identical. This method just uses no math. Ever.
The other part of what I suggested was pretty much used in Unknown Armies. You roll under your skill to determine hit or miss. That roll plus weapon damage is the damage total. Works pretty well there.
Quote from: Sean !;567211I think giving the PCs a 1 in 10 chance of crit failure each roll is too slapstick unless the game is set to gonzo gritfest, especially if their foes have 1 in 10 chance of crit success in combat.
But - If this is what you want then go for it :cool:
I'd agree with that.
You don't need a critical failure mechanic
Quote from: jibbajibba;567248I'd agree with that.
You don't need a critical failure mechanic
I am fine with no crit failure. I personally dont have them in my own systems. I think 10% for a crit success is okay though. Especially for a more lethal game.
Quote from: jibbajibba;567248I'd agree with that.
You don't need a critical failure mechanic
Well, if you are talking about a game with firearms, especially salvaged firearms, there probably should be some kind of mis-fire or jam chance. Maybe treat it like a critical hit in D&D, where you roll a 1 or something, then have to roll again and get above a certain number based on the weapon to avoid a jam or mis-fire.
Quote from: StormBringer;567353Well, if you are talking about a game with firearms, especially salvaged firearms, there probably should be some kind of mis-fire or jam chance. Maybe treat it like a critical hit in D&D, where you roll a 1 or something, then have to roll again and get above a certain number based on the weapon to avoid a jam or mis-fire.
It is set in the future though, so the problem of jamming may well have been solved.
What kind of weapon tech are we looking at in this setting?
Quote from: beejazz;567230Think how roll under works. Now to adjust difficulty you apply penalties, right? Instead of subtracting you can tell a person to roll over what would be a penalty.
So a guy's skill is 15 and the difficulty of the task is 7. He has to roll over 7 and under 15 (instead of subtracting and rolling under 8). The odds are identical. This method just uses no math. Ever.
Ah, I see! I don't think I've ever seen that before! (have to add that one to my design archive somewhere).
Simplicity aside I personally hugely prefer systems where higher roll means you've done better consistently- or failing that lower roll is better consistently (instead of some low numbers are good, or every digit ending in 5 is a crit, or blackjack higher is better unless you go over, or all even numbers are misses, or whatever.). I don't know that its a rational dislike on my part that I can really explain, though.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;567364It is set in the future though, so the problem of jamming may well have been solved.
What kind of weapon tech are we looking at in this setting?
I don't see jamming as the issue.
I can see that salvaged weapons may benefit froma failure mechanic but 1 in 10 is way to high, 1 in a 100 is way to high to be honest.... but maybe an optional rule is on a 1 you roll a % for chance of gun failure.
I can see 3 sorts of weapons.
i) Balistic - fires, a probably caseless, round with a number of different properties
ii) Energy - a phaser/laser type weapon could be a straight hard fi laser or a soft fi blaster
iii) some neural disruptor that renders the target incapacitated but preserves the meat for reuse.
Of course this would be in my suggested setting if we go elsewhere then all bets are off .
Talking of which BSJ you need ot make a few decisions and start workign out the next steps. :)
Quote from: APN;567188From what I can gather thus far the system involves rolling 1D10, plus stat, plus skill, to equal or exceed target number for success.
As for extra successes:
Rolling what, equal tn to +2 is 1 success
Rolling +3 to +5 is 2 success
+6 or more, 3 success
Successes could be used to reduce time for most tasks, and to either inflict more damage or hit in a specific place in combat.
Example:
Climbing a cliff takes ten hours for 1 success. For each additional success remove 2 hours from the time taken.
Decoding a door lock takes five minutes for 1 success. Every success after the 1st removes 2 minutes from the time taken.
In combat, 1 success with a sword inflicts a wound on a limb, damage as usual. 2 successes inflicts a more serious wound, with either a penalty to actions or losing hit points per round, the victims choices. 3 successes inflicts a nasty injury with penalty to actions, loss of hit points per round AND some lasting injury - a scar or limp, for example.
What I would suggest is that it may not be necessary to have "success levels" for everything. There could be a table of descriptions for GM convenience, but often there's no need to define effects for higher success levels as such. Instead the GM may decide you needed a 10 to sneak, and you got a 15? So you sneak really well. There's not much point the GM having to subtract and get a +5 and decide that was a +2 level success and look for examples of what 2nd level successes do. I think its easy to go overboard with effect-determination systems; in some ways a consistent guideline is good, but if so it has to be clear that you can ditch it if its not necessary.
There are going to be a couple of subsystems where there's a measurable effect and for them, define what a high roll does individually. In combat say a high attack roll means more damage but maybe using a 1:1 conversion rate is going to be the best. Same for locks, if that's important - subtract a minute per point over is better than 2 minutes for every 2 points over, more or less. There could also be a handful of character abilities that are triggered by specific margins of success, perhaps.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;567391What I would suggest is that it may not be necessary to have "success levels" for everything. There could be a table of descriptions for GM convenience, but often there's no need to define effects for higher success levels as such. Instead the GM may decide you needed a 10 to sneak, and you got a 15? So you sneak really well. There's not much point the GM having to subtract and get a +5 and decide that was a +2 level success and look for examples of what 2nd level successes do. I think its easy to go overboard with effect-determination systems; in some ways a consistent guideline is good, but if so it has to be clear that you can ditch it if its not necessary.
There are going to be a couple of subsystems where there's a measurable effect and for them, define what a high roll does individually. In combat say a high attack roll means more damage but maybe using a 1:1 conversion rate is going to be the best. Same for locks, if that's important - subtract a minute per point over is better than 2 minutes for every 2 points over, more or less. There could also be a handful of character abilities that are triggered by specific margins of success, perhaps.
I would say if you are goign to use effect numbers (a success score based on how much you exceed the target number by) then don't add a look up just take the raw number , need a 7 roll a total of 15 EN = 8 and I would only use it for opposed rolls.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;567252I am fine with no crit failure. I personally dont have them in my own systems. I think 10% for a crit success is okay though. Especially for a more lethal game.
I normally like having a 1 being a possible fumble, with another roll to avoid it - so failing a climb check just means no progress, 1 means a handhold breaks off and check again if you fall, a 1 on a Driving stunt means you cut off another driver and they have to roll to avoid crashing into you. Its probably too complex for this system though :(
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;567364It is set in the future though, so the problem of jamming may well have been solved.
What kind of weapon tech are we looking at in this setting?
OK brainstorming some ideas. Some are in keeping with the idea a lot of weapons should be subdual so you can land that juicy flying squid-wolf-aardvark body you always wanted...
Beamer - laser, perhaps variable settings such as infrared (IR), UV, maser (microwave), gamma.
(Blaster, Phaser...)
Tangler - web shooting? Force web?
Needler (spray of poison darts across area?)
Pulse rifle
Frag grenade, Phoss grenade, gas grenade
High-power taser
Combat knife
EM weaponry (any effect on PRISMs ?)
Mini-machinegun with armour-piercing rounds.
Smartguns
I've edited these with numbers for reference, sorry.
Quote from: APN;567188Possible setting suggestions:
1) The far future. Mankind has spread through the stars, and the far flung colonies have turned resentment at the far off seat of Empire into open rebellion. Fight for the glory of the empire, and rise from a lowly legionary to a Centurion, Legate, or higher, whilst sidestepping or participating in the political intrigue and backstabbing. As a rebel, you are outgunned, have uncertain allies with families, homes and crops to tend, and face death if caught, as an example to others to be vigilant, be loyal, and behave, in the Emperors name. You have no choice - fight, win, or die!
2) Mankind first encountered Alien races over 100 standard years ago. The first encounters were nervous, sometimes disastrous affairs. Over time, the exchange of language, technology and culture took place, before the warlike humans killed everyone and took their stuff. Now, the aliens, facing extinction or subjugation, have only one thing to decide - bow to the Humans, or fight back? Players pick from a choice of alien races, or play as the bad guys (humans) with a choice of cybernetic enhancements and genetic tampering to increase their chances of purging and burning in the name of humanity!
3) We thought we were alone. We paid for that naivety when the colony on Therus Prime squawked a hasty mayday, and described hordes of insectoid creatures overrunning the peaceful mining settlement. The mines supply Tribillium, a vital fuel source, and there is a significant credit value attached to the installation. A fear unvoiced is that the Aliens will use Therus Prime as a staging post to spread their hives deeper into human colonies, until it's too late to fight back! The marines are despatched to investigate, thinking they'll have a holiday with what they regard as a 'bug hunt'. They will find out they are wrong, and they'll need bigger guns...
4) People sang and rejoiced in the streets when scientists discovered another planet suitable for human life. Now, after hundreds of years in stasis, the colonisation fleet nears its destination. The planet, nicknamed Eden, is everything it was promised, and more besides. With genetic modification, the population in 20 years will become self supporting, and life will begin anew for the human race, and the 10,000 brave colonists who said goodbye to life on Earth. However, Eden is already home to a race of sentient and they aren't happy about the newcomers... lock and load! It's all out WAR!
Just a few top of the head things. All will be familiar in some way or another from books, films, comics and so on.
#1 is a bit Warhammer maybe? Not bad though. Maybe it could be spiced up with some faux historical elements maybe if you model the Empire on some historical period?
#2 I do like the humans as villains approach. It'd be good to have a game generic enough to supports both this sort of thing and jibba jibbas fuzzies, the main problem being that they would end up using different races (and this setting needs space/FTL travel rules, although it also doesn't need brain switching?)
#3 lol. I love Aliens but I think possibilities of the setting are fairly limited after that one adventure, unfortunately. :(
Its great as an adventure idea to include with a generic SF game.
For #4 I think its mandatory to have the Earth be destroyed soon after the colonists left :) No worrying about space travel/FTL travel required here either. Maybe this one could also have fuzzies and body switching...e.g. perhaps the "colonists" are just stored data until new bodies can be manufactured...
When I mentioned critical failure/success I was more thinking of something simple. 10 above or 10 under being flat critical failure and/or critical success rates. That means that highly skilled people can do very easy tasks amazingly well while nskilled people fail laughably at higher end tasks. i don't like a flat 10% chance at critical success/failure personally.
Setting wise here's what I've got:
1: Nobody knows why communication with the higher ups got cut off and naturally people are starting to forget/have forgotten. As far as some people are concerned things have always been this way.
2: There has to be some form of reproduction or something going on because as technology gets old and battles keep raging there has to be something sustaining the current ecosystem to keep this gravy train moving. As it stands i don't see how the conditions of the setting have been sustained.
3: For versimiliude's sake there should be some kind of adjustment period people go through when taking on a new body. However that may just be my thing.
4: I think that most technological weapons should either be kept rare or be balanced somehow with biotech. On that note robots, do they exist and can you use them to do stuff? Also on that note "vehicles" are they available? What about AI? Also "biotech" is going to be a thing even if i have to do it myself.
5: I don't think things should be random. I know its rules lite but I want to have some semblance of balance between players and random results in character gen are unnecessary and should be optional instead of the standard. As I see it random character generation does not add anything to the game.
6: I have at least 6 major factions in mind that I'll lay down later on today.
Quote from: MGuy;567407When I mentioned critical failure/success I was more thinking of something simple. 10 above or 10 under being flat critical failure and/or critical success rates. That means that highly skilled people can do very easy tasks amazingly well while nskilled people fail laughably at higher end tasks. i don't like a flat 10% chance at critical success/failure personally.
Setting wise here's what I've got:
1: Nobody knows why communication with the higher ups got cut off and naturally people are starting to forget/have forgotten. As far as some people are concerned things have always been this way.
2: There has to be some form of reproduction or something going on because as technology gets old and battles keep raging there has to be something sustaining the current ecosystem to keep this gravy train moving. As it stands i don't see how the conditions of the setting have been sustained.
3: For versimiliude's sake there should be some kind of adjustment period people go through when taking on a new body. However that may just be my thing.
4: I think that most technological weapons should either be kept rare or be balanced somehow with biotech. On that note robots, do they exist and can you use them to do stuff? Also on that note "vehicles" are they available? What about AI? Also "biotech" is going to be a thing even if i have to do it myself.
5: I don't think things should be random. I know its rules lite but I want to have some semblance of balance between players and random results in character gen are unnecessary and should be optional instead of the standard. As I see it random character generation does not add anything to the game.
6: I have at least 6 major factions in mind that I'll lay down later on today.
Re setting - still assuming the one I outlined though some other great ideas knocking about :)
1. Agree totally in fact the troops ont eh groun may not even know communication has been cut off they may still think they are part of some greater effort
2. Agree totally. My assumption was the Abonimations vat plants are still working so they are turning out trrops and ever more elaborate monsters. the Hybrids are resticted to 'secret bases' with limited new vats but the standard PC will be a fresh vat grown Hybrid. Marauders and renegades may have access to small scale vats that can produce ...
3. Definitely an adjustment period. I alike the idea tha the GM keeps the stats for the new body and you only discover them when you try stuff. so until you run who won't know how fast, etc this should act as a -ve modifier on rolls
4. My feel is tech weapons shoudl be available in military locations. Its a raw material rich world and they would have laid down factories for mass production but I like the idea that the tech is lower than the tech you might find in a crashed satelite, or an underground research lab. I think if you make materiel too rare its gets to post apoc again.
I am all for AI and robots though I like the idea that they lack the ability to maintain them or there is a restiction otherwise why go the genetic route?
5. This might become a philisophical debate. One of the issues is Random = Old School and point buy = CharOp. This might be a pointof contention on this site where generally random is seen as less morally corrupt :)
Personally I want both. Random determined physical works for me because its a genetic output and your meat isn't permanent. You saw my comments on mental stats and Skills with random or point buy options.
I could see you could pull the random physical and just give Players access to meat builds as predertermined physcial bodies. So if you choose to be a wolf scout you get Strength +1; Agility +2; Stamina +2; enhanced senses. Or you could roll for a Wolf Scout variant and you might do better you might do worse. You basically get to pick random or prefab.
6. factions are good :)
So BSJ you need to make a call on setting, genre, feel etc and lay down a new version of APNs design goals that encapsulates what you are hoping to get as an outcome.
I prefer a narrower setting that we can do in some detail with the outside being vague and open to later expansion. But that is just one approach. I also think the setting I sketched out feels familar enough that you just grok it but has enough unusual stuff in it that its feels a bit different. It has some obvious adventure hooks, some useful design space to play with and the mechanics will be easy to gel with the setting.
Now having said all that I think its a decision you need to make in the end. How you do that is up to you. Poll the site, take a vote here, or just decide on your own but I think its something we need to do before we move forward.
Quote from: jibbajibba;567507So BSJ you need to make a call on setting, genre, feel etc and lay down a new version of APNs design goals that encapsulates what you are hoping to get as an outcome.
I prefer a narrower setting that we can do in some detail with the outside being vague and open to later expansion. But that is just one approach. I also think the setting I sketched out feels familar enough that you just grok it but has enough unusual stuff in it that its feels a bit different. It has some obvious adventure hooks, some useful design space to play with and the mechanics will be easy to gel with the setting.
Now having said all that I think its a decision you need to make in the end. How you do that is up to you. Poll the site, take a vote here, or just decide on your own but I think its something we need to do before we move forward.
I think we're leaning toward the body-switching hybrid game, but its an important enough decision that I thought this should be polled - I've created a poll. Also, I'm working on drawing up some revised design goals and framework to move forward with.
OK 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.
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.
I was thinking about the rules for squads, and mass combats and think I have something we could hack based on the same d10 mechanic to make large scale combats fun, immersive and reasonably 'realistic' within the setting. We can port them to any setting by the way as they are a hack of an Amber CCG combat mechanism I built to allow mass combat between forces of any era and any degree of magical power (eg Panzers vs Goblins vs Mongols vs dragons).
Simple system uses a 'unit' as the scale and a unit can be 10, 100, 1000, etc troops.
Quote from: jibbajibba;567537I was thinking about the rules for squads, and mass combats and think I have something we could hack based on the same d10 mechanic to make large scale combats fun, immersive and reasonably 'realistic' within the setting. We can port them to any setting by the way as they are a hack of an Amber CCG combat mechanism I built to allow mass combat between forces of any era and any degree of magical power (eg Panzers vs Goblins vs Mongols vs dragons).
Simple system uses a 'unit' as the scale and a unit can be 10, 100, 1000, etc troops.
Never easy to make that stuff simple and realistic. It usually boils down to the average of numbers of different troop types*troop quality+various battle modifiers. If you make it simple enough to be quick and easy, it tends to lose realism in my experience.
Quote from: The Traveller;567543Never easy to make that stuff simple and realistic. It usually boils down to the average of numbers of different troop types*troop quality+various battle modifiers. If you make it simple enough to be quick and easy, it tends to lose realism in my experience.
Well this uses a tactics skill (attack/defense) and a leadership skill (morale & Numbers)
Attack/Defence/Moral. Weapons affect range and add a +/-.
D10 per unit units can be wounded or killed. wounded units make morale, wounded units can be combined to make whole units with some tweaks.
Like I said built for a card game but I will give a full write up of it later.
First off the mass combat system.
Troops are aligned in units a Unit can be 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 troops. The numbrs don't matter so long as they are realative on each side.
The smaller the unit number the less abstract the combat, the longer it will take and the more rolls to complete. A battle between 2 patalions of 100 troops will feel very different ifd you use unit size 10 (recommended) as opposed to unit size 100...
So 2 skills influce the combat. Tactics and Leadership.
Leadership: The leadership skill controls moral, number of troops and as an optional rule command changes.
When a unit needs to make a moral check the Leadership of the commander (and Stat bonus if we have a Charisma equiv) acts as a modifier.
Option Rule : Command changes. This variant rule allows a commander to reroll a tactics roll. Tactics rolls (see below ) are made each round and act as modifiers to Attack and defense. They include use of terrain for cover, using flanking etc ... all the stuff you would do if you played out a battle in full on a board with minis.
Tactics rolls are opposed rolls.
Command changes is an optional rule that allows a reroll of a tactics roll the new roll must be kept and a failure on the leadership roll gives a -5 to the effect number of the tactics roll. It represnets the ability of a strong leader to react to the tactics of their oppoents and switch their own tactics getting that message out to all troops.
Tactics
Tactics is a skill used to respresent general tactical ability. It is rolled as an opposed roll each round and compared to the enemy's roll. The Effect number (the number by which the higher side exceeded the lower) becomes a pool of points that can be spent to improve defense or increase attack rolls each round.
Tactics rolls are also modified for stuff like fortifications, additional intel etc.
The system
The troops
Troops have the following stats
Attack: +1-5
Defense: 1-10
Ranged: 0-5
Moral: +0-5
Tactic modifier: tyoically 0 may rise to +2 (Elite commandos) or drop to -2 (untrained peasants)
The Process:
Range: Range starts at 3. The higher tactics roll can spend effect numbers to reduce or extend that range
Initiative : The higher Tactics roll has initiative.
Attack: The side with initiative rolls their attacks.
Each unit idientifies an opponents unit and rolls a d10 if they are in range.
The Commander may expect Tactics points to increase that number.
If the roll exceeds the defence of the target unit it is wounded.
If the roll is dounble the defense of the target unit it is eliminated.
Repeat for each unit.
Any wounded units need to make Moral checks
The other side then makes it's attack rolls.
The defender may use any remaining effect points to increase the defense of any of its units.
Any wounded units make moral checks.
Repeat for round 2.
Range stays as it was in round 1.
Example:
the Hybrids have 100 troops attacking an Abonination base. The base gives the Abonimation +7 tactics.
We are working with Units of 10.
The Hybrids have a +1 tactics, 5 defense, +3 attack, moral +4, range 3
The Aboninations have 0 tact, 7 defense, +2 attack and moral +0, range 4
The hybrid commander has a toal tactic bonus of +5
The Abonimation Commander has tactic +1
Round 1
Hybrid tac = 5(d10) +5 (tactics) +1 (troops) = 11
Abomination = 4(d10) +1 (tactics) +7 (fortification) for the defense = 12
The Abonimnation commander uses his tactic Effect number (TEF) to extend range to 4.
Abonination attack - 1d10 +2 for each versus 5 defense. 7 successes. 3 Hybrids are killed 1 is wounded. The wounded one makes a moral check d10+4 + leadership vs target number 8. Succeeds and doesn't flee.
The Hybrids can't attack because the range was extended to 4, beyond their range.
the commander electc to retreat.
In this example the fortifications prooved to strong.
In game terms the hydris were unabel to get close enough to the abonimation base before being engaged and were taken apart by the Abonination heavy wepaons,
Second of all in response to the poll looks like we are going to mix the hybrid idea with a New Eden concept?
I think they actually can be made to work together quite easily.....
If you make hte collonists unable to move freely as in avatar so reliant on technology/suits etc...
Quote from: jibbajibba;567908Second of all in response to the poll looks like we are going to mix the hybrid idea with a New Eden concept?
I think they actually can be made to work together quite easily.....
If you make hte collonists unable to move freely as in avatar so reliant on technology/suits etc...
Have 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.
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.
(http://s14.postimage.org/f6bpc1181/Weapon_example.jpg)
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.
I think instead of a fixed number for damage, give the weapons a die roll roll.
Quote from: APN;568684Merely 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 :) )
Doesn't matter, two handed greatsword, chainsaw, double barrel shotgun, all weapons are capable of doing lesser or greater degrees of damage on a scale between "inconsequential" and "full". You can remove it if you like but for me that's too obfuscated.
Most importantly, remember that sooner or later these weapons will be turned on the PCs - doing full damage every hit won't be too popular then!
Quote from: jibbajibba;568686I think referencing a damage table is slow.
Its actually quicker than rolling another dice in my experience. Horses for courses, each way has its advantages and disadvantages. Rolling for damage is as valid as fixed damage.
Some more good discussion! Go team.
For glancing blows - in this system I think we're going to be concerned more with firearm glancing blows. In a game like D&D, I'd be quite happy imagining a 1-HP hit from a sword as being a sideways hit from the flat of the blade (an opportunistic swing when the main thrust didn't connect) or perhaps that the attackers sword locks with their adversary and they deliver a punch at the enemy...
Anyway, currently I'm still in the [random roll] + [damage threshold] camp. As I see it there are now three options being proposed.
*a hit does a good amount of damage, plus extra for rolling well (Fixed Damage). The problem: loses glancing blows.
*a hit does a small amount of damage, plus extra for rolling well (the table approach). The problem: uses a table.
*a hit does a random amount of damage, plus extra for rolling well (thd damage dice approach). The problem: extra dice roll.
I can understand the appeal of just having attack roll determine damage with no second die roll -higher roll giving a straight-out higher result - but just don't like the table. So, I'd put fixed damage as my second preferred option.
In terms of comparing the options:
*separate hit and damage means damage is based off 2 dice, so follows a sort of V-curve. Glancing blows are going to be rarer in this system that with the table approach (they occur only if both rolls are poor). High-damage blows are also slightly rarer, though skill bonus and possibly 10s rolling up are going to cause occasional blowouts in damage - I guess its also good if you want to tie any sort of especially deadly results (e.g. limb loss) to high damage rolls since they'd be rarer, except when fighting mooks with much lower combat skills or in situations that seriously penalize defense.
*active defenses are less certain if you're rolling for damage. There's more incentive for a PC to try to dodge an attack that just hits if there's random damage, rather that using a table, since the attack won't necessarily just wing them. (There's also a good incentive with fixed damage, of course, if the weapon has a big damage bonus).
Also thinking about it, all the approaches are slightly awkward with multiple opponents since separate bonuses will apply to each damage roll (if the GM needed a 6+ to hit and gets 6, 8 and 9, he has to remember that's +0, +2 and +3 as he rolls damage ?. Hmm, fixed damage is perhaps the easiest here...Whoops, arguing against myself now...:)
Giving weapons a minimum amount of damage (as I originally proposed) makes armour vital, or being able to avoid hits (cover, moving, dodging) a high priority. It depends on how lethal you want the system to be. Low lethal (random damage, big cube of hit points as per D&D) or high lethal (minimum damage that increases with accuracy, fixed hit points or minimal improvement) that relies on med kits, hypo sprays and painkillers. In the far future, I'd expect weapons to be very lethal, but medicine to be fairly advanced too. Would cost a pile of cash if soldiers dropped at the first hint of a flesh wound.
Things like cybernetic limbs, body stasis, brain transferral (the chip thing) into a new body and so on don't make the combat less lethal, but do mean the character isn't necessarily finished if they take a big hit.
The other 'problem' for me would be with rolled weapon damage. I thought we were sticking with a single die (d10) for the system? Introducing different dice types kind of goes against what we were aiming for doesn't it?
It's a call for the project director, and maybe come to some common ground where we can all agree.
On another note, I did rattle out an 'example of play' but won't bother posting it yet - we're still some way off from that sort of thing...
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;568696*a hit does a small amount of damage, plus extra for rolling well (the table approach). The problem: uses a table.
Minor correction here, the table approach does the full spectrum from low damage to massive damage, its just a little harder to do massive damage. If someone isn't dodging using the table, they are going to be severely injured even wearing heavy armour. Thats like when someone walks up and pokes a dagger in the eyeslit of your plate mail.
I think the easiest way to make armor vital is to have a norrow range of HP and make sure most weapons have a shot at dropping you to zero, so armor is there to buffer against that.
The static numbers create an issue with the range for me. I feel like even a gun should have a chance of doing a small amount of damage.
I terms of dice, i don't think we have to obsess over d10. There is no reason we couldn't use different dice for different weapons. Even with a game like d20, one part of the system they didn't streamline into that mechanic was wepaon damages.
My thought is you either go with different dice values, or if you want to stick with d10 you treat damage as a pool, with weapons rated between 1-5 d10. You roll your pool and take the single highest result.
If HP are between 1-10 for characters that will be pretty darn lethal without armor.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;568700I think the easiest way to make armor vital is to have a norrow range of HP and make sure most weapons have a shot at dropping you to zero, so armor is there to buffer against that.
The static numbers create an issue with the range for me. I feel like even a gun should have a chance of doing a small amount of damage.
I terms of dice, i don't think we have to obsess over d10. There is no reason we couldn't use different dice for different weapons. Even with a game like d20, one part of the system they didn't streamline into that mechanic was wepaon damages.
My thought is you either go with different dice values, or if you want to stick with d10 you treat damage as a pool, with weapons rated between 1-5 d10. You roll your pool and take the single highest result.
If HP are between 1-10 for characters that will be pretty darn lethal without armor.
Agreed, armor providing damage soak should do "enough" to keep armor important. I don't think a separate damage roll adds too much complexity too the system and its the middle ground in time consumption between referencing a table and having fixed damage. A single die to rule all possible weapon damage is also workable though I'd prefer using different dice for different weapons myself.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;568700I terms of dice, i don't think we have to obsess over d10. There is no reason we couldn't use different dice for different weapons. Even with a game like d20, one part of the system they didn't streamline into that mechanic was weapon damages.
I'd agree with that - most universal systems have a different mechanic for damage than for other tasks. I think the only d20 variants that loses the damage roll is True20/Mutants and Masterminds. In Savage Worlds the damage dice are read differently to the other checks, or BRP is basically d% for everything but uses various damage dice. Dice pool games are usually unified throughout, but I don't think we'll get sneered at by modern designers for different random damages.
As far as I can see the current opinions are:
APN: fixed damage + bonus from to-hit roll
jibbajibba: weapn damage roll + bonus
MGuy: damage roll
TheTraveller: damage table
Me: weapon damage roll + bonus
BedrockBrendan: damage roll + bonus
So by democracy that would be random damage rolls winning.
I think different ranges (d4, d6,d8 etc ) is likely the best approach. Its possible having a varying number of dice (bigger weapons getting the most, take highest) as BB suggested could work, but unless 10s roll up it would mean extra mechanics to get antitank weapons etc. to work.
I think we should definetely go with armour absorbing damage for an SF game.
Even with that, I'm not sure 10 hit points for everyone is enough since a high hit roll + high damage roll could generate a fair bit of damage ? Time limited today but I might lay out some numbers tomorrow if no one beats me to it.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;568891I'd agree with that - most universal systems have a different mechanic for damage than for other tasks. I think the only d20 variants that loses the damage roll is True20/Mutants and Masterminds. In Savage Worlds the damage dice are read differently to the other checks, or BRP is basically d% for everything but uses various damage dice. Dice pool games are usually unified throughout, but I don't think we'll get sneered at by modern designers for different random damages.
As far as I can see the current opinions are:
APN: fixed damage + bonus from to-hit roll
jibbajibba: weapn damage roll + bonus
MGuy: damage roll
TheTraveller: damage table
Me: weapon damage roll + bonus
BedrockBrendan: damage roll + bonus
So by democracy that would be random damage rolls winning.
I think different ranges (d4, d6,d8 etc ) is likely the best approach. Its possible having a varying number of dice (bigger weapons getting the most, take highest) as BB suggested could work, but unless 10s roll up it would mean extra mechanics to get antitank weapons etc. to work.
I think we should definetely go with armour absorbing damage for an SF game.
Even with that, I'm not sure 10 hit points for everyone is enough since a high hit roll + high damage roll could generate a fair bit of damage ? Time limited today but I might lay out some numbers tomorrow if no one beats me to it.
High dodge and high armor mitigate damage at a good enough rate where you can make things survivable. It depends on how we set up the dodge skill. I won't have any numbers or material for a while. I have had now 2 laptops die on me in the past few weeks so I don't even have the material for my own stuff to work on outside of dead tree format.
I think as a general thought for damage, without proposing actual mechanics this is what I wouod like to see: pretty much any lethal weapon has a chance at dropping a character in one shot. However a character with armor is pretty much assured (in a worst case scenario) 2-3 big hits before dropping. This makes armor very important, literally the difference between life and death.
Sounds like we are making armour ubiquitous.
Does that fit the style we are aiming for? are we thinking -
(http://blastr.com/assets_c/2011/03/firefly_crew-thumb-550x474-59197.jpg)
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyHjdCK3Y9OGsS0XqNOpesJIEXKmEVKfeEuElwMj8B_BYRLHY3WZuJVF5bUQ)
or
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb57525/warhammer40k/images/4/49/Post-90027-1205171981.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/93262/93262,1236367925,7/stock-photo-a-space-marine-soldier-26171428.jpg)
I've been GMing a game where a knife in the back could kill a character for some years now, and to be honest armour is just insurance, and not 100% either, not even close. It leads to a more thoughtful kind of game - players are unlikely to brashly challenge large groups of armed men to combat, charge down machine gun nests, or go tearing through dungeons without a distinct goal in mind.
Instead they formulate a plan and try to see it through without putting themselves at too much risk, like real life in many ways. Armour is no panacea for these type games, unless you want to go down the ubermaxi armour route a la CP2020 (which many people complained wrecked the game).
Players used to D&D style stand-up slugfests are going to have to adjust their expectations and strategies a bit, which is no harm at all to my mind, it really brings out the roleplayer in a lot of people when you can't just nuke everything from metaphorical orbit. If you want a more two fisted pulp game, up the hits or drop weapon damage, but a big focus on armour is the wrong approach from what I can see so far.
I can't imagine a future whereby firearms get less effective - whatever you shoot will get a hole punched through it in other words, unless armour or luck come into play. I'd suggest you can still run around with normal clothes on, but need some kind of repulsion field worn on the belt or cybernetic lightning fast reflexes to avoid getting turned into hamburger.
Quote from: jibbajibba;569089Sounds like we are making armour ubiquitous.
Does that fit the style we are aiming for? are we thinking -
(http://blastr.com/assets_c/2011/03/firefly_crew-thumb-550x474-59197.jpg)
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyHjdCK3Y9OGsS0XqNOpesJIEXKmEVKfeEuElwMj8B_BYRLHY3WZuJVF5bUQ)
or
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb57525/warhammer40k/images/4/49/Post-90027-1205171981.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/93262/93262,1236367925,7/stock-photo-a-space-marine-soldier-26171428.jpg)
I think anyone seriously considering combat would want to wear armor like the later images (though I was visualizing something a touch less robotech). But my experience with lethal games is you can still have fun outside of combat, and sans armor. People are just a lot more cautious about entering potentially dangerous situations unless they are suited up. But they presumably wont be able to wear the armor at all times (if its powered armor I imaine fuel cost is a big consideration as well). So I think the bottom images are where we are going, but we should be careful about confining the setting entirely to a haloesque style of play.
I basically agree with APN that futuristic weapons and firearms should be very effective and so being shot with one is going to be quite lethal (maybe unless it just clips them perhaps).
FUDGE 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 question of what armour looks like is a bit different from how effective it is, though. MDC swimsuits (a la Rifts Blind Warrior Women) are a bit silly (I don't care how good your armour is, if it doesn't cover the area you got shot in, you're boned - barring force fields, which are also silly), but you could assume that armour development is pretty advanced and so a fairly lightweight suit provides amazing protection.
Hence I lean more toward the storm trooper outfit, although it would be good to give characters some degree of choice in armours. Strength might help determine what a character can wear comfortably, unless you want to assume a suit has its own servos - in which case I guess a character's own Strength score is a bit redundant.
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. :D 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. :D 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.
Quote from: Silverlion;570603Ah, 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.."
My intent was for a game where captain kirk can die.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570612My intent was for a game where captain kirk can die.
+1.
On the arts thing: I'd say that should be like a "background" thing. It should be something that's given away for free and not be put in the same pool of abilities that are more likely to come up for more than flavor reasons.
Quote from: MGuy;570633+1.
On the arts thing: I'd say that should be like a "background" thing. It should be something that's given away for free and not be put in the same pool of abilities that are more likely to come up for more than flavor reasons.
Personally, i prefer the marine captain need to spend points for somewhere if he wants to have the art. I really dont like the idea of a total freeby. What i might suggest, as a bit of a compromise, and something i have done in my own games is a bit of siloing. Divide skills into categories with different point pools for each. Maybe you dont need to take points from combat skills to get art, but it could come from the same pool spent on knowledges. I thi most people are more cmfortable sacrificing some knowledge skill for a bit of shakespeare if they want it. I think background add an extra level of complexity, that we probably dont need to solve the art issue.
Think we need to push the skill list through a military lens as mguy suggests. So make, skills like performance/art etc very broard and just state that the owner can give a narrower band if they wish.
Currently in vegas so unlikely to gave time/opporortunity to do much then gen con then home.
Still involved though :-)
We are adding a human collonist element right so i can come up with a fresh spin on the setting if you like.
Anyway good there is still some focus.
Quote from: jibbajibba;570638Think we need to push the skill list through a military lens as mguy suggests. So make, skills like performance/art etc very broard and just state that the owner can give a narrower band if they wish.
Currently in vegas so unlikely to gave time/opporortunity to do much then gen con then home.
Still involved though :-)
We are adding a human collonist element right so i can come up with a fresh spin on the setting if you like.
Anyway good there is still some focus.
It's hard as hell to get people together for anything. Since I lost my data recently I've been trying to rustle up some helpers for starting my game almost from scratch. so far I've got to people maybe just one if the other guy keeps delaying. Even if this isn't my particular style of game I don't mind lending a hand and making sure to stay dedicated. If humans are indeed invovlved then that changes some of my preconceived notions and makes for an interesting addition. You know humans, they are always bound to get together in a group looking to terminate things that look different. Cliche I know but that's a 7th group added onto my list of 6. Its my birthday next week and I took some extra time off to rest. I should (between celebrating/sleepin) have time to have short hand drafts for the 7 roups I have in mind by this saturday at the latest.
Skills wise I'm not doing combat because I'm bad at doing rules-lite combat options so I'm passing the responsibility to someone else. Same for defenses which will be linked to combat.
More setting fluff and skills for the list are of course welcome. Chemistry, phsysics, and geology are up, though I'm unsure of their relevance. I'd also like to toss psychology onto the stack.
Quote from: MGuy;570646Skills wise I'm not doing combat because I'm bad at doing rules-lite combat options so I'm passing the responsibility to someone else. Same for defenses which will be linked to combat.
More setting fluff and skills for the list are of course welcome. Chemistry, phsysics, and geology are up, though I'm unsure of their relevance. I'd also like to toss psychology onto the stack.
psychology is a good addition.
With chemistry, etc, I think the relevance is this is a far future setting where players are likely to say at some point, I want to use a chemistry skill. For skills, my opinion is don't strictly limit to stuff connected to the theme of the game, keep in enough options that are likely to arise in play. This is something I have seen again and again when playtesting my own games, and in a couple of instances after release its come up while running a campaign.
This can be achieved in a few ways. If we want a diverse list of skills, then making sure we have chemistry, geology etc. We could also just fold all science skills into one, so you have Science and roll that for everything. That way, if someone eventually wants to use chemistry its embedded in the all purpose science skill anyways. Aother alternative is to treat some skills as open. So you might have Science: X, science: y, etc. You take it multiple times for each science and maybe you can use it at a reduced level for sciences outside the ones you have identified. So if you have science: chemistry and science: physics but want to use your science knowledge for biology, you could still make a science biology roll at a penalty (but not as bad a penalty as a completely unskilled person) because your training in the other sciences ought to have equiped you with some understanding of biology as well.
For combat, i think we need to identify what kinds of weapons will be in play and then construct combat skills around those.
For defenses, we could keep it very simple and have a single defense score, like AC. Or we could carve it up into various parts: ie dodge, parry, will, toughness.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570683psychology is a good addition.
With chemistry, etc, I think the relevance is this is a far future setting where players are likely to say at some point, I want to use a chemistry skill. For skills, my opinion is don't strictly limit to stuff connected to the theme of the game, keep in enough options that are likely to arise in play. This is something I have seen again and again when playtesting my own games, and in a couple of instances after release its come up while running a campaign.
This can be achieved in a few ways. If we want a diverse list of skills, then making sure we have chemistry, geology etc. We could also just fold all science skills into one, so you have Science and roll that for everything. That way, if someone eventually wants to use chemistry its embedded in the all purpose science skill anyways. Aother alternative is to treat some skills as open. So you might have Science: X, science: y, etc. You take it multiple times for each science and maybe you can use it at a reduced level for sciences outside the ones you have identified. So if you have science: chemistry and science: physics but want to use your science knowledge for biology, you could still make a science biology roll at a penalty (but not as bad a penalty as a completely unskilled person) because your training in the other sciences ought to have equiped you with some understanding of biology as well.
For combat, i think we need to identify what kinds of weapons will be in play and then construct combat skills around those.
For defenses, we could keep it very simple and have a single defense score, like AC. Or we could carve it up into various parts: ie dodge, parry, will, toughness.
I don't think our range is beefy enough to handle skill super specialization. While I do think that general education would provide you with insights into other sciences I think that that can be shown well enough just by not having "restricted" skills. While I welcome geology and chemistry to the skill list I don't think skills should be as broad as "Science". I would like the game to feel a little less shallow than that. Also, though I'm not doing defenses, I think there should be multiple defense types not just one general defense score.
Draft (version 1) of character creation and abilities:
ABILITIESCharacters are defined by a series of abilities that define how strong, smart, agile, sharp eyed, fit, and strong willed the characters are. Whenever the character attempts an action, the relevant statistic is added to the roll, so the higher the statistic score, the better.
A score of 1 is considered 'below average' for a human adult. A score of 2 is 'average', whilst 3 is 'above average'. A statistic score of 4 is considered 'exceptional' whilst a score of 5 is rare and considered to be 'outstanding'.
The abilities are:
Strength – not just lifting power, but muscle control and natural ability to fight in melee combat
Agility – hand/eye coordination, balance and reactions, vital for avoiding blows and shots
Endurance – fitness, health and ability to resist deadly attacks such as poison and disease
Perception – when you need to find something, use Perception. In addition, its vital for predicting the direction and speed of targets when attacking at range.
Intelligence – reasoning, memory, ability to figure things out and characters education are covered by this ability
Nerve – willpower, resolve under fire and the drive to keep going when confronted with seemingly unassailable odds are covered by the Nerve ability
To generate abilities, roll 1d10 for each and consult the following table:
(http://s15.postimage.org/dcvdqy3wb/Image1.jpg)
Once all the abilities have been rolled, the player can select one ability and roll an extra D10. If this roll comes up 1-9, there is no other effect. However, if the roll comes up '10' the player can then substitute a score of 5 for the ability they chose.
Optional Rule – if the Gamemaster (GM) agrees, the player can assign the Ability scores in any order they see fit to help define the kind of character they wish to play.
Example:
Our player rolls up a new character.
The rolls come up 8,9,1,5,6,2.
Taking a look at the table, the ability scores are 3,4,1,2,2,2. The player rolls an extra D10 and chooses the 1 to reroll. The roll comes up... 2. The score of 1 stays the same.
Assigning the abilities (with the consent of the GM) the character looks like this:
- Strength 4 – the character can lift hundreds of kilos in weight, and is a formidable hand to hand fighter
- Agility 2 – average dexterity and balance
- Endurance 3 – tougher, fitter, more durable than the average person
- Perception 2 – the character is an average shot, and no better or worse at spotting things than the next person
- Intelligence 1 – below average reasoning ability, education and memory
- Nerve 2 – average willpower and ability to keep cool under fire
Clearly, our character is a hulking bruiser, not too sharp eyed or strong willed. His main area of weakness is Intelligence – he's a fighter not a thinker.[/I]
=======
Have started on the task check section. Waiting on Skills/Special Abilities and other details of character creation once those are decided.
=======
Just another 'top of head' idea about combat. I (ideally) wanted a single roll to define how well (or otherwise) a character does in combat. Can't get faster and simpler than that. The variable damage thing put paid to that, but I'm still intent on minimizing the number of rolls required.
InitiativeAll actions/attacks are simultaneous, with damage applied at the end of the round unless the character wishes to 'haste' their action. Put simply, choose a number from 1 upwards as a haste modifier. The character with the highest haste modifier goes first, followed by the next highest and so on.
Add the haste modifier to the target number of any action you attempt!Example:
Corporal Klort of the Vangees III Dragoons sees a vile xeno in the jungle. Unfortunately his tentacles are somewhat muddled, and he makes a racket as he pulls his splurgeblaster Mk IX around to bear. The Xeno hears Klort and spins about, bringing his own weapon up to his shoulder and sighting. Who fires first?
The Xeno chooses a Haste modifier of 2. That means any target numbers for any actions he attempts are increased by 2 for that round.
Klort chooses a haste modifier of 5. Again, any target number for actions he attempts is increase by haste modifier, in this case 5. However, his haste modifier is faster than the filthy xeno scum, so he acts first.
Rolls:
The range is medium (7) + Cover (1) for each combatant. Base target number is 8.
Klort fires first, with Agility 2 and Skill: Splurgeblaster 2. The target number of 8 is modified by Klorts Haste Modifier (5) to 13. He needs 13 or more to hit. The roll is 6, plus Klorts Agility (2) and Splurgeblaster skill (2) for a total of 10. Klort misses - he doesn't even come close! In his haste to fire first he lost any semblance of keeping calm and fired up and to the right of the Xeno, into the trees!
The Xeno fires. He has Agility 3 and Skill: Plasma Rifle 3. Target number is 8 plus his Haste of 2 for a total of 10. Roll is 10 (which explodes giving an extra die) followed by 3. The 13 rolled, plus his modifiers (6) come to 19, which exceeds the target number by 9 points (19-10). Not only has the Xeno hit, but he hits well. He adds +1 damage per full 2 points over the target number. The Plasma rifle does 1d10 damage which comes up 4, plus 4 from the shot accuracy for a total of 8 points of damage.
Klorts armour (3 points of squelching skin) reduces that to 5 points, but he's still in a bad way! In his haste to take out his more skilled opponent, he missed (wildly) and took a shot to his lower torso! With blue fluid spilling out (green would be ok, blue is a bad sign!) he tests his nerve.
Klorts Nerve (2) + Roll 1d10 (8) come to 10. The target number is Moderate (5) because he lost the last round plus the amount of damage he took (5) which comes to 10. He just manages to keep his nerve. A failure would mean he panics and rolls on the panic table (with results ranging from surrender, curl up into a ball, drop his weapon, cry for his mummy, fire uncontrollably in every direction and so on).
Klort keeps his nerve, but is badly wounded. The Xeno knows he hit his foe and has options - finish him off or take him alive? Klorts options are to keep fighting or run for cover.=========
Note, I haven't included
dodging or avoiding fire yet. When you are shooting, I figure that dodging (increasing the target number required to hit you) would act like a haste modifier (in that it adds to your own target numbers).
In other words, the more capable (higher stats) and skilled (higher skills) you are, the better you are in a fight because you can more easily offset modifiers with high scores.
Example:
The Xeno decides not to use Haste next round, but rather he dodges for 3 points. Any target number he rolls against is increased by 3. Anyone attacking him sees their target number increased by 3. He attacks the Octopus like alien again.
Klort panics somewhat, but tries his best to aim steady. He goes for a haste of 2. He shoots again.
Klort fires again, same target number, this time modified by the Xeno's dodging. Target number is 8 + 3 (Xeno dodge modifier) total 11, plus Klorts haste of 2 for a grand total of 13. The roll is 8, plus 4 (Klorts modifiers). He fires closer this time, and would have hit had the Alien not ducked aside! Alas, he's still not hit the hated enemy, who now fires at him!
Xeno fires. The target number is 8 + 3 (Dodge modifier) for a total of 11. He didn't bother with Haste. Roll is 7 plus 6 (Modifiers) for a total of 13. He hits again, plus 1 for the full 2 points over the target number. Damage roll is 3 + 1 for accuracy.
Klorts armour (3 point squelching skin) reduces that to 1 point of damage. Having been hit again, the target number for his nerve roll goes up to Hard (7) plus the damage he took (1 point). His roll is 10, plus Nerve 2, so he easily beats the target number and holds his nerve again.
Klort looks down at another hole in his torso. Whilst he's brave, he's not stupid, and knows when he's outmatched! He throws all four handtacles up in the air and drops his weapon! He shouts out in his alien tongue at the enemy, explaining that he surrenders, and not to shoot him because he has 3,514 younglings at home, with another 11,923 on the way.
The Xeno listens as the computer translates, then his face hardens. He levels his weapon, aims, and blows Klorts head clean off!
"No one says that about my mother and gets away with it!" he drawls in a southern American accent. He ignores the flashing message in his helmet viewscreen that says his translater software has been updated with vital firmware upgrades and is ready for a reboot...=========
Open to comments, derision, hoots of wild laughter and pointing...
I guess I should call the combat example "Lost in translation..."
I'm going to once aain state I that I am against rolled stats a(particularly mental ones considering the PRISM stuff) and think they should be releated to the same point buy scheme as everythin else. Higher stats cost more points, lower stats cost less.
Point buy:
(http://s13.postimage.org/pak4pro3r/Image1ss.jpg)
25 points to buy abilities and skills. Skills cost same but those marked as harder to learn or more useful are marked with an asterisk and cost either 1 point (*), 2 points (**) or 3 points (***) more than the stated cost.
Example:
Climbing costs stated cost, so Climbing 2 costs 3 points.
Medicine (***) costs stated cost +3. Medicine 2 costs 6 points.
Posted before I could add - earn extra points through psychological and physical disadvantages.
Example:
Bitter and Twisted - passed up for promotion time and again! Everywhere you look, you see others who have gained status and position whilst being less capable than you! Clearly its not what you know, but who you know! Well you'll show them...
Rule: Any time you see a superior officer under fire and requiring assistance, you must pass a hard Nerve check to go to their aid, otherwise you'll walk on by, keep out of the way or simply pretend you didn't hear - after all, they got the stripes, the higher wages, the prestige that says they are better than you. Let 'em prove it!
You get: +3 character points
Alcoholic - you can't help it, it's just how you are! You're a good soldier, but you've seen one too many buddies die, been too close to the glaring heat of battle, or just can't shut out the sounds of screams at night. A drink helps. A lot of drink helps a lot.
Rule: When you have opportunity to get drunk (a bar, someone left a bottle around, you're on your own with a flask) you must pass a hard nerve check to avoid drinking yourself into a stupor...
You get: +3 character points
Quote from: APN;570802Point buy:
(http://s13.postimage.org/pak4pro3r/Image1ss.jpg)
25 points to buy abilities and skills. Skills cost same but those marked as harder to learn or more useful are marked with an asterisk and cost either 1 point (*), 2 points (**) or 3 points (***) more than the stated cost.
Example:
Climbing costs stated cost, so Climbing 2 costs 3 points.
Medicine (***) costs stated cost +3. Medicine 2 costs 6 points.
This is good.
Another option...
Fate, Experience, Luck, Karma, call it what you will.
Characters start at 0 Luck, earning it through continued play. A luck point allows an extra die to be rolled (in addition to the usual d10) and the player chooses which of the dice to use. Once spent, a luck point is gone, and you can't spend more than a single luck point in one task attempt.
Example:
Sergeant Schlungg was sure he'd seen something move just then. As he looked around in the dense undergrowth, he stared slightly off from where he'd been looking before, hoping his peripheral vision might catch something his 4 eyes hadn't already.
Schlungg got a roll of 6 for his Perception check, plus Perception score of 3. His total of 9 wasn't enough to spot whatever was out there, so the player uses a luck point and rolls another D10. That comes up 4, so Schlungg is no better off.
With a shrug the sergeant calls his Octopoid Cohort to their feet and make ready to move out.
100m away, in the bushes a squad of armoured humans lie in wait, ready to spring an ambush and unseen for the moment, though that squidhead sure had been close to spotting them...
I thonk we shouldonly include fate or luck if it is actually part of the setting or genre (i.e. Luck is a real thing in the universe or the genre we are going for favors that kind of stuff). I think for the gritty flavor this feels kind of out of place.
In games like D&D, combats are structured around levels, a group is unlikely to face an outsize or too-powerful foe unless the GM is being a dick. In non level based games characters can summarily come up against very lethal situations, just like in real life, so I think its helpful to give them an out, in the form of some kind of luck stat. I wouldn't bother giving it to anyone except PCs though.
Quote from: The Traveller;571176In games like D&D, combats are structured around levels, a group is unlikely to face an outsize or too-powerful foe unless the GM is being a dick. In non level based games characters can summarily come up against very lethal situations, just like in real life, so I think its helpful to give them an out, in the form of some kind of luck stat. I wouldn't bother giving it to anyone except PCs though.
We can certainly do this, but IMO it detracta from the lethal and gritty feel we have been aiming for. I think it i a perfectly good mechanic if you want to make a game where pcs are above npcs a bit and things a bit more over the top. But keep in mind because of the whole premise with the microchip, allows for characters to survive past death
For me being able to draw on a small store of luck, experience or whatever you want to call it will be the difference between a grizzled veteran, a dozen times or more uploaded into a new body, and the latest greatest raw recruit who is coldly efficient and accomplished at everything. Sure, 9 times out of 10 that raw recruit who was top of every class going will succeed in every test, but that grizzled, scarred vet whose had a dozen lifetimes of being blown up, shot, stabbed, strangled, burnt and gassed will have been around the block. They may even be hundreds of years old. That sort of thing you can't teach in classrooms. The ageing gunfighter, veteran of fifty or more face offs, against the young hotshot, out to make a name. The younger man might be faster, have better eyes, be a pinpoint accurate shot through hours of practise.
The old man?
He makes his own luck.
Quote from: APN;571230For me being able to draw on a small store of luck, experience or whatever you want to call it will be the difference between a grizzled veteran, a dozen times or more uploaded into a new body, and the latest greatest raw recruit who is coldly efficient and accomplished at everything. Sure, 9 times out of 10 that raw recruit who was top of every class going will succeed in every test, but that grizzled, scarred vet whose had a dozen lifetimes of being blown up, shot, stabbed, strangled, burnt and gassed will have been around the block. They may even be hundreds of years old. That sort of thing you can't teach in classrooms. The ageing gunfighter, veteran of fifty or more face offs, against the young hotshot, out to make a name. The younger man might be faster, have better eyes, be a pinpoint accurate shot through hours of practise.
The old man?
He makes his own luck.
That is something quite different from a general karma or luck pool though, as it basically reflects wisdom from experience. I would say that should either just be a product of getting xp and spending it increase skills. If that isn't enough you could give characters who achieve veteran status some kind of bonus (which I would suggest be a flat bonus they can apply at all times (since you don't manage your veteran's wisdom as an intangible resource). Again, if we are shooting for high octane cinematic lie die hard (in the spirit of savage worlds) by all means, luck makes sense. But if we are telling people this is a gritty, naturalistic game, then I think you want to avoid the luck as resource approach. My sense was this wasn't intended to be a cinematic game, in which case luck seems out of place to me.
You can dial back the pulpiness by making luck harder to acquire, if even an experienced player only has a handful of luck points they won't be used trivially. Players willing to use only a couple per game aren't going to tarnish the grit too much, I feel. In some games they tend to be used much more as a deus ex machina, if that can be avoided, you're good.
Again this does depend on our design goals, but if gritty is the goal, my position is pulp should be an option you dial in, not a default mechanic you have to dial out of the game.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;571413Again this does depend on our design goals, but if gritty is the goal, my position is pulp should be an option you dial in, not a default mechanic you have to dial out of the game.
Let's just put it to a vote or have Bloody weigh in on it. I don't feel too strongly one way or the other but I thought that we were going gritty with it. Also my vote is on Kirk being able to die.
Quote from: APN;571167Another option...
Fate, Experience, Luck, Karma, call it what you will.
Characters start at 0 Luck, earning it through continued play. A luck point allows an extra die to be rolled (in addition to the usual d10) and the player chooses which of the dice to use. Once spent, a luck point is gone, and you can't spend more than a single luck point in one task attempt.
I'VE DONE THIS!!!:eek:
Except in my system Fate rolls were cumulative rather than re-rolls. You get one per level, they cannot be recharged unless the moderator says otherwise. Fate can even be used as a "get out of death free" mechanic. Basically allowing the player to insert narrative power into events.
EDIT: If i may chime in on a more constructive note, i was looking over the skill sets list MGuy had posted back on page 18.
Under the physical skills you might add "Lift" and "Push" or combine the two, additionally you might consider splitting Steal into two categories "Pickpocket" and "Lockpick" or possibly "Hacking" since this is a SF setting, though "Hacking" might go into the Knowledge category. For Knowledge, have you considered Cryptozoology or Xenobiology, or would those be combined with something else? A simple "Performance" skill could cover any kind of art/music/dance/poetry/singing/etc... Perhaps with modifiers in an area where the character has specifically had experience. For instance, i took 6 years of piano, but am self taught with guitar, so i know more technically about piano and can play easier, but i can perform on either one. I've also gone to college 6 years in addition to my previous gradeschool/highschool practice at Art, so i can draw or paint better than i can sing, but i do sing.
Would Engineering also include construction of simple tools, such as melee weapons or containers? I've recently run a futuristic SciFi spinoff using my own rules and my player ran into things such as being disarmed as a passenger aboard a cargo ship carrying top secret containers of zombifying acidic ooze. He used stealth to follow people around and hide, Hacking to open secured areas, and glass and cloth from the mirror and bed in his guest quarters to make a shank in the event that the crew turned against him.
As i have gone through about 4 different revisions of the character sheets for my game, i'd advise thinking about the space you have available to you on a typical 8.5x11 sheet of paper, and how you intend to fit all the skills you do have already on that in an organized fashion. I used microsoft word, but no doubt there are better programs, Adobe Photoshop even, or a hand drawn sheet scanned in and made into a 2 page pdf for double sided printing.
EDIT: I apologize if i've mentioned anything already discussed, i haven't read the entire 21 pages of this thread, and am not likely to... If anything i offer is not accepted for whatever reason, no hard feelings.
EDIT again...: what, if anything, has been decided about combat? I read the part about "suddenly Captain Kirk dies" and think that's awesome. That's pretty much how my last SF game ended, the player took a gunshot wound to the head... from his own gun... (the First Officer had it)
Has anyone played or read Wayfarer's Song by Mythopoetic Games? It has a combat system based on dice pools where you pick only the highest roll as your success/fail, the exception being in the case of really weak weapons, then you pick the lowest die. It was done completely with d10s, and with a predictable damage range one could easily plan your Health around that 1-10 range of damage so that you have a higher possible mortality rate. I think Level 1 characters had something like 20 health. Weapon damage was rated by "Menace". The higher the weapon's Menace, the more dice you rolled, but the result would always be between 1-10... or something like that.
Hi guys, and welcome Amalgam; I've been meaning to have a look at your new thread (I normally would) but sorry, has been a busy week at work.
On latest developments I'm fine with recent stuff so far. If going with point buy I think we need separate totals of points for mentals and physicals due to the body switching.
On Luck: My preference would be that Luck could be an advantage that characters have the option of buying, rather than being automatically built into the system. (YMMV, but I actually like it when a random die roll causes the play session to go off at 90 degrees to what you expected..). So a character might spend some XPs and buy a luck point (one use) or a Luck ability that works once a session. I don't know, it seems to me that could be a workable compromise between no luck and having built in luck points?
I do like the idea of experienced characters having something that gives them an edge even where the youngster has high raw skill, but its hard to define exactly what that is - and I don't quite know how to handle giving that out mechanically. I don't think its luck exactly, but an ability to make maximum use of the situation, make decisions quickly, exploit opponents' weaknesses. More actions/round? A set of extra skills that experienced characters only can buy up e.g. Appraise Enemy, Cool Under Fire, Diehard, Combat Improvisation ?
On skills a few thoughts:
-APN mentioned the idea of specialties back a bit, these could be useful in resolving the question of how broad to make skills?
-For Science maybe a few broad science skills (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Psychology ??).
One biology skill would probably do for a military focussed game. As specialties you could have Xenobiology, but most life forms will be alien so perhaps instead have separate specialties for various biological types, i.e. Terrestrial, silicon-based, methane breathers, chlorine breathers, dextro-chiral carbon-based life. Or just do it by planet (in the standard setting you would just have Earth creatures + the new world's creatures; they're probably both oxygen-breathing carbon-based).
-Possibly Engineering should be a few separate skills rather than a single broad skill as these sorts of skills are pretty handy in SF games. Not sure how to break down best - Vehicles, Weapons, Electronics ?
-a general Athletics skill with Jump just being a specialty? (Maybe Run as well). Not so sure about 'Lift' or 'Push' as skills these not being things that benefit tremendously from training (just basic use of Strength, really).
-add Art or Perform etc. to the skill lists, and give a character one of these for free, and/or buy ranks at half cost? I think two separate skill lists may be more complexity than is ideal.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;571652On Luck: My preference would be that Luck could be an advantage that characters have the option of buying, rather than being automatically built into the system. (YMMV, but I actually like it when a random die roll causes the play session to go off at 90 degrees to what you expected..). So a character might spend some XPs and buy a luck point (one use) or a Luck ability that works once a session. I don't know, it seems to me that could be a workable compromise between no luck and having built in luck points?
I do like the idea of experienced characters having something that gives them an edge even where the youngster has high raw skill, but its hard to define exactly what that is - and I don't quite know how to handle giving that out mechanically. I don't think its luck exactly, but an ability to make maximum use of the situation, make decisions quickly, exploit opponents' weaknesses. More actions/round? A set of extra skills that experienced characters only can buy up e.g. Appraise Enemy, Cool Under Fire, Diehard, Combat Improvisation ?
On skills a few thoughts:
-APN mentioned the idea of specialties back a bit, these could be useful in resolving the question of how broad to make skills?
-For Science maybe a few broad science skills (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Psychology ??).
One biology skill would probably do for a military focussed game. As specialties you could have Xenobiology, but most life forms will be alien so perhaps instead have separate specialties for various biological types, i.e. Terrestrial, silicon-based, methane breathers, chlorine breathers, dextro-chiral carbon-based life. Or just do it by planet (in the standard setting you would just have Earth creatures + the new world's creatures; they're probably both oxygen-breathing carbon-based).
-Possibly Engineering should be a few separate skills rather than a single broad skill as these sorts of skills are pretty handy in SF games. Not sure how to break down best - Vehicles, Weapons, Electronics ?
-a general Athletics skill with Jump just being a specialty? (Maybe Run as well). Not so sure about 'Lift' or 'Push' as skills these not being things that benefit tremendously from training (just basic use of Strength, really).
-add Art or Perform etc. to the skill lists, and give a character one of these for free, and/or buy ranks at half cost? I think two separate skill lists may be more complexity than is ideal.
Re: Luck
I'd like Luck if its a stat to be measured the same way as other stats, but perhaps only be called upon rarely, as a small bonus or extra chance at doing something. If its a pool it should be moved to another non-stat like category of character information, perhaps with health.
Re: Skills
I like broad skills, I think it might make a better game to play by keeping skills compact. No lists of specialties and sub-specialties. Just a big arc skill (which may be finer than say "Science!" but not by much.)
Example: Astonomy, Physics, Biology; no subs. Electronics, Construction, no subs.
If the game is to be point buy we need to get the balance of skill costs and stats right. The rough table I posted earlier was an 'instant fix' to the question of point buy rather than something thoroughly thought out and playtested. Als, some skills will be far more useful and common than others (the science skills, whilst nice to have, won't be much use in a firefight).
With regards combat, I suggest one of two methods:
1) Attack vs a target number modified by cover, weather, light, other factors including whether the other target is dodging
OR
2) A tunnels and trolls style combat adds or perhaps a Champions style Offence and Defence combat value and opposed rolls.
Was the haste/dodging example I posted worth considering?
I'll amend what I've written so far (only 2 pages, because every time I think something is decided on, another idea pops up in the thread) and see what I can get done this weekend or before. Am aware we're not on a time scale here, but I think we have enough to start a rough draft for people to look at and possibly run examples/playtest.
Maybe we need a show of hands on luck:
1) Pool of points, gone when spent, earn more through play
2) a special ability available a few times (at best) through an adventure
3) a stat to be called on a certain number of times
4) something different - maybe the GM rolls 1d10-1 for every character at the start of play and keeps track without the player knowing whether they have 0 points, 9 points, or something in between
5) The hell with luck. I make my own. You got a problem with that?
On the Luck I'd vote #2, then.
With #3 - making it a stat - the big issue I see with this is that NPCs would have it as well, or they end up using different rules to PCs -either of these are IMHO undesirable.
Quote from: Silverlion;571766Re: Skills
I like broad skills, I think it might make a better game to play by keeping skills compact. No lists of specialties and sub-specialties. Just a big arc skill (which may be finer than say "Science!" but not by much.)
Example: Astonomy, Physics, Biology; no subs. Electronics, Construction, no subs.
Oh well, just refloating the idea but it could be unnecessarily complicated. How about if its just kept very simple; perhaps buying a specialty costs a skill point and gives a flat +2 bonus, and there's a very short list (i.e. mostly what we have here already) as inspirations for a GM to approve new specailties that a player might want? If only to let people add some depth to their characters.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;571805; perhaps buying a specialty costs a skill point and gives a flat +2 bonus, and there's a very short list (i.e. mostly what we have here already) as inspirations for a GM to approve new specailties that a player might want? If only to let people add some depth to their characters.
Sounds passable to me.
Quote from: APN;571783If the game is to be point buy we need to get the balance of skill costs and stats right. The rough table I posted earlier was an 'instant fix' to the question of point buy rather than something thoroughly thought out and playtested. Als, some skills will be far more useful and common than others (the science skills, whilst nice to have, won't be much use in a firefight).
With regards combat, I suggest one of two methods:
1) Attack vs a target number modified by cover, weather, light, other factors including whether the other target is dodging
OR
2) A tunnels and trolls style combat adds or perhaps a Champions style Offence and Defence combat value and opposed rolls.
Was the haste/dodging example I posted worth considering?
I'll amend what I've written so far (only 2 pages, because every time I think something is decided on, another idea pops up in the thread) and see what I can get done this weekend or before. Am aware we're not on a time scale here, but I think we have enough to start a rough draft for people to look at and possibly run examples/playtest.
Stat purchase table looked fine I thought.
On the haste system: I did like having all initiatives be basically simultaneous since it speeds things up and also makes combat more chaotic. Haste as written would probably be used too much by players - I think instead of using the penalty exactly to break up the action order, use categories with higher penalties i.e. 'Quick Action: -2 attack, resolves first' (e.g. shooting from hip), and maybe a 'Very Quick: -4'.
Could move someone into the 'quick action' phase for free when someone readies an action/has the drop on someone, so shooting a guard who is already got you in their sights is at -4.
T&T group combat never quite did missile fire which would be the main combat for our game, I think standard to-hit roll vs. target number perhaps, with an option to dodge to push up the target number (perhaps having Dodge as an action, with a character able to make 2 actions but with both at a penalty - -2 maybe ?).
Quote from: APN;571783(the science skills, whilst nice to have, won't be much use in a firefight).
I'm instantly reminded of Star Trek: First Contact where they were constantly using their knowledge of the phasers to change the frequency or whatever to penetrate the Borg's constantly adapting shields. While maybe not something you'd use actually IN the firefight, it could be something used to affect later firefights.
For Luck, i liked the idea of buying Luck with Exp, but maybe make it so that the cost for additional Luck ramps up each time, so characters with 579,384 Exp can't just stock up on heaps of Luck while the characters with only 1,025 Exp can only buy one or two.
If not that, i would vote for either 1 or 2, but not 4, if only because keeping track of "secret" stats for the players is not something i'd want to do as GM. Keeping track of PC reputation is different, as that directly affects my notes on how NPCs are going to react to the PCs, but keeping track of Luck sounds like something i'd forget to do.
"That alien just squashed you like jelly... too bad... oh wait! you had a luck point, would you like to redo that entire combat and spend your Luck?" yeah... that would be me as GM.
Quote from: Silverlion;571766Re: Skills
I like broad skills, I think it might make a better game to play by keeping skills compact. No lists of specialties and sub-specialties. Just a big arc skill (which may be finer than say "Science!" but not by much.)
Muahaha! i kill it with science! and not just science, i kill it with Biology... (anybody know Doctor Insano?)
I concur, the broader the definition of each skill set the better. This ties in with the question of note keeping and paperwork that is the Character Sheet. Will it be a quick reference of the character's skills and such, or an intensive spreadsheet of every skill in the game? (some D&D charsheets i've seen seems to go this route sadly)
My vote goes for #1. I have a hard on for point allotment as an incentive to force me to have a good time. I will openly admit that I don't think there is a good way to "balance" it rules wise but I like it anyway.
[tangent] I often emply "Hero Points" in games I run. Hero points are given out under two condtions. Someone does something I happen to find really fucking awesome/hilarious or the group calls for a vote because they think one of the players did something really awesome. As far as I can tell since I started implementing it years ago it encourages people to contribute and helps bring people out of their shells.[/tangent]
Will start picking up with this this week. My birthday slowed things down, and work is squeezing on me at the moment. Feels like not enough hours in the day! I'll submit a draft incorporating as many ideas as I can glean from those gathered, and we'll go from there.
Did anyone like the haste method of initiative, or shall we trust to a random roll (+Agility or similar stat)?
I liked the haste system, although I'd modify it as I suggested above.
And Happy Birthday!
The haste system sound interesting, but I think I'd need to see it in playtest.
I just want to chime in and say I'm still in on this. My weekend got side tracked and I haven't been able to make much progress on my own project much less write anything on this one. Certain events (birthday + my gf got a job) have changed my sleeping ad regular schedule. Hopefully this weekend I'll do a better job. Sorry for the delay.
I'm back from Vegas/gencon. just let me know what ou need me to do and i am on it.
OK - I think what I should do at this stage is go through and collect all the still-relevant examples, notes and details into a working draft outline document ? I've started working on that, anyway. Then I'll link that and we can perhaps take turns adding and modifying it.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;575015OK - I think what I should do at this stage is go through and collect all the still-relevant examples, notes and details into a working draft outline document ? I've started working on that, anyway. Then I'll link that and we can perhaps take turns adding and modifying it.
M'k. Hopefully by this Sunday I'll have some setting related material. I'll comb back through the thread for a bit but with the schedule jumble I won't have any time to work on much of anything until maybe Sunday.
I've done one run through of the thread sifting for bits at this point and have a document that's about 12 pages long (and very messy of course). I'll do another run through and at least some cleaning up before I try to host it somewhere I think, but its proceeding.
While working on it I however I had an additional idea. With the top two setting ideas being almost a tie between New Eden and the PRISM/Noah's World setting, jibbajibba brought up the idea of a fused approach. I tried initially writing up a third fused setting description (basically "colonists go to a new planet and make hybrids that fight the abominations) but then had another idea...since its a SF game with multiple planets, we could fuse the ideas by instead having New Eden and Noah's World be different planets in the same game universe. I think writing it that way might make it easier to use the game as a "generic" SF future war system, as well - the GM just makes up their own planet and adds it to the universe.
Anyway, based on that idea I wrote the following intro,..
Quote from: IntroThe Future War game universe is one in which Earth has begun to spread out among the stars, but is up against stiff opposition in many corners of the galaxy.
A number of specific planets in the Future War universe are described in detail, although space travel is difficult and slow enough that while all of the planets in theory occupy the same universe, a campaign will likely be based on just one planet. The rules are adaptable for use in a range of other futuristic war settings, if that's what the GM desires.
Some of the planets described in the basic book include:
*Noah's World: a toxic battleground, abandoned by humans but still fought over by their Hybrid creations – and the Abominations created by another star-spanning race in that sector.
*New Eden: a seemingly idyllic planet at the other edge of the colonized galaxy. The colonists here are quickly finding out however, that they are not alone – and its time to go to war.
A New Eden game might have "hybrid" characters – created as servants for the colonists, rather than warriors, but most of the PCs will probably be human. PRISM technology is much less well-developed but may still be available – but it's expensive, and replacement bodies are in short supply.
Both ideas may need slight tweaks to accommodate this but on the whole I thought it could work... ?
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;575657I've done one run through of the thread sifting for bits at this point and have a document that's about 12 pages long (and very messy of course). I'll do another run through and at least some cleaning up before I try to host it somewhere I think, but its proceeding.
While working on it I however I had an additional idea. With the top two setting ideas being almost a tie between New Eden and the PRISM/Noah's World setting, jibbajibba brought up the idea of a fused approach. I tried initially writing up a third fused setting description (basically "colonists go to a new planet and make hybrids that fight the abominations) but then had another idea...since its a SF game with multiple planets, we could fuse the ideas by instead having New Eden and Noah's World be different planets in the same game universe. I think writing it that way might make it easier to use the game as a "generic" SF future war system, as well - the GM just makes up their own planet and adds it to the universe.
Anyway, based on that idea I wrote the following intro,..
Both ideas may need slight tweaks to accommodate this but on the whole I thought it could work... ?
interestingly I played Eclipse World at GenCon. My first exposure to it. It has the ability to move personalities between bodies, though it seems the bodies must be specially created. It uses a skill +ability mod + dice mechanic as well.
It is heavy on the crunch though with a vast skill list and huge numbers of implants, gear and tech (I played a robotic salvage spider). Their bodies are called morphs and can be uplifted animals, humans, robots or genetically enhanced types. There removing the cortex stack (like the PRISM i guess) was a complex surgical manuver, here I would like it to be simple and I like the idea of being able to switch them over much faster and plug them into equipment (like Rogue Trooper which was where I nicked the idea from in the first place :) ).
So on that basis we need to make sure we are differentiated.
I wouldn't be too worried about differentiation, its not like the EP guys originated the idea, its just their take on it.
Quote from: The Traveller;575691I wouldn't be too worried about differentiation, its not like the EP guys originated the idea, its just their take on it.
Agreed its just that I think we need to ensure the BSJ project differentiates itself enough from EP so it doesn't feel like a port. I don;t think that is tricky its just something to bear in mind.
Quote from: jibbajibba;575695Agreed its just that I think we need to ensure the BSJ project differentiates itself enough from EP so it doesn't feel like a port. I don;t think that is tricky its just something to bear in mind.
I agree it should differentiate itself. Maybe we can adjust the concept a bit. Having played EP jibba, what do you think we could do to improve upon or twist the core concept (since they do seem rather similar)? Maybe we could blend in another genre element (EP Noir! Lol). What are some weaknesses in the EP setting you might have observed?
Some differentiation is probably a good idea, although if it is a heavy-rules system we're at least a different type of game mechanically. I don't know that much about EP, though - should probably find out more.
Curious as to how it handles the body/mind separation and physical stats ?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575702I agree it should differentiate itself. Maybe we can adjust the concept a bit. Having played EP jibba, what do you think we could do to improve upon or twist the core concept (since they do seem rather similar)? Maybe we could blend in another genre element (EP Noir! Lol). What are some weaknesses in the EP setting you might have observed?
EP is noir and with a strong horror twist. An EP game plays more like The Sphere or Alien than it does like Star Wars or BSG.
I would say EP is heavy crunch. This is coming from a con game but being given a character sheet with 40 skills, a dozen implants, a dozen items of gear that adjust skill rolls etc was quite daunting and I am pretty good at that type of thing.
I think making body hoping easiery and faster, more pulp if you like but I am thinking really more 2000AD is because for me that is the core of the concept. Also limiting it to a single planet and playing that pseudo post apocolypse card might work. As would removing aliens.
So if we had a planet where a human colony was settled but that colony got caught in a system wide conflict between human factions then layer in hybrids and abominations so you end up with Human colonists trying to survive in isolated pockets living of fthe land, then you have decayed military bases that can be pluyndered for resources, then you have hybrid solders bred as servants or warriors and then ont eh other side the Aboniminations bred by the 'bad guys' in the war for purely destructve reasons... If you stuck to those ideas I think it woudl be far enough away.
Quote from: jibbajibba;575707EP is noir and with a strong horror twist. An EP game plays more like The Sphere or Alien than it does like Star Wars or BSG.
I would say EP is heavy crunch. This is coming from a con game but being given a character sheet with 40 skills, a dozen implants, a dozen items of gear that adjust skill rolls etc was quite daunting and I am pretty good at that type of thing.
I think making body hoping easiery and faster, more pulp if you like but I am thinking really more 2000AD is because for me that is the core of the concept. Also limiting it to a single planet and playing that pseudo post apocolypse card might work. As would removing aliens.
So if we had a planet where a human colony was settled but that colony got caught in a system wide conflict between human factions then layer in hybrids and abominations so you end up with Human colonists trying to survive in isolated pockets living of fthe land, then you have decayed military bases that can be pluyndered for resources, then you have hybrid solders bred as servants or warriors and then ont eh other side the Aboniminations bred by the 'bad guys' in the war for purely destructve reasons... If you stuck to those ideas I think it woudl be far enough away.
I like focusing on the one planet. Like the decaying colony concept as well. I think you need other creatures on the planet to keep it interesting. Natives or colonists from another civilization.
Less focus on dark and horror like you say. In a way that free us up to be more creative.
Adding in a local stone age or iron age culture might be kind of fun.
Just to take things down a different route for a moment, the thing about transhumanism is you have to put your entire self, being, memories and outlook into a databank. Obviously within that system you are vulnerable, everything and anything about you could be rewritten to suit someone's agenda.
So lets say there's a performance assessment subroutine in the main AI that went a bit mad when things fell apart, and took over. Now everyone that gets "interred" is analysed according to bizarre rules, which then affects the body you get resleeved into, like a god in many ways.
Those who perform well get bonuses, those who don't get penalties. The program might even decide to start its own literal religion, with priests and the whole works. It might only happen in a certain area, or it could be made into a post mortem minigame where the characters flee this technogod into the nearest available body.
Maybe PCs have to shake off the "programming" for the first few days after they are reborn?
Quote from: The Traveller;575719Just to take things down a different route for a moment, the thing about transhumanism is you have to put your entire self, being, memories and outlook into a databank. Obviously within that system you are vulnerable, everything and anything about you could be rewritten to suit someone's agenda.
So lets say there's a performance assessment subroutine in the main AI that went a bit mad when things fell apart, and took over. Now everyone that gets "interred" is analysed according to bizarre rules, which then affects the body you get resleeved into, like a god in many ways.
Those who perform well get bonuses, those who don't get penalties. The program might even decide to start its own literal religion, with priests and the whole works. It might only happen in a certain area, or it could be made into a post mortem minigame where the characters flee this technogod into the nearest available body.
Maybe PCs have to shake off the "programming" for the first few days after they are reborn?
I would suggest something like a filter table, to see what gets altered during the process. But only have it come up on a failed programming roll or something. Have a pretty even mix of positives and negatives, as well as a few curve balls on there. This is a genre I know almost nothing about though.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575738I would suggest something like a filter table, to see what gets altered during the process. But only have it come up on a failed programming roll or something. Have a pretty even mix of positives and negatives, as well as a few curve balls on there. This is a genre I know almost nothing about though.
Maybe a bit more deliberate, like if you'd spent your life denouncing the AI, you'd be reincarnated as a toaster or something. There could be quests, codes of conduct, any manner of crazed arbitrariness. I'd make it only one option for getting resleeved though, with an attractive advantage - its the only one that can resleeve after three days have passed, or its got better toys or more options or similar.
Anybody see the last few episodes of Eureka? They had a biomechanical loom that could create carbon copies of people in the town and implant extensive personnel data into them to impersonate the real ones.
Would a doppelganger scenario fit into this game system? Rather than waiting for a character to die and be re "sleeved", make a fresh sleeve and use previous data completely rewritten to serve the AI or whatever, using the PC's face to do all sorts of "big brotherly" sort of things.
Quote from: jibbajibba;575707EP is noir and with a strong horror twist. An EP game plays more like The Sphere or Alien than it does like Star Wars or BSG.
I would say EP is heavy crunch. This is coming from a con game but being given a character sheet with 40 skills, a dozen implants, a dozen items of gear that adjust skill rolls etc was quite daunting and I am pretty good at that type of thing.
I think making body hoping easiery and faster, more pulp if you like but I am thinking really more 2000AD is because for me that is the core of the concept. Also limiting it to a single planet and playing that pseudo post apocolypse card might work. As would removing aliens.
So if we had a planet where a human colony was settled but that colony got caught in a system wide conflict between human factions then layer in hybrids and abominations so you end up with Human colonists trying to survive in isolated pockets living of fthe land, then you have decayed military bases that can be pluyndered for resources, then you have hybrid solders bred as servants or warriors and then ont eh other side the Aboniminations bred by the 'bad guys' in the war for purely destructve reasons... If you stuck to those ideas I think it woudl be far enough away.
This is what I had already thought we were going with in the first place so I'm already on board for this.
The evil computer thing sounds a bit Paranoia to me, though I've never actually played that either.
Decaying colony sounds good. Another idea for that might be multiple human factions, e.g. when the colony ships arrive you could have unrest between colonists who were just stored for centuries while the ship arrived (cryogenically, or even just as data waiting for clones to be grown) and the crew of the ship who had to look after it while it was in space for however long.
Depending on who you want as good guys and who as bad guys you could have e.g.
#1 - the crew feel they should be in control since they did all the hard work, and try to take over...
#2 - the AI that runs the colony ship has turned rogue: as colonists get reconstructed from the databanks, it has been reprogramming them to become loyal to it. (That one is a bit Eclipse Phase though; I think it has evil AIs).
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;575993#2 - the AI that runs the colony ship has turned rogue: as colonists get reconstructed from the databanks, it has been reprogramming them to become loyal to it. (That one is a bit Eclipse Phase though; I think it has evil AIs).
If you start trying to duck every trope used by anyone anywhere you aren't left with much of a milieu though. Take a leaf from Microsoft's book - embrace, extend, etc.
I think removing AI and Robots and implants woudl make it feel less like EP.
If we say the colonists had limited natureal resources and wetware is more advanced than hardware it sets a good precedent. You can of course have real personalities running computer systems as that is a side effect of the PRISM idea.
But lets move forward someone give me something concrete to prep and I will get on with it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;576012But lets move forward someone give me something concrete to prep and I will get on with it.
Hmm...OK, how about you do race rules then - say the list of hybrid animal options and the stat modifiers (assuming 1-5 rated stats) and any special abilities for them?
How about a compromise?
You don't get new bodies, but you do have a chip installed in the brain that records memories and personality.
In the likely event of lethal trauma, if a trained medical crew can recover your body with head intact (or maybe just your head), they can activate the chip and attempt to resuscitate, rebuild/replace injure body parts.
It would still take a few days for the wetware to be fully operational, and several more for the brain to heal enough to start taking over operations for the chip.
Resuscitation could be resource inefficient for the colony (medical supplies, implants), and the 2-4 days or so wait for the brain to come back online and adapt to any implants means the character will be barely operational and very vulnerable.
The only surefire way to really kill someone is to damage the brain enough that it has no hope of recovery, dig in and find the chip, or disintegrate the head altogether. (provides a convenient out for villains too)
There's no reason why all of these and more couldn't be used in different territories, it would certainly make for a richer tapestry in what is a full sized world. Just spitballing anyway!
Quote from: Amalgam;576014How about a compromise?
You don't get new bodies, but you do have a chip installed in the brain that records memories and personality.
In the likely event of lethal trauma, if a trained medical crew can recover your body with head intact (or maybe just your head), they can activate the chip and attempt to resuscitate, rebuild/replace injure body parts.
It would still take a few days for the wetware to be fully operational, and several more for the brain to heal enough to start taking over operations for the chip.
Resuscitation could be resource inefficient for the colony (medical supplies, implants), and the 2-4 days or so wait for the brain to come back online and adapt to any implants means the character will be barely operational and very vulnerable.
The only surefire way to really kill someone is to damage the brain enough that it has no hope of recovery, dig in and find the chip, or disintegrate the head altogether. (provides a convenient out for villains too)
I think that, more traditional approach, is how EP and other systems approach it. I think a simple method of switching bodies is a far more interesting concept as it actually hasn't been done elsewhere. The idea that actually in combat you can take another PCs PRISM and switch it directly into an Abomination body you just stunned with a nueral pulse is I think a new idea I haven't actually seen before.
I don't think you need a way to permanently kill anyway. If the PRISM is a storable medium then you can back it up and if the PC dies all they get is a loss of memory since last upload.
I love the old cyberpunk trick of PC wakes up in hospital with 2 week old memories then has to find out who killed him and why. No reason why we can't reuse that old chestnut :)
You even have the classic clone gets activated dispite original still being alive and the legal question about who is who. You could replicate PRISMs and allow players to play the same PC in different bodies at the same time.
Why limit this stuff for 'game' reasons?
I will get something written over the weekend on the Races. Meat vs Personalities. I think it will include Chargen almost by default.
Looking at Human colonists and vat grown hybrids. Will use a parallel system of random and point buy. Will include a lifepath variant as well.
Will post the text here but will do the rest on a pdf as it needs tables and they are a faff to do here.
Looks like I have 2 weeks worth of thread catching up to do (hopefully by end of this weekend, kids and shit permitting).
Who's doing what? Any 'concrete' roles/game writing sections defined? Did we decide for certain on a skill system, i.e. whether skills are broad categories, or broken down into more specific skills. Example:
Medicine
OR
Medicine:
- First Aid
- Disease treatment
- Surgery
- Diagnosis
- Cybernetic enhancement
- Xenomorph Physiology
- Forensics
- Medical Treatment
That sort of thing. The 'Broad' category is obviously simpler, but perhaps too basic
Quote from: jibbajibba;576021I think a simple method of switching bodies is a far more interesting concept as it actually hasn't been done elsewhere.
Ah, i must have misread, i thought someone was saying it HAD been done, hence my suggestion.
In fact, it has been done, though i've no idea if it has been done on PnP games, Phantasy Star handles PC death this way, with a cloning operation in each town run by the "Clone Clown". (creepy dude...)
(http://www.pscave.com/ps2/images/cloneclown.gif)
Quote from: Amalgam;576237Ah, i must have misread, i thought someone was saying it HAD been done, hence my suggestion.
In fact, it has been done, though i've no idea if it has been done on PnP games, Phantasy Star handles PC death this way, with a cloning operation in each town run by the "Clone Clown". (creepy dude...)
(http://www.pscave.com/ps2/images/cloneclown.gif)
Huh, I remember that. I played I, II and IV in the series (just couldn't get into III) - I was very fond of it.
OK I did a quick rerun through the thread and I've collated all the stuff into a word document, which is still of course enormously very messy and incomplete but which gives a starting point e.g. there a skill lists and stats and things. I've commented in places where I've proposed something or modified something slightly from the original thread content...we can either fight about things back here in this thread or have wikipedia-style Edit Wars in the document from version to version...;)...ok, hopefully not.
I've tried to use Styles in places and added a Table of Contents for navigation, although it won't really be needed until/unless the document grows bigger. If anyone wants to fiddle with more advanced formatting or has any other ideas be my guest; I'm out for a bit now, sorry.
Word doc is linked here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sq5mkqqegb69ool
As I have been writng stuff up and reading through BJSs notes a few things have occurred.
i) Planets. I would like to restrict it to one world. I know we kind of agreed this above but the notes still refer to 2 - New Eden and Noah's World.
ii) Colonists - I was going to make the colonists an elite type of Human thus giving them some stat benefits. In addition when I thought about it it made sense that with genetic detailing going on they would have clone human bodies to move to. It also made sense that there should be an option to allow them to try genetic enhancement. Its nice to make this random I think. Also from that I postulated that pure humans would be socially superior to those who opted for genetic variation known as the Altered. This would be mental adaption as the physical stuff is separate. It therefore might link to Psionics.... Just opening up that opition as I ran through, I kind of thought that a PC might risk a mental alteration and would then make a roll and consult a table. The same is true for their current body. I think these variations should be random but I will include a point buy option.
iii) Derived stats. I would like to add some derived stats. I know these are sometimes contenscious but it makes sense for an elephant adapted body to have more wounds than a human or a rat for example.
I would like the derived stats to be :
Health/Wounds = 5 + Size (where size varies from 1 to 10) with Human as a 5 and that being the most common size. Size is set per morph type and counteracts with agility.
Co-ordination = average of Perception + Agility . I didn't like the idea that agility covered co-ordination and balance and I like the fact that a high Perception (mental stat) can recover the poor agility of a new body.
Luck - BSJ listed this as an optional mental stat, I want to make it a derived stat used as a game balancer. So its computed from taking the other 6 core stats (Perception, Intelligence, Nerve, Agility, Strength, Endurance) totalling them and subtracting from 30 then dividing by 6 round up. So if a PC has very poor stats they will have a high luck to compensate. In play Luck could be used either to determine a starting about of bennies/hero points etc or as an alternate stat you can make a skill check with once per 'scene'. I use the term 'scene' because its already a meta stat and it saves any complex time keeping type process.
Please consider :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;576800As I have been writng stuff up and reading through BJSs notes a few things have occurred.
i) Planets. I would like to restrict it to one world. I know we kind of agreed this above but the notes still refer to 2 - New Eden and Noah's World.
ii) Colonists - I was going to make the colonists an elite type of Human thus giving them some stat benefits. In addition when I thought about it it made sense that with genetic detailing going on they would have clone human bodies to move to. It also made sense that there should be an option to allow them to try genetic enhancement. Its nice to make this random I think. Also from that I postulated that pure humans would be socially superior to those who opted for genetic variation known as the Altered. This would be mental adaption as the physical stuff is separate. It therefore might link to Psionics.... Just opening up that opition as I ran through, I kind of thought that a PC might risk a mental alteration and would then make a roll and consult a table. The same is true for their current body. I think these variations should be random but I will include a point buy option.
iii) Derived stats. I would like to add some derived stats. I know these are sometimes contenscious but it makes sense for an elephant adapted body to have more wounds than a human or a rat for example.
I would like the derived stats to be :
Health/Wounds = 5 + Size (where size varies from 1 to 10) with Human as a 5 and that being the most common size. Size is set per morph type and counteracts with agility.
Co-ordination = average of Perception + Agility . I didn't like the idea that agility covered co-ordination and balance and I like the fact that a high Perception (mental stat) can recover the poor agility of a new body.
Luck - BSJ listed this as an optional mental stat, I want to make it a derived stat used as a game balancer. So its computed from taking the other 6 core stats (Perception, Intelligence, Nerve, Agility, Strength, Endurance) totalling them and subtracting from 30 then dividing by 6 round up. So if a PC has very poor stats they will have a high luck to compensate. In play Luck could be used either to determine a starting about of bennies/hero points etc or as an alternate stat you can make a skill check with once per 'scene'. I use the term 'scene' because its already a meta stat and it saves any complex time keeping type process.
Please consider :)
OK, just one planet then...In that case the Intro section can be dropped out, and both world descriptions need to be sort of squeezed together into one new world description.
I think a Size stat could work. I guess if possible I'd prefer a 1-5 scale the same as the other attributes but that may not give enough range to represent everything.
Another option would be to replace the Strength attribute with a Size attribute, and then have a particular Size be a pre-requisite for a given race.
i.e. if you might need a 2 to be a human or a 5 to be an elephantman.
What that does, is make sure that some races aren't intrinsically better than others due to getting extra Size points.
Like the Coordination idea, and the Luck idea seems OK - this fits in better with the current 3 physical;3 mental model. It would mean that changing bodies can cost Luck points, if your physicals improve.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;576977OK, just one planet then...In that case the Intro section can be dropped out, and both world descriptions need to be sort of squeezed together into one new world description.
I think a Size stat could work. I guess if possible I'd prefer a 1-5 scale the same as the other attributes but that may not give enough range to represent everything.
Another option would be to replace the Strength attribute with a Size attribute, and then have a particular Size be a pre-requisite for a given race.
i.e. if you might need a 2 to be a human or a 5 to be an elephantman.
What that does, is make sure that some races aren't intrinsically better than others due to getting extra Size points.
Like the Coordination idea, and the Luck idea seems OK - this fits in better with the current 3 physical;3 mental model. It would mean that changing bodies can cost Luck points, if your physicals improve.
My idea with the Hybrids is that you select a body type. So you choose to be a Ratman, or a Murine to give it what be its technical name. The Murine get Size 2, but they get a bonus of +2 to Agility, they also get a tail, sensory bonuses that help improve observation checks, and some minor natural weaponry. Elephantine (I prefere a better word but ... latin is a bugger like that) get Size 9 but -2 Agility, they also get natural weapons, tusks, and a trunk.
My plan is to have a pool of about 10 points used to build each hybrid phenomorph. The rules will provide seven or so most common; Canine (great infantry troops), Feline (great sleath and agility), Bovine (strength and endurance), Murine (used for scouts and infiltration), Saurines (just cos lizards are cool), Aqualine (they won't be able to fly owing to the weight lift ratio but will be pilots or whatever) and Porcine (again good soldiers and make them the guys that do tech support). The GM (NOT THE PLAYER) can then construct more unusual phenomorphs Elephantine, Leonine, Piscine, Vulpine etc using the kit.
The Logic behind it being that the first scientists used the animal DNA they had to create the base phenomorphs which make up the majority of the population but then they experimented using the ARC (oh new thing the ARC is the Archived Resource for Colonisation its a set of raw data and materials that was sent on world with the first colonists) DNA resources that the first colonists had bought with them to populate the planet with animals once terraforming had completed.
Once the scientists realised that they needed labour to complete their work and morally they couldn't create human clone slaves, they uplifted some of the animal DNA to create the hybrids. When the war broke out they started turning these hybrids into soldiers. At that point they started dipping into the DNA samples and pulling out all sorts of crazy stuff, like units of Panthers, Leonine colonels, etc etc ....
So in character generation the way I see it there will be 3 choice points
i) Human or Hybrid?
ii) If Human do you want to risk Alteration? - random roll
iii) If Hybrid which phenomorph do you pick?
Then you generate your stats through point buy or random roll - I am in favour of the physical stats being generated slightly differently from mental. I would prefer point buy for mental and random for physical with humans and hybrids using different tables (each Hybrid will have their own tables).
Then you select an occupation and from that you get a skill list to buy or roll from. Both options presented buying being I suspect the most commonly used.
Some occupations will be restricted to certain 'races' Typically Scientists will all be human as will the political classes. Other types will still have cross over skills. Hybrids will be restricted in their career choices.
just some ideas.
The animal hybrid system sounds like TMNT crossed with Justifiers.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577135The animal hybrid system sounds like TMNT crossed with Justifiers.
Never heard of justifiers and I guess it has anthropomorhised animals so TMNT is going to get a nod although I only read that once back about 20 years ago.
It is actually closer to the 2000AD strips Meltdown Man and Rogue Trooper from the 80s. But since I spent a lot of time reading 2000AD... what you going to do :)
I suspect there are very few totally original ideas especially considering how many d20 game settings I saw for sale at genCon in the buy 1 get 3 free stand. I can't recall an RPG where you can switch bodies int he middel of a combat really easily nore can i think of one where physical stats become somewhat moot as you can drop and replace them at will. There must be some robot based games or games hwere you play ghosts that posess people but I can not familiar with them. Likewise a game where death has no real meaning unless you get a TPK, well apart from high level D&D of course :)
I'm well behind on catching up so can't offer too much at the moment. I like the idea of animal/hybrid species types. I made a homebrew game along those lines when the first Thundercats cartoon came along, with Lions having strength and speed, tigers even more so, gorillas having great strength, wolves stealth and cunning etc.
I'd guess in the future all sides wouldn't be above using whatever tactics they thought would win them the war, so that might be genetically enhanced troopers resistant to anything chemical or biological the enemy could toss at them (and kept in line by only being able to eat a grey mush or they starve to death), animal/human hybrids trained and bred for one purpose only - to kill, cyborgs with automated parts that can be used remotely by the army generals, troops that die - and are reborn into a new body, regardless of the consequences of seeing their own death time and again and so on.
Factions could be offshoots of Earths original colonists sen out to the stars, all fighting over a planet that has a recurring valuable resource that can be mined for vast profit/power (Avatar style).
Heck, why not do an Avatar game with the serials filed off. Watch the movie for inspiration, then go nuts with crazy deadly creatures that want to eat you.
I'm gonna be behind for a while. Things keep seeming to come up (mom's in the hospital now and her recovery from the surgery isn't going well in this case) so I might have to sit this one out for a while as I haven't even been able to advance on my own project. I pretty much (between staying at the hospital and work) only have enough time to make angry posts on various forums online. So I'm not gonna have the a full write up on the 7 factions done as I had planned until I can hammer out a schedule again.
Hope your mom gets well soon Mguy. Just had my mother in the hospital for surgery and she ended up getting sepsis (thankfully she is okay now) so I feel for you.
Sorry to hear it, MGuy. Best wishes.
On the project itself, will try to do some more on the weekend.
Best wishes and hopes for a speedy recovery.
Prayers for the ill family chaps, if you take them.
What else needs to be done? for the game that I might take a look at, seems like everyone is going full speed...and I'm left in the dust as I'm worrying about my own projects.
Going back over it areas of the game that seem to have the most holes at this stage are:
*equipment
*setting intro needing a re-write
*combat chapter will need lots more work, I think.
I've gone back over the document so far and have re-uploaded a version 1.1
http://www.mediafire.com/?sb9fhm95oq92hor
In this I've removed the setting stuff at the start, added JibbaJibba's suggested derived attributes, expanded the morale rules suggestions into some more solid rules there, listed controlling attributes for skills and added/renamed a couple of skills - combat skills in particular probably need some more thought. Fooled around in disadvantages and combat e.g. started a list of attack roll modifiers. Mostly minor changes.
The things I've commented are questions in my mind - these currently include:
*stat costs -should a minimum stat cost 0 rather than 1?
*whether being unarmoured adding a damage bonus makes sense to people? (idea I had to cut down on the math).
*combat skills - how specific should these be?
*whether all characters should get some skills for free?
*separate Listen & Spot skills (current setup) or a single Awareness skill?
*the haste system/initiative?
*increased armour penetration for lasers?
*should a failed Nerve roll make a PC run away, or is this too much interference with player control of the PC?
Incidentally, if someone else does want to go and modify the whole document for whatever reason, whether adding or deleting or modifying or formatting or whatever, I'm cool with that - they could pass back to me via email and I can re-upload, or whatever else works for them.
Thanks again everyone for your help so far.
Hi, i'm reading through the Mediafire download at the moment, and saw a note on avians perhaps using antigravity.
I have a different solution:
Regular avians tend to be small, and they also have hollow bones in order to be lightweight.
Essentially, define movement as usual (whatever you decide on, since it isn't settled), but reduce any flight move for avians by the total amount in strength + endurance.
Yes, this may result in zero or less flight move, but it is still important when considering any antigrav-tech (see below).
Glide move may also be affected, but with a notably less amount.
Antigrav-tech may still be possible, but it may be costly, and more weight means higher cost.
Quote from: Catelf;579646Hi, i'm reading through the Mediafire download at the moment, and saw a note on avians perhaps using antigravity.
I have a different solution:
Regular avians tend to be small, and they also have hollow bones in order to be lightweight.
Essentially, define movement as usual (whatever you decide on, since it isn't settled), but reduce any flight move for avians by the total amount in strength + endurance.
Yes, this may result in zero or less flight move, but it is still important when considering any antigrav-tech (see below).
Glide move may also be affected, but with a notably less amount.
Antigrav-tech may still be possible, but it may be costly, and more weight means higher cost.
Hi Catelf! Thanks for checking it out.
I forgot I put that in (it was something I was musing, that we hadn't actually discussed as a group. I don't know how "realistic" we were planning on being, but using physics a bird the size of a human wouldn't work - at least, not without enormous wings - but not being able to fly which would sort of eliminate the point of playing one, so I was pondering the idea of having an antigravity device that reduces weight somewhat (but not eliminating it completely; i.e. keeping it from being useful for non-birds).
Just having bird-type creatures be small is another option. Reducing the flight based off size would be possible, although we may end up having a Size attribute that better represents that, rather than needing to reduce flight speed for high Strength (although I have seen that before: Tunnels and Trolls used to prohibit Fairies from flying if they ended up with a Strength greater than 2).
Welcome any further thoughts. I'm a little worried it may be ending up more complex than we'd aimed for initially.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;579655I don't know how "realistic" we were planning on being, but using physics a bird the size of a human wouldn't work - at least, not without enormous wings - but not being able to fly which would sort of eliminate the point of playing one, so I was pondering the idea of having an antigravity device that reduces weight somewhat (but not eliminating it completely; i.e. keeping it from being useful for non-birds).
Just having bird-type creatures be small is another option. Reducing the flight based off size would be possible, although we may end up having a Size attribute that better represents that, rather than needing to reduce flight speed for high Strength (although I have seen that before: Tunnels and Trolls used to prohibit Fairies from flying if they ended up with a Strength greater than 2).
Welcome any further thoughts. I'm a little worried it may be ending up more complex than we'd aimed for initially.
I said strength + endurance.
Concidering all characters may be fairly well-trained then size doen't matter much, since the character would obviously have wings of matching size.
No, strength equal mass, and as for endurance it partially equal mass, but also remember that anyone with hollow bones(just like birds), probably also would get their bones broken more easily, therefor a lower endurance ... unless one wants to make more particular rules for it.
As for the risk of it getting more complicated ....
I agree.
I have also aimed for as easy and fast as possible as i could in my own system, you have seen it, considering your comments in my first thread here, but i link it here as well for others to perhaps get inspiration from(It is free for use):
http://catelf.webs.com/streedrpgcorerules.htm
The complexity in this collab - game partially comes from different opinions on what to include and how to solve different things, and on what is seen as "the fastest" and "the simplest possible".
One way of making it simpler is otherwise to just include the bare neccessities + just a little extra to spice it up.
My Core Rules are of course what i think is the fastest and simplest possible, without going into freeform-styled rules ... at least as far as multi-genre rpgs goes. (Some has of course disagreed with me.)
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;579655I forgot I put that in (it was something I was musing, that we hadn't actually discussed as a group. I don't know how "realistic" we were planning on being, but using physics a bird the size of a human wouldn't work - at least, not without enormous wings - but not being able to fly which would sort of eliminate the point of playing one, so I was pondering the idea of having an antigravity device that reduces weight somewhat (but not eliminating it completely; i.e. keeping it from being useful for non-birds).
What about something like "Cybrids", cybernetic hybrids that have had their genetic code altered to such an extent that they naturally grow cybernetic components from birth? This might be an a-g core or simply much stronger nanotech muscles enabling more power in a smaller package.
Has anyone given any thought to stat checks by the way? One arguable issue with skill+stat roll high systems, or indeed any system that mixes skills and stats to attain a target number, is that checks on raw intelligence, strength or speed are at a disadvantage when trying to reach target numbers.
In my own system for example, someone with average strength and average skill (5+5) can roll a 5 on a d10 and attain an average success. All well and good so far. But the same person trying to attain a 15 on a strength roll without a skill (say to resist poisons) must roll a 10 on a d10.
So reduce target numbers for purely stat based rolls, or switch to a roll under system for those instances?
Quote from: MGuy;578214I'm gonna be behind for a while. Things keep seeming to come up (mom's in the hospital now and her recovery from the surgery isn't going well in this case) so I might have to sit this one out for a while as I haven't even been able to advance on my own project. I pretty much (between staying at the hospital and work) only have enough time to make angry posts on various forums online. So I'm not gonna have the a full write up on the 7 factions done as I had planned until I can hammer out a schedule again.
Here's hoping your mom recovers. Best wishes, MGuy.
Quote from: The Traveller;580790What about something like "Cybrids", cybernetic hybrids that have had their genetic code altered to such an extent that they naturally grow cybernetic components from birth?
////////////
So reduce target numbers for purely stat based rolls, or switch to a roll under system for those instances?
Personally, i use a roll under system for non-combat skills at all times, but since you use a target number instead, then i agree that raw stat-checks (without any complimentatry skill possible at all), should really have lower target numbers.
....I personally prefer "bionics" since cybernetics is the knowledge about communications, really ... but whatever.
The idea is interesting, though.
Yep, the nanotech thing is interesting.
The raw stat checks being harder is a good point too...as another idea for that, how about keeping the difficulty table as is but adding a bonus of [2 x Stat] to the d10 roll for raw stat checks, if no skill applies?
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;580846The raw stat checks being harder is a good point too...as another idea for that, how about keeping the difficulty table as is but adding a bonus of [2 x Stat] to the d10 roll for raw stat checks, if no skill applies?
That works too, but in all cases you have to be careful that you aren't substituting for an actual skill. It needs to be specifically only in situations where no skill exists.