All right, let's get some actual game discussion going in here, instead of just hijinks.
If you look at the efluvia flowing out of the Forge, what I've seen has been rule lite soap opera CRAP. Maddman's favourite, "Dogs of the Vineyard", sounds particularly vile. His example for it was some shit about a PC having a brother who was going to kill a whore for revenge over something or other, and the PC had to decide whether to stop him or not. Whatever. If I want to experience that kind of crap, I'll either contact my extended family or watch the Jerry Springer show.
I'm all for tinkering with games, though. I think they can always be made better. And by better I sure as hell don't mean "more like a soap opera". I mean more mechanically smooth and elegant.
To that end, I am continually thinking about the die mechanic used by a game. (Diceless doesn't work -- at least Amber doesn't. Cards possibly could, but I've never tried them, so I dunno.)
d20 is simple and elegant, but it is inherently suited to pass/fail tests. Degrees of success are harder to do.
Dice pools are great for degrees of success, but you end up rolling buckets of dice. That can be fun, but it can also be time consuming. Especially when you're rolling a 30 die test.
GURPS 3d6 system is, frankly, awful. I don't like how extreme the bell curve is on it. I've had 2d10 suggested to me, and it's interesting to tinker with, but I'm still not sure how thrilled I am with it. It still tends to make modifiers much more valuable than the die roll.
But these are the only systems I've really played and/or tinkered with. I'm interested on any of y'all's thoughts on these die mechanics, or any other ones you've used or thought about.
I can bring the storytelling to whatever system I'm using. What I want from IT is good mechanics. :)
the problem with dice pools is that they are also a kind of distributed pass/fail test - but they do tend towards the average more. hmm...
Quote from: Aelfinnthe problem with dice pools is that they are also a kind of distributed pass/fail test - but they do tend towards the average more. hmm...
When you get down to it, *any* system is going to have you either pass or fail on a lot of things. Either you hurt someone with your sword or you don't. With a die pool, though, it becomes possible to combine the damage with the attack -- the more successes you get, the more damage you do. Again, though, I'm not convinced it's the "best" solution. Combats in Exalted take forever. Even with simplified rules, they'd still take a long time.
So I like the possibilities of gradations, but not so much the bucket 'o' dice...
Quote from: CyberzombieWhen you get down to it, *any* system is going to have you either pass or fail on a lot of things. Either you hurt someone with your sword or you don't. With a die pool, though, it becomes possible to combine the damage with the attack -- the more successes you get, the more damage you do. Again, though, I'm not convinced it's the "best" solution. Combats in Exalted take forever. Even with simplified rules, they'd still take a long time.
So I like the possibilities of gradations, but not so much the bucket 'o' dice...
huh. ok, lets think about this - we want a system where the fighting archetype is bound to do more damage than the magical archetype, in terms of physical attacks.
howbout we drop weapon damage alltogether? give each weapon a bonus - say +2 on a dagger up to +5 or so on a greatsword - and add that bonus to the attack roll itself. base roll of 10+dex hits, armor as damage reduction, and anything that beats 10+dex is the damage done?
Quote from: Aelfinnhuh. ok, lets think about this - we want a system where the fighting archetype is bound to do more damage than the magical archetype, in terms of physical attacks.
howbout we drop weapon damage alltogether? give each weapon a bonus - say +2 on a dagger up to +5 or so on a greatsword - and add that bonus to the attack roll itself. base roll of 10+dex hits, armor as damage reduction, and anything that beats 10+dex is the damage done?
huh. can't edit my post to add in something I forgot:
keep the natural 1 always missing, maybe even bring it up to natural 1 & 2, and slow down the base attack bonus progression.
I'm not usually very good at discussions of this type, but after reading this I had a thought. How hard would it be to incorporate a system where weapons do a set base damage, and then a certain amount of bonus damage based on how well an attack roll succeeds? That way you roll just one die to hit, but you also get some gradation in how wewll ya hit and the effects that follow.
Quote from: SigmundI'm not usually very good at discussions of this type, but after reading this I had a thought. How hard would it be to incorporate a system where weapons do a set base damage, and then a certain amount of bonus damage based on how well an attack roll succeeds? That way you roll just one die to hit, but you also get some gradation in how wewll ya hit and the effects that follow.
what, you mean like the system I just propsed? :heh:
Quote from: SigmundI'm not usually very good at discussions of this type, but after reading this I had a thought. How hard would it be to incorporate a system where weapons do a set base damage, and then a certain amount of bonus damage based on how well an attack roll succeeds? That way you roll just one die to hit, but you also get some gradation in how wewll ya hit and the effects that follow.
For something like D&D
Divide the dice type in half to get base damage. (longsword at 1d8 = 4 base dagger at 1d4 base = 2 base damage.)
Per x over needed to hit = +1 damage.
If x = 3
AC of opponent = 20
I hit AC 21 with my dagger I do 2 damage (1/3 + 2)
I hit AC 31 with my dagger I do 5dmg or 6dmg depending on how you want to round. damage (10/3 + 2)
I have little interest in single die resolution systems. All I've ever seen have been seriously flawed in one way or another.
Besides, spliting out damage from strike chance (for the want of a better term) allows more detailed modifiers and mechanically description. I don't mind the second die roll, in fact I enjoy it.
I just borrowed a friend's True 20 (I need to buy the hardcover!) and it has something much like what Aelfinn and Sigmund are talking about. I've just started reading it, so I'm not sure whether I like it or not.
Gleichman: I like the hit roll and damage roll of D&D, too. I just like tinkering and coming up with something new. :)
Quote from: CyberzombieGleichman: I like the hit roll and damage roll of D&D, too. I just like tinkering and coming up with something new. :)
Well, nothing wrong with that.
Good luck.
While trying to design a fast, simple system for games based on the novel/movie Battle Royale, I designed a d20 skill-based system with single-roll resolution and grades of effect. The system used few and small modifiers that didn't often stack to preserve the effect grades, and ensure bonuses didn't make certain results impossible. For example, here are the effect grades for attacks:
Result: Effect
1-7: Missed
8-12: Grazed
13-16: Wounded
17-19: Crippled
20+: Dead
The system was hp-less and meant to be played fast and furious, with as little stat-tracking or tactical consideration as possible. Yes, a solid punch from a geeky character could potentially drop a hulking bruiser, but that was the kind of game Battle Royale... death was sudden, unexpected, and possible with every attack.
I haven't looked at this system in a long time, but reading it now, I think I might try and finish it. Maybe even release it as a minigame.
Quote from: Aelfinnwhat, you mean like the system I just propsed? :heh:
Heh, if it is I had no idea...told ya I'm not the best at this stuff, but I am interested. I do really like the True20 system, but I don't think it's quite the same as what I was thinking of. The end effects are the same though I believe, because in the end your level of injury varies depending on how hard ya got hit as well as how well ya manage to "shrug-off" the damage.
I really don't mind the 'ole roll the die and take X number of damage either.
Quote from: CyberzombieI just borrowed a friend's True 20 (I need to buy the hardcover!) and it has something much like what Aelfinn and Sigmund are talking about. I've just started reading it, so I'm not sure whether I like it or not.
Gleichman: I like the hit roll and damage roll of D&D, too. I just like tinkering and coming up with something new. :)
cool. I havn't gotten my dirty little mits on true20 or blue rose yet, So I look forward to that point...
I'm a big Alternity fan. In Alternity, you roll a d20 +/- a "situation die" (depending on difficulty), and try to get below your skill value. If you roll below half your skill, you've gotten a Good success, and below 1/4 you've gotten an Amazing success. In combat, the different success levels translated to doing more and/or worse (Alternity has three different damage tracks, stun, wound, and mortal) damage. In addition, someone who takes an Amazing hit has a chance of being knocked out cold. In other situations, a better success means different things. On an astrogation roll, it determines how close you get to where you wanted to jump in. On a sensors roll, it might determine how close something is when you detect it. On a repair roll, it might change how long the repairs take.
Pendragon uses the D20, but in a direct opposed way.
If you are attempting say climbing a rock, rolling any result under your skill is a success. Simple but when fighting another knight you both roll together, and the idea is to Roll as high as you can, but under your skill level. Whoever rolls highest (without going bust) wins.
This was the way it worked in 4th edition. There were some other fancy mechanics if your skill was over 20.
Quote from: CyberzombieWhen you get down to it, *any* system is going to have you either pass or fail on a lot of things. Either you hurt someone with your sword or you don't. With a die pool, though, it becomes possible to combine the damage with the attack -- the more successes you get, the more damage you do. Again, though, I'm not convinced it's the "best" solution. Combats in Exalted take forever. Even with simplified rules, they'd still take a long time.
So I like the possibilities of gradations, but not so much the bucket 'o' dice...
You're going to stab me for this...
But Unisystem does this. It's a stat + skill + 10, with a default single success being a 9. Then there's a chart so that 9-10 is 1 success, 11-12 is 2 successes, and so on. This sounds like it would be a PITA in play, but with the chart right on the character sheet it's no problem. You really do get the best of both worlds, a simple single die roll and the gradations of Successes. Extra successes add to your total damage, which is a fixed number in Cinematic or can be rolled in Classic.
It works really well and really quickly. I'm really not trying to bring it up in every thread, but it does exactly what you're looking for mechanically.
Quote from: MaddmanYou're going to stab me for this...
Maybe not *stab*, per se... :maniac:
Quote from: MaddmanBut Unisystem does this. It's a stat + skill + 10, with a default single success being a 9.
Logic would seem to indicate you meant "+1d10" rather than "+10". Would that be correct?
Quote from: MaddmanThen there's a chart so that 9-10 is 1 success, 11-12 is 2 successes, and so on. This sounds like it would be a PITA in play, but with the chart right on the character sheet it's no problem. You really do get the best of both worlds, a simple single die roll and the gradations of Successes. Extra successes add to your total damage, which is a fixed number in Cinematic or can be rolled in Classic.
I can see how that would work and it doesn't sound bad.
Quote from: MaddmanI'm really not trying to bring it up in every thread,
The fuck you aren't. :yell:
Quote from: Maddman...but it does exactly what you're looking for mechanically.
I will admit it does have some potential. Unwillingly. :p
Quote from: CyberzombieI will admit it does have some potential. Unwillingly. :p
You can always download Witchcraft for free to get the mechanics without having to taint yourself with Buffy or Angel. :p
Quote from: SigmundI'm not usually very good at discussions of this type, but after reading this I had a thought. How hard would it be to incorporate a system where weapons do a set base damage, and then a certain amount of bonus damage based on how well an attack roll succeeds? That way you roll just one die to hit, but you also get some gradation in how wewll ya hit and the effects that follow.
Well you could ask Fanpro. ;) They just rebuilt Shadowrun 4 and it uses exactly that basis. Except that it is the net "hits" (successes) after you subtract the hits rolled by the defender rolling his Reaction and possibily Dodge dice.
The way Shadowrun is set up though it can get to be a lot of dice, easily a dozen if you have pretty good abilities and there are no circumstantial penalties. Upwards of 20 dice or more if you are the baddest ass in town, working conditions are top notch, and you are tossing in Edge dice (sort of a extra effort pool).
I'm thinking about trying out The Burning Wheel system. It is similar, but the odds . I'm not sure exactly what RPGPundit's thoughts on it would be, it's pretty high concept in it's theory. It is also self-published by one high energy and funny guy. The concept is that character is driving the story which is driving the game, and the entertainment is the story that comes out of the interaction of all the characters (PCs and NPCs). But the action turns on the crunchie bits and it highly discourages setting aside the rules mechanics. Mostly because good rules mechanics help, not hinder, the story and the entertainment. To do this they have the mechanics cover social and other non-combat events just as well as combat is covered. In fact their Duel of Wits, the social interaction, effectively is verbal combat.
Basically you figure out what the character you built is going to try do based on the situation and their "backstory", which is built right into crunch of the character, throw down the dice and see wtf happens. I'm really looking forward to see in person how it plays out. I like having the dice and the character's personality and all the other character personalities guide me happens. It feels like openning a present at Christmas.
The also use pools of d6s. But their pools look like they are somewhat smaller because they use a TN (target number, roll that number or higher for a success) of 4, 3, or 2 depending on how good the character is at something. This means less dice for the same number of hits than with SR4, which uses TN 5. The flipside is you end up with a narrower spread of total hits, so it is less random.
Quote from: Maddmanbut with the chart right on the character sheet it's no problem
If I want a game that requires a chart on the char sheet, then I'd chose the one that's the best RPG ever, Rêve (http://malcontent.sourdust.com/).
(And now I've busted my not-so secret identity...)
Quote from: CyberzombieMaddman's favourite, "Dogs of the Vineyard", sounds particularly vile. His example for it was some shit about a PC having a brother who was going to kill a whore for revenge over something or other, and the PC had to decide whether to stop him or not. Whatever. If I want to experience that kind of crap, I'll either contact my extended family or watch the Jerry Springer show.
C'mon, a barbarian going into a dungeon to kill a liche can be a soap opera if the music and lighting are just so. Its all point of view.
You see Jerry Springer, I see a loaded situation with an angry man with a gun and just you between him and a killing that will damage the community for the worse. It is just you between your pissed off brother and a dead whore that will haunt him forever. Whaddya do?
Mechanics and the role-playing need not be in two different corners. I like 'em symbiotic, one feeding off of and and helping the other.
Quote from: PakaYou see Jerry Springer, I see a loaded situation with an angry man with a gun and just you between him and a killing that will damage the community for the worse. It is just you between your pissed off brother and a dead whore that will haunt him forever. Whaddya do?
If I want dicey real-life situations that require delicate handling, I'll deal with fucking real life. I want some *escapism* in my roleplaying, not more of what goes on in reality. Yuck!
Quote from: CyberzombieIf I want dicey real-life situations that require delicate handling, I'll deal with fucking real life. I want some *escapism* in my roleplaying, not more of what goes on in reality. Yuck!
This is exactly how I feel. To paraphrase a film director whose name I can't recall at the moment, why should I play a game to experience something I can find out on the streets?
Quote from: CyberzombieIf I want dicey real-life situations that require delicate handling, I'll deal with fucking real life. I want some *escapism* in my roleplaying, not more of what goes on in reality. Yuck!
Put me solidly into the escapism bucket as well. The "Jerry Springer" school of gaming holds nothing of interest to me.
Quote from: CyberzombieIf I want dicey real-life situations that require delicate handling, I'll deal with fucking real life. I want some *escapism* in my roleplaying, not more of what goes on in reality. Yuck!
Dogs isn't really my cup of tea either, though I appreciate some of the stuff going on in there mechanically. As far as forgey games go I'd love to get in on a game of My Life With Master. One idea I heard about Dogs that I thought was pretty cool was to use it to run an Old Republic Star Wars game. Instead of quasi-mormons, the PCs would be Jedi Knights, travelling to various star systems and sorting out local problems. Only with laser swords and starships :D
If you regularly face down angry people with guns in your day to day life, I could understand why you wouldn't want that at your game table.
Quote from: PakaIf you regularly face down angry people with guns in your day to day life, I could understand why you wouldn't want that at your game table.
It's not even that. It's that we see this kind of thing on the news everyday. Some of us, myself included, have known someone injured or killed in such situations. I have no desire to deal with that kind of stuff in a game. I could counter what seems to be a snide remark by saying that if you've been raised like a veal and have no experience with the real world, then such stuff might be appealing. But I won't ;)
Good thing you didn't Colonel. ;) You didn't, right?
I like facing this stuff at the table because it is something that really bothers me and touches something important to me. Also, it is exciting to me, as exciting as a fire-breathing dragon or >insert cool fantasy dingus here<.
That isn't to say that I don't have my share of games with kick-ass fire breathing dragons and such but a good family gun fight clears the sinuses for me.
But you don't like it at your table.
And that is where we are at.
Such is life.
Quote from: PakaI like facing this stuff at the table because it is something that really bothers me and touches something important to me. Also, it is exciting to me, as exciting as a fire-breathing dragon or >insert cool fantasy dingus here<.
Why is that, though? I know people who have been shot to death, some who have committed suicide, and I do know at least one person in prison for killing someone. These things bother me, and it touches something important to me, too. I just can't see enjoying playing out such situations at a game table. I'm not pissing on you or anyone who does enjoy such stuff, but it's difficult for me to relate. Perhaps if you explained it, I might get a better perspective on it.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonWhy is that, though?
Not answering for Pata who I don't know. Only speaking in general terms.
Some people I've met who go in for this sort of stuff do it because "the art of rpgs should reflect and comment on real life". Make of that what you will.
Others I imagine go into for much the same reasons as people watch and enjoy "Jerry Springer". Again, make of that what you will.
I don't think I've encountered any other significant reasons other than "because I like it".
Quote from: gleichmanSome people I've met who go in for this sort of stuff do it because "the art of rpgs should reflect and comment on real life". Make of that what you will.
I guess that's a good way to explain it. It makes more sense that way, to me at least. I have a film degree, and using such situations as the basis of movies is common. I guess I was hung up on the fact that I see RPGs as done more as a hobby, a way to blow off steam, rather than to wrestle with the dark aspects of existence.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonI guess I was hung up on the fact that I see RPGs as done more as a hobby, a way to blow off steam, rather than to wrestle with the dark aspects of existence.
The gap between those of us who view it as a pure entertainment hobby and/or a place to take our escapist fantasies to and those who view it a new art form is vast.
Cool, I am glad we have come through the cloud of snark to real talkin'.
I too have had powerfully bad experiences with guns and have had friends who have been really damaged by situations with firearms. I'm not living any kind of gangstah life, nor am I a special forces operator but I'm not a babe in the woods either who doesn't consider the world away from my monitor.
I feel like I am confronting that shit at the gaming table. Not just guns but dysfunctional families, right and wrong, justice. I like it when the game brushes against something that really matters to me, pushes a button, and when I am with a group I trust, even makes me a little uncomfortable.
This isn't every moment of every game but its around. I like my dragons and trolls and elves and kewl-hot-katana action but I like when the fun and the real world get mixed up, not bcause I force it but because the players bring it to the table and we all confront that shit together.
It is like an exorcism, a communal exorcism.
I hope that helps explain.
Quote from: PakaI hope that helps explain.
Sounds related to this:
Cathartic Module A cathartic module is one that was designed to produce a strong emotional reaction in the players. It might involve emotionally confronting subject matter, immersion in character, and avoiding anything that breaks the players’ suspension of disbelief (such as metagaming or out-of-character talk). Cathartic modules are typically systemless scenarios designed for convention play.
The goal of a cathartic game is for the players to be affected by the experience (and sometimes disturbed). Occasionally games are described as cathartic when they rely on sensationalism, taboo breaking, or shock value to create a reaction.
Some players prefer simply to enjoy themselves; cathartic games aren’t to everyone’s taste, and sensationalist games certainly aren’t.
Quoted from http://www.geocities.com/dragon-dreamer/roleplaying/glossary.html
I recall it being something of a movement in it's corner of the rpg world a while back.
Yeah, when it happens, it happens but I'm not shooting for every game I play to be an after-school special.
I also think the wild west and shoot-outs are just iconic and fucking cool.
Quote from: PakaI feel like I am confronting that shit at the gaming table. Not just guns but dysfunctional families, right and wrong, justice. I like it when the game brushes against something that really matters to me, pushes a button, and when I am with a group I trust, even makes me a little uncomfortable... ...It is like an exorcism, a communal exorcism.
I hope that helps explain.
That it does.
I still think you're crazy for enjoying that sort of shit, but whatever floats your boat. :D
Quote from: CyberzombieThat it does.
I still think you're crazy for enjoying that sort of shit, but whatever floats your boat. :D
I really think I am being misrepresented by this medium of communication.
Are any of you going to be at Gen Con or Dex Con for you east coast folk? If so, let me know and we will get together and play some Dogs.
Forge games are often poorly represented as saying something big rather than games that are just fun and honestly, at my table, fun comes first. If we say something abou tthe world around us, but we don't have fun, that is a shitty night of gaming (and it hasn't happened) but if we have fun and through that process something about the world get's said...bonus.
Anyway, lemme know.
I am totally with Paka on this.
Quote from: G-manSome people I've met who go in for this sort of stuff do it because "the art of rpgs should reflect and comment on real life". Make of that what you will
While I don't really think of gaming as "art" (and if it is art, is collective ephemeral art that is gone the moment it happens), the quote above fits my view of these things perfectly.
I want situations (not every situation, but a good amount) in my games to be comment or reflection on "real" life. I don't like abuse, torture, murder, or deceit in my real life (and unfortunately have been exposed to those things in my lifetime) - but those are all aspects of the "adventuresome life" we are immersing ourselves in at the same time that we have a nice little safe distance from it.
BTW, this is totally turning into a discussion that belongs in that other forum ;)
Quote from: el-remmenBTW, this is totally turning into a discussion that belongs in that other forum ;)
I noticed that, but I can't actually get anyone to *talk* about die mechanics, apparently.
Quote from: CyberzombieI noticed that, but I can't actually get anyone to *talk* about die mechanics, apparently.
I like rolling me some dice.
I like big hand fulls that I can barely hold on to and counting my successes. I like the betrayal when the dice eff me and some fictional dingus is going to bite the dust because of it.
Get this topic back on track if ya want. I'm with it.
I like when the dice surprise us and push the story into a place none of us saw coming. I like when the mechanics and the dice and the story get together and have a party, each making the other stronger and cooler through the players.
Yeah, I like dice.
Also, people who get pissed at their dice for rolling poorly are funny.
There is an actual essay in the HackMaster Players Handbook that discusses how to throw dice properly - with photos! - and how to ensure they stay as lucky for you as possible.
As far as an elegant single die resolution system, for combat at least. Each weapon could have a chart like so:
Die Roll: 01/02/03/04/05/06/07/08/09/10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20
Long Sword: 00/00/00/00/00/00/01/01/02/02/03/04/05/06/07/08/10/12/14/16
Battleaxe: 00/00/00/00/00/00/00/00/01/01/02/02/03/04/05/06/07/08/16/24
Pick Heavy: 00/00/00/00/00/00/00/00/01/01/01/02/02/03/03/04/05/06/12/24
Of course you'd add the typical bonuses and subtract the target's AC and so on, but anything above a 20 is treated as a 20, anything below a 1 is treated as a 1.
I'm assuming that the numbers for the weapons is the amount of damage done. My first thought was "Hmm. Rolemaster, but with a d20." RM has one chart for each of most weapons (though there are some cases where a weapon is described as "treat as rapier +5 vs soft armor and -5 vs metal armor) and the charts cross-reference your attack roll with the opponent's armor. Though RM isn't a one-roll system that way, since most hits result in a critical, which then require a second roll. E.g. an attack might result in "12BP", which means "12 hp, and a B Puncturing crit." You then roll another d100 (mostly unmodified) on the chart for B puncturing crits, which might result in something like "You stab foe in the arm. He takes 3 more hits and bleed 1/round." This is quite complicated, but it allows the game to model things like "chain mail makes it harder to dodge, so more blows will connect than with someone in regular clothes. But the armor takes up most of the impact, so it's a lot harder to seriously hurt someone in mail." In other words, you might need to hit 90 in order to do anything to an unarmored person, but only 70 to do anything to the guy in mail. However, the first crit on the unarmored person appears at 95 on the chart, while the first crit on the guy in mail appears at 110.
Come to think of it, your chart is more like HARP, where you have one chart per weapon type (edged, crushing, etc.). Armor provides a penalty to the attacker's roll, instead of the cross-referencing done in Rolemaster. Critical effects are also included in the single roll.
Quote from: DuchboyAs far as an elegant single die resolution system, for combat at least. Each weapon could have a chart like so:
Die Roll: 01/02/03/04/05/06/07/08/09/10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20
Long Sword: 00/00/00/00/00/00/01/01/02/02/03/04/05/06/07/08/10/12/14/16
Battleaxe: 00/00/00/00/00/00/00/00/01/01/02/02/03/04/05/06/07/08/16/24
Pick Heavy: 00/00/00/00/00/00/00/00/01/01/01/02/02/03/03/04/05/06/12/24
Of course you'd add the typical bonuses and subtract the target's AC and so on, but anything above a 20 is treated as a 20, anything below a 1 is treated as a 1.
I take it those are damage results? It's certainly an interesting first draft of a concept.
I'm thinking of something kind of similar, actually. A melee attack would be like a duel. The attacking character rolls to hit; the defender rolls a defense (parry or dodge; experienced characters could get feats allowing them to counterattack on a successful defense).
Nothing original so far. However, I'd add in a passive defense. You'd have to roll at least a modified 10 to hit anything, and things like armour and shields when increase the passive defense. If you don't exceed the passive defense, it doesn't matter how bad the defender rolled -- you miss.
If you bypass both the defender's passive and active defenses, you hit. Your weapon does a minimum amount of damage (based on it, your strength, magic, feats, etc.) +1 hp per point you beat your opponent by.
My idea is also in the very rough draft stage -- casual examination will show all sorts of ways that would go wrong with the rest of the D&D rules -- but that's where my ideas are headed.
Dice mechanics
I like 2d10 over 1d20 because you get more average rolls.
I do not like d20's extraordinary events 10% of the time. (On a 20 and on a 1 as well something unusual happens.)
I like a system with impossibility built into it. I prefer a critical success such, as a rolling a 20 to add a significant bonus (+5 or +10) to success instead of being considered automatic. If your fighting someone with an AC of 43 and you only have a +9 to hit before the dice, you should be screwed, not have a 5% chance every swing of clobbering them anyway. I want the same to apply to rolling a 1.
As the GM, if your fighting someone with a AC of 43 and you only have +9, you have screwed up in an epic way and its time to pay the piper. I don't want to have to worry about fabulous luck or cheating a dice making a difference. If you have the AC of 43 and your opponent only has a +9 I will have him react appropriately such as run screaming, surrender, jump off a cliff because the odds of survival are better, etc...
If you have a number on a scale, have it have meaning individually, not just as a group. Don't roll a 1d10 + skill + attribute and then have 11-12 the same and 13-14 the same, etc... This is one of the things I don't like about Unisystem. I don't want a 14 to be the same as a 13. Change the range of your skills and attributes, or what an individual point of success means and balance it.
Quote from: Xavier LangDice mechanics
I like 2d10 over 1d20 because you get more average rolls.
I do not like d20's extraordinary events 10% of the time. (On a 20 and on a 1 as well something unusual happens.)
I have been thinking about this ever since Azlan talked about it on the old board. I've tinkered with it and I'm not really sure whether I like 2d10 or not. It definitely makes the bonuses more important than the die roll and I'm just not sure how that would work out in play. I guess I'm just too used to d20 rolls; I'm not sure what to make of 2d10.
Currently, a character with a +10 has an edge over someone with a +5, but that edge would be much stronger if you're rolling 2d10. (I don't have my notes with me so I'm not sure how much stronger offhand.) I'm not sure how much that would impact game play, really.
I have very few opinions on dice.
I hate dice pools or anything else that makes determining the odds of success difficult.
My fantasy game runs with d100 for skills, 2d6 for saving throws, and the D&D like range of dice for damage.
HERO uses 3d6 for skills and characteristic checks. And additive D6s for 'damage'. I'm happy with this except when running fantasy.
I want something simple. Few dice. Easy resolution. Quick combat. I hate spending hours on a 30-second combat. That's unnecessary. 5 minutes tops.
If realism is sacrificed, so be it.
Quote from: Name LipsI want something simple. Few dice. Easy resolution. Quick combat. I hate spending hours on a 30-second combat. That's unnecessary. 5 minutes tops.
I love long combats.
Here are a few general thoughts:
I hate it when it varies on what dice are used for the same situation. It just gets tedious to remember. That's the main thing that made Alternaty not worth it to me. I had the same problem with the stunt dice in Dragon Fist - you rolled a D20, then rolled another die whose size depended on your stats. I'm sure that it would become easier over time but why make a game harder to learn if there's not much payoff?
Large numbers of dice are a pain. I'm capable of rolling and adding huge numbers of dice, but it takes a few extra moments every time. For me there's rarely a good reason to roll more than 3 dice.
Whenever you're rolling lots of dice, there is a fairly strong central tendency - even if not all of the dice are rolled at the same time. For example, the variability of single die opposed rolls is the same as rolling two dice to resolve something (assuming same type of dice in both cases). The math is the same but the feel to the players is quite different. Along the same lines, you don't have to worry about the flat density function of a single die if something takes several rounds to play out.
The times where you have to look closely as using one die are when that one roll has a big effect. For example, poison in AD&D was annoying because you lived or died on a single roll. Single rolls are not necessarily bad but you need to think about if they're doing what you want.
You need to look at the granularity of the event possibilities. For example, with one die, the lowest frequency of an event is 1/die size. Victory Games put out several operational level games where an entire battle was decided by 1d10 - a battle outcome was either 10% likely of occuring or impossible.
Here's what I want out of a dice mechanic - simple, intuitive, transparent, and granular. Specifically here's what my magic dream system would do.
- Roll over. I don't like roll under, I like it when big numbers mean you did better.
- Success levels. Something more than pass/fail, I want to know how well you passed or failed, as well as allowing rolls over time and so on.
- Single die. Dice pools obfuscate the odds of success, and are a pain to deal with in game.
- Simple. Both the success and number of levels are readily apparent with no need for lookups or such.
That's why I'm such a unisystem whore, it gets three out of the four. If I could figure out a way to get rid of the chart and have success levels be obvious from the die roll I'd be in gaming heaven.
Quote from: Maddman... I'd be in gaming heaven.
Don't you mean hog heaven?
Quote from: gleichmanDon't you mean hog heaven?
Oink Oink. :D
Quote from: MaddmanHere's what I want out of a dice mechanic - simple, intuitive, transparent, and granular. Specifically here's what my magic dream system would do.
- Roll over. I don't like roll under, I like it when big numbers mean you did better.
- Success levels. Something more than pass/fail, I want to know how well you passed or failed, as well as allowing rolls over time and so on.
- Single die. Dice pools obfuscate the odds of success, and are a pain to deal with in game.
- Simple. Both the success and number of levels are readily apparent with no need for lookups or such.
That's why I'm such a unisystem whore, it gets three out of the four. If I could figure out a way to get rid of the chart and have success levels be obvious from the die roll I'd be in gaming heaven.
Isn't unisystem (1d10 + skill + attribute -8)/2 = successes?
1d10 = 7
skill = 4
attribute = 3
14-8 = 6
6/2 = 3
successes = 3
13 or 14 = 3 successes?
Quote from: Xavier LangIsn't unisystem (1d10 + skill + attribute -8)/2 = successes?
1d10 = 7
skill = 4
attribute = 3
14-8 = 6
6/2 = 3
successes = 3
13 or 14 = 3 successes?
No. The chart isn't linear, it goes from every two to every three. The success chart is
9-10 1
11-12 2
13-14 3
15-16 4
17-20 5
21-23 6
With an extra success for every three. Even if you changed it to simply be every other is a success level, then that formula is still too complex to work out in game. I'm not sure how my dream system would work, but it would be very clever :p.
The chart above is to determine damage. It should probably be changed to 2d10; it seems a bit too deadly as a d20. I did read through an old Rolemaser book once, and I've downloaded the free HARP rules. But the actual inspiration came from a $5 strategy game I got from RPG shop (which doesn't seem to sell strategy games any more). The game had paper "miniatures" with 3 row 1d10 charts at the bottom, one row for recruit, regular, and elite respectively.
Cyberzombie, so you are contemplating a two step process: first see if you hit, then if you did determine damage, but use the same die result for both steps. It seems like you could streamline the process by nixing the 10 pt bonus to passive defense, then accomplishing everything in one step. Like so: Assuming a Lvl 1 ftr with a long sword and shield in chain mail attacking another similar ftr.
..................Attacker..Defender
Ability Mod............4...........0
Equip Mod............5..........5+1
Base Atk+wpn foc...2...........0
Die Roll................10..........10
Total....................21.........16
So in this case the Attacker would do 5+(whatever your damage bonus is for a long sword).
On the other hand if you keep the two steps you could do some interesting things, like split the mods for weapons. So a short staff could be easy to hit with but do less damage, while a warhammer would be the other way around. You could do the same for armor.
Quote from: DuchboyCyberzombie, so you are contemplating a two step process: first see if you hit, then if you did determine damage, but use the same die result for both steps. It seems like you could streamline the process by nixing the 10 pt bonus to passive defense, then accomplishing everything in one step.
I could, but I don't want to. :)
Here's my reasoning: I have played the various Palladium games. There's a small chance of missing (if you roll a 1-4 on the d20) but, in general, it's a straight, active contest between the attacker and the defender. Either the attacker or the defender is going to win. And if the defender doesn't have an active defense, the attacker is going to hit 80% of the time.
I'm not after truly realistic combat, but that's not realistic *enough* for me to suspend disbelief. There is always a chance of just flat missing, no matter what your target does. For my rough draft, I'm using the D&D system, where an untrained combatant has a 50% chance of missing -- the +10 bonus. When I spend more time on it, that may well change.
I really like the idea of both passive and active defenses, but I've never been able to work up something practical for the gaming table before. This may or may not be it. :)
Quote from: CyberzombieI really like the idea of both passive and active defenses, but I've never been able to work up something practical for the gaming table before. This may or may not be it. :)
I worked something up for my fantasy game.
Wouldn't call it practical however. How does double digit addition/subtraction and division sound to you? :)
Quote from: gleichmanI worked something up for my fantasy game.
Wouldn't call it practical however. How does double digit addition/subtraction and division sound to you? :)
Like something that my wife would kill me over. :D She tolerates my tinkering, but she is definitely not a rules monkey. Things get too complicated, she's likely to start throwing things at me. Big things, like furniture.
Quote from: CyberzombieLike something that my wife would kill me over. :D She tolerates my tinkering, but she is definitely not a rules monkey. Things get too complicated, she's likely to start throwing things at me. Big things, like furniture.
Yep. That's what I feared.
I'm such a dinosaur.
Quote from: gleichmanYep. That's what I feared.
I'm such a dinosaur.
If I could afford to get PDAs and to program in the math for such a system, I would make a much more complicated and math-intensive game. Realism's not difficult when you have a computer to do the heavy lifting. Unfortunately, my kids would rather have food, so the idea is very far in the future. :)
Quote from: CyberzombieIf I could afford to get PDAs and to program in the math for such a system, I would make a much more complicated and math-intensive game. Realism's not difficult when you have a computer to do the heavy lifting. Unfortunately, my kids would rather have food, so the idea is very far in the future. :)
But I thought kids were food... Opps. Showing my true colors as total evil again.
One guy I know did do a application for the game that let you input all the stats for the characters and NPCs, and it provided the number range for the results. Rather impressive. But that type of math is second nature to me, and I can give the result faster than people can input the question.
I do have a execl spreadsheet to create the characters. An Air Force major who played in my game said he never saw anything at the Pentagon or Groom Lake that approached it in complexity.
See, I would appreciate that sort of thing, but I doubt most of my gamer buddies would. :) Sounds very cool, though.
Quote from: PakaIf you regularly face down angry people with guns in your day to day life, I could understand why you wouldn't want that at your game table.
You'd think, but just stroll over to Dumpshock and check out how many Shadowrun players are current or former military or police. It is something i've noticed away from Dumpshock too.
@gleichman
How are you with understanding odds from visuals? Because once graphed i find dice pool odds much, much easier to get a handle on and remember. Of course i personally always internalize ranges of probabilities in graphic terms, so maybe i'm odd that way. But by doing so i find i build a very accurate understanding of the possibilities of the game along different senarios that i can draw upon during play. Even for games with so-called "simple" probabilities which tend to become less so once you get into full senarios with multiple rolls.