There's an open source version of the game code.  Haven't tried running it.

Awhile ago I looked through the computer code of some old Diku muds from the early 1990's.

It turned out the underlying combat mechanic was THAC0, with some slight modifications.

Quote from: ggroy;531184What I had in mind, was literally doing a 1-to-1 translation of the mechanics from the video game to a pen-and-paper rpg format.  This could be like taking the actual computer code, and translating it directly to dice mechanics.

I've seen a number of RPGs where it looked like it would be playable, perhaps even good, if it was the basis for a cRPG, but as pen-and-pen just wasn't human-useable.
World of Synnibarr, Legacy (if the rpg.net thread is to be believed), or Sword's Path Glory all come to mind. There's probably more out there.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;530796If you can describe it, what's the appeal of just having 'ranks' like FUDGE/FATE/MSH (/Amber), rather than numbers?

Actually, I don't like the ladder in Fudge/Fate all that much. Those are only adjectives and really are only hard to remember.

Good descriptors IMO tell you what kind of character or entity would have this level. For example in my little game, there is a scale:

0 - Common People
1 - Well-trained
2 - Experienced / Veteran
3 - Specialist, recognized by his/her peers
4 - Widely known master
5 - Idol: Every kid knows you
6 - Legend: Your name will be known for generations
7 - Transcendent

Clearly, this is for a rather heroic game, but there might be appropriate descriptors and referents for other styles as well. The advantage is that it's easy to determine what level a certain character should have.

Quote from: 1of3;531217Actually, I don't like the ladder in Fudge/Fate all that much. Those are only adjectives and really are only hard to remember.
 
Good descriptors IMO tell you what kind of character or entity would have this level. For example in my little game, there is a scale:
 
0 - Common People
1 - Well-trained
2 - Experienced / Veteran
3 - Specialist, recognized by his/her peers
4 - Widely known master
5 - Idol: Every kid knows you
6 - Legend: Your name will be known for generations
7 - Transcendent
 
Clearly, this is for a rather heroic game, but there might be appropriate descriptors and referents for other styles as well. The advantage is that it's easy to determine what level a certain character should have.

Took me a while puzzling over how this differed from FUDGE, exactly. After I while I'm think I get that your descriptions are more about describing how common a value should be (Rare, Very Rare- ish) rather than about what it can do (Good, Great, Superb)...which are perhaps a shade or two vaguer.
?

Also, eh, my own attempt at answering the question. I think a main point I'm struggling with is how to minimize the math while still being able to handle attribute damage and the like well, actually. High values are better for handling attribute damage I think, but at the same time having a big stat range means modifiers that force recalculating and stuff. (I don't really like roll-under either, which is also limiting my options).
 
　
3-18 (or something) - works fairly easily with roll under (e.g. d20 or 3d6). Works with d100 using [Stat x 5]. Works as [d20+bonus] if you go via a modifier chart...this doubles the quantity of numbers for stats on the character sheet, and producing points where the bonus doesn't go up (bad in point buy)...although depending on its scaling, use of the modifier can minimize how often bonuses end up being added to rolls, and mitigates how high the bonuses are. Stat follows a 'bell curve' which gives an idea of how rare high stats are. Scale is fairly intuitive for D&D players, although years of rolling with 4d6-lowest, etc. methods builds up the idea of what a "good" stat is for lots of players.
THis method is OK, although I have a hard choice picking between it and just using the modifier (-5 to +5).
 
4-14, 1-15; the scale for a couple of d20 roll under type systems (e.g. Alternity; Senzar). Setting human limit at 14 or 15 makes it difficult for PCs to break the scale and get checks that 90% likely to succeed. Seems suited to a "you are guys who are special, but not superhuman" style of play. Best with roll-under, could use with a modifier system though (modifier = [stat-10] which is at least no table.
TORG [5-13] isn't far off this,with its system using 2d10; bell curviness here changes the impact at the far ends of the scale so having 13 or so is a bigger deal than for Alternity.
 
Up to 100 (or so) scale: tried this with e.g. d10+ 10s place as modifier. Math is pretty simple, has problems with min/maxing "dead spaces" even more than than 3E/4E D&D does though.
 
Up to 30 (Paladium): allows for more superhuman characters, needs modifier chart to handle adjustments. Doesn't really do attribute checks that well (I've used roll-under on d30 as a house rule..). Same notes apply for modifiers as with 3-18.
 
d4/d6/d8/d10/d12: works only for systems where the main dice rolled on a check varies (which are themselves a bit quirky; so probably not what I'm after). Numbers generated don't really convert into "real world" measurements readily - how much someone could lift for instance, seems more arbitrary. Maybe its just me but since a high stat doesn't give an increase in minimum roll, it seems logical that anyone could try and do anything, but may screw themselves when they roll a 1. Don't really like this one.
 
1-10: works with dice pool games (though gives large dice pool), or [d10+stat], or [2d6+stat], roll under with d10, etc.
Ability damage may work OK. Tendency to use simple calculations [Str x N] means in these systems, character abilities often vary wildly from one person to the next.
Works for human-level games but something in these systems bothers me for rating "superhuman" creatures like dinosaurs or dragons??? I can't figure out why but having a stat of 30 in a 1-10 system just bothers me more than having a 50 in a 3-18 scale would.
 
-5 to +5 or so (Talislanta, True20, Ars Magica): works with e.g. d10+modifier, d20+modifier. Works OK with ability damage. The point representing a stat being useless can be adjusted (-3 to +3 for instance). Modifiers apply to basically every roll, however - unless system is designed so that a normal score is zero. Works OK with level advancement systems.
 
1-5: works with e.g d10+stat+skill, or d10+stat+skill, or dice pool. Very granular; handles ability damage badly. Midpoint is 3, but an average score being a "2" is also often used. Skills also end up being very granular, meaning "level advancement" is tricky - so games like this don't tend to use levels.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;531248Took me a while puzzling over how this differed from FUDGE, exactly. After I while I'm think I get that your descriptions are more about describing how common a value should be (Rare, Very Rare- ish) rather than about what it can do (Good, Great, Superb)...which are perhaps a shade or two vaguer. ?

Yes. Although I wouldn't make commonality the criterium. It's more about whether I can determine the referent. For example I suggested some of the following to Malmsturm (a German game):

- Superhuman
- Supernatural
- Otherworldly
- Divine

Those do not tell, how common these characters are in a given scenario. - There might gods everywhere. - But they do give an impression about possible referents. A superhuman trait cannot be found in an ordinary human, but perhaps in another natural animal, while a supernatural trait cannot be achieved without magic etc.


EDIT/addition:

When I needed stats for space ships, I wanted them to be very simple and employ a single ressource: Energy. How much energy would each ship have?

0-2 Pod
3-5 Shuttle
6-8 Yacht
9-11 Capital Ship
12-14 Space Center

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;531208I've seen a number of RPGs where it looked like it would be playable, perhaps even good, if it was the basis for a cRPG, but as pen-and-pen just wasn't human-useable.
World of Synnibarr, Legacy (if the rpg.net thread is to be believed), or Sword's Path Glory all come to mind. There's probably more out there.

Do they look anything like the Dragon Age video game mechanics?

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Combat_mechanics
http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Ability_mechanics

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Game_mechanics

Quote from: 1of3;531254Yes. Although I wouldn't make commonality the criterium. It's more about whether I can determine the referent. For example I suggested some of the following to Malmsturm (a German game):
 
- Superhuman
- Supernatural
- Otherworldly
- Divine
 
Those do not tell, how common these characters are in a given scenario. - There might gods everywhere. - But they do give an impression about possible referents.

OK I think that makes sense.
Interesting in that I think an adjective system seems oriented to be more subjective or context-dependent while numbers are more objective and let you compare between populations that are unalike. So if a character was described as a "widely known master" at Running, or a Great runner, this wouldn't tell you how fast they were compared to a car or a horse, the way a number would.
(Though adjectives typically need numbers alongside them anyway, in order to work with game mechanics...and maybe numbers don't give much context on whether they're good/bad unless the reader is aware of how they're generated and other rules that interlock with them like probabilities etc. To me a "16" for a stat in D&D is more descriptive than a rank title would be, but that'd totally be a YMMV thing).

Quote from: ggroy;531303Do they look anything like the Dragon Age video game mechanics?
 
http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Combat_mechanics
http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Ability_mechanics
 
http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Game_mechanics

I'll have to peruse this a bit more to really tell you, but from a glance Sword's Path Glory looks a bit look that -excessive calculations and tables. Perhaps SPG is more complex than Dragon Age...
Some discussion here.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21194
 
I was perhaps exaggerating a bit with Synnibar - I have run it although handwaving movement and per-segment damage a bit...its damage system is fairly ornate though (armour has a finite reserve of Life Points, and divides incoming damage by from /10 (1 "tenth") to /100000000 (8 "tenths"). It has an unusual level structure for a pRPG, which goes from 1- 50 with slowly increasing percentages -- a bit like an MMO in that regard.
 
I'll try and dig up the link to the Legacy thread; this was a 70s simulational RPG about cavemen. Probably more like Civilization or a game like that, than a real RPG; you could have dozens or more of d100 or d1000 rolls (IIRC) to see if anyone in the tribe had managed to evolve.

EDIT: And here's the link for Legacy:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?359401-Legacy-the-worst-game-every-written-or-the-least-the-unintentionally-funniest!

Thought for today on 3.x attributes, which is close enough to the topic of this thread that I thought I'd post in it rather than making a new one.

One of the problems with 3.x that irks me is the +1 every 2 stat points thing - since it makes even numbers useless. My thought was to have two modifiers which increase alternately. So for instance we have:

Strength - stamina and muscle
Dexterity - Aim and Balance
Constitution - Health and Fitness
Intelligence - Reason and Memory
Wisdom - Intuition and Willpower
Charisma - Appearance and Leadership

For instance a character with Strength 15 might have a Stamina +3 modifier, Muscle +2 modifier (each of which applies to different sets of actions..e.g. opening a door might be Muscle while Swim uses Stamina).

(look familiar? )

Of course, that's 3 numbers on the sheet for each stat instead of 2...still not sure its not better e.g. just to dump the stat and have a stat being the modifier as in True20...

The trick is to use stat checks for the skill system.  That way the actual number stops being a useless vestige, and starts being useful, and every number in the range actually counts for something.

Of course, it also means you need to put a sane cap on stats instead of this whole "I have 47 STR" nonsense you can get to with some 3e builds.

Quote from: J Arcane;531869The trick is to use stat checks for the skill system.  That way the actual number stops being a useless vestige, and starts being useful, and every number in the range actually counts for something.

Of course, it also means you need to put a sane cap on stats instead of this whole "I have 47 STR" nonsense you can get to with some 3e builds.

Hmm...so how would you do that? Roll under stat on d20 for skills, like in 2E?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;531876Hmm...so how would you do that? Roll under stat on d20 for skills, like in 2E?

That's exactly what I did in Hulks and Horrors.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;531868(look familiar? )

Of course, that's 3 numbers on the sheet for each stat instead of 2...still not sure its not better e.g. just to dump the stat and have a stat being the modifier as in True20...

Hard part is figuring out how much granularity one would want, to replicate a particular style of play.


More generally, stat type systems are terrible for covering stuff which are subjective.  Though within the scope of a particular game, such subjective stats in a system may be adequate enough for expediency.  (For example, INT, WIS, CHA in D&D/d20 style games).