This is a thread I have posted here before, but I have new features I am considering adding, so I would like some feedback.

Selection: Roleplay Evolved has two core mechanics. Covert Comparisons are a diceless mechanic intended to be used when speed or maintaining immersion trumps the need for mechanical precision. It basically works by having the GM say, "Your stat is A grade, the task is C grade, therefore you pass with two extra successes."

The Fusion Pool is the exact opposite: it is a dice mechanic intended to be open to a ton of player creativity and to capture a lot of mechanical nuance. However, it accomplishes this at the expense of being a complex and possibly slow mechanic with a hefty learning curve. I want to repeat this: the fusion pool is NOT intended as an all-in-one mechanic the way the D20 roll is; it is intended to partner with Covert Comparisons.

How does the Fusion Pool work?

Players select four step dice representing skills and attributes relevant to an action. Unlike many other mixed dice systems, players may double-up or even triple-up representations for specific skills or attributes, but they must follow a set of rules the GM provides called the Splicing Rules.

The player rolls, and counts dice which rolled 1, 2, or 3 as successes.

Optionally, the player may add Die Echoes, which cost additional resources like Action Points, but allow you to bank any successes you've already rolled, pick up some or all of your dice, and reroll them. You can only reroll each die once, so you can't spend all your Die Echoes on your best die, but you are expected to prefer rerolling your best dice first. As with before, count how dice which rolled 1, 2, or 3 as successes.

On the GM side, the GM can set the difficulty several ways. The obvious way is to start with a Covert Comparison and draw a finger across a GM table ("C grade means 2 successes required.") Or you can follow the boilerplate rule of 1, 2, 3. One success needed? Easy. Two successes needed? Normal. Three successes needed? Hard. More than 3? Very hard to practically impossible.

Why is it a bloody Roll-Under?

Most step dice systems struggle to include the D20 and the D4. Written as a roll-over, the gap between the D12 and the D20 becomes an almost unplayable power skip. Written as a roll-under, the gap becomes the first step in a learning curve, and the D20 and the D4 can both fit into the same progression curve.

Additionally, a roll-over system would probably have to use a roll and keep approach, which involves more arithmetic. I am trying to save all the complexity budget operations for other things, which means an arithmetic-free core mechanic.

Optional Rules:

Vetoing. If a player rolls successes, but not enough successes to succeed, they may take narrative control to veto a certain negative outcome from resulting from their rolls.

"The kidnapper holds the governor's daughter up, and says, "I'll kill her!"

"I shoot at the exposed side of his face." (Rolls two successes out of four needed.)

"I do not shoot the governor's daughter."



Feedback Request: Shedding Dice

Die Shedding is a death spiral mechanic where compromised players lose dice. You assemble your pool normally, but instead of rolling all four dice, you choose and remove a number of them from your pool, and then roll.

The point of Die Shedding is that it cancels Die Echoes out, and as players can purchase all the Die Echoes they want by spending more AP, the death spiral becomes an AP penalty where the player may choose to ignore the penalty or restore their roll.

My Thoughts

The Fusion Pool mechanic has proven to tolerate a lot of feature-creep because it is an arithmetic-free mechanic which is not always used for every action. It's more a "combat or PCs are up to something creative" roll which gets pulled out on special occasions, or it gets hacked down by ignoring some of the rules.

That said, I think that the Fusion Pool is very close to the limit for how much feature creep it can accept without chugging, and that I should probably choose between Vetoes or Die Shedding rather than having both. So I have to ask: which strikes you as the more relevant feature?

Quote from: Fheredin on February 10, 2025, 08:55:38 PMThis is a thread I have posted here before, but I have new features I am considering adding, so I would like some feedback.

Selection: Roleplay Evolved has two core mechanics. Covert Comparisons are a diceless mechanic intended to be used when speed or maintaining immersion trumps the need for mechanical precision. It basically works by having the GM say, "Your stat is A grade, the task is C grade, therefore you pass with two extra successes."

The Fusion Pool is the exact opposite: it is a dice mechanic intended to be open to a ton of player creativity and to capture a lot of mechanical nuance. However, it accomplishes this at the expense of being a complex and possibly slow mechanic with a hefty learning curve. I want to repeat this: the fusion pool is NOT intended as an all-in-one mechanic the way the D20 roll is; it is intended to partner with Covert Comparisons.

How does the Fusion Pool work?

Players select four step dice representing skills and attributes relevant to an action. Unlike many other mixed dice systems, players may double-up or even triple-up representations for specific skills or attributes, but they must follow a set of rules the GM provides called the Splicing Rules.

The player rolls, and counts dice which rolled 1, 2, or 3 as successes.

Optionally, the player may add Die Echoes, which cost additional resources like Action Points, but allow you to bank any successes you've already rolled, pick up some or all of your dice, and reroll them. You can only reroll each die once, so you can't spend all your Die Echoes on your best die, but you are expected to prefer rerolling your best dice first. As with before, count how dice which rolled 1, 2, or 3 as successes.

On the GM side, the GM can set the difficulty several ways. The obvious way is to start with a Covert Comparison and draw a finger across a GM table ("C grade means 2 successes required.") Or you can follow the boilerplate rule of 1, 2, 3. One success needed? Easy. Two successes needed? Normal. Three successes needed? Hard. More than 3? Very hard to practically impossible.

Why is it a bloody Roll-Under?

Most step dice systems struggle to include the D20 and the D4. Written as a roll-over, the gap between the D12 and the D20 becomes an almost unplayable power skip. Written as a roll-under, the gap becomes the first step in a learning curve, and the D20 and the D4 can both fit into the same progression curve.

Additionally, a roll-over system would probably have to use a roll and keep approach, which involves more arithmetic. I am trying to save all the complexity budget operations for other things, which means an arithmetic-free core mechanic.

Optional Rules:

Vetoing. If a player rolls successes, but not enough successes to succeed, they may take narrative control to veto a certain negative outcome from resulting from their rolls.

"The kidnapper holds the governor's daughter up, and says, "I'll kill her!"

"I shoot at the exposed side of his face." (Rolls two successes out of four needed.)

"I do not shoot the governor's daughter." 

Have you considered using a card based resolution instead?  it seems as though this system has a lot of technical debt on the periphery you could get rid of my accepting a small amount in your core mechanic.

Skills & Attributes  - The Core mechanic

Attributes run from 1 (or 2) to 12 and represent the threshold for success, skill represents how many cards you draw for a skill check. so for example Punching Nuts 3 and Big Muscles 4 means when punching someone in the nuts you draw three cards, any cards with a value above 4 are success and you count those up. J=11, Q=12, K=13 in this setup, so the face cards just have assigned values, except Joker which when drawn subtracts 1 success, Ace adds +1 success.

Critical success are made when you draw your exact attribute value, so back to the nut punching example, if I drew a 4, I get a critical success, maybe I give him testicular torsion or something? or maybe it's just a +1?

Of course you might need to adjust DCs, but 1 being easy, 2 normal 3 hard, 4 very hard seems about right, and it means certain DCs are above a player if they don't even have the skill rating for it. or at least they have to bet correctly to get DCs above what their card drawn would even allow.

But I mean this adds sooo much Player skill! as players are drawing from the same deck of cards there is a cooperative skill element to this, with tricks like card counting and optimizing actions by picking characters for certain tasks with certain skill+attribute values, this has the fun if odd quirk that sometimes picking a player/character with a lower card draw is better if you know the remaining deck roughly.

Quote
Feedback Request: Shedding Dice

Die Shedding is a death spiral mechanic where compromised players lose dice. You assemble your pool normally, but instead of rolling all four dice, you choose and remove a number of them from your pool, and then roll.

The point of Die Shedding is that it cancels Die Echoes out, and as players can purchase all the Die Echoes they want by spending more AP, the death spiral becomes an AP penalty where the player may choose to ignore the penalty or restore their roll.

My Thoughts

The Fusion Pool mechanic has proven to tolerate a lot of feature-creep because it is an arithmetic-free mechanic which is not always used for every action. It's more a "combat or PCs are up to something creative" roll which gets pulled out on special occasions, or it gets hacked down by ignoring some of the rules.

That said, I think that the Fusion Pool is very close to the limit for how much feature creep it can accept without chugging, and that I should probably choose between Vetoes or Die Shedding rather than having both. So I have to ask: which strikes you as the more relevant feature?

as to how Die shedding and  Die Echos get translated or what I think of them? hell if I know! but this card system replacement is much more skillful right? I mean you never said this was your design goal but I'm going to assume it and judge accordingly.

being serious though maybe you can bank extra success using action points, and draw face down cards, which allow you to expand your draw on a chosen skill check.

with Shedding cards, where you remove a card from your draw to cancel out a face down card somewhere else or a success/critical.

Quote from: Socratic-DMHave you considered using a card based resolution instead?  it seems as though this system has a lot of technical debt on the periphery you could get rid of my accepting a small amount in your core mechanic.

I have. Card mechanics tend to be non-diagetic, and players are conditioned to interpret things like runs and suits as non-diagetic. To use a wine-tasting analogy, I am going for a core mechanic which is light and effervescent because the mechanics--while crunchy--melt into the fiction. Cards have a lot of body and will not melt into the fiction the same way because they proceedurally generate strong non-diagetic elements.

That's not to say I've never messed with cards in a roleplaying game. I have a half-finished prototype of a Top Gear RPG where you play race car drivers. The entire premise of the game is you play a cross between Cribbage and Texas Hold'em...and you can make players discard cards by insulting their character. Very Top Gearish. Doesn't quite work right because Cribbage involves some big brain involvement when counting, so you tend to either be playing the cards or firing off insults (usually the lead player like Mario Kart.) My point is it has potential, but still needs more time in the oven.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 11, 2025, 10:02:36 PMI have. Card mechanics tend to be non-diagetic, and players are conditioned to interpret things like runs and suits as non-diagetic. To use a wine-tasting analogy, I am going for a core mechanic which is light and effervescent because the mechanics--while crunchy--melt into the fiction. Cards have a lot of body and will not melt into the fiction the same way because they proceedurally generate strong non-diagetic elements.

And what are you trying to imply, that a card mechanic can't be diagetic? your reasoning seems faulty then, like you just haven't really considered it, I mean card games require in general less math on the players part, while retaining technical depth which seems like a recipes for success given the players don't have to take as many breaks from the in-universe fiction to do math problems. 

I note with some disappointment that you seem to be twisting yourself into pretzels to avoid making this admission. Card game mechanics are not inherently inferior at being diagetic.

I am not surprised you 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.

QuoteAnd what are you trying to imply, that a card mechanic can't be diagetic?

Card features like suits and card pool features like flushes and pairs and runs are all non-diagetic, and players are conditioned to interpret them as non-diagetic. This is not the same as a die's number, which is technically also non-diagetic, but players are conditioned to interpret it as diagetic.

This is not to say this is always a huge deal, but that it runs counter to my general desire for a low visibility, low-effort mechanic with high crunch potential. Card mechanics have the high crunch potential, but when you explore the differences between card mechanics and dice mechanics in a card mechanic, the card mechanic's non-diagetic components make it quite visible and often relatively high effort. So no, not for this project.

QuoteI am not surprised you don't like my suggestion.

No, I like it well enough. It just isn't for this project. I suggest that as far as card mechanics go it's rather inoffensive. It doesn't explore hidden information or explore asymmetric play potentials cards excel at relative to dice. This worked well enough for Through the Breach. But I have to say that for the design space you have available, it doesn't strike me as particularly ambitious.

Oh, and I may have spoken too soon about not disliking it. I'm not a fan of using the stat to determine the number of cards drawn. You'll either have to reshuffle the deck regularly (time waster) or the card count would shift too quickly and players counting the cards would have a significant advantage over players who didn't count the cards, giving you a min-max munchkining problem.


While I've got you talking about card mechanics, though, I suppose I should ask you about my own card RPG game.

In Formula Double-One, you play as race car drivers on the Reality TV show Formula Double-One. The game is broken into rounds which each have a theme prompt, like talking about your car, your team, a story about a previous race, pull pranks on other drivers, or messages from your sponsors.

Players are dealt 6 cards and discard 1 card to a hand called the Underdog. Then the GM cuts the deck and flips up a card. Players then go around the table responding to the prompt (example: each player roleplays out a message from their sponsor). If your response to the prompt insults another player character such that someone at the table laughs, you may flip your character sheet over to indicate you have landed your insult for the round, then force them to discard another card of their choice to the Underdog. You may insult players when it isn't your turn, and you may insult players as many times as you want, but you can only insult a player and force them to discard once per round.

At the end of the round, the GM flips another card face up, then players choose the best combination of 5 or fewer cards they can make, and then tally them like a Cribbage hand.

At the end of the round, the player who is the furthest behind collects the Underdog hand and counts it the same way. They choose the best combination of 5 or fewer cards they can make and tallies it like a Cribbage hand.

Then the player who received the underdog chooses the prompt for the next round and narrates the transition to the next prompt as they score their points.

First player to 121 points wins the race. It...might take a while.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 12, 2025, 09:00:37 PMWhile I've got you talking about card mechanics, though, I suppose I should ask you about my own card RPG game.

Was there suppose to be a question which followed after that sentence?
Because I don't see it.