Quote from: jeff37923;642596BedrockBrendan, have you considered writing an advernture for Mongoose Traveller? I'd be interested in seeing your take on the Traveller game.

I don't really play much Traveller so I probably wouldn't be able to write a good module for it. I have played a bit, but not enough to really know the system and science fiction is something I like but don't have the same passion for as some others. I do think our modules are nice though.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;642553It also is murky in terms of probability, which is something I wanted. You know its better to have 4d10 than 2d10, but most people have a harder time calculating probabilities on the fly with dice pools instead of say a d20 or d100. To me that felt more like life where I don't actually know my numerical chance of hitting someone in the face, but just have a general sense that it is easy or hard (a lot of people do disagree with this last point though).

A unexpected answer, and why this sort of Q&A is worthwhile.


What determines the number of dice in the Damage Pool?


The inclusion of the grid is also unexpected. What purpose does it serve in a lightweight system?

Quote from: gleichman;642608A unexpected answer, and why this sort of Q&A is worthwhile.


What determines the number of dice in the Damage Pool?

The weapon. In the case of melee weapons you can add in your muscle skill (this has varied from game to game though as some are modern and gun focused while something ike Servants of Gaius is all swords, clubs and bows.

Edit: also a 10 on an attack roll beefs up the damage roll, as do things like called shots to the head.

QuoteThe inclusion of the grid is also unexpected. What purpose does it serve in a lightweight system?

Two reasons.

The first is that we felt you needed an option to do either grid or no grid (sometimes even if you prefer no grid, some combats require it).

The second is our first network game was Terror Network and that demanded being able to make important tactical decisions. So we needed a grid. Its still a fast and lightweight game, but it is real hard to participate meaningfully in something as tactical as a swat raid if you dont have the grid. In later games the grid is more of an option for those who want it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;642553It also is murky in terms of probability, which is something I wanted. You know its better to have 4d10 than 2d10, but most people have a harder time calculating probabilities on the fly with dice pools instead of say a d20 or d100. To me that felt more like life where I don't actually know my numerical chance of hitting someone in the face, but just have a general sense that it is easy or hard (a lot of people do disagree with this last point though).

Couldn't someone just work out all the probabilities in advance, and write down all results on paper?

Or for that matter, write an app which does such calculations on the cellphone or laptop?

Quote from: ggroy;642614Couldn't someone just work out all the probabilities in advance, and write down all results on paper?

Or for that matter, write an app which does such calculations on the cellphone?

Yes you can. And I have done so each time we make a game. We also included a probability chart in our first release (though I believe there is a slight error in one of the columns). So you can absolutely do this if you desire. And I encourage the GM to know the probabilities. This is more for the players. Just as a general rule, i find most people will have a harder time figuring these out on the fly (though I have also found a couple of people who are quite good at calculating it).

Quote from: Bill;642561'Hit' and 'damage' rolls being distinct:
I personally prefer game systems where it is clear how stealthy, how evasive, how armored, and how tough a target is. The more abstract games often rub me the wrong way.

This is an interesting comment given that the description has such a narrow range for displaying the differences you seem to value. But I suppose some range is better than none, and you're clearly happy with what it provides.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;642553But to answer this question. Network has never been quite lethal enough for my own tastes. Personally I would prefer for there to be greater lethality (either by inflicting an automatic wound on 10s on your attack roll or even automatic 2 wounds on 10s). But we found in playtest people didn't respond well to the game when it was too lethal like that.

Upon reflection I think this is the most interesting comment in the thread. It mirrors what happened early in the development of D&D and caused them to turn to Hit Points, and you ended up taking the same path for the same reasons.

Well, I think I'm done with my quiz. Thanks for the time and the answers.

Quote from: gleichman;642627This is an interesting comment given that the description has such a narrow range for displaying the differences you seem to value. But I suppose some range is better than none, and you're clearly happy with what it provides.

This is true to an extent because all damage rolls target hardiness and it isnt divided up by alot (though armor is factored ontop of your hardiness). But for me at least there is enough range to give me what I want. There are six defenses: Hardiness, Stealth, Evade, Parry, Wits and Resolve. Physical attacks target either Evade or Parry (ranged and thrown target Evade while melee targets Parry). Stealth is targeted by Detect rolls. Wits is targeted by things like Empathy and Deception, while Resolve is targeted by Rhetoric and Command skill (these are all skills from Servants of Gauis as they vary across different games). Damage Rolls all go against Hardiness.

I think what Bill point may have been referencing is a game he and I worked on before where damage and attack rolls were tied together (the game got lost in publishing limbo and we recently re-secured the rights, but I dont know whether it will be released or not). By the end of the design process we were both frustrated by the mechanic (Bill I believe was bothered by the abstraction of it, because the way the system worked, toughness and reflexes got factored into together for the hit and the damage. My gripe was more about not having enough flexibility on damage ranges). I think that game still worked for what we were trying to do, but when we both moved onto Network after we didn't want to touch anything with attack and damage bound together (now I wouldn't mind doing somehting like that in a game).

It would certainly be possible to do in Network. You could have each weapon do a different number of wounds depending on whether you get a success or total success. Instead of your hardiness rating being used as a static number against damage rolls it could just set the number of wounds you can take. Not saying we would go this way, but I have considered some possibilities here.

Quote from: gleichman;642629Upon reflection I think this is the most interesting comment in the thread. It mirrors what happened early in the development of D&D and caused them to turn to Hit Points, and you ended up taking the same path for the same reasons.

Well, I think I'm done with my quiz. Thanks for the time and the answers.

That is a fair comment. I did try to make Network reflect my tastes and Bill's but I also made it knowing others would be playing the game (and I realize my own tastes are pretty far outside the standard these days). So while I pushed for a lethal game, I only went as far as people seemed to enjoy. As the game evolved I added in more optional mechanics to use for my own campaigns so they can be lethal but I think most people who play our games stick with the default system. The core game could certainly be more lethal. In most cases I think we made the right design decision for our settings and the people who play our games. But I do think we made an error here in the case of Crime Network. I feel it should have been more lethal (because the mafia setting really needs one hit kills).

Though I should emphasize our wounds do not play out like D&D. You cannot dungeon crawl in Network, because your character will die (you can only take three wounds and healing takes a long time). What the wound pacing usually allows is for the character to realize combat isnt going his way and try to retreat. S po it gives you more of a chance when things go south (and usually within the first or second round of combat it is pretty clear what direction things are going).

Quote from: gleichman;642627This is an interesting comment given that the description has such a narrow range for displaying the differences you seem to value. But I suppose some range is better than none, and you're clearly happy with what it provides.

In regards to granularity, there are about 9 possible die roll values, and 12 defense values; potentially.

Its fairly close to a 1 to 10 scale for each of action and opposition.

And stealth, evade, armor, and toughness are all different values.




The game does not have the 'bucket of HP' dnd feel at all.

Depending on the genre, two hits usually put you down.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;642635S po it gives you more of a chance when things go south (and usually within the first or second round of combat it is pretty clear what direction things are going).

This was exactly the main stated reason for HP in D&D. No doubt the details are different however given the systems differences. But the matching goal is noteworthy I think.

Just as aside, I'm not opposed to very simple resolution systems like this. My current favorite ground combat wargame (Force on Force) uses an even more simple system. Much depends upon other rules and the goal of the game.

I have nothing useful to add.  I'd just like to say with no sarcasm that this thread has spawned some genuinely interesting discussion.

Quote from: gleichman;642638This was exactly the main stated reason for HP in D&D. No doubt the details are different however given the systems differences. But the matching goal is noteworthy I think.

Just as aside, I'm not opposed to very simple resolution systems like this and and by themselves. My current favorite ground combat wargame (Force on Force) uses an even more simple system. Much depends upon other rules and the goal of the game.

Is that the same as Ambush Alley?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;642644Is that the same as Ambush Alley?

That's the name of the company that publishes it (along with the excellent Tomorrow's War).

I think it may have been the name of an earlier game they did... or not. I'm not clear on the history. Excellent games.

Quote from: gleichman;642646That's the name of the company that publishes it (along with the excellent Tomorrow's War).

I think it may have been the name of an earlier game they did... or not. I'm not clear on the history. Excellent games.

I have a game by them called Ambush Alley. I remember it being pretty good (it was specifically for counter-insurgency miniature combat).