TheRPGSite

Right now I have three RPG projects in my head.  One is complete, but beyond my means to actually make. The second is a 'source book', which ironically is fairly far along despite being almost a 'eh, I suppose' idea.

The third has slowly evolved here on the RPGsite. Some of you have seen the threads.  As Ideas strike me I try to hash them out. Recently I've started to see areas where I can't quite figure out how to use everything I've come up with.  Sometimes ideas seem diametrically opposed. Brilliant, at least to me, but incompatable.  I want to harness all that awesome and put it all together, and maybe, just maybe, get off my lazy ass and put out a god damn awesome game to shake the pillars of gamer heaven with. (okay, maybe stare at them really hard....;) ) I figure we have enough people here who have done that on their own, why reinvent the wheel... any more than I have to anyway.  Help me, a hobby designer, put my peices together, help me harnass the awesome.

What have I got?

Recently: Binary and gradiated skills.  Special abilities/Kung Fu rated by dots/levels for over the top combat (you'll have to see the threads for that... I'm not going all over it again here), the idea of fluid, dynamic initiative (rather than you go/I go)... paradigm breaking? Maybe.

heroic competence. No more failing to walk up the ramp to your ship and falling and breaking your leg. (I kid because I love....). If the other guy doesn't stop you, you succeed.   At least at skills you know.  

Baseline zero. Characters defined by their deviation from 'normal', which is zero... along multiple interlocking tracks. Attributes, Skills, Other stuff (kung fu dots, 'abilities'/advantages).  


My basic mechanic would appear to be a 2d6 roll against a 7, with indirect modifiers based on comparative values from stats and skills (and fu, I guess...). That is, if my Strength is higher than yours I get a +1, not a straight plus based on my Strength value.

Combat included dynamic 'point spending' where points were also, in abstract, health. You earn points for things that give you the upper hand, lose them both to use (using the upper hand to do something) damage (spending it to offset an enemy attack) or just losing said upper hand.  There were ideas that included shifting points between 'fixed' areas, and burning points 'permanently'.  This idea predates the 'Kung Fu combat' by some months and may either be incompatable, or incredibly compatable.  Kung Fu combat (where your Fu exhausts itself when used, abstracting health/endurance in a fight) is possibly an evolution of this idea applied to a specific idea of combat.

Psychological factors in combat being primary. May be unplayable.

Ship/mass combat being done via 'gestalted character'. That is a space ship in a dogfight is a character, made up of the ship's attributes and abilities and those of the crew in various roles, and is handled as a character in all ways. An army is a character, made up of the attributes and abilities of the units and leaders, and plays like a character.
 
This feels like a muddled mess, being as it's ripped from a dozen older threads of mine over the last year or so. And I'm certain I'm missing stuff, too. That's half the point of this, to start bringing it all together and start writing it up. First I gotta see what really belongs and what just won't work, and what I'm missing.

Oh, and if anyone is feeling charitable and technologically competent a nice list of links to my other threads would not go without a serious round of thanks.:deflated:

I've done some of those in various ways.

Binary and Graduated skills - the Magic in Book of Jalan is binary. If you power it, it works, no roll. Normal skills require a roll unless it's a normal action.

Heroic Competence - all my games. If a normally competent person can do this, you don't need to roll.

Dynamic point spending - also in Book of Jalan, and in the forthcoming Blood Games II. You temporarily burn your stats to power magic, and you can permanently burn stats to gain more powerful magic - it increases your bandwidth.

Baseline zero doesn't seem difficult at all. That's easily done, just a different way of looking at things.

The ship/mass combat thing has me scratching my head though. I wouldn't touch it with a D&D ten foot pole. It's weird, and only a demented Pika would think of it. :D

-clash

-clash

Well, Clash, I can't claim everything I think of is perfectly unique snowflakes (well.... they are, I tells ya!)

And a lot of them are not hard to do by themselves.  But the dynamic combat right now exists as a subsystem developed in a vacuum, along with the other stuff that half agglomed a while back. I'm still occasionally scratching my head at the Jalan thing I got from you a while back, so i can't comment there.


The binary skills thing is completely random ranting. I don't think it will be hard to do, I just need to figure out how to integrate it seemlessly into the bare bones framework, along with everything else I popped off with randomly in the last year.

I just was sitting around thinking about all the things I've been going on about and saying to myself 'Self... you have all these  ideas of what should be in a game to make it work better, and some pretty fine ideas for an actual game. Now what?'... and the answer was 'write it up and publish it'... only.... how do I take this mess and actually turn it into a manual of some sort?  there is no organization, no cohesion, only ideas. Lots and lots of ideas. So many Ideas I am certain I've forgotten a few of the cool ones.

Spike, what do you mean by "psychological factors in combat"? Freezing? Fear? Hesitation before the killing blow? Sledge Hammer and his gun?

Quote from: SosthenesSpike, what do you mean by "psychological factors in combat"? Freezing? Fear? Hesitation before the killing blow? Sledge Hammer and his gun?

More along the lines of stressing the importance of Morale in combat effectiveness.  The best trained olympic marksman can be useless in combat if he is terrified. This is what can make psychopaths/sociopaths so very dangerous in real life. They lack the compunctions that keep most of us from being effective killers, and why so much of soldier training is convincing people that they can, and will kill when the time comes.  

I had an example in one of my older threads were I have the Hitman confronted by a housewife and a swat cop, both had the superior position and weapon, but one was easily beaten.. not just because of lack of skill (that was a factor) but also because she was terrified of the killer, while the Swat dude's training and expirence made him confident in his own abilities and dismissive of the 'mythic power' Hitmen have on ordinary people.

Essentially your 'combat mentality' becomes almost more important than any physical skills you have. Unworkable, of course, because player characters tend to be immune to any non-magical psychology....;)

What about a "Courage" stat that influences initiative? Both courage and initiative are fluent, intimidate would be pretty powerful.

Quote from: SpikeWell, Clash, I can't claim everything I think of is perfectly unique snowflakes (well.... they are, I tells ya!)

Well, I wasn't claiming that either, as I hardly ever have original ideas, and when I get them I'm immediately suspicious of them - in fact the Jalan Magic system was thunk up by my son Klaxon, not by me at all. I was just saying "Don't worry, little pika, it can be done!"

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceWell, I wasn't claiming that either, as I hardly ever have original ideas, and when I get them I'm immediately suspicious of them - in fact the Jalan Magic system was thunk up by my son Klaxon, not by me at all. I was just saying "Don't worry, little pika, it can be done!"

-clash

There was supposed to be a smiley after my comment. I just got lazy trying to figure out which one represented 'righteous indignation'. :D

Quote from: SosthenesWhat about a "Courage" stat that influences initiative? Both courage and initiative are fluent, intimidate would be pretty powerful.

Racking my brain for more of my original thought processess here: I think there was supposed to be a place on the character sheet that represented essentially a character's default 'battle ready' state, based on various things including weapon skills, various 'advantages', which could then be modified by temporary things (outnumbering the other guys, being ambushed)... and that some 'advantages' would actually make the character in question immune to the effects of this stat (positive AND negative).

But Courage/intimidate actually didn't really fit well with what I was thinking. Of course, I think the original idea started to feel more like playing 'mass combat' than individual combat, which is another reason I stopped working on it back then...

Quote from: SpikeThere was supposed to be a smiley after my comment. I just got lazy trying to figure out which one represented 'righteous indignation'. :D

:snooty:? :grumpy:? :brood:? :bible:?

More seriously, some good shit in here.

Ship/mass combat being done via 'gestalted character'. That is a space ship in a dogfight is a character, made up of the ship's attributes and abilities and those of the crew in various roles, and is handled as a character in all ways. An army is a character, made up of the attributes and abilities of the units and leaders, and plays like a character.

Strangely enough, i've been working on something exactly the same as that. It's abstract as a concept and the devil is in detail. I don't think that a stat line is enough on it's own. I was going to have a 'hit point/health/wounds/whatever' stat that was actually a count of how many people were in the force. So, 55 hits=55 people. You can then run the combat as a PC vs PC and still know exactly how effective th fighting force is, downgrade the other stats to take that into account etc. A mass combat death spiral, if you like. If PCs are added to the mix, then i'd include what amount to feats or special abilities to the profile. These are things the the PCs bring to the force and only they (in game) can activate or act on them.

Well, for Dogfighting with small PC crewed ships I figured it would be simpler.  the pilot is the 'agility', and is used for such, the Engineer is the health/durability... with maybe a few extras for creative play.

Each player rolls only for what they actually do.  I had some ideas about synergy and teamwork play.

Mass combat, I agree, would be much more... convoluted.  Unless you had a PC 'quartermaster' and 'General' and I don't even know what else...

But most of those rolls could be/should be done prior to combat, not in it.  I'm not a fan of that 'retroactive roll' to see how well you did the day before.  I can see the utility of it, but I wouldn't want to make it a standard method of resolving things.

Quote from: SpikeWell, for Dogfighting with small PC crewed ships I figured it would be simpler.  the pilot is the 'agility', and is used for such, the Engineer is the health/durability... with maybe a few extras for creative play.

Each player rolls only for what they actually do.  I had some ideas about synergy and teamwork play.

Mass combat, I agree, would be much more... convoluted.  Unless you had a PC 'quartermaster' and 'General' and I don't even know what else...

But most of those rolls could be/should be done prior to combat, not in it.  I'm not a fan of that 'retroactive roll' to see how well you did the day before.  I can see the utility of it, but I wouldn't want to make it a standard method of resolving things.

I think the dogfight thing could work. Have baseline stats for different types of ship/craft and then add on the stats of the relevant PCs to get your end profile. This will then give you model variances like the old Spitfire vs Messerssmidt (sp?). So the advancement of your ship as you add more complex mechanical/electrical equipment (or upgrade to a better model) can act as a sort of character advancment for the craft too.

Quote from: One Horse TownI think the dogfight thing could work. Have baseline stats for different types of ship/craft and then add on the stats of the relevant PCs to get your end profile. This will then give you model variances like the old Spitfire vs Messerssmidt (sp?). So the advancement of your ship as you add more complex mechanical/electrical equipment (or upgrade to a better model) can act as a sort of character advancment for the craft too.

Yeah, definitely. You wouldn't discount a radical size difference in Armies just because one is commanded by Mother Russia herself (in other words, no one) and the other is commanded by Napolean....

Gads, thats aweful. Todays dose of aweful analogies curtesy of... welll.... me

More tidbits for the cookpot.

Some folks love Mook Rules. Some folks hate them.  I'm sort of in the middle, really.  The Awesome Kung Fu rules sort of imply a level of mookdom.  Obviously someone with a minimal level of 'Fu' dots, none or one, is pretty helpless in the face of others with more 'fu'.  (NOTE: Recall that the 'Fu' rules is shorthand for any and all 'heroic abilities' as well. I call if Fu because that's what i was thinking of when it came to me. The system, as envisioned/half-designed, should work equally well for magic, for example.)

Now, while hardly Canonical to the original inspiration to the idea (namely Final Fantasy Advent Children), Kung Fu movies are probably one of the biggest single sources for Mooks in gaming. In fact the first dedicated mook rules were in Feng Shui, which is lauded by many, including at one time me. (the newness has worn off, sadly).   I think, however, that the mook rules missed the boat in some ways in Feng Shui. Mooks are used by badguys to test the heros, to drain their resources, to soften them up for the final showdown. In FS mooks exists to be filler for the fight, someone for the players to mow down in droves to prove their coolness.  Now, that is not an invalid use of Mooks, by any stretch, but it's incomplete.  While FS mooks CAN be a challenge they aren't really useful to 'stress' the hero, to drain his ability to fight.


Now, since Mookdom is already inherent to the rules as 'written', why not use them fully.  Corresspondingly you have two types of 'Mooks'. The first type are just your 'unskilled' opponents, those without any Fu, or just minimal Fu.  Their purpose is that of any other 'unskilled' NPC.  Now, low 'Fu' NPC's (and characters) could still serve valuable roles in game.  That's a balance issue to be adressed, possibly by character creation. For example, the 'Fu' points could also be used to buy some other mechanical advantage that doesn't apply to combat. One has to decide how much Fu and how much 'not-Fu' to buy, low Fu characters conversely will have higher 'not-Fu' abilities.  

But the second use of Mooks would be this: They are 'Fu Points' available primarily to NPC's.  A Villian (traditionally, though in theory a hero could have mooks supporting him...) could be given access to 'extra fu points' in the form of a Mook rating.  Now, like all other fu he has to divy up his abilities within that feild. Mooks are rated in 'numbers' and 'quality'.  Each dot of Mook-Fu provides inherently One Mook.  Each Mook uses the full Mook-Fu rating as their ability, and each Mook has to be knocked down individually, thus potentially 'exhausting' the hero's fu. Now, optionally, a point of Mook-Fu can be traded away for extra bodies. Say five.  Now, this weakens all mooks bought with that track of Mook-Fu. You can have multiple tracks.

So, the bad guy in Big Trouble in Little Chinatown had two tracks of Mook-Fu. One was the streetgang, one was the 'Four thunders'.  Lets say each had four points of Fu.

Each of the four thunders was worth Four points of Fu in a fight, making them pretty bad ass opponents for that level of adventure (Jack Burton had One Fu point.. catching thrown objects! Maybe Two if you have a generic 'lucky bastard Fu')

The Street Gangers had One point of Fu... enough to make them a threat to Jack, but not anyone else. They could have 19 gangers in any fight (one for each point, trade away three for 15 extras). In theory, they could have traded away all four points for 24 bodies, but then they are barely a threat at all, being unable to roll at all against anyone with Fu (defensively that is, they could still attack, thus possibly (just possibly) exhausting defensive Fu).

Now: the four thunders don't have to be modeled using Mook Rules.  Given that they had a few lines/independent scenes (well, two of them did) they could just as easily be modeled as lesser villians. Henchvillians, really.  Also, the Big Bad couldn't tap the Mooks as Fu when Jack stuck him in the head, they'd been exhausted fighting the party mooks (see, players can get mooks too...), and the only remaining Thunders were too far away.  The big bad used his last Fu point to catch the knife in the first place, but Jack still had his 'catch thrown objects' Fu to fall back on.  The right point of Fu in the right place, at the right time saves the day!

What do you think?

Another idea that got missed in the general confusion was the utter removal of the traditional 'attributes' portion of the character.

This is an evolution of the 'Baseline Zero' idea.  Rather than watch people 'not get it', that their strength 'zero' guy was as strong as necessary to be a competent hero... I thought the game design should reinforce the 'baseline' from the ground up.

And removing attributes struck me as a valid way to go. Every game I've ever seen or heard of has had attributes. To be honest, when I first started looking outside the D&D box, I was a little surprised at that, how similar they all were.  It's like attributes are a sacred cow of gaming.

Read my sig.


I don't really think they are necessary. All too often, in too many games, attributes are almost vestigial as it is. The counterbalance is to make them central to the game, more important than any other value (GURPS, for example, tends to go this way at times....).

Given their often vestigial nature at times it struck me that there is no real need for everyone to have big fat 'stat blocks' at the start of the character creation.

Instead I plan to expand the 'Advantages/Disadvantages' instead to fill that core.

If 'Fu' is the heart and soul of the new combat system, the 'Ad/Disad' portion is the heart and soul of defining a character from Tabula Rasa.  Strong is bought as an advantage. Agility is bought as an advantage. Genius is bought as an Advantage, no more or less important or unique than ambidexterity, for example.

Disadvantages: On that note I have the idea, rather than lists of collected problems (a la GURPS) to have every character have some flaw, some disadvantage that they should have to deal with or overcome. One.  I have toyed with compensating the character for various levels of disadvantage. This is your weakness or fragility, or perhaps your unreasoning fear of snakes, or your Hubris.  The reason to provide compensation is that by having everyone pick one singular flaw (or perhaps allowing for 'none'), you avoid having everyone take the weakest and least interesting flaws.  

I feel that not 'rewarding' players for taking weaknesses or flaws is foolish 'pie in the sky' thinking.  Motivating people requires, at times, a firm understanding of rewards and punishments.  I could go into the actual theories involved, but you get my point.

Quote from: SpikeAnother idea that got missed in the general confusion was the utter removal of the traditional 'attributes' portion of the character.

This is an evolution of the 'Baseline Zero' idea.  Rather than watch people 'not get it', that their strength 'zero' guy was as strong as necessary to be a competent hero... I thought the game design should reinforce the 'baseline' from the ground up.

And removing attributes struck me as a valid way to go. Every game I've ever seen or heard of has had attributes. To be honest, when I first started looking outside the D&D box, I was a little surprised at that, how similar they all were.  It's like attributes are a sacred cow of gaming.

I considered the same thing for a while.  Whenever I go back to my scribblings, I always start considering it again.

But I always come back to them.

One of the possible solutions was to have them, but to subsume them during play.  IOW, attributes were only important for determining how well one could learn to do something, etc. But during play, you really didn't go to attributes.

Now the fact that you move them to advantages/disadvantages is an interesting approach, I'm just wondering what it changes? I mean, if I can buy Strong or get points for Weak, what have I done except remove a quantifiable attribute and add a more descriptive version of the same information in it's place?

I'm not disagreeing - I struggled with the same issues and I'm curious as to your thought processes on the matter...

Quote from: James J SkachNow the fact that you move them to advantages/disadvantages is an interesting approach, I'm just wondering what it changes? I mean, if I can buy Strong or get points for Weak, what have I done except remove a quantifiable attribute and add a more descriptive version of the same information in it's place?

I'm not disagreeing - I struggled with the same issues and I'm curious as to your thought processes on the matter...

Well, there is always a need to define a character as 'strong' or 'not strong', and if they are actually 'weak' you should define that too.   The key point, for me, is that relatively speaking we don't really have to track variations of strength across a spectrum. Most times a character is either defined as being stronger than everyone else, or they are not defined by their strength at all.

Going along with that, the Baseline Zero concept was that your average Hero (all zeros, say) could very well be Indiana Jones, running and jumping and so forth with abandon.  A player shouldn't feel inferior for having a 'lower stat' than another hero, particularly if it's not their 'schtick'. By having every stat laid out with numbers, you create a sort of competetion over stats, and everyone tries to either 'bulk up' their stat lines or whatever.  It's artificial and unnecessary to define a character that way.

In D&D, for example, a 10 in a stat is viewed as 'weak'.  It's supposed to be 'average' neither strong nor weak. I've seen players that dismiss anything under 13 as weak, I've played where I bemoaned that my 15's felt weak compared to other players. Then I slapped myself a few times and ignored my stats.

If James wants to play a strong character, he puts 'strength' down on his sheet. If he just wants a powerful fighter, and isn't concerned with his strength, he leaves it off and spends the points on, say... 'Sword Fu' or something.

It's a psychological shift, moving perception where it should be... I hope.

Quote from: SpikeWell, there is always a need to define a character as 'strong' or 'not strong', and if they are actually 'weak' you should define that too.   The key point, for me, is that relatively speaking we don't really have to track variations of strength across a spectrum. Most times a character is either defined as being stronger than everyone else, or they are not defined by their strength at all.

Going along with that, the Baseline Zero concept was that your average Hero (all zeros, say) could very well be Indiana Jones, running and jumping and so forth with abandon.  A player shouldn't feel inferior for having a 'lower stat' than another hero, particularly if it's not their 'schtick'. By having every stat laid out with numbers, you create a sort of competetion over stats, and everyone tries to either 'bulk up' their stat lines or whatever.  It's artificial and unnecessary to define a character that way.

So, to follow up, how do you differentiate between two characters? Let's say, just for discussion, an arm wrestling contest. What about something like trying to roll the 500lb boulder from in front of the cave entrance?

Not that attributes help - I'm just drawing out the concepts a bit more to help me make that shift. I'm so driven by quantification (it's in the genes) that I struggle to move beyond it sometimes.  Like I said, I've kicked the idea around, but my breeding keeps dragging me back...

Quote from: James J SkachSo, to follow up, how do you differentiate between two characters? Let's say, just for discussion, an arm wrestling contest. What about something like trying to roll the 500lb boulder from in front of the cave entrance?

Not that attributes help - I'm just drawing out the concepts a bit more to help me make that shift. I'm so driven by quantification (it's in the genes) that I struggle to move beyond it sometimes.  Like I said, I've kicked the idea around, but my breeding keeps dragging me back...

When I originally posted the Idea a few months back, I made the intial buy in 'open ended'.

That is, you buy strength, say for five points. Now, if anyone wants to be strong they must pay AT LEAST five points.

Mechanically you get the same benefit if you put 5 points into it, or 50. The only reason to put extra in is for when you are confronting someone with the same advantage.

So, two strong guys get into a fight. One guy put no extra points in, the other guy put in 1. the first guy actually 'loses' the benefit of his Strength against the second.  He's still strong against anyone else, but not against any other 'strong' people.  Guy two loses his 'strength' against anyone with one or more points 'extra'.

Now, you also have other advantages the could be factors, different levels.

Sosuke from Kenshin (anime) is a normal looking guy, but he is 'Strong', making him a powerful opponent to everyone he meets.

Yet he does get beaten occasionally by brutes who's strength is as far beyond his as his is to ordinary fighters. Generally they are massive giants of men. They are 'Brutes', who are to Strong people what strong people are to ordinary people.

Or we can look to something like Jet Li's Black Mask, where all the supersoldiers, among other things, are Strong.  Supersoldier is the actual advantage, yet it counts as "Strong" among other things. Buying Strong on top of that makes the Supersoldier strong even comparatively... it stacks.

Interesting - seems almost Amber-influenced...

Thanks - you've given me something to think about...

Quote from: James J SkachInteresting - seems almost Amber-influenced...

Thanks - you've given me something to think about...

I'm not sure using 'open ended' automatically mean's it's amber influenced, but then again its nearly impossible to do anything truely unique without alienating the audience.

I can see the resemblence, however.  The only real difference is that Amber assumes that a significant percentage of players will be opt-in on Strength et cet. while I assume that a significant percentage won't.

To be honest, I think the multiple types of scaled 'strong' owes more to Heroes Unlimited....;)

Quote from: SpikeI'm not sure using 'open ended' automatically mean's it's amber influenced, but then again its nearly impossible to do anything truely unique without alienating the audience.

I can see the resemblence, however.  The only real difference is that Amber assumes that a significant percentage of players will be opt-in on Strength et cet. while I assume that a significant percentage won't.

To be honest, I think the multiple types of scaled 'strong' owes more to Heroes Unlimited....;)

Ahh...well we can only see the influences from things we know...

It's kinda like Amber in that players can bid up from the base and that your strength is important in relation to others - like coming in second in the bidding, you get to be second strongest. You'll kick every else's ass, but that person that won - you'll have to be careful around that individual...

So in your setup the guy who only buys another 5 can still kick ass - he's 5 points higher than Strong! - but he might run into the person who bought another 6 points - and then he'll have to be careful of her...

That's just my first impression when you explained it - my mind went right back to the examples in Amber for some reason.

The Irony, James, is that apparently FATE/Fudge/Whatever already did away with static attributes and has 'attributes' as aspects.

Too freeform for my tastes, etc, yadda yadda, so forth.

Not unique at all, just outside my realm.

bastards. :( :p

Dare I quote about roses and names and olfactory senses?

Quote from: James J SkachDare I quote about roses and names and olfactory senses?

I must be tired. It took three read throughs for me to get that.  I think Ima sleep through the entire weekend. I haven't been awake all week!

:haw:

I know the feeling...

I was thinking about this last night and I was kicking around the idea of just having skills that match the things the attributes "cover."

so for Strength, you could have a lifting skill, etc. Then I just get bogged down trying to figure out what the "Lifting" skill would represent, mechanically.  Then end up back at attributes...

It's a viscious cycle what with the quantifying and the mathing...

Quote from: James J Skach:haw:

I know the feeling...

I was thinking about this last night and I was kicking around the idea of just having skills that match the things the attributes "cover."

so for Strength, you could have a lifting skill, etc. Then I just get bogged down trying to figure out what the "Lifting" skill would represent, mechanically.  Then end up back at attributes...

It's a viscious cycle what with the quantifying and the mathing...

I suppose it depends on how detailed you want to get in 'modeling reality'.  I don't see a need for a 'lifting skill', as I have no intention into getting into weights and measures for things, thus necessitating the level of detail a 'lifting skill' more or less dictates.

Are you an ordinary heroic guy? Yeah? You can carry ordinary things without problems, but forget moving that twenty foot tall statue. Are you 'strong'? Okay, tossing refridgerators around isn't out of the question then.

Do we really want to know the exact weight comparison? I don't. Its too much detail, too 'mundane' for the sort of play I'm looking at.

You cut me to the quick, sir.  Mundane?  That's the best you could conjur?

I understand.  But it was an example. Even take your own breakdown.  You have different levels of "strength," No? It seems to me that it's all about where you want to be in a broad spectrum of detail.

So you're not talking about doing anything but abstracted to a hand-waved resolution mechanism.

What's the result if Joe, who bought "Strong" for five, says "I pick up the concrete block and throw it at the approaching mob." What about, "I pick up the VW." What about "I pick up the Mack truck."

I'm not being facetious.  I don't expect that your answer will match my preference or anything like that; I'm just curious as to how Joe does this if he's no different than Frank who bought "Strong" up to 50 if the difference only matters when they face each other.

Now in Amber, this is handled by the "We're essentially gods, so we can do just about anything (within reason)," and other setting constraints.  How are you going to handle that?

Quote from: James J SkachYou cut me to the quick, sir.  Mundane?  That's the best you could conjur?

I understand.  But it was an example. Even take your own breakdown.  You have different levels of "strength," No? It seems to me that it's all about where you want to be in a broad spectrum of detail.

So you're not talking about doing anything but abstracted to a hand-waved resolution mechanism.

What's the result if Joe, who bought "Strong" for five, says "I pick up the concrete block and throw it at the approaching mob." What about, "I pick up the VW." What about "I pick up the Mack truck."

I'm not being facetious.  I don't expect that your answer will match my preference or anything like that; I'm just curious as to how Joe does this if he's no different than Frank who bought "Strong" up to 50 if the difference only matters when they face each other.

Now in Amber, this is handled by the "We're essentially gods, so we can do just about anything (within reason)," and other setting constraints.  How are you going to handle that?

Part of that depends on the 'power level'.  So for example, if you were running something more ordinary (say a Kung Fu flick) where tossing cars was out of the question, then Strong guys could huck a cinder block with relative ease, but cars are out of the question. the 'open ended' portion doesn't have a mechanical difference to the game except as a point of comparison in contests with other 'strong guys'.  Even if you put a thousand points into being 'strong' the brute with the bare minimum (brute being our 'next level up'...) is still stronger than you, he's on another scale.

And in our Kung Fu Flick reality, he's the guy you go to if you want cars moved. Probably not hucked, but moved. And with a big grunting, groaning, dice rolling sort of scene, he could move that mack truck by virtue of being that fucking strong. Still no Hucking, however

On the other hand, the same scale could be used in 'superheros' mode, where Strong guys toss VW bugs around and Brutes (probably Bricks for Genre reasons) DO toss Mack trucks and struggle with small planetiods.

What I want to avoid is cross referenceing the exact weight of the car against your ability to toss a 1 kilo rock, with areodynamics to determine that.... hey, look at that, it's easier just to punch the guy!

Punching? How mundane... ;)

Ok, so you're saying that by approaching it in this manner, you remove some of the issues of scale that rear up when a rule system shifts amongst genres without having to do some crazy exponential calculations - is that close?

By having something like strength, or any traditional attriute, represented more by a descriptive text, you can shift easier as there's no strict mechanical tie in?

But then you mention rolling the dice to see if the Brute can move the truck - so what does the roll represent? How does that help resolve whether or not he can move the truck?

Again, I'm curious - not trying to be atagonistic...

You have to test in order to have the possibility of failure. You have to have the possibility of failure for there to be a challenge.

Part of it is knowing what scale you are playing in, yes.  An ordinary person would never roll to pick up a heavy bag or a chunk of rock the size of a head, but they would roll if it was a large bag of gold, or their wounded comrade they had to save from incoming artillery.  A strong person wouldn't test for those, but would test to hold up a section of rock wall from collapsing long enough for their comrades to get out.

And again, depending on the 'scale' of the system, a brute might be simply rolling easier for the same tests or might be capable of feats that lesser mortals could not even attempt... in the mortal scale, a Brute might hurl a motorcycle a dozen feet.

Given the 2d6 premise, tests start at a roll against a seven, with bonuses added where appropriate.  The mortal scale (given the premise, this is 'heroic mortals' tests are open to anyone, so an ordinary human rolls brute level tests at -2, a brute rolls Strong tests at +1 (notional, mind you... I still have to write it all down and get playtesting going so I can work out exact results).

Actually, unless the situation was dire, the Brute wouldn't have to roll at all on normal or strong tests.  Likewise there needs to be some guidelines for the fact that a strong guy might successfully test to 'huck a bike', but he's not going to get as good a result as the Brute can.

I am toying with the idea of 'exhausting' things too. A Strong person might, if forced to test strength too often or too hard (say, doing a 'Brute' test) wind up temporarily only 'normal' strength... Like Fu. The other idea is to stress that advantages are not like Fu, they never go away... particularly if there is an exchange of points across a medium. Strong might cost more than a Fu that lets you be strong, but unlike the Fu, you are always strong, no matter what you do.  It's two ways of approaching it (strength could be two dots of 'Fu like' for a brute in this case)

Okay, this is sort of a kludge example of how things seem to be shaping up.

Joe, our example dude, is an ordinary run of the mill hero. He's so ordinary he doesn't even have stats or skills listed, he's a blank sheet. Note, however, that Joe is not 'unplayable' in this state.  

Right now, Joe can accomplish any ordinary task 100% of the time. He can drive his car, argue with the neighbors, even shoot a gun at the local range. These are unopposed tasks.

Hell, if we go with a 'heroic Characters' optional rule, he can even win competitions and catch street thugs, whup ass etc, as long his opponents are only ordinary NPC's... mooks if you will. Its only other PC's or 'Villians'... that is to say heroic scale NPC's threats that he has to roll.

Now, if Joe is opposed by Evil Steve, a Villian... also a blank character sheet... they are equally capable.  Joe has to roll a 7+ on 2d6 to win any contest against Evil Steve. (Alternatively, Evil Steve can also roll. the contest is a draw until only one rolls a success.  This allows for narration of events as they progress, and models how PvP contests could work.)

there is the possibility that Joe would roll and win, then Evil Steve would roll, also unopposed, and win or lose, reflecting actions that are not directly opposed.  there is also the ability to model degrees of success, for example if doing a single 'there can be only one' moment. In which case the higher roll is 'better'.

Now: Let us say that Joe is not entirely blank. Let's say that, in heroic fashion, Joe is 'strong'.  He has bought the advantage 'strong' for himself. In contests of strength, Joe has an advantage. Let's say Evil Steve bought 'dexterous', stealing from D&D for the moment for naming.

If Evil Steve opposes Joe in a weight lifting contest Joe is rolling at +1 to his dice, while Evil Steve is rolling at -1.  If, on the other hand, they were in an archery contest, Evil Steve get's the +1 and Joe the penalty. Evil Steve is much better off opposing Joe in archery.

Now, in the first example, any loss removes the loser from the fight, period.  Obviously the nature of the contest has something to do with it as well. Evil Steve doesn't die because Joe beats him at a painting contest.

If Joe and Evil Steve were in a fist fight, as blank characters, the first telling blow wins the fight.  Due to the simplicity of the characters, we could model it with the simple contest (the first person to succeed without the other wins), but as it's a fight, lets stick to a more complete example.

Joe needs to both hit, and damage, Evil Steve.  Both are opposed rolls.  Since the name of the game is 'dynamic', Evil Steve gets to roll. Joe can describe his blows however he likes, since he doesn't have any Fu, this means nothing mechanically.  Evil Steve can explain how he defends.

Defender wins ties.  

now, lets say Joe is 'Strong' and Evil Steve is 'Nimble'.  Joe can use his Strong on offense or for damage rolls. Evil Steve can use Nimble on Offense or Defense, but not for damage or resist checks.  The default assumption is that they could use them for all relevant checks, rather than one or the other, but for the purpose of this example we will treat them as "Fu", where a seperate Fu has to be used for any given purpose.  Likewise, normally Advantages don't get exhausted.

Combat is fluid, rather than static. Joe uses his Strong to punch Evil Steve, rolling at +1. Rather than use his Nimble to Dodge, Evil Steve rolls straight and uses his Nimble to strike offensively at the same time.

Joe: I punch him powerfully.

ES: I leap up over his fist and kick him in the face.

Joe rolls then to hit, Evil Steve rolls both to dodge and to kick, applying his +1 to the kick. Joe also gets to dodge the kick, Dice clatter.

Joe: I ignore your feeble blow, swatting you from the air.

(Evil Steve failed to 'hit' Joe, which Joe decided meant he didn't land a solid blow.  Evil Steve, however, failed to dodge as well, meaning Joe get's to roll his damage. However, Joe doesn't get his Strong to damage dice. Wanting to end the fight, however, Joe decides to burn his strength, removing it from the fight in return for a garaunteed 'hit' on damage.  Evil Steve can't roll his nimble to absorb the hit... since he has no Fu to oppose Joe's powerful blow, he takes damage, losing his 'Nimble' by default.  Let's say Evil Steve gets creative and wheedles the GM into letting him 'roll with the blow', absorbing the damage. He can now roll.  Defenses can exhaust Fu faster than offense, particularly since this is a 'non-standard' defence. If Evil Steve rolls doubles, his Fu is exhausted. If he FAILS his Fu is exhausted. If he fails on a double, he loses TWO... in this case losing the fight entirely as he has no other fu to burn.  Now, if Evil Steve had 'tough' instead of Nimble, he doesn't risk two Fu's on a failed double, in fact he may not have to worry about doubles at all, since Tough would be used primarily to soak damage. On the other hand, if he used Tough to 'dodge' by 'shrugging off a blow' then he'd risk exhausting it.

Why would anyone risk 'tough' that way? Presumably to reduce the threat from a Fu that had nasty damage dealing capabilities but wasn't so good at 'hitting'. Say a 'Dim Mak Death Touch' power that could exhaust two or more Fu's automatically... if it 'hit'.

That is the very rough outline of how things are shaping up. Anyone got anything good, bad or indiferent to say?

In the previous post I attempted to illuminate the barest bones of the basic system.  Now it's time to detail the 'core' of the dynamic combat system: Fu

As I've mentioned 'Fu' is rated by Dots.  Let's put a practical limit of five dot's in any given 'Fu'.  Note that exceeding Five is still possible, particularly since Fu is not directly rolled, but as each dot gets progressively bigger it's probably wiser to spread your points around some.

To begin with there are some 'Basic Fu' that anyone and everyone should have some points in. Punching, kicking, dodging... stuff like that.  These are less flexible than other Fu, being partially or wholy predefined. I lean towards partially.  Advanced Fu is your actual 'martial art' or 'super power' or what have you.

Fu is broken down into Lores and Techniques.  Every Fu starts with a lore. let's say lore is five points.  Your first dot of any Fu is going to be it's basic Lore.

Basic Fu's are limited to Lore only, no Techniques.

When you buy a second dot you may chose to either expand the Lore by Two points, or buy a technique worth 5. Splitting is 1/3 only... and may not be allowed.

Here is why this is important.

Every Fu, even the basic Fu is defined by it's own attributes. Strike, defend, damage, resist and others. Attributes include 0/1 weapons: If the fu is weapon dependent it costs 0 points from your lore (in return you get a +1 to the attributes...all four basic ones anyway), if it costs one, you can use a weapon, but it isn't required. 2 points of weapons would mean 'any weapon'.  Extra points can be bought for 'negative attributes'... like prerequiste technique (another Fu at 3) would give an additional point.   the actual list of attributes and costs will be longer than four+, but we're starting small here.

Anyway: Lore attributes are allways 'on' when using that Fu. If you roll that Fu, you get that lore bonus. Stacking Fu's is on the table, but uncertain.

Techniques are tied to Dots. If you bought a technique at 5, and you exhaust a dot of that Fu, you lost that level five technique. Techniques are specific moves or subsets of moves within the Fu itself.  I have considered making higher level Techniques worth a few extra points to prevent everyone from stacking techniques at the bottom of the pile then buying lore on top as 'cushion'.


Levels of 'exhausting':  Damage is when you lost a Fu due to enemy action. You failed a resist, for example.  Damage heals when the GM says it heals.. the default is between adventures, but the GM might allow a 'down' character to be 'healed' in time for a climactic fight, particularly if they voluntarily sat out of scenes to 'recuperate'.

Burned: the character sacrificed a Fu for an automatic success. This CAN be to resist damage. Burnt Fu comes back only after a scene has passed without the character fighting (using Fu).

Exhausted: This is Fu that came up Doubles on a check (failed check) and got 'tired'.  Characters automatically recover one exhausted Fu at the end of any fight, they also recover one if they won the fight.  It may be that trading 'two' recovered Fu's is worth one Burnt Fu.


I think there should be attributes only available as Techniques: Double Damage for example is awfully powerful sounding as a Lore, particularly if it stacked with a technique for extra double damage (three Fu for the price of one!)


Now: Some Fu's should be stackable. The basic Fu's should stack with Advanced Fu, but I don't think Advance Fu should stack with itself, or basic with itself. Perhaps buying 'stackable' should be an attribute 'may stack with Punching', say.  Perhaps, as standard, every Fu get's 'ONE' free stacking attribute. Of course, stacking punching with Sword Fu becomes problematic, though the best way to handle that is...

I guess I'm the only one working on this here, but it's easiest to keep things together, so here goes:

Armor and generic weapons combat: essentially equipment works like Fu dots. Armor gives you defensive dots to roll, and possibly sacrifice. This is just a simple explanation, obviously there might be other effects. In heroic sources things like Guns can be immune to Fu defenses, but be stopped cold by armor... in some sources. So that sort of thing should be possible in the system as well.  

Here is the thing: There is a distinct difference from picking up a gun and having dot's of Gun to use and having a 'Gun Fu' with it's own dots.  

First of all, equipment dots are preconfigured and 'untrainable'. If you buy a gun, steal a gun, lose a gun, the dots stay with the gun. The gun doesn't learn.  The Gun may even be better than a lone dot of Gun Fu...

Gun Fu, despite needing a Gun, wouldn't use the 'Gun' Dots, but it's own dots. Like any other Fu reliant on equipment, it gets bonuses from the necessary equipment built right into the beginning lore.  Gun Fu can then be trained, and in training can be configured by the player.

now, if  a Gun Fu character picks up an equipment 'Gun' he can chose EITHER to use the Gun's internal dots or his Gun Fu Dots, and risks exhausting whichever he uses as normal.  Without an equipment Gun he is normally assumed to have a 'gun' as part of his Fu, but without Dots of it's own. Unless the 'gun' is taken away from him somehow.  In fact, given the dynamics of combat, it may even be that he 'magically' produces more guns as needed until/unless they are taken from him or he exhausts his Fu.

Same with Armor, you can have equipment armor and Defensive Fu armor, and the equipment armor can be used as the Fu armor, but not vice versa.


That said I have a few problems as is: One, while I imagine this as incredibly dynamic, in and of itself it doesn't seem as dynamic as I'd like.  Right now the purpose seems merely to grind down one another's Fu dots... which in itself is problematic. Death spirals are undynamic. Where is my resolute hero, rising bloody but unbroken to lay down the serious almighty smackdown on the badguy????

Second, I haven't made much of my vaunted 'fluid inititative'.  This, at least, I think I have answers for.

I've mentioned the concept a few times, even vaguely... really vaguely illustrated it in my crude example a couple of posts ago. But what does it mean exactly?

I mean, it's one thing not to declare that there are no 'turns', it's another thing to mean it for real.  People like to break things into discreet chunks, moresoe in a structured setting like a game.

So, what does 'fluid initiative' mean? First of all, we remove the whole concept of 'rolling for initiative'.  Not unique and hardly a great accomplishment.   Now, to cease any cries of 'but how do we know who goes first!!!???''

It doesn't matter.  While we can suggest, for the purposes of description only (in other words, I would leave it out of actual game text to prevent it gaining some sort of canonicity) that combat consists of open ended 'passes', the fact is that for most contests, speed isn't an issue. I punch you, you punch me, we defend... resolve actions simultaniously for a given 'pass'.  

When does it become an issue? when one of the participants makes it an issue.

"I stop him before he hit's the girl!" "I knock him out before he connects with his unstoppable death touch!" "I chase him down and ass rape him with a longhorn steer!"

When a character or Villian makes speed an issue, then they test for it, and only then.  What stops a player from attempting to co-opt his opponents actions are two factors: One, each time you test you risk exhausting the Fu you are testing.  Secondly, if you lose, you automatically give the advantage to your opponent. That is, if you were attempting to stop them from hitting someone, you failed and they hit that someone. If you attempt to co-opt their attack, they hit.    Obviously, in the some instances your attempt to co-opt the attack is actually a form of defense. In fairness, co-opting like that would mean that the other guy doesn't test for exhaustion of the Attack Fu (though if he used one for speed, and he'd have to in order to oppose you he'd test THAT one for exhaustion... reminder that exhaustion is not tested seperately, it's part of the initial roll)

However, that still leaves us in 'turn' based combat, just without emphasis on 'order of hits'.  Not fluid, just illusionary fluidity.

Here is the thing: We make no real limit on how many attacks you can launch at once/in order.  Again, think over the top kung fu battles with flurries of attacks and so forth.  Exalted, notoriously, treats this as a single attack with multiple 'sub attacks' D&D gives us iterative attacks on the same initiative, more complex and less well known systems resolve it in a number of ways... some good and bad.

Well. As much as I like reductive initiative values for sequential actions, that isn't what I have in mind for dynamic fluid combat.

No. Here if you say 'I kick him three times rapidly with my lightning Foot Without Shadow Fu' it means literally you attack him three times. He can defend three times, that is the default, he could wait until your three attacks are over and then launch a counter attack.. that is sort of a default as well.

Or he could pre-empt your combo by declaring he catches your foot and throws you into the wall.

Here is the thing, he doesn't have to declare it until each attack is resolved seperately. Any action or reaction he takes can be declared at any point, and if the GM allows, can invalidate your stated combo at any point.  Again, it comes down to testing fu and being able to explain 'how' you do it.

And nothing stops the declaring player or GM from announcing that the triple kick is just a single overwhelming assault, leaving it to a single test either.

Now, this works with other players as well. If you are busy launching your 'triple kick' against the villian, one of his henchmen could decide as you resolve kick two, to take the blow for his boss. Or to attack you from behind, or...

Or one of your allies from cold cocking the bastard while he's busy defending against you!  

The only problem then lies in keeping it from being an unholy mess of announced actions! Obviously certain actions need to be resolved in the order they affect one another.  There is the logically concept that only one 'combo' can be in play from any player at a time, that helps a little. A player can change any 'unresolved' actions as a free reaction to declared actions, but loses the unresolved actions they have already declared. If Joe wants to dodge the attack from behind he will have to stop his triple kick, otherwise he can only resist it.






there are, of course, bonuses and penalties in combat that have nothing to do with Fu Techniques or Lores.  

Also, there is the unresolved method of handling tiered abilities. If you want to attack someone with a stealth skill, say by sneaking up on them and clocking them with a vase, you can. there is no 'clock with vase Fu' unless you invent one.  You would be then testing against your sneaky skill, instead of Fu. On the other hand, if the opponent choses to oppose your stealth with Fu, by default he wins without testing.. unless I change the relative value of Fu. If he choses to 'test' fu for an automatic win, perhaps he should still 'test' just to see if he exhausts it. Using Fu should never really be 'free' in a fight.

This leads me to discuss automatic knock outs: right now the only way to win any fight is to exhaust the other person's Fu.  There is the vague notion of 'special abilities' bought as part of technique packages that leave me the option of easier KO's, but really there should be some valid mechanism outside of advanced Fu techniques to allow for even tough opponents to be brought low even by unskilled, but lucky, enemies.  Literature is ripe with stories of the heros and villians being knocked senseless, even killed, by relative nobodies who caught them off-guard.  Likewise, if the only way to win the fight is by exhausting your opponents Fu, the entire combat comes down to resource management... hardly dynamic.  The co-opting attacks text in this post makes me think of the potential for 'gambling'. Put 'everything' behind that one, surprise, blow. If the opposed test if lost then the gambling player loses... well, everything. They missed, overextended themselves and left themselves defenseless in the face of a nasty opponent. The exact mechanism is uncertain, but certainly temporarily stripping the ability to attack or defend sounds right.   The nasty twist comes when the defending player, faced with an easy opening, decides to 'gamble' for an instant win... sounds overbalanced, but I don't think it is 'uncanon'

Dunno... thinking must be done. Be easier if people had comments. (yes, I am shamelessly begging... )

Well.... I'm mostly talking to myself now, but I guess there is value in it.

One thing I've ignored up to this point:

I have been impressed with a certain subset of 'characterization' mechanics in the past.  I'm a Fading Suns fan, I've admitted, though their 'spiritual traits' are poorly implemented they provided an interesting look at what was to come.  Better implemented by far were the beliefs mechanics of Burning Empires, which downright impressed me.   This follows too with 'Circles', though that is unrelated to what I'm about to address.

It may be a holdover from my idealistic youth, but I've long loved the idea that people, be they real or characters, could be driven to nearly superhuman efforts by things they love or desire.  I used to hold that with a powerful enough will one could stave off death indefinitely.  While I know realistically that this is untrue, for the purposes of mythic storytelling... yes, even Gaming can apply... it is a powerful tool.  One that is poorly reflected in many games.  

There is the strong temptation to reflect 'beliefs' in terms of 'Fu Dots', stealing my existant mechanic for tracking things.  At first I rebelled at this easy answer, but with a little thought I found I could, in fact, use it.

So: A character should have motivations, beliefs, or things that move him. Those things are player defined, but range from 'I must be the greatest warrior to walk the earth' or 'I love Mary Jane' or 'Democracy is the greatest form of government' to 'George Bush is a great president'. No matter how absurd or personal or even cliched and generic, if the player defines it, they can play it.  Obviously we need some rules for how to define them, rate them. Perhaps as dull as 'select three', or 'three dots worth of...'. where the player can divide up his beliefs, spreading them around or making a powerful single motivating force.

Now, one accepted benefit of this is it gives the GM an easy tool to make for interesting... to the player, Roleplaying expirences. I'm sort of crappy at this sort of thing at my table... players roam about willy nilly and the NPC's are dull and lifeless if the PC's don't seek them out for interesting conversations..

Now, I am tempted to allow for belief 'dot's to be divided up into lore style ratings, but I think that's too complex, going too far.  Let's leave them as 'generic' Dots.

Here is how it works: Dots are used just like Fu dots, they can allow a roll where no roll was allowed before (for lack of an appropriate Fu), can be burnt, exhausted or otherwised used... as long as the Motivation is being challenged. Mary Jane falling to her death? Use the 'I love MJ' Dot to pull some incredibly daring rescue attempt. Burn it for an automatic success even!  Someone else going to marry MJ? use the Dot to whup the badguy to impress her... or get involved in a cross country chase to let her know you are still alive; any time something threatens the success of that mission, the Motivation is 'in play', there for the player's use.

By itself it's pretty dull, extra hit points mostly I suppose. I figure, using the Kung Fu Movie method, however, to swap a Motivation Dot for an actual Fu dot.  If a Motivation Dot has been exhausted or burnt in a fight that the player LOST (and here we get to GM advice that players losing to the big bad should not, generally, be the end of the game... or even a 'bad thing') they can, via a 'training montage' trade it for a free dot of Fu.   Fu is more useful as it provides actual modifiers to rolls and can be used 'whenever', while the lost Motivation dot can be 'regained' easier than Fu can be gained.

Obviously this needs refinement.

The idea of 'social circles' built into the character are much easier to put in. Again we rate things in dots, but unlike Beliefs, social dots are definitely broken into 'lore' points.  You have things like 'connections' and 'freinds' and the like, the exact list is still murky, but your ability to tap your Social Dots is dependent upon how the player views their character. Some people will have lots of individuals they know personally, others are more removed but will know a lot about how the subculture functions, maybe who the movers and shakers are.  Like all other 'dot' rated mechanics, social dots can be exhausted or burnt, the more you use them the more likely you are to weaken your ability.

Sorry Spike - I've been away from the Internet for a little bit (and going through withdrawl...)

So I'm going to start back a bit and try to catch up.

Quote from: SpikeIf Evil Steve opposes Joe in a weight lifting contest Joe is rolling at +1 to his dice, while Evil Steve is rolling at -1. If, on the other hand, they were in an archery contest, Evil Steve get's the +1 and Joe the penalty. Evil Steve is much better off opposing Joe in archery.

Now, in the first example, any loss removes the loser from the fight, period. Obviously the nature of the contest has something to do with it as well. Evil Steve doesn't die because Joe beats him at a painting contest.

OK, why is Steve rolling at -1? I get why Joe is at +1, he bought the Strong advantage.  But wouldn't Steve, who is of "heroic" level to start (even with the blank sheet) just going to be rolling at even?

Quote from: SpikeIf Joe and Evil Steve were in a fist fight, as blank characters, the first telling blow wins the fight. Due to the simplicity of the characters, we could model it with the simple contest (the first person to succeed without the other wins), but as it's a fight, lets stick to a more complete example.

Joe needs to both hit, and damage, Evil Steve. Both are opposed rolls. Since the name of the game is 'dynamic', Evil Steve gets to roll. Joe can describe his blows however he likes, since he doesn't have any Fu, this means nothing mechanically. Evil Steve can explain how he defends.

Defender wins ties.

You can have the fight be as simple or complicated as you want, yes?  I mean, it seems you could have conflict resolution level here, if desired, just by describing the fight in general and then rolling.

Now, they get to describe their intentions, yes?  Joe says he'll try to punch very hard to get his Strong advantage and Steve will say I attempt to dodge the lumbering punch of Joe to get his "Agile" advantage. Then the rolls occur and the actual even is determined by the dice, yes? And in this case, only if Joe (with advantages) beats Steve (with advantages) will he succeed.

And after Joe hits, a followup contest would be held to see if/how Joe damages.  So Joe, again, describes punching with all his might at Steve's jaw. Steve says will wil try to tumble backwards to absorb some of the damage of the impending blow.

Is that it? Before the Fu I see coming, I mean.

EDIT: OK, rereading the example helps clarify...nevermind.

Quote from: SpikeIn the previous post I attempted to illuminate the barest bones of the basic system.  Now it's time to detail the 'core' of the dynamic combat system: Fu

As I've mentioned 'Fu' is rated by Dots.  Let's put a practical limit of five dot's in any given 'Fu'.  Note that exceeding Five is still possible, particularly since Fu is not directly rolled, but as each dot gets progressively bigger it's probably wiser to spread your points around some.

To begin with there are some 'Basic Fu' that anyone and everyone should have some points in. Punching, kicking, dodging... stuff like that.  These are less flexible than other Fu, being partially or wholy predefined. I lean towards partially.  Advanced Fu is your actual 'martial art' or 'super power' or what have you.

Fu is broken down into Lores and Techniques.  Every Fu starts with a lore. let's say lore is five points.  Your first dot of any Fu is going to be it's basic Lore.

Basic Fu's are limited to Lore only, no Techniques.

When you buy a second dot you may chose to either expand the Lore by Two points, or buy a technique worth 5. Splitting is 1/3 only... and may not be allowed.

Here is why this is important.

Every Fu, even the basic Fu is defined by it's own attributes. Strike, defend, damage, resist and others. Attributes include 0/1 weapons: If the fu is weapon dependent it costs 0 points from your lore (in return you get a +1 to the attributes...all four basic ones anyway), if it costs one, you can use a weapon, but it isn't required. 2 points of weapons would mean 'any weapon'.  Extra points can be bought for 'negative attributes'... like prerequiste technique (another Fu at 3) would give an additional point.   the actual list of attributes and costs will be longer than four+, but we're starting small here.

Anyway: Lore attributes are allways 'on' when using that Fu. If you roll that Fu, you get that lore bonus. Stacking Fu's is on the table, but uncertain.

Techniques are tied to Dots. If you bought a technique at 5, and you exhaust a dot of that Fu, you lost that level five technique. Techniques are specific moves or subsets of moves within the Fu itself.  I have considered making higher level Techniques worth a few extra points to prevent everyone from stacking techniques at the bottom of the pile then buying lore on top as 'cushion'.


Levels of 'exhausting':  Damage is when you lost a Fu due to enemy action. You failed a resist, for example.  Damage heals when the GM says it heals.. the default is between adventures, but the GM might allow a 'down' character to be 'healed' in time for a climactic fight, particularly if they voluntarily sat out of scenes to 'recuperate'.

Burned: the character sacrificed a Fu for an automatic success. This CAN be to resist damage. Burnt Fu comes back only after a scene has passed without the character fighting (using Fu).

Exhausted: This is Fu that came up Doubles on a check (failed check) and got 'tired'.  Characters automatically recover one exhausted Fu at the end of any fight, they also recover one if they won the fight.  It may be that trading 'two' recovered Fu's is worth one Burnt Fu.


I think there should be attributes only available as Techniques: Double Damage for example is awfully powerful sounding as a Lore, particularly if it stacked with a technique for extra double damage (three Fu for the price of one!)


Now: Some Fu's should be stackable. The basic Fu's should stack with Advanced Fu, but I don't think Advance Fu should stack with itself, or basic with itself. Perhaps buying 'stackable' should be an attribute 'may stack with Punching', say.  Perhaps, as standard, every Fu get's 'ONE' free stacking attribute. Of course, stacking punching with Sword Fu becomes problematic, though the best way to handle that is...

OK..I'm sorry.  I'm confused about the relationship between Dots and Points and what you use to buy "at five"

I'm also a little confused on how you differentitate Lore versus Technique - can you have more than one Technique for a Lore? And you only buy one Technique for a Lore, but then keep adding points to it? Does that give you more Dots?

Maybe I'm just tired....

Okay... here is how it goes with lores and techniques.

Lets say you have 'Tiger Claw Fu'.

The first Dot you buy gives you five points of 'Tiger Claw Lore' automatically. You divide it up, and this is what makes your 'tiger claw' different from your 'Crane's Wing'.

Now, you define Tiger Claw Fu as an unarmed Fu, which costs 0 points.  You decide, however, that Tiger Claw is an incredibly aggressive Fu, useless on the defence but powerful on offence.

So, you put your five points like this :Attack +2
                                                  Damage +3

nothing in defence or resistance.  

Now, whenever you do ANYTHING with Tiger Fu, you roll +2 on attacks and +3 on damage, but roll only straight dice for defence.

Now, you get another dot of Tiger Claw.  You can get more points of lore, which add to the existing lore, OR you can buy a technique. Let's say you buy a technique, and you call it 'Blades of the tiger'.

You make 'Blades of the Tiger' require a weapon.  This is also a 'zero point' decision, you can only use blades of the tiger if you have the right weapon.  Notice that you still get to use your Tiger Claw lore, even though it was bought 'weapon-less'.  

Now, you have five points in the technique.  Having a weapon gives you certain weapon advantages but well leave those alone for the moment.  The technique you decide gives you

Attack +1
Damage +1
Defence +2
Resistance +1

The attack and damage ratings add to the Lore, the defence and resistance also adds to the lore, but as that was zero...

Here is the thing. Let's say you use your Tiger Claw Fu in a fight.  In the first exchange you exhaust a dot of the Tiger Claw Fu.  You only have one dot of TC Fu left over.  Since your "Blades of the Tiger" is a 'Two Dot technique' you can no longer use it. And since you are currently holding a weapon, you can't use your TC Fu until you drop them, as the Lore is unarmed.  

Now, lets say you get a third dot of Tiger Claw Fu later down the line. If you buy another technique...

It doesn't stack with the previous technique. You have to declare you are using Blades of the Tiger, your old technique, or Breath of the Tiger, your new technique.. one OR the other.

On the other hand, you could use that third dot instead to get more Lore Points.  Let's say you get two points of Lore.  You spend one point to make Tiger Claw Fu useful armed or unarmed (a one point ability) and spend the second point of lore on 'resistance'. Now you can roll TC fu for resistance checks without risking exhausting it too easily.

Make sense?

Quote from: James J SkachYou can have the fight be as simple or complicated as you want, yes?  I mean, it seems you could have conflict resolution level here, if desired, just by describing the fight in general and then rolling.

Now, they get to describe their intentions, yes?  Joe says he'll try to punch very hard to get his Strong advantage and Steve will say I attempt to dodge the lumbering punch of Joe to get his "Agile" advantage. Then the rolls occur and the actual even is determined by the dice, yes? And in this case, only if Joe (with advantages) beats Steve (with advantages) will he succeed.

And after Joe hits, a followup contest would be held to see if/how Joe damages.  So Joe, again, describes punching with all his might at Steve's jaw. Steve says will wil try to tumble backwards to absorb some of the damage of the impending blow.

Is that it? Before the Fu I see coming, I mean.

EDIT: OK, rereading the example helps clarify...nevermind.

Yeah, descriptions are a problem. The goal is to make it integral to the play to describe things. Not to force it necessarily, but to make it natural.  I have an idea that the winner of the contest get's to describe the outcome, but again without mechanically forcing it.  In the case of Joe and Steve, where neither one has Fu to add to the contests, there isn't a powerful need to 'renarrate' the damage/resistance exchange.  Joe already leveled a powerful blow, Evil Steve failed to dodge.   Now, if I get more ambitious, Joe could go 'Evil Steve attempts to leap over my blow to kick me in the face, I grab his leg and slam him into the ground before he can' which would interrupt Evil Steve's attack action.  

So the Fluid initiative would go like this

Joe attacks, Steve dodges and declares his attack in return.

Steve misses the attack, and rather than just roll damage, Joe attempts to interrupt Steve's attack AND do damage., resolve before Steve's attack'

So, as long as Joe keeps winning contests he can keep Steve on teh defensive just by interruption.  Joe gambles his damage roll to stop Steve. If he wins he still does his damage AND stops Steve, if he fails he gave up his damage roll and Steve still gets to roll his 'kick in the face' check.

Now: More complexity: addative successes.

If Joe wins the contest by one, he gets a +1 on his next roll, be it damage or in the case of our above 'changed action' example his 'interrupt'.  If he wins by 2 he gets +2 and so on.  If he keeps putting off his Damage roll and keeps winning interrupt attacks he can stack a huge bonus to the damage check.

Now this is where it gets interesting. Players can gamble in various ways.

Let's say Evil Steve is using really powerful kick Fu. Let's say Evil Steve has some obscene bonus, say +5 to Attacks with his kick, but only a +1 to damage checks.  Joe could attempt to avoid the attack, but his best defensive Fu is incredibly weak. He could gamble and decide to 'take the hit' Evil Steve doesn't get to roll his attack, which means two things
a) he doesn't risk exhausting his Fu
b) he doesn't get to add to his damage check.

Now it's a damage check against Joe's resistance Fu. Maybe Joe really gambles, he figures that Steve can't make the 7 on the damage roll with the pitiful damage his kick does.  Joe can chose to 'take the hit'...if Steve makes the 7 Joe loses a Fu of his choice.  
Joe can resist. If he beats Steve's roll then Steve failed to hurt him, though Joe could theoretically lose the Fu anyway. Joe could fail, in which case he automatically loses the Fu he resisted with, and if he exhausts it (rolls really badly) he might lose an additional Fu as well.

Note: Steve still has to roll, even if Joe doesn't resist, on the Damage check. Damaging objects always demands a roll unless the object is 'fragile'. Joe is not Fragile (though he COULD be if he took it as his disadvantage).  If Joe was Tough, Steve might have to beat an 8 on his damage check.



As for the previous question about why Joe or Steve are rolling at penalties: that's due to unresolved questions about how to apply bonuses and penalties. A strong guy against a 'not strong' guy in a contest of strength might have two advantages... his own strength (making his rolls easier) and his opponents comparative weakness (making his opponent work twice as hard).

That's not set in stone, and I don't know how applicable it should be to Fu yet.  One idea is to keep bonuses to rolls to relatively small numbers, despite the fact that they can be raised pretty high.

Quote from: SpikeOkay... here is how it goes with lores and techniques.

Lets say you have 'Tiger Claw Fu'.

The first Dot you buy gives you five points of 'Tiger Claw Lore' automatically. You divide it up, and this is what makes your 'tiger claw' different from your 'Crane's Wing'.

Now, you define Tiger Claw Fu as an unarmed Fu, which costs 0 points.  You decide, however, that Tiger Claw is an incredibly aggressive Fu, useless on the defence but powerful on offence.

So, you put your five points like this :Attack +2
                                                  Damage +3

nothing in defence or resistance.  

Now, whenever you do ANYTHING with Tiger Fu, you roll +2 on attacks and +3 on damage, but roll only straight dice for defence.

Now, you get another dot of Tiger Claw.  You can get more points of lore, which add to the existing lore, OR you can buy a technique. Let's say you buy a technique, and you call it 'Blades of the tiger'.

You make 'Blades of the Tiger' require a weapon.  This is also a 'zero point' decision, you can only use blades of the tiger if you have the right weapon.  Notice that you still get to use your Tiger Claw lore, even though it was bought 'weapon-less'.  

Now, you have five points in the technique.  Having a weapon gives you certain weapon advantages but well leave those alone for the moment.  The technique you decide gives you

Attack +1
Damage +1
Defence +2
Resistance +1

The attack and damage ratings add to the Lore, the defence and resistance also adds to the lore, but as that was zero...

Here is the thing. Let's say you use your Tiger Claw Fu in a fight.  In the first exchange you exhaust a dot of the Tiger Claw Fu.  You only have one dot of TC Fu left over.  Since your "Blades of the Tiger" is a 'Two Dot technique' you can no longer use it. And since you are currently holding a weapon, you can't use your TC Fu until you drop them, as the Lore is unarmed.  

Now, lets say you get a third dot of Tiger Claw Fu later down the line. If you buy another technique...

It doesn't stack with the previous technique. You have to declare you are using Blades of the Tiger, your old technique, or Breath of the Tiger, your new technique.. one OR the other.

On the other hand, you could use that third dot instead to get more Lore Points.  Let's say you get two points of Lore.  You spend one point to make Tiger Claw Fu useful armed or unarmed (a one point ability) and spend the second point of lore on 'resistance'. Now you can roll TC fu for resistance checks without risking exhausting it too easily.

Make sense?

This is a great description/write-up/example/explanation - much better, thanks.

I like it alot - sounds interesting.  My only concern would be keeping track of it all during game play.

I'll let it digest before commenting on specifics, but overall, sounds really cool and flexible but in a systemic way - very nice design approach.

Spike - it's all very cool.  I like the "fluid" initiative.

All I can say is - lots of play examples.  I'm not familiar with a lot of other games, so I cant' say this is or is not like anything else.  I can say it's not like anything I've ever played, and is different enough that I'd need lot's of examples.

Take these recent exchanges. I'm sure it makes perfect sense in your head.  I bet if there's anything like it, and people have played it, it makes sense to them.

But I want to play it - only I'm intimidated by it. Examples of play that explain how these various choices affect play are a great help in easing that discomfort.

And I love the gambling aspect - that a character can decide to forgo something for the possible greater payoff but at increased risk.  Fantastic, I just need to read it three or four (dozen) times to comment in any specific way.

Fair enough?

Hopefully things like Lores and Techniques will be a lot easier to absorb when presented properly within the context of actually creating a character.  Those make perfect sense.

The issue with Fluid Initiative is working out... and clearly knowing... the order things get resolved in.  Every interaction gets resolved in turn. Right now, unfortunately, its looking like the GM gets to do a fair amount of arbitration.

In our Joe vs Steve example it seems to work perfectly smoothly, even if it's hard to convey.  The problem comes in when Frank jumps into the fight. Who decides when Frank get's to roll?  The GM.  

That's fine, but it would be nice to have a good framework in place. One of my biggest complaints with the Riddle of Steel when I reviewed it was that any fight involving mulitple people rapidly became impossible to fairly run.

 Right now I really need to work up a crude, functional list of 'advantages', maybe work with my players to add to it.  It's too early to playtest what I've got, even informally 'in house'...

EDIT::: to be honest, I can't think of any game I have that looks just like it. There are elements of it that seem familiar, but the overall whole is more unique than I expected when I started out.

Sort of nipping stuff in the bud:

I've defined, roughly, 'advantages'... I do need a better name I guess, in terms of combat and made them comparable to Fu powers in some respects.

In the example I wrote, Strength provided essentially a 'universal Lore' point that applied to all combat checks for Offense and damage, in addition to Fu Lore. I even went so far as to use Strength AS A FU point at one point in lieu of actually bringing real Fu to the table.  

This is a mistake, and to keep following it will lead me to the path of damnation and ruination... or something.

Actually, what happened was I was sitting down and trying to 'knock out' some Advantages for my eventual list and wound up with advantages that felt like really weak Fu.  Oops.

Strength can, and should, have an effect on combat.  I think my previous example was too fast and loose, however, and too focused on combat.  First of all, the advantage of Strength should be more fixed, not 'I use it here', that's for Fu to do.  Second, Strength should have other factors, and many Advantages should not even be related to combat normally.

Lets leave Strength alone for the moment.  I could use 'Smart' or something like that, but I want to move away from the 'six attribute' mentality.

So, we can have an Advantage of 'Archeologist', an homage to Indiana Jones let's say.

Now... this MIGHT wind up stomping all over the 'skills' portion later, but let's drive on anyway.  Archeologist will give a nice fat bonus to all checks for archeology related tasks... in fact, in many cases the character won't have to roll at all, he's a heroic archeologist! he only needs to roll when being opposed or the task is heroically difficult (finding Hamanaptra!).

More, it also means he is recognized by the international community as an archeologist. He can work, or find work, teaching archeology, he gets job offers to run or work on digs.  Most of the advantage, in this case, is not rolled.

Anyone see where I'm trying to go with this?

So: Defining a character...

What is a character? to the player it's his guy. We all know that. there are some wonky threads about what exactly that means, levels of immersion, interactivity and all that shit, but we aren't interested in that.

Weellll.... a character is, essentially, how a player interacts with the rules. Bear with me here: I'm not making sweeping statements for all of gamerdom, but from the specific perspective of 'designing a game'.

We've laid out a pretty exhaustive example of Fu, how the player rolls out combat.  Not quite the way other games do it, but not entirely unique either.

But thats only one way.

So: a character is the players method if interacting with the rules.  So: how do we define that character?  How do we make each step of defining the character somehow meaningful, or potentially meaningful?

I could go so far as to suggest specific rules and subsets of rules for things like gender and even name. Gender specific rules, however, do not read well with the modern egalitarian public.

I could do the opposite and make everything a useful rule. You could 'roll your name' to accomplish some task if I took it that far.  

My answer? Anything that is purely player defined color is not even mentioned in the rules. You want to name your character? that's up to you bub.  From a design standpoint it's reasonably simple: no mention of those things at all.  This runs counter to current trends, which is why I mention it.  Ideally, a character 'sheet' should be small and easy to use. Everything vital goes on that sheet, something I've discussed before.  I toy with the idea of producing laminated 3x5 cardstock 'sheets' for pregenerated characters, the downside of laminated cardstock is that its hard for a player to make changes.

Here's the deal: aside from providing space for a creative soul to write out a backstory or draw a picture, I don't really need to include details like that on the sheet.  

But I've strayed: the game defines a character via three or four things: Advantages, Disadvantage (one per character, no point value, self defined), Skills And Fu. Of course, since then I've added the idea of adopting social and belief ratings, which would up our total to 6.

Notice, I don't make individual wealth important. No money, no wealth rating. Not a game of collecting loot.  Or Xp.  This puts me in a bit of a bind, really. It can be easily argued that one reason D&D is so very popular is that you get to collect stuff, compete if you will with other players by how much 'stuff' you collected.  I've even expressed disdain for games that USE wealth attributes instead of letting you collect the loot yourself.

Here I am going against what is both apparently a very successful model for 'why gaming is fun' AND violating what should be my own personal preference!

Here is the thing: I went into this expecting to violate some sacred precepts, slaughter some sacred cows.  I don't think I need to have characters earn XP and 'grow' more powerful as a default assumption to the game.  This means that starting characters are as weak as they will ever be, and long time play characters can start to violate the balance of the mechanics simply by accrueing enough points.  

I do have things in mind to keep characters 'fresh', things like using a threatened belief as motivation for that next point of Fu.  Characters should change as much as 'grow'.

Wealth I think is actually worked all crabbed in RPG's.  You have inflow and outgoing expenses that have nothing to do with anything else. Rough description, mind.  Works fine and dandy for dungeon crawling fantasy, even conan-esque swords and sorcery (as long as there are wenches and the like to spend the wealth on)...

But the model always looks funny in Modern Settings and even Sci-Fi stuff.  

Like any good tale, money is only important if its relevant to the story at hand.  Note that it is a lower case story.  This gets into the 'game play model'.  

But, I've run out of time and I've wandered far from my intention, to illustrate how we will define a character.  I'll have to revist this once I've collected my thoughts a bit more.

Quote from: SpikeSort of nipping stuff in the bud:

I've defined, roughly, 'advantages'... I do need a better name I guess, in terms of combat and made them comparable to Fu powers in some respects.

In the example I wrote, Strength provided essentially a 'universal Lore' point that applied to all combat checks for Offense and damage, in addition to Fu Lore. I even went so far as to use Strength AS A FU point at one point in lieu of actually bringing real Fu to the table.  

This is a mistake, and to keep following it will lead me to the path of damnation and ruination... or something.

Actually, what happened was I was sitting down and trying to 'knock out' some Advantages for my eventual list and wound up with advantages that felt like really weak Fu.  Oops.

Strength can, and should, have an effect on combat.  I think my previous example was too fast and loose, however, and too focused on combat.  First of all, the advantage of Strength should be more fixed, not 'I use it here', that's for Fu to do.  Second, Strength should have other factors, and many Advantages should not even be related to combat normally.

Lets leave Strength alone for the moment.  I could use 'Smart' or something like that, but I want to move away from the 'six attribute' mentality.

So, we can have an Advantage of 'Archeologist', an homage to Indiana Jones let's say.

Now... this MIGHT wind up stomping all over the 'skills' portion later, but let's drive on anyway.  Archeologist will give a nice fat bonus to all checks for archeology related tasks... in fact, in many cases the character won't have to roll at all, he's a heroic archeologist! he only needs to roll when being opposed or the task is heroically difficult (finding Hamanaptra!).

More, it also means he is recognized by the international community as an archeologist. He can work, or find work, teaching archeology, he gets job offers to run or work on digs.  Most of the advantage, in this case, is not rolled.

Anyone see where I'm trying to go with this?

In this particular example, archeology, I'm wondering if the advantage would come with a set of skills.  That seems to be what you're implying by saying he doesn't have to roll for a lot of stuff once he has the advantage.  But wouldn't that be like giving him a single dot of Fu in Archeology?

Anyway, my original question is about advantages being associated with set of skills...

Quote from: SpikeSo: Defining a character...

What is a character? to the player it's his guy. We all know that. there are some wonky threads about what exactly that means, levels of immersion, interactivity and all that shit, but we aren't interested in that.

Weellll.... a character is, essentially, how a player interacts with the rules. Bear with me here: I'm not making sweeping statements for all of gamerdom, but from the specific perspective of 'designing a game'.

This is where things often bog down in my musings...

To me, in a way, how you define a character is totally dependent on what you are going to cover with the rules - and vice versa. The two are intertwined.  One of the things that always amused me about D&D is the height/weight tables.  I've often wondered why Strength isn't more tied to the actual pysical attributes of height (to some extent) and weight (to a much larger degree). Instead, they are divorced completely.  So you can have a guy who is 5'9" 155 pounds who is an 18 Strength and another character who is 6'3" 250 lbs and is a 12 Strength.  Same with Dexterity.

So you're right to say that all that's really needed for play are the things that matter to the rule system.

Here's the rub.  To do so would be foreign to most gamers I know - because the other stuff is what makes the role.  The stuff you mention makes the roll.  Contrary to current popular thought, no matter how gamey one gets, there always seems to be a desire to at least provide a nod to the role side of things.

So be careful in how much you throw away in order to slay the cow.  Sometimes there's a (virtually non-rational) reason some things exist.

To be honest I worry that I use my 'fu style' mechanics too freely across the system.  A lot of fun in gaming is had exploring the system, in not being able to strip everything down to it's simplest elements.  This is why I think that True20 will never supplant D&D, no matter how superior it is... it's too simple to hold up to long term play (long term defined in years perhaps) without getting repetitive systemically.

So I don't want Archeology to be looked at as a Fu dot.

Now: A non-archeologist would have to roll to identify hieroglyphics as Egyptian. He might GUESS they were Egyptian. He might even have bonuses to his roll from being Smart or having knowledge:History type skills (so not planning to use "Knowledge:History" as a skill...), but he has to Roll.

An Archeologist, in the Spike Fu model, is not just some guy who knows his Archeology... he's a Heroic Archeologist. He Knows, without rolling anything that those Hieroglyphics are actually Mayan, not Egyptian, he can tell you the right time period... if he actually has the right skill, he might be able to translate them...all without rolling. It's his Heroic Competence showing through.  Now, he WOULD have to roll if some Villian was setting up a forgery, he's opposed by someone capable.  The GM could make him roll his skills (even if he doesn't have any... the advantage presumes he has the minimum requirements automatically... in other words he rolls without a skill bonus) for unusual or particularly obscure bits. Of course, the Heroic Archeology provides a bonus to the those rolls.

I toy with the idea of folding the 'who you know' into the advantages. That is, certain advantages (like Archeology) imply that you know people. Now, if I do keep a 'Dot' style rating for advantages... which I am strongly inclined not to do, then this actually becomes the source and means of tracking your social circles. (Luke Crane will so sue me for that one...;) ) While advantages like strength would not.

Of course, I had the idea before of having a pool of Innate advantages (things like Strength) that every character should have... that is a minimum basic starting point, then another pool of points that could either be innate, making the character something of a prodigy say, or external advantages or skills, making the character someone who had been around. Of course, the reason for this split originally had to do with 'growth', which I don't see much need for now.


I'm aware that tossing things out 'just because' can be bad.  In this case I specifically want to avoid that power creep feeling you get in games, where you start small and get bigger.  Obviously it can be an option for play, where I would put in an optional system GM's could use to simulate 'heroes journey' style play, I just don't want it to be the default.  Again, it goes back to heroic competence: Your Dude, in game, is a bad ass. He's not a beginner bad-ass, or a potential bad-ass. He is the god damn ass kicker, and he's out of gum...

Same thing with wealth: If we take a default assumption of 'middle class' lifestyle, whatever that means to a given setting, we can assume that the character has enough money to eat, has a house to sleep in and even a car. They have pocket money for non-important purchases.  Getting a large sum of ready cash for a major 'thing' becomes the focus of an adventure.  

I don't see how making it a game of accounting for every dollar will make sense. It's something players and groups can do on their own. 'You look the street tough you just whupped in a mighty Fu battle, he had twenty bucks in his wallet...'

But it doesn't really fit with, again, the assumptions driving the game. It doesn't really require support beyond maybe a line going 'some players like to collect loot. there is nothing wrong with this behavior, let them collect what they like. The only value on game play this has is what you and your group decide to give it.'

I'm painting some areas with a broad brush here, I know.  That leads to clashes of assumption.

Yesterday I mucked up talking about defining a character.  I got off on weird tangents and totally whiffed my actual point... much less advanced it.

To revist the idea: When I talk about 'defining a character' I mean specifically from the game design/play aspect.  I'm not into namby pamby hand holding over 'it's me in game' or 'interface mechanisms'. I know, I know, I used a few of those terms.  But we ain't about that here. This here is where we define the character in terms of mechanics.

Aside from lacking set 'attributes' that we commonly expect, I imagine that I don't deviate too far from the norm  here.

Power, comparatively, is rated in Fu, however that is only one aspect of the character.  We rate in Fu because Fu is the central dominant aspect of combat, and it makes a convienent yardstick to measure bad guys.  We can also translate a lot of other things into 'Fu Equivilents'. Weapons, say.  Note that we still have two types of weapons: Color weapons which are a part of the Fu that uses them, and Equipment Weapons, which have their own stats, typically being a single Fu point item.

But lets start at the beginning: Advantages.  Advantages are both more, and less, powerful than Fu.  Advantages always work, regardless, they are not damaged or burnt under normal circumstances.  On the other hand, they also can't absorb damage for you or grant techniques.  Having a 'combat' advantage is pretty weak if you can't back it up with a Fu.

On the other hand, outside of Combat, most Fu would be next to worthless. This is where Advantages come into their own: Non-combat gaming.  Advantages are where we start to get into meaningful questions like "How rich am I?' or 'Who do I know?' and things along those lines.  It also opens up lines of behavior for the character.  

Corresponding with the advantages is the Heroic Flaw, the disadvantage. While I intend for these to be largely self defined, I will have specific examples for the lazy to steal from. Every hero has his flaw, though the option to not take one (at the cost of one Advantage...) is available.  

The Flaw is still an 'in the works' concept.  Obviously it gives no 'benefit', that is it provides no 'point' for the player to use elsewhere, it simply exists. there is the idea of rewarding players for bringing their flaw to the table, though I'm not sure I want to use that.  

Some Flaws will be very much 'inverse' advantages. Fragile, for example, means the character is easily hurt, the opposite of Tough, and provides a penalty to Resistance rolls to avoid being hurt by an attack, or conversely a bonus to the enemy's roll to damage you.  Others are more 'soft', things like being a 'Fool for Love'... where the disadvantage is primarily roleplaying.

We haven't talked skills in this thread very much, and for good reason. Compared to the sexy sexy Fu, Skills seem superfluous. Yes and no. Skills, as conceived, do not directly influence combat. Certainly they can be tested in combat situations, but by themselves they are not meant for it.  Their purpose is all the other stuff.  We've established before, in other threads, the basic concept behind skills, but let's revisit for a second. Heroic characters are assumed to be reasonably competent with anything they could be even remotely expected to be competent in. That is: You always get a roll without penalty if there is a chance you could do it. No, you can't know the language and culture of that new alien speices that just appeared in game and is currently eating your head.  Certain advantages change this in various ways. A space listening post xenophile just might get that damn roll if he has an advantage that reflects that.

now, lets look at using a skill in combat. Let's say the character has been fighting this futuristic combat robot. he's exhausting his Fu, but he can't get through the Robot's rediculously powerful Resistance checks from it's armor.

But the character happens to have Engineering at 3. So he says "I use my engineering to find a weakspot in the Robot's armor". now he rolls his engineering against the Robot's Armor defence rating, not resistance. He has +3 to the roll from his skill, the Armor isn't nearly as defensive as it is resistant, so when he wins he can exhaust the robot's Armor 'Fu', making future attacks much more powerful as he just removed the most powerful Fu the enemy had against him.  Now, he can link that to an attack with a weapon or Fu attack as well, going for the weak point hit as part of the shot, allowing for cumulative bonuses. In this case the attack is rolled, successful, then the Engineering is rolled with bonuses to exhaust the armor, then he can try to roll damage, taking the cumulative successes of the attack and engineering check, hoping to exhaust another 'Fu' that the robot will put up to resist the damage now that the Armor is 'out of play'. Of course, if he fails that damage check, the Armor isn't necessarily exhausted either.... gambles.  But that got too complex, didn't it.

Now, social ratings might not continue to exist, being folded into Advantages, though it remains a useful topic. Ideally, Social points are rated into 'Lores' just like Fu. Only instead of 'attack' or what have you, you'll have 'network' or 'schmooze' points. Points in 'Find contact', for example. This doesn't exclude the possibility of adding techniques as you expand your socialness. Techniques like 'Find arms dealer anywhere', for example.

This is what makes up a character, this is how we define characters (fu is in there, yes).

Quote from: Spikenow, lets look at using a skill in combat. Let's say the character has been fighting this futuristic combat robot. he's exhausting his Fu, but he can't get through the Robot's rediculously powerful Resistance checks from it's armor.

But the character happens to have Engineering at 3. So he says "I use my engineering to find a weakspot in the Robot's armor". now he rolls his engineering against the Robot's Armor defence rating, not resistance. He has +3 to the roll from his skill, the Armor isn't nearly as defensive as it is resistant, so when he wins he can exhaust the robot's Armor 'Fu', making future attacks much more powerful as he just removed the most powerful Fu the enemy had against him.  Now, he can link that to an attack with a weapon or Fu attack as well, going for the weak point hit as part of the shot, allowing for cumulative bonuses. In this case the attack is rolled, successful, then the Engineering is rolled with bonuses to exhaust the armor, then he can try to roll damage, taking the cumulative successes of the attack and engineering check, hoping to exhaust another 'Fu' that the robot will put up to resist the damage now that the Armor is 'out of play'. Of course, if he fails that damage check, the Armor isn't necessarily exhausted either.... gambles.  But that got too complex, didn't it.

I'm still digesting, but...

I was scanning d20 Modern Saturday and I noticed something like this as a feat - so that someone could use their intelligence bonus as an attack bonus after studying the opponent for X rounds. Is it similar to that?

Quote from: James J SkachI'm still digesting, but...

I was scanning d20 Modern Saturday and I noticed something like this as a feat - so that someone could use their intelligence bonus as an attack bonus after studying the opponent for X rounds. Is it similar to that?

Not quite. I don't mean to use it as a 'specific rule' in the book, but to illustrate one possible way the skills could be used in combat.  In play the player and GM would have to agree that a skill could be used a give way, then the regular gamble is made.

Quote from: SpikeNot quite. I don't mean to use it as a 'specific rule' in the book, but to illustrate one possible way the skills could be used in combat.  In play the player and GM would have to agree that a skill could be used a give way, then the regular gamble is made.

So not a hard rule like a feat or something, but just a broader, general rule that says skills can be used to influence things other than those directly related to the skill in circumstances - to be determined by the participants?

Quote from: James J SkachSo not a hard rule like a feat or something, but just a broader, general rule that says skills can be used to influence things other than those directly related to the skill in circumstances - to be determined by the participants?

Essentially, yes.

I have determined a weakness that I need to resolve.

Right now the core idea works reasonably well (possibly even great) for fighting. Yay Fighting!!!

But there isn't much support for the more intellectual pursuits.   Baffling as it may seem to me, some folks seem to enjoy les confrontational characters.

You know, the guy that always plays the wizard? He's not going to want to play 'kung fu madness' unless it supports him. Worse, the guy playing the 'party medic' who avoids participating in the fights all together! Yeah, we all know he's crazy, but we still want his money... I mean... we want him to enjoy the game. Yeah, that's it.

Now, the Fu system is adapatable enough to support the wizard wanter, when we get into special effects and other advanced Fu lore and technique purchaces (what? You thought attack/defend and Damage/Resist were the only ways to define your Fu? This ain't no hip pocket game, son! This is SPIKE FU!)...

But we left the guy who doesn't really want Fu at all standing in the cold.

Now: character creation can fix a lot of sins in this regard. I had originally envisioned a system where the GM could set a fixed number of Fu points for his game and let it go at that: doesn't work for us here.

We need to let the Fu-less dude swap out his Fu for additional Advantages or Skills... or even freinds and buddies.... whatever he wants.

To further tickle his fancy, perhaps some sort of 'support Fu' that is less useful in combat (if at all) but lets him do over the top stuff. Chi Healing! Pressur point Massage! Seven Sages Lore Technique!


Great, I have stupid names. Now, I need to know what the fuck I intend to do with them....