I had planned on posting this as an article at first but thought it'd be better to post it here given the nature of this.

I've recently formalized the rules a alternative psionic mechanic I use in my playtest games for Be Not Afraid and wanted to put the feelers out, I'm not totally settled on this mechanic yet so wanted some input and comments on it before going forward with the base idea.

So here is the article to the mechanic I've outlined.

The problem with depletion dice is that because the odds of rolling below the threshold rise with each failure. The odds of depleting 1d12 is 25%, but the odds of depleting a d10 is 30%, and a d8's odds are almost 40%. This means a little bad luck snowballs really easily and this is a problem you might have to get (un)lucky to properly playtest. It's also a bit of an odd flavor for psychic abilities especially.

I suggest that perhaps it would be better to have a Push die rather than a depletion die so the player initiates the depletion. The way I envision this, you can always make a basic roll for your psychic ability, but that is a relatively weak ability. You can choose to add your Psychic die to the roll to push it, but that will automatically step down your Psychic die.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 06, 2025, 09:26:00 PMThe problem with depletion dice is that because the odds of rolling below the threshold rise with each failure. The odds of depleting 1d12 is 25%, but the odds of depleting a d10 is 30%, and a d8's odds are almost 40%. This means a little bad luck snowballs really easily and this is a problem you might have to get (un)lucky to properly playtest. It's also a bit of an odd flavor for psychic abilities especially.

I suggest that perhaps it would be better to have a Push die rather than a depletion die so the player initiates the depletion. The way I envision this, you can always make a basic roll for your psychic ability, but that is a relatively weak ability. You can choose to add your Psychic die to the roll to push it, but that will automatically step down your Psychic die.

Perhaps an odd flavor, but I think it fits better than psi points, as to the depletion snowball, while this is true, the threshold is per psi-power, so on certain powers it's not so bad, threshold 1 powers on a d8 is only 12.5%  or 16.6% on a d6, which doesn't seem that terrible.
Power choice seems like it'd be heavily weighed on current psi die size, which seems like a fair risk reward calculation.

let me outline your idea. (for my sake as I'm not very inventive) so for a push-die mechanic, it'd be a d20 vs DC for psi power? the push die is something you can spend to add to the roll, so in this example if you had a psi die of d8 you can spend that, deplete it's dice size and add d8 +d20 vs Psi power DC?

If that's the case I feel that makes it pretty close to a standard OSR roll for spell mechanic (which I have one as well) one of my goals is to make all the supernatural mechanics feel distinct and different one another.


I could be mistaken on any of my assumptions however.

I tend to like the idea of the usage die for intangibles, like weapon condition or how long it takes a torch to burn out, so I'm inclined towards this idea. It definitely goes a long way towards differentiating psionics from other magic. I also quite like the idea of having two knobs to turn balance wise, both the initial die size, and the depletion threshold, whereas most implementations of the usage die I've seen fix the depletion at 2.

As for the snowballing effect, I see that as a feature rather than a bug. as you use the resource and it becomes more likely to deplete you need to be more careful with using it. It leads to a natural rise of tension, whereas something like mana points will always be less so as even if you are getting low on points, you know you'll be able to get x number of blasts still. So if you have enough points for 2 blasts, you can use one and hope one more will be enough, whereas if you're on your last die, you have to use each blast with knowledge it could be your last.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 06, 2025, 10:04:43 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on February 06, 2025, 09:26:00 PMThe problem with depletion dice is that because the odds of rolling below the threshold rise with each failure. The odds of depleting 1d12 is 25%, but the odds of depleting a d10 is 30%, and a d8's odds are almost 40%. This means a little bad luck snowballs really easily and this is a problem you might have to get (un)lucky to properly playtest. It's also a bit of an odd flavor for psychic abilities especially.

I suggest that perhaps it would be better to have a Push die rather than a depletion die so the player initiates the depletion. The way I envision this, you can always make a basic roll for your psychic ability, but that is a relatively weak ability. You can choose to add your Psychic die to the roll to push it, but that will automatically step down your Psychic die.

Perhaps an odd flavor, but I think it fits better than psi points, as to the depletion snowball, while this is true, the threshold is per psi-power, so on certain powers it's not so bad, threshold 1 powers on a d8 is only 12.5%  or 16.6% on a d6, which doesn't seem that terrible.
Power choice seems like it'd be heavily weighed on current psi die size, which seems like a fair risk reward calculation.

let me outline your idea. (for my sake as I'm not very inventive) so for a push-die mechanic, it'd be a d20 vs DC for psi power? the push die is something you can spend to add to the roll, so in this example if you had a psi die of d8 you can spend that, deplete it's dice size and add d8 +d20 vs Psi power DC?

If that's the case I feel that makes it pretty close to a standard OSR roll for spell mechanic (which I have one as well) one of my goals is to make all the supernatural mechanics feel distinct and different one another.


I could be mistaken on any of my assumptions however.

I hadn't considered conflicting with other supernatural mechanics.

I suppose I should ask how far out of the OSR norm you are willing to go to support these mechanics. If you want to stay with safely OSR mechanics, the usage die is probably the best option. However, to my eye, when you say you want quite different mechanics...the way I would do that is probably with playing cards. It's very easy to make one mechanic use Cribbage rules and another Hearts and another Blackjack. That is way more complex and higher effort to put together than simply strapping on a usage die, but it also fits the parameters for what you're asking better.

So the question is how much effort you are willing to put in and how precise you want to be on flavor or mechanics.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 07, 2025, 07:22:43 PMI hadn't considered conflicting with other supernatural mechanics.

I suppose I should ask how far out of the OSR norm you are willing to go to support these mechanics. If you want to stay with safely OSR mechanics, the usage die is probably the best option. However, to my eye, when you say you want quite different mechanics...the way I would do that is probably with playing cards. It's very easy to make one mechanic use Cribbage rules and another Hearts and another Blackjack. That is way more complex and higher effort to put together than simply strapping on a usage die, but it also fits the parameters for what you're asking better.

So the question is how much effort you are willing to put in and how precise you want to be on flavor or mechanics. 

Card mechanics would be about where I draw the line as I find them a bit annoying personally, where I could maybe see a card mechanic working is some sort of luck based magic or voodoo magic, but that'd a lot effort for a stylistic choice.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 07, 2025, 07:22:43 PMHowever, to my eye, when you say you want quite different mechanics...the way I would do that is probably with playing cards. It's very easy to make one mechanic use Cribbage rules and another Hearts and another Blackjack. That is way more complex and higher effort to put together than simply strapping on a usage die, but it also fits the parameters for what you're asking better.

I'm not a fan of that idea. At that point you have one player playing a minigame noone else is. As a player with a martial character, I super don't wanna sit there and watch the sorcerer say "hit me" to the gm for 3 minutes.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 07, 2025, 10:00:55 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on February 07, 2025, 07:22:43 PMHowever, to my eye, when you say you want quite different mechanics...the way I would do that is probably with playing cards. It's very easy to make one mechanic use Cribbage rules and another Hearts and another Blackjack. That is way more complex and higher effort to put together than simply strapping on a usage die, but it also fits the parameters for what you're asking better.

I'm not a fan of that idea. At that point you have one player playing a minigame noone else is. As a player with a martial character, I super don't wanna sit there and watch the sorcerer say "hit me" to the gm for 3 minutes.

I have played games with dedicated card game mechanics (most designers will probably understand how to use Through the Breach most easily, as it is effectively a D13 with reshuffle and card-swap rules.) While I agree that this can become time consuming, that is not categorically true.

My point is to emphasize that the unspoken value here is to use traditional RPG components like a traditional RPG would. This is not a bad value--although too many designers sharing that value will lead to a lot of inbred game design. But this is a value you need to admit you have to see your own design goals clearly.

I note with some disappointment that you and Socratic-DM seem to be twisting yourselves into pretzels to avoid making this admission. Card game mechanics are not inherently slow, and Socratic-DM's idea that card mechanics should match to a luck based system when card games almost invariably feature player skill and the alternative is dice, which are 100% luck based....

I am not surprised you both don't like my suggestion. Often making a suggestion you don't like makes the path forward more obvious by contrast. What I am concerned by is that the reasoning as to why you don't like cards is based off statements which are varying degrees of wrong. That really isn't a promising sign.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 08, 2025, 08:15:47 AMI have played games with dedicated card game mechanics (most designers will probably understand how to use Through the Breach most easily, as it is effectively a D13 with reshuffle and card-swap rules.) While I agree that this can become time consuming, that is not categorically true.

My point is to emphasize that the unspoken value here is to use traditional RPG components like a traditional RPG would. This is not a bad value--although too many designers sharing that value will lead to a lot of inbred game design. But this is a value you need to admit you have to see your own design goals clearly.

I note with some disappointment that you and Socratic-DM seem to be twisting yourselves into pretzels to avoid making this admission. Card game mechanics are not inherently slow, and Socratic-DM's idea that card mechanics should match to a luck based system when card games almost invariably feature player skill and the alternative is dice, which are 100% luck based....

I am not surprised you both don't like my suggestion. Often making a suggestion you don't like makes the path forward more obvious by contrast. What I am concerned by is that the reasoning as to why you don't like cards is based off statements which are varying degrees of wrong. That really isn't a promising sign.

What's with this victimization thing your pulling right now? we disagreed with you on a couple of specific points? 

the main reason I brought up cards as a luck mechanic is because I've seen some encounter table and plot generator type stuff that uses cards and found them kind of interesting, and the Louisiana gambler/card player is a pretty iconic image of fortune and luck.

Sorry I don't really want to use card mechanic for psionis, womp womp,  maybe for a different mechanic when I want to do a Western or Voodoo supplement might be  applicable, but a card game for psionics doesn't strike a thematic cord for me, the merits of it a mechanic are moot if it doesn't even feel thematic.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 08, 2025, 08:15:47 AMMy point is to emphasize that the unspoken value here is to use traditional RPG components like a traditional RPG would. This is not a bad value--although too many designers sharing that value will lead to a lot of inbred game design. But this is a value you need to admit you have to see your own design goals clearly.

You're not a mind reader.

I don't dislike card mechanics because they're non-traditional. I don't like one player minigames because to the other players it's just watching the one player and the gm play pattycake. I'm sure that cards could be implemented well, maybe even for this purpose. Your examples, the message I was responding too, sound like slow minigames. Cribbage and Blackjack both require playing several cards in succession counting the total. Hearts is a trick taking game, so unless you'd suggest resolving each spell or whatever we're doing with one trick it's gonna take a couple minutes.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 08, 2025, 02:24:12 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on February 08, 2025, 08:15:47 AMI have played games with dedicated card game mechanics (most designers will probably understand how to use Through the Breach most easily, as it is effectively a D13 with reshuffle and card-swap rules.) While I agree that this can become time consuming, that is not categorically true.

My point is to emphasize that the unspoken value here is to use traditional RPG components like a traditional RPG would. This is not a bad value--although too many designers sharing that value will lead to a lot of inbred game design. But this is a value you need to admit you have to see your own design goals clearly.

I note with some disappointment that you and Socratic-DM seem to be twisting yourselves into pretzels to avoid making this admission. Card game mechanics are not inherently slow, and Socratic-DM's idea that card mechanics should match to a luck based system when card games almost invariably feature player skill and the alternative is dice, which are 100% luck based....

I am not surprised you both don't like my suggestion. Often making a suggestion you don't like makes the path forward more obvious by contrast. What I am concerned by is that the reasoning as to why you don't like cards is based off statements which are varying degrees of wrong. That really isn't a promising sign.

What's with this victimization thing your pulling right now? we disagreed with you on a couple of specific points? 

the main reason I brought up cards as a luck mechanic is because I've seen some encounter table and plot generator type stuff that uses cards and found them kind of interesting, and the Louisiana gambler/card player is a pretty iconic image of fortune and luck.

Sorry I don't really want to use card mechanic for psionis, womp womp,  maybe for a different mechanic when I want to do a Western or Voodoo supplement might be  applicable, but a card game for psionics doesn't strike a thematic cord for me, the merits of it a mechanic are moot if it doesn't even feel thematic.

I don't think you understand the issue. The problem is not that you dislike card mechanics, but that when you state an explanation as to why you want to choose against the card mechanics, your explanations are incorrect. Card game mechanics almost categorically involve less luck than skill because most card games involve a skill component and most dice games do not. The RNG range is a different matter, but that is very nearly the same as saying the RNG range of D100 is wider than D20.

Naturally.

I do not want to fixate too much on the card thing and derail the thread more than it already has. This is not about cards vs dice; it's about the designer skills you're trying to use to make these mechanics. While cards are not a traditional RPG component, most players are highly familiar with them, too. If your intuition is off when spitballing card mechanics, it stands to reason it will also be off when designing a dice mechanic.

That's quite the designer skills landmine. It's probably going to cause you issues which are more widespread than one mechanic using a usage die. I suggest rather than tiptoeing around it, you learn to defuse it properly.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 09, 2025, 04:48:55 PMI do not want to fixate too much on the card thing and derail the thread more than it already has. This is not about cards vs dice; it's about the designer skills you're trying to use to make these mechanics. While cards are not a traditional RPG component, most players are highly familiar with them, too. If your intuition is off when spitballing card mechanics, it stands to reason it will also be off when designing a dice mechanic.

 

Interesting pivot, from the object to the subject, and quite the sneaky insult at that.

 but I do not find this intuition issue to be self-evident, designing a card game and an OSR TTRPG are rather different affairs, hence we don't see a dramatic glut of card mechanics in OSR TTRPGs or very many at all in TTRPGs.
 which is not to say there are none but I imagine the overwhelming majority do not, this leads me to think the intuition is not self-evident or bridging as you seem to imply. Otherwise we'd see more interlacing of these mechanics as a whole.

QuoteThat's quite the designer skills landmine. It's probably going to cause you issues which are more widespread than one mechanic using a usage die. I suggest rather than tiptoeing around it, you learn to defuse it properly.

You don't hide insults well.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 09, 2025, 04:48:55 PMThe problem is not that you dislike card mechanics, but that when you state an explanation as to why you want to choose against the card mechanics, your explanations are incorrect.

Funny, because before you starting whinging, the only reason Soc-DM gave for why he didn't want to use card mechanics was:

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 07, 2025, 08:02:20 PMI find them a bit annoying personally

Was he incorrect about that? Does he not actually find them personally annoying?

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 09, 2025, 05:26:46 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on February 09, 2025, 04:48:55 PMI do not want to fixate too much on the card thing and derail the thread more than it already has. This is not about cards vs dice; it's about the designer skills you're trying to use to make these mechanics. While cards are not a traditional RPG component, most players are highly familiar with them, too. If your intuition is off when spitballing card mechanics, it stands to reason it will also be off when designing a dice mechanic.

Interesting pivot, from the object to the subject, and quite the sneaky insult at that.

 but I do not find this intuition issue to be self-evident, designing a card game and an OSR TTRPG are rather different affairs, hence we don't see a dramatic glut of card mechanics in OSR TTRPGs or very many at all in TTRPGs.
 which is not to say there are none but I imagine the overwhelming majority do not, this leads me to think the intuition is not self-evident or bridging as you seem to imply. Otherwise we'd see more interlacing of these mechanics as a whole.

QuoteThat's quite the designer skills landmine. It's probably going to cause you issues which are more widespread than one mechanic using a usage die. I suggest rather than tiptoeing around it, you learn to defuse it properly.

You don't hide insults well.

You might consider it an insult, but he's not wrong. There is a large skill component to most card games that isn't there in rolling dice to see what happens. You're acting as if cards are random as dice which speaks to not really understanding card mechanics at all.

There's a reason cards are used far more often in gambling (and the main dice game of gambling; craps; is based on bets on the results of multiple throws of the dice). Its because its skill in judging when and how much to bet (and when to stand or fold) that determines outcomes in a more gripping way than a flat rng result.

Take blackjack, the goal is to get as high as possible without going over 21 with faces counting as 10s and aces as your choice of 1 or 11. Knowing the relative odds of each value coming up (ex. there are four times as many cards with a value of 10 in the deck and only 38% have a value of 5 or less) makes the outcome much more skill than luck based.

Say, for example, what if a spell system were this... when you cast, you draw one or more cards. Add the card value to the spell's effect, and subtract the difference between the sum and 21 from your Mana pool. So the closer you get to 21 the more powerful the effect and the less it costs, but if you go over 21 catastrophe occurs. Depending on the system it could be a simple failure that costs full price anyway, or it might be a backlash that explodes in their face.

Now onto that imagine adding effects that force a minimum number of draws; an inherently risky spell might require at least 3 draws for example. You could have forced holds akin to the dealers... once you reach 10 or 16 you must stop drawing... limiting risk (one could still go from 12 to 22 with one draw, but it's less likely) and reward.

All of those require considerations a skilled player can leverage that are more than just "will my die roll more than X?"

Something like that would work well for some sort of unstable magic... you can use it safely though the effect is weak and cost high, or you can risk letting it loose, but the closer to the edge you get the more you court potential disaster.

And that's just blackjack card rules. You could have a different system where every time you perform some action you gain one or more cards that you hold onto say, until your next rest. When you get two with the same suit you can spend them to get a bonus to your next spell. Two of the same number grants a bigger bonus, three or more of a suit or face bigger still, runs of numbers, etc.I

Maybe doing something else lets the DM take one of your cards from you.

I could see something like that working for say a karma-based magic system... good deeds earn you cards, selfish deeds take them away. The more karma you build the more card configurations you can use.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 09, 2025, 05:26:46 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on February 09, 2025, 04:48:55 PMI do not want to fixate too much on the card thing and derail the thread more than it already has. This is not about cards vs dice; it's about the designer skills you're trying to use to make these mechanics. While cards are not a traditional RPG component, most players are highly familiar with them, too. If your intuition is off when spitballing card mechanics, it stands to reason it will also be off when designing a dice mechanic.

 

Interesting pivot, from the object to the subject, and quite the sneaky insult at that.

 but I do not find this intuition issue to be self-evident, designing a card game and an OSR TTRPG are rather different affairs, hence we don't see a dramatic glut of card mechanics in OSR TTRPGs or very many at all in TTRPGs.
 which is not to say there are none but I imagine the overwhelming majority do not, this leads me to think the intuition is not self-evident or bridging as you seem to imply. Otherwise we'd see more interlacing of these mechanics as a whole.

QuoteThat's quite the designer skills landmine. It's probably going to cause you issues which are more widespread than one mechanic using a usage die. I suggest rather than tiptoeing around it, you learn to defuse it properly.

You don't hide insults well.

I don't see how this is an insult. Modern game design is a large enough field that no one can possibly know all of the material to it, so skill issues are inevitable. And being frank, with the internet, skill issues are really easy to fix. If you can figure out exactly what you need to learn it takes like 20 minutes. Anyone who says differently on either count is peddling OneTrueWayism and likely huffing their own farts, too.

Now, I would say this is an oddball one. Most designer skill issues I encounter tend to be something between abstract and esoteric because most RPG designers forget to study fundamental game design. Things like gameplay loops, feedback loops, complexity budgets, or techniques to streamline material tend to be sparingly discussed in RPG communities. Which is baffling because this stuff is game design 101 in the video game community, often coming well before someone tries to learn coding or using middleware.

The question is not whether or not you or I have skill issues; it's whether or not you recognize it when it spits on your shoes and try to correct them, or if you choose to ignore them until something breaks.