Hi all,

I usually post on reddit/r/rpgdesign.  I'm gonna reach out to here to see if I get different types of feedback.

I'm making a sort-of fantasy game... I call it "dystopian fantasy".  I have questions about what you think of the to-hit and damage systems.

The basic mechanics are 2d10 + a Talent.  There are 4 Talents which go up to +6, although players will average at +1 - +4.  Added to this is a Profession bonus of +2.  There is a potential bonus modifier of 1d6 to either TN (to make something more difficult) or to your roll.  There are no levels in this game.  So with that being said...

1. To Hit / Succeed at Task main dice mechanic.  Which sounds better (mechanically they are the same)?

QuoteA. Use 2d10 Roll and add modifiers to match or exceed TN. If you exceed the TN by 5, you score a Clear Success.  All TNs against characters are represented as Talent +10

QuoteB. Roll 2D10. You 'hit' if your roll + modifiers to get 11 or higher. A roll of 16 is a Clear Success. Subtract the Difficulty (or Defense ) from the roll.

2. The damage system. Right now, my system for damage is similar to Savage Worlds: players roll 2d6, add weapon damage, and compare that with Toughness.  If it exceeds Toughness, a Wound is scored.  If there was a Clear Success on the attack roll, also a Wound is scored.  Different weapons tend to be more accurate, more wounding, or more damaging.

QuoteQuestion 2a: Should armor add to AC or Toughness? Not considering subtract damage as I don't want to subtract. I'm not planning to add to both (which would be most realistic) because of complications / more rules. Although... maybe... I should just go for it. Right now I'm partial to adding to AC, as I feel that for most armors, you either get through the armor and cause damage, or you don't get through.

QuoteQuestion 2b: I asked this before but I keep coming back to this. Wound Conditions, or Hit Points, or both? Right now I'm following the Savage Worlds Damage Model with 4 "Wounds" players can take. I used to have Wounds and Hitpoints (where players take Wounds when damage surpases Toughness AND take a Wound when HP goes to 0). Using HP with Wounds ensures that every hit does damage. But it adds book-keeping. Any thoughts on this?

1. The first one sounds a lot better, and they don't sound mechanically equivalent to me, even if they are.

The first one is very clear, except you don't say what the modifiers added are. It's clear that TN (target number?) is different in different situations, and how it's usually calculated. Seems like a simple rule clearly explained, which isn't too basic, maybe. As long as the numbers are well-chosen and playtested, could be good.

The second one seems to have various problems to me:

* 'hit' is weird and if this is for different types of success rolls, wouldn't apply. Success is a better word than hit.

* grammar error at "to get". Could replace with "is an".

* It makes it sound like 11 is a fixed number instead of there being different difficulties for every thing, even though you say to subtract defense. Makes less intuitive sense, to me, and even if the math comes out the same, it seems weird/suspicious and requires this arbitrary 11 to remember.

2a. When you say "AC" you mean armor class ala D&D, where it's a modifier reducing the enemy chance of a hit that does anything, yes? So it's like it adds a chance to deflect, which would combine probabilistically with dodge/block/parry modifiers. It seems to me that this is farther from representing penetration than a modifier to Toughness would be. GURPS 1e-3e had the same distinction. Armor had both effects, for detail/realism as you suggest. In 4e they removed the "AC" effect of armor, to simplify but IMO more compellingly also because there was a weird stacking effect probabilistically with adding AC to the dodge chance. I would favor the Toughness mod to represent penetration as you suggest, and if you like, give some armor an "AC" mod too, such as metal armor, or things that parry and deflect, such as shields, cloaks, or an extra parrying weapon.

2b. Moreso here, I'm not clear on your terms and meanings. I always think of HP literally as damage taken; some people take it as using up your luck or fatigue or something, which doesn't make sense for me because of the way they get used up - some people are used to that interpretation and like it, but I can't stand it because it makes no good sense to me, except as a way to keep PCs from dying immediately if they get really unlucky, and a way to excuse super-rapid healing. For similar reasons, I dislike would systems where the weapon damage doesn't ever cause enough to take someone out without hitting them multiple times. It breaks my belief when every significant character has to be chopped or shot multiple times in order to bring them down, and you can count on that. I prefer there be ways to reduce the odds of taking major damage, but have getting  serious wound suck, causing serious effects and taking time to heal, etc. I still like there to be minor wounds that can add up to bring someone down, but I want a chance that someone gets seriously injured in one shot in the right circumstances or just by luck. For minor wounds, I'd rather have more grain - so 10+ points to count down, not just 4.

Seems like you could have a parallel mechanic to your success roll, where under the target number does nothing, over the target number does a minor wound that adds against some health/HP/endurance score of the character, but a damage roll over some other threshold results in a major/serious/potentially deadly wound.

I'll just save myself lots of typing and say "what Skarg said for everything but damage". Though maybe you should have armour adding both AC and Toughness.

I'd prefer either a pure Wounds system, or a Wound Conditions system, or a combination of the two, but I've got no time for a HP+Wounds system.

Thank you for your helpful reply.

Quote from: Skarg;8817691. The first one sounds a lot better, and they don't sound mechanically equivalent to me, even if they are.

The first one is just like D&D.  Most TN is 10+Talent (when against a PC, or "Full NPC) or 10+NPC level (when against a generic NPC) or 10 + static number of 3 /6/ 9.  It's 2d10, so my curves are a little different.... average default difficulty needs to start at 11.

Quote from: Skarg;881769The second one seems to have various problems to me:

* 'hit' is weird and if this is for different types of success rolls, wouldn't apply. Success is a better word than hit.

* grammar error at "to get". Could replace with "is an".

* It makes it sound like 11 is a fixed number instead of there being different difficulties for every thing, even though you say to subtract defense. Makes less intuitive sense, to me, and even if the math comes out the same, it seems weird/suspicious and requires this arbitrary 11 to remember.

My grammar is bad... I will need an editor. I'm 80 pages into this game so I know there will be a lot of grammer changes later.

Putting aside grammar, point is get a success at 11, and a "Clear Success" at 16.  So in this system, if the defender had an TN of 4 (in System Option A, 14), dice are rolled, the character's talent is added to the roll, and the defending characters talent is subtracted.  11 is the default because that is the 50% mark in 2d10.  I could change that to 10, but that is making the default percentage of success something like 60%.

Quote from: Skarg;8817692a. When you say "AC" you mean armor class ala D&D,

Yes.

Quote from: Skarg;881769It seems to me that this is farther from representing penetration than a modifier to Toughness would be. GURPS 1e-3e had the same distinction.

It's been 25 years since I played Gurps... just remembered this and remembered at the time I thought this interesting.  I think I will go with the dual approach... use both toughness and AC.  

Quote from: Skarg;881769Armor had both effects, for detail/realism as you suggest.

I think that heavy armor only has reflection... when a dagger or blade gets through, it get's through in a weak point  to a critical area.  

Quote from: Skarg;8817692b. Moreso here, I'm not clear on your terms and meanings.

So HP are like your will to fight on.  When it goes to 0, you take a Wound.  If you take a hit while HP is 0, you also take a Wound.  If you take more damage than your Toughness, you take a Wound.  And if there was a Clear Success on the attack Roll, you take a Wound.  So characters can be Taken out in one, very accurate, very forcefull hit.    But every hit does HP damage - the paper cut effect - thus making players feel that whenever they hit, they do something.  This way I think is good, but more rules / more complicated.

Wounds have narrative effect as well but I won't get into that... just talking mechanics here.  Without HP, a Clear Success causes a Wound, surpassing Toughness causes a Wound, 2X Toughness causes a Wound.  Players could be taken out in 2 hits.  BUT, this does a worse job at simulating lesser damage.  And there will be times when players hit an NPC but don't damage it... I don't like that.

Quote from: AsenRG;881823I'll just save myself lots of typing and say "what Skarg said for everything but damage". Though maybe you should have armour adding both AC and Toughness.

I'd prefer either a pure Wounds system, or a Wound Conditions system, or a combination of the two, but I've got no time for a HP+Wounds system.

Thank you.  I'm going with what he said.  The Wound system is a wound condition system... I just didn't describe that part of it here.

I'd also back a single damage-track option (however you name and/or scale it).
Generally I'd also go for armour as damage absorption of some kind, except in your case since a 'clear success' to attack generates an automatic Wound (regardless of toughness), I don't think armour as increased toughness works that well.

One thing I did also notice with the system is that 'when you beat the roll by 5' may give you an odd-ish distribution because of the v-curve of the roll. IIRC odds of each roll on 2d10 (go 1% [2 or 20], 2% [19 or 3], 3% [18 or 4], etc. so for instance a roll of 15+ would give 21% chance to hit, 1% chance of clear success, whereas 11+ to hit would be 50% chance and 15% chance of clear success - basically odds of a critical increase much faster than success chance until you hit the middle.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;881856except in your case since a 'clear success' to attack generates an automatic Wound (regardless of toughness), I don't think armour as increased toughness works that well.

For lower-defense opponents, it make it a lot easier to take them out in one hit.  Damage roll may do a Wound, and an increased chance of a second Wound.

It also means that as your ability increases, the chance of hitting a "critical" increases much more.  Clear Success is not a "Critical" in the D&D sense... it is something that some "builds" would aim for and happen fairly regularly.  Some weapons would specialized in by-passing Toughness by adding +1 to the dice roll *after* a hit is achieved .  These weapons would be less effective against non-human opponents that have more than 4 Wounds.  Also less effective against less-armd opponents that would take 2 or 3 Wounds from high-damage weapons.  

I like handling armor-piercing this way instead of , say, reducing Toughness towards some attacks for several reasons. It creates a system-wide degree of success to add in different situations.  It does not require players to track different types of Toughness vs. different types of attakcs (or... less of this anyway).  And it makes accuracy more important than damage... which is sort of how I feel weapon damage should work.

My game will have "Knacks" (Perks).  Actually more appropriate to say these are core abilities of a character and they would have up to five.  Many of these knacks are triggerable on Clear Success.  Which means more triggerable when

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;881856basically odds of a critical increase much faster than success chance until you hit the middle.

Yes.  That's sort of the idea behind using 2d10 instead of 1d20.  Also allows me to have "doubles" at 10% chance... which I can build another mechanic with.

Quote from: Jiaxingseng;881862For lower-defense opponents, it make it a lot easier to take them out in one hit.  Damage roll may do a Wound, and an increased chance of a second Wound.

It also means that as your ability increases, the chance of hitting a "critical" increases much more.  Clear Success is not a "Critical" in the D&D sense... it is something that some "builds" would aim for and happen fairly regularly.  Some weapons would specialized in by-passing Toughness by adding +1 to the dice roll *after* a hit is achieved .  These weapons would be less effective against non-human opponents that have more than 4 Wounds.  Also less effective against less-armd opponents that would take 2 or 3 Wounds from high-damage weapons.  

I like handling armor-piercing this way instead of , say, reducing Toughness towards some attacks for several reasons. It creates a system-wide degree of success to add in different situations.  It does not require players to track different types of Toughness vs. different types of attakcs (or... less of this anyway).  And it makes accuracy more important than damage... which is sort of how I feel weapon damage should work.

My game will have "Knacks" (Perks).  Actually more appropriate to say these are core abilities of a character and they would have up to five.  Many of these knacks are triggerable on Clear Success.  Which means more triggerable when

[clear hit]

Yes.  That's sort of the idea behind using 2d10 instead of 1d20.  Also allows me to have "doubles" at 10% chance... which I can build another mechanic with.

I like the feel you are going for. I too prefer to be first and foremost trying to avoid getting hurt, more than not being able to really avoid getting hit a lot, and having every hit do a little damage, and so needing to have a mountain of hit points. I also don't much like fighting an enemy that I have to hit a bazillion times, with no real effects of each hit until the last.

It makes skilled weapon master and light-armored fighters much more possible, even if they still get squished when they get hit.

As for doubles, you probably figured this but you can also have different effects for doubles miss, doubles hit, and doubles clear hit. You could even have a second skill check and/or table on a doubles clear hit, to see if/what rare special effect you do.

Quote from: Jiaxingseng;881825Thank you for your helpful reply.
...
Putting aside grammar, point is get a success at 11, and a "Clear Success" at 16.  So in this system, if the defender had an TN of 4 (in System Option A, 14), dice are rolled, the character's talent is added to the roll, and the defending characters talent is subtracted.  11 is the default because that is the 50% mark in 2d10.  I could change that to 10, but that is making the default percentage of success something like 60%.

It's not about 10 seeming slightly more natural than 11, especially since you can sneak in a 1-point adjustment by writing it as "need to roll higher than 10" versus "need to roll 11 or better".

The more important part is the apparent complexity of the expression being thought about during play by new players. i.e.:

I roll 2d10 and add my ability, and need to beat my enemy's defense ability.

or

I roll 2d10 and add my ability and subtract my enemy's defense ability, and need to roll 11 or more (or HIGHER than 10).

The first one makes the thinking simpler. The second one is more complex because it includes part of the calculation which can be done during character/NPC/monster generation. I.e. instead of having the number to beat pre-calculated (10 + ability), you're repeating both the 10 and the ability in each contest.

Quote...
I think that heavy armor only has reflection... when a dagger or blade gets through, it get's through in a weak point  to a critical area.

But that's collapsing armor bypass into the to-hit calculation. A dagger gets "through" plate by hitting a spot where there is no plate. But it could do that to soft leather, too. Meanwhile a warhammer could hurt someone in plate anywhere, but would tend to do even more damage to someone with no or light armor.

So to actually simulate heavy armor with imperfect coverage, I'd have an attacker need to go for that (high additional penalty, bonus for dagger in close combat), and/or get a critical hit. But heavy and armor-piercing weapons should have a chance to injure through heavy armor on normal hits which lighter weapons won't get. And the heavy hit that causes a minor injury through heavy plate would probably completely take out someone with no armor. If you just make heavy armor have it harder to be hit by everything, with no effect on the injury when hit, you don't get those distinctions. So I would want heavy armor to reduce damage chance and/or amount even when hit, except when bypassed.

QuoteSo HP are like your will to fight on.  When it goes to 0, you take a Wound.  If you take a hit while HP is 0, you also take a Wound.  If you take more damage than your Toughness, you take a Wound.  And if there was a Clear Success on the attack Roll, you take a Wound.  So characters can be Taken out in one, very accurate, very forcefull hit.

That looks like it adds to 3 wounds, not 4, though, and you said some creatures have more than four wounds, no? Or is there some other way to do the fourth wound in one attack, like using a weapon that should typically be able to kill someone on a good hit?

When sanity-checking rules, I'd try to see how it handles cases that seem like they should often have a certain result. e.g. If a good hit with a certain weapon would usually take an unarmored person out of a fight, like a sword or axe used by a fairly strong/skilled person, how likely is that? In many systems the answer is "never for PCs because we don't want them to fall in one round ever", which some like but I don't (I prefer "the PC has many ways to usually avoid getting seriously mangled, but if they do take an axe to the chest, they should usually be taken out, and should definitely not just be able to ignore it and keep fighting at 100% effectiveness").

Quote from: Skarg;881976I like the feel you are going for. [\quote]

Thanks.

Quote from: Skarg;881976As for doubles, you probably figured this but you can also have different effects for doubles miss, doubles hit, and doubles clear hit. You could even have a second skill check and/or table on a doubles clear hit, to see if/what rare special effect you do.

Yes.  I have Doubles take place on 6,7,8,9, and 10 (5% chance).  So you always have a chance of success (the 20 on a 1d20)

Double Trouble is double 1s - 5s.  A bad thing happens with Double Trouble, although your attack or skill check may still succeed.

Quote from: Skarg;881983But that's collapsing armor bypass into the to-hit calculation.  [\quote]

Yes.  I know.  Which is why I use the Clear Success mechanic in the to-hit calculation.

Quote from: Skarg;881983So to actually simulate heavy armor with imperfect coverage, I'd have an attacker need to go for that (high additional penalty, bonus for dagger in close combat), and/or get a critical hit. But heavy and armor-piercing weapons should have a chance to injure through heavy armor on normal hits which lighter weapons won't get. And the heavy hit that causes a minor injury through heavy plate would probably completely take out someone with no armor. If you just make heavy armor have it harder to be hit by everything, with no effect on the injury when hit, you don't get those distinctions. So I would want heavy armor to reduce damage chance and/or amount even when hit, except when bypassed. [\quote]

I'm trying to go for this, but I also want to avoid over-crunchiness.  I'm not completely making a simulation here.  Critical hit (Clear Success... not exactly critical) gets a Wound through. Heavy weapons do more damage, which more likely get through on a regular hit, but more likely do wounds.  Some lighter weapons add +1 or +2 to the to-hit die AFTER a hit (greater chance for Clear Success).  Daggers are therefore deadly.  But daggers only work in Close Quarters... closer range than swords... and require maneuvering to get there.

Quote from: Skarg;881983That looks like it adds to 3 wounds, not 4, though, and you said some creatures have more than four wounds, no?....

When sanity-checking rules, I'd try to see how it handles cases that seem like they should often have a certain result. e.g. If a good hit with a certain weapon would usually take an unarmored person out of a fight, like a sword or axe used by a fairly strong/skilled person, how likely is that? In many systems the answer is "never for PCs because we don't want them to fall in one round ever", which some like but I don't (I prefer "the PC has many ways to usually avoid getting seriously mangled, but if they do take an axe to the chest, they should usually be taken out, and should definitely not just be able to ignore it and keep fighting at 100% effectiveness").

1 Wound for every multiple of Toughness (pre-filled out on character sheet so no multiplication during play).  1 Wound for Clear Success.  The Damage Die for "human scale, non-magic" weapons is 2d6 + weapon mod.  Formula for Toughness is half of strength (which can go up to 8, but averages at 3 or less) +4 + damage reduction.

A heavy weapon does +4 damage.  So... i
 

An un-armored mage-like character (and mages can wear armor, but lets just say completely un-armored) could have a toughness of 4, so a Clean Success with a battle ax would take the Mage out on a damage  roll of 9.  (9 + 4 = 4 X 3).    Not likely but certainly a danger.

A thief type may have Toughness of 6 (+2 from magical Stealth Armor) at most takes 3 Wounds in one hit with a Clean Success (2X 6 < 12 + 4  < 3 X 6).  But if the fighter did a "Trade Off" action, adding 1D6 to the damage roll at the expense of 1D6 on the attack roll... it's possible for the thief to be taken out in one hit.

A renowned fighter, with 8 STR, wearing magical plate armor, would have a a Toughness of 10.  Damaging this opponent depends on using magic, armor piercing attacks, and mobbing the character.

Quote from: Jiaxingseng;881827Thank you.  I'm going with what he said.  The Wound system is a wound condition system... I just didn't describe that part of it here.

Sounds good:).

Quote from: Jiaxingseng;881862For lower-defense opponents, it make it a lot easier to take them out in one hit.  Damage roll may do a Wound, and an increased chance of a second Wound.

It also means that as your ability increases, the chance of hitting a "critical" increases much more.  Clear Success is not a "Critical" in the D&D sense... it is something that some "builds" would aim for and happen fairly regularly.  Some weapons would specialized in by-passing Toughness by adding +1 to the dice roll *after* a hit is achieved .  These weapons would be less effective against non-human opponents that have more than 4 Wounds.  Also less effective against less-armd opponents that would take 2 or 3 Wounds from high-damage weapons.  

I like handling armor-piercing this way instead of , say, reducing Toughness towards some attacks for several reasons. It creates a system-wide degree of success to add in different situations.  It does not require players to track different types of Toughness vs. different types of attakcs (or... less of this anyway).  And it makes accuracy more important than damage... which is sort of how I feel weapon damage should work.

My game will have "Knacks" (Perks).  Actually more appropriate to say these are core abilities of a character and they would have up to five.  Many of these knacks are triggerable on Clear Success.  Which means more triggerable when



Yes.  That's sort of the idea behind using 2d10 instead of 1d20.  Also allows me to have "doubles" at 10% chance... which I can build another mechanic with.

That sounds interesting.
State it clearly that accuracy is more important than damage, though;).