But aren't.
The title pretty much says it all. Whether it's something that used to be commonplace but now isn't or something that has always been very niche, what's a game mechanic that you wish was more widely adopted by the bigger more mainstream genres and games?
A couple years ago, I would have said detailed (h)exploration mechanics when I was first introduced to them with Forbidden Lands; in the years since with the growth of the OSR reintroducing it to quasi-d&d as well as some variant incorporated into official D&D with the 2024 version, I don't think it qualifies anymore as I think the mechanic has tipped over the critical mass line. I'll instead go with usage die mechanics for consumables (also introduced to me with Forbidden Lands but obviously exists in other games).
I can't think of one. Game mechanics don't exist in a vacuum. They need to work well with the other mechanics in that particular game. In fact, I think falling in love with a mechanic is one of the big pitfalls for a designer.
That said, if you want to talk about relatively unexplored design space (regardless of how often or not it can be used well in a system), then I'd nominate "moderate chunks of archetype or capability". There's no good name for it generically, but in D&D terms you can think bigger than a feat or skill, smaller than a class. The 5E class options are about the right size, but don't qualify for this because they are just big options that the class gets instead of independent things. So in other words, it needs to get picked like feats but work more like a sub class.
The exact details, of course, are going to depend a lot on how the game otherwise works.
-Slot-based inventory/encumbrance. I think it's the best compromise between realism and gameplay convenience. Probably the only reason it hasn't caught on is that 90%+ gamers are already used to ignoring encumbrance entirely.
-Simultaneous attack and defense in melee. To me, this is just obviously how combat should work, but I think I've only seen it in Warlock! and the system Zalman posted recently.
-Armor penetration rolls/armor saves. I feel less strongly about this one, but it makes more sense to me than armor soak or armor folded into defense score.
-Chase/pursuit rules. They're starting to be more common now, but they were a glaring omission in most mainstream games for a long time.
-mix-and-match class/profession systems a la Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or Shadow of the Demon Lord. Not a good fit for every game, but it's a great system and far superior to D&D multiclassing.
Usage Dice.
They were designed to be used for arrows and consumables but forget that nonsense, the concept is better used for things like Sanity, replacement for spell slots, or for hireling morale. You could even use usage Die for random encounter tables, When the Usage Die drops you drop to a different encounter table, maybe more dangerous, maybe the alarms went off or the volcano is starting to blow or something.
1-vs-1 dueling.
Especially in Star Wars type games.
My preferred Star Wars game is the simplified Mini-Six Bare Bones game (which is free FYI), and I found a plasma sword (lightsaber) fight is typically over in one hit on turn one or two.
Then I found Dueling Blades by Griffon Publishing (also free) that completely changed duels to a drawn out and interesting fight that involved movement as much as dice rolling. It's great.
Recently I bought Space Pulp RPG for Everywhen/Barbarians of Lemuria. It also has dueling rules built right into the game.
I'd like to see more games where injuries are less common (easier to avoid being hit/damaged) but where the injuries are more meaningful and harder to remove (e.g., you can't just take 8 hours to sleep off nearly being killed).
I really like the ability to push yourself at the expense of some condition, like in Dragonbane. I also like the flashback mechanism from Blades in the Dark to account for times when your player knowledge isn't sufficient to plan for in-world things your PC would likely know - of course, it needs a cost associated with it, but it can make for interesting sessions.
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 28, 2025, 09:38:58 AM-Simultaneous attack and defense in melee. To me, this is just obviously how combat should work, but I think I've only seen it in Warlock! and the system Zalman posted recently.
What's the system that Zalman posted recently?
Simultaneous attack and defense is standard in Powered-by-the-Apocalypse (PbtA) systems, which are quite widespread. So this one is popular, just not in the OSR.
Quote from: Shteve on March 28, 2025, 12:37:41 PMI also like the flashback mechanism from Blades in the Dark to account for times when your player knowledge isn't sufficient to plan for in-world things your PC would like to know - of course, it needs a cost associated with it, but it can make for interesting sessions.
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 28, 2025, 09:38:58 AM-Simultaneous attack and defense in melee. To me, this is just obviously how combat should work, but I think I've only seen it in Warlock! and the system Zalman posted recently.
I think Pendragon has that sort of thing.
Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2025, 12:53:39 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on March 28, 2025, 09:38:58 AM-Simultaneous attack and defense in melee. To me, this is just obviously how combat should work, but I think I've only seen it in Warlock! and the system Zalman posted recently.
What's the system that Zalman posted recently?
Simultaneous attack and defense is standard in Powered-by-the-Apocalypse (PbtA) systems, which are quite widespread. So this one is popular, just not in the OSR.
https://www.therpgsite.com/design-development-and-gameplay/the-smor-system/
Is that a thing in PBTA? The only PBTA game I've played is Dungeon World, which either doesn't work that way, or my DM was running it wrong.
Quote from: Ruprecht on March 28, 2025, 12:58:14 PMI think Pendragon has that sort of thing.
Huh. I thought it just had the standard "parry" action you get in a lot of games from that lineage. I'll have to go check.
A single roll for attack and damage.
I agree on wilderness procedures. One thing I think should be more popular is "reverse random encounter rolls", i.e., instead of rolling 1d6 to see if you have an encounter TODAY, roll 1d6 to see HOW MANY DAYS until next encounter. This saves quite a lot of rolls.
(OTOH automation would be even better for that).
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 28, 2025, 01:10:44 PMQuote from: jhkim on March 28, 2025, 12:53:39 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on March 28, 2025, 09:38:58 AM-Simultaneous attack and defense in melee. To me, this is just obviously how combat should work, but I think I've only seen it in Warlock! and the system Zalman posted recently.
What's the system that Zalman posted recently?
Simultaneous attack and defense is standard in Powered-by-the-Apocalypse (PbtA) systems, which are quite widespread. So this one is popular, just not in the OSR.
https://www.therpgsite.com/design-development-and-gameplay/the-smor-system/
Is that a thing in PBTA? The only PBTA game I've played is Dungeon World, which either doesn't work that way, or my DM was running it wrong.
I think your DM was running it wrong. In Dungeon World, the DM never rolls for enemy attacks. (The DM never touches dice at all for resolution.) Instead, the player rolls his "Hack and Slash" Move. On success (10+), only the PC does damage. On a limited success (7-9), both sides deal damage. On failure, only the enemy deals damage. Here's the Dungeon World SRD
https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/moves/
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 28, 2025, 01:10:44 PMQuote from: Ruprecht on March 28, 2025, 12:58:14 PMI think Pendragon has that sort of thing.
Huh. I thought it just had the standard "parry" action you get in a lot of games from that lineage. I'll have to go check.
I just checked my Pendragon 1st ed, and melee is a contested roll so only one side can win and do damage. I don't know about later editions.
Quote from: Ruprecht on March 28, 2025, 10:34:05 AMUsage Dice.
They were designed to be used for arrows and consumables but forget that nonsense, the concept is better used for things like Sanity, replacement for spell slots, or for hireling morale. You could even use usage Die for random encounter tables, When the Usage Die drops you drop to a different encounter table, maybe more dangerous, maybe the alarms went off or the volcano is starting to blow or something.
Obviously I'm a fan of usage die mechanics as I suggested the same in the OP but I never thought about using them for encounters and other things. Interesting...
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 28, 2025, 12:32:21 PMI'd like to see more games where injuries are less common (easier to avoid being hit/damaged) but where the injuries are more meaningful and harder to remove (e.g., you can't just take 8 hours to sleep off nearly being killed).
I think game designers are worried about death spirals that may result. My most recent experience was with the Alien RPG by Free League last year where my heavy gunner took an unlucky wound early in the mini-campaign to the arm and was now just a pistol shooter. Since it was a mini campaign and the healing time was beyond the scope of the campaign (the characters were on a "base is self destructing in t-minus... situation) so I was just mostly useless in my primary role for the rest of the sessions. In that case, a d&d style "long rest" wouldn't have helped but the injury met your criteria in that it was quite meaningful and effectively impossible to remove... and it made the gameplay experience much worse for it unfortunately.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 28, 2025, 01:20:14 PMA single roll for attack and damage.
I agree on wilderness procedures. One thing I think should be more popular is "reverse random encounter rolls", i.e., instead of rolling 1d6 to see if you have an encounter TODAY, roll 1d6 to see HOW MANY DAYS until next encounter. This saves quite a lot of rolls.
(OTOH automation would be even better for that).
I'm a fan of both. With regard to a single roll to rule them all, I'm actually hoping to use that with my heartbreaker. Regarding the latter, I only recently discovered that when doing some research on other RPGs and saw that mechanic (rolling how many days/shifts/miles/whatever until an encounter) in the One Ring/LOTR5e games as well as iirc Broken Empire as well.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 28, 2025, 01:20:14 PMOne thing I think should be more popular is "reverse random encounter rolls", i.e., instead of rolling 1d6 to see if you have an encounter TODAY, roll 1d6 to see HOW MANY DAYS until next encounter. This saves quite a lot of rolls.
I think swapping time for odds could be a good axis-flip to consider for a lot of cases. Similarly, multiple attacks with a failure chance could be swapped with a roll for the number of hits.
For this case, I also like the "Hazard Die", where 1d6 represents 6 different potential event types,
one of which is a random encounter.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 28, 2025, 01:20:14 PMA single roll for attack and damage.
I'm not sure I've run across this before. Anyone have an example? Color me intrigued.
Quote from: Shteve on March 28, 2025, 03:47:49 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on March 28, 2025, 01:20:14 PMA single roll for attack and damage.
I'm not sure I've run across this before. Anyone have an example? Color me intrigued.
Any system that uses a flat damage value for a weapon/attack/ability and then adds damage based on the margin of success (whether extra "hits" on a d6 dice pool, +1 damage for every 10% under the target in a percentile game, or extra damage for every 2-5 over AC in a d20 game). Forbidden Lands is a good example of a dice pool game that does it; one success gets you the base damage and each additional success gives you an extra point of damage on that attack. I think I remember reading that Mutants and Masterminds does something like that with their d20 system but I could be wrong (and admittedly haven't ever played it... I just recall reading something about it).
Quote from: RNGm on March 28, 2025, 04:01:08 PMQuote from: Shteve on March 28, 2025, 03:47:49 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on March 28, 2025, 01:20:14 PMA single roll for attack and damage.
I'm not sure I've run across this before. Anyone have an example? Color me intrigued.
Any system that uses a flat damage value for a weapon/attack/ability and then adds damage based on the margin of success (whether extra "hits" on a d6 dice pool, +1 damage for every 10% under the target in a percentile game, or extra damage for every 2-5 over AC in a d20 game). Forbidden Lands is a good example of a dice pool game that does it; one success gets you the base damage and each additional success gives you an extra point of damage on that attack. I think I remember reading that Mutants and Masterminds does something like that with their d20 system but I could be wrong (and admittedly haven't ever played it... I just recall reading something about it).
Awesome, thanks! I own Forbidden Lands and haven't been able to play it yet, so I missed that. Looking forward to trying it.
Quote from: Shteve on March 28, 2025, 03:47:49 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on March 28, 2025, 01:20:14 PMA single roll for attack and damage.
I'm not sure I've run across this before. Anyone have an example? Color me intrigued.
Probably the most widespread for this is NWoD/CoD where your successes on the attack dice pool are how much damage the attack deals.
My personal favorite for this though is Silhouette's system where each attack has a damage multiplier and when you hit, you multiply the margin of success by the multiplier for damage dealt.
Due to the rest of the system the margin is typically in the low single digits so the math is actually pretty quick.
One thing I like about it is that, since the margin of success determines how much damage is done, some types of armor really do make sense as just improving your defense value (sloped armor or similar deflectors or anything where the effectiveness is a percentage of incoming energy reduced)... because each +1 lowers the margin of success and therefore the damage taken.
Quote from: RNGm on March 28, 2025, 03:15:38 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on March 28, 2025, 12:32:21 PMI'd like to see more games where injuries are less common (easier to avoid being hit/damaged) but where the injuries are more meaningful and harder to remove (e.g., you can't just take 8 hours to sleep off nearly being killed).
I think game designers are worried about death spirals that may result. My most recent experience was with the Alien RPG by Free League last year where my heavy gunner took an unlucky wound early in the mini-campaign to the arm and was now just a pistol shooter. Since it was a mini campaign and the healing time was beyond the scope of the campaign (the characters were on a "base is self destructing in t-minus... situation) so I was just mostly useless in my primary role for the rest of the sessions. In that case, a d&d style "long rest" wouldn't have helped but the injury met your criteria in that it was quite meaningful and effectively impossible to remove... and it made the gameplay experience much worse for it unfortunately.
It might have made for great high-tension roleplay under certain circumstances (and with the right group), but if the only concern for the game in question (whether by game or by group) is the combat aspect, then I can see why you considered it "much worse."
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 28, 2025, 09:38:58 AM-Slot-based inventory/encumbrance. I think it's the best compromise between realism and gameplay convenience. Probably the only reason it hasn't caught on is that 90%+ gamers are already used to ignoring encumbrance entirely.
-Simultaneous attack and defense in melee. To me, this is just obviously how combat should work, but I think I've only seen it in Warlock! and the system Zalman posted recently.
-Armor penetration rolls/armor saves. I feel less strongly about this one, but it makes more sense to me than armor soak or armor folded into defense score.
-Chase/pursuit rules. They're starting to be more common now, but they were a glaring omission in most mainstream games for a long time.
-mix-and-match class/profession systems a la Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or Shadow of the Demon Lord. Not a good fit for every game, but it's a great system and far superior to D&D multiclassing.
Just gonna ditto your list given a lot of what I'm currently working on features this to some degree or another.
Here's some mechanics I really like that I house rule into all my games now.
Zones - Rather than doing grid and movement for combat, I use zones. A zone is an area that is the size of a single turn normal movement (25ft in D&D). Everyone in that zone can engage in melee with anyone else in that zone without worrying about counting off squares. A PC can move to an adjacent zone with their normal movement and further zones with run and sprint as prescribed by the rules set the game is using. I just use hexes for open spaces. This has the added effect of making ranged combat more relevant.
Effort - Effort is kind of like combat in that you roll to succeed and then you roll to for amount of effort. A task will have two stats, success and effort and it's kind of like AC and HP. It changes skill rolls from "can you do this" to "how long will it take you." Now it's not a matter of if you can pick a lock, it's a matter of can you pick the lock before the guard comes through on his rounds.
Success bonus - Rather than crits, I offer success bonuses. If you roll 6 over the target, you can add that to your damage or effort.
Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2025, 02:09:13 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on March 28, 2025, 01:10:44 PMQuote from: jhkim on March 28, 2025, 12:53:39 PMSimultaneous attack and defense is standard in Powered-by-the-Apocalypse (PbtA) systems, which are quite widespread. So this one is popular, just not in the OSR.
https://www.therpgsite.com/design-development-and-gameplay/the-smor-system/
Is that a thing in PBTA? The only PBTA game I've played is Dungeon World, which either doesn't work that way, or my DM was running it wrong.
I think your DM was running it wrong. In Dungeon World, the DM never rolls for enemy attacks. (The DM never touches dice at all for resolution.) Instead, the player rolls his "Hack and Slash" Move. On success (10+), only the PC does damage. On a limited success (7-9), both sides deal damage. On failure, only the enemy deals damage. Here's the Dungeon World SRD
https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/moves/
Yeah, the DM I had played it that whenever an enemy attacked you, you had to roll a Defy Danger move. Just looking over the SRD, it looks like you could interpret it either way.
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 28, 2025, 05:39:15 PMIt might have made for great high-tension roleplay under certain circumstances (and with the right group), but if the only concern for the game in question (whether by game or by group) is the combat aspect, then I can see why you considered it "much worse."
Yeah, in this mini-campaign (four sessions I think), the entirety of the action took place over basically one afternoon/evening in game so "rests" of anything more than 15 min weren't really applicable but it certainly wasn't all combat as we had multiple RP segments in each session other than the last (which was a run towards the last shuttle type scenario). I could see long standing injuries being interesting to roleplay in a campaign with long downtime sessions of healing, training, carousing, realm-building, etc though but I could see plenty of players simply being reasonably pissed off if the ranger they spec'ed out for ranged longbow combat can't use one at all let alone effectively for multiple sessions/weeks or months IRL and I wouldn't consider them to be murderhobos or anything.
For what it's worth, I actually agree with you and am struggling how to balance that in my own very early fantasy heartbreaker. I just don't have an easy answer unfortunately.
Quote from: Shteve on March 28, 2025, 03:47:49 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on March 28, 2025, 01:20:14 PMA single roll for attack and damage.
I'm not sure I've run across this before. Anyone have an example? Color me intrigued.
Pocket Fantasy (which is free) has this. Characters all have a Combat Skill of 1D6, 1D6-1, or 1D6-2 based on your chosen class. Some bottom tier enemies can even be as bad as 1D6-3.
You roll your CS to attack and the other guy rolls their CS to block damage. If any damage is left, the victim takes that number in damage.
Spell interruption and individual initiative. These were both a thing in early D&D and moving away from them made combat a lot less interesting
Quote from: Mishihari on March 29, 2025, 04:15:45 PMSpell interruption and individual initiative. These were both a thing in early D&D and moving away from them made combat a lot less interesting
Regarding individual initiative, are you referring to everone rolling individually and going on their own initiative result? Is that really that uncommon nowadays? I agree that side based initiative has increased in popularity but i always figured that individual was still the most popular.
Quote from: RNGm on March 29, 2025, 06:25:47 PMQuote from: Mishihari on March 29, 2025, 04:15:45 PMSpell interruption and individual initiative. These were both a thing in early D&D and moving away from them made combat a lot less interesting
Regarding individual initiative, are you referring to everone rolling individually and going on their own initiative result? Is that really that uncommon nowadays? I agree that side based initiative has increased in popularity but i always figured that individual was still the most popular.
5E has individual initiative.
I remember using side based Initiative for AD&D but we might have house ruled it, I don't recall.
I can appreciate it when in-game mechanics get tied to real world benchmarks. For instance, in Ascendant practically everything is quantifiably meaningful. With almost every character sheet or NPC stat number having some form of tangible, direct meaning assigned within the game world and its narrative.
Sadly, I can't really think of many examples of this outside maybe the strength stat in some RPGs.
Quote from: RNGm on March 29, 2025, 06:25:47 PMQuote from: Mishihari on March 29, 2025, 04:15:45 PMSpell interruption and individual initiative. These were both a thing in early D&D and moving away from them made combat a lot less interesting
Regarding individual initiative, are you referring to everone rolling individually and going on their own initiative result? Is that really that uncommon nowadays? I agree that side based initiative has increased in popularity but i always figured that individual was still the most popular.
I don't actually know. I hear a lot more about the virtues of side based initiatives online though
I prefer games with these bits.
1. You don't roll your stats. You just are given some that you put where you want them.
2. Warrior classes that get customization so they're just as interesting as wizards.
3. Armor as a saving throw to reduce damage or even block all of it.
4. Spells that use a skill check to pull off instead of slots.
5. Weapons and armor traits so each type has a use. None should be statistically better than the others.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on March 28, 2025, 08:40:38 PMQuote from: Shteve on March 28, 2025, 03:47:49 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on March 28, 2025, 01:20:14 PMA single roll for attack and damage.
I'm not sure I've run across this before. Anyone have an example? Color me intrigued.
Pocket Fantasy (which is free) has this. Characters all have a Combat Skill of 1D6, 1D6-1, or 1D6-2 based on your chosen class. Some bottom tier enemies can even be as bad as 1D6-3.
You roll your CS to attack and the other guy rolls their CS to block damage. If any damage is left, the victim takes that number in damage.
My game does something similar. There are opposed attack and defense rolls. If the attack roll beats the defense roll, then the difference is the damage.
I vaguely recall another mechanic, not sure which game, with a percentile attack roll. If you get a hit then damage is the sum of the two digits.
Quote from: KindaMeh on March 29, 2025, 08:26:07 PMI can appreciate it when in-game mechanics get tied to real world benchmarks. For instance, in Ascendant practically everything is quantifiably meaningful. With almost every character sheet or NPC stat number having some form of tangible, direct meaning assigned within the game world and its narrative.
Sadly, I can't really think of many examples of this outside maybe the strength stat in some RPGs.
FATAL had various, um, diameters.
On a more serious note I always appreciated that the Speed attribute in Palladium is literally your speed in feet per second... there's a story where this may have been accidental because the game always presents it as Speed x 20 = yards per minute (originally Palladium Fantasy had one minute turns), but 60 feet per speed point over the course of 60 seconds is extremely specific.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on March 29, 2025, 08:34:46 PMI prefer games with these bits.
1. You don't roll your stats. You just are given some that you put where you want them.
2. Warrior classes that get customization so they're just as interesting as wizards.
3. Armor as a saving throw to reduce damage or even block all of it.
4. Spells that use a skill check to pull off instead of slots.
5. Weapons and armor traits so each type has a use. None should be statistically better than the others.
Some good choices there that I definitely agree with but do you consider them uncommon or underused? It could just be my own biases at play but I see them frequently. With #1, are you referring to point buy systems or a standard array that you can just put anywhere?
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 29, 2025, 08:52:33 PMQuote from: KindaMeh on March 29, 2025, 08:26:07 PMI can appreciate it when in-game mechanics get tied to real world benchmarks. For instance, in Ascendant practically everything is quantifiably meaningful. With almost every character sheet or NPC stat number having some form of tangible, direct meaning assigned within the game world and its narrative.
Sadly, I can't really think of many examples of this outside maybe the strength stat in some RPGs.
FATAL had various, um, diameters.
On a more serious note I always appreciated that the Speed attribute in Palladium is literally your speed in feet per second... there's a story where this may have been accidental because the game always presents it as Speed x 20 = yards per minute (originally Palladium Fantasy had one minute turns), but 60 feet per speed point over the course of 60 seconds is extremely specific.
...
Has anyone used the Speed stat in any Palladium game? I can't think of any time I used it while playing or GMing.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 30, 2025, 04:00:40 AMHas anyone used the Speed stat in any Palladium game? I can't think of any time I used it while playing or GMing.
Not once in the 15 years we played. The only player/characters for whom it might have mattered was the juicer and full conversion borg and even then they only wrote for reference the max speed in MPH (which still paled in comparison with power armor and vehicles).
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 29, 2025, 08:52:33 PMQuote from: KindaMeh on March 29, 2025, 08:26:07 PMI can appreciate it when in-game mechanics get tied to real world benchmarks. For instance, in Ascendant practically everything is quantifiably meaningful. With almost every character sheet or NPC stat number having some form of tangible, direct meaning assigned within the game world and its narrative.
Sadly, I can't really think of many examples of this outside maybe the strength stat in some RPGs.
FATAL had various, um, diameters.
On a more serious note I always appreciated that the Speed attribute in Palladium is literally your speed in feet per second... there's a story where this may have been accidental because the game always presents it as Speed x 20 = yards per minute (originally Palladium Fantasy had one minute turns), but 60 feet per speed point over the course of 60 seconds is extremely specific.
I ran into a few happy semi-accidents with my D12-based homebrew. Jump targets are distance in feet, wind can be rolled using the Beaufort Wind Scale, and Climb targets match the Yosemite Decimal System.
Jump for example was sort of reverse engineered from the desired result, but the math just happened to work out pretty neatly. So sort of a joint effort between intention and luck.
Quote from: RNGm on March 29, 2025, 08:59:44 PMQuote from: weirdguy564 on March 29, 2025, 08:34:46 PMI prefer games with these bits.
1. You don't roll your stats. You just are given some that you put where you want them.
2. Warrior classes that get customization so they're just as interesting as wizards.
3. Armor as a saving throw to reduce damage or even block all of it.
4. Spells that use a skill check to pull off instead of slots.
5. Weapons and armor traits so each type has a use. None should be statistically better than the others.
Some good choices there that I definitely agree with but do you consider them uncommon or underused? It could just be my own biases at play but I see them frequently. With #1, are you referring to point buy systems or a standard array that you can just put anywhere?
Yes, point buy or standard array. I used to have to deal with power gamers/munchkins who would kill their own mother to get an extra 3% advantage. It made rolling 3D6 down the line a terrible experience.
As for how common finding a game with all of these features is, it only takes one. In my case the Kogarashi/True-D6 game is the best one. D6 Star Wars/Mini-six is another.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on March 30, 2025, 09:53:14 AMYes, point buy or standard array. I used to have to deal with power gamers/munchkins who would kill their own mother to get an extra 3% advantage. It made rolling 3D6 down the line a terrible experience.
IIRC you said you played Palladium and that is the WayTM for those systems, lol. I say that as a former longtime player of Rifts (and occasionally Robotech at cons) and reformed and repentent matricide-munchkin myself. :) It was the 90s and I was a teen who didn't know any better in my first campaign!
Quote from: Zalman on March 30, 2025, 07:56:17 AMQuote from: Chris24601 on March 29, 2025, 08:52:33 PMQuote from: KindaMeh on March 29, 2025, 08:26:07 PMI can appreciate it when in-game mechanics get tied to real world benchmarks. For instance, in Ascendant practically everything is quantifiably meaningful. With almost every character sheet or NPC stat number having some form of tangible, direct meaning assigned within the game world and its narrative.
Sadly, I can't really think of many examples of this outside maybe the strength stat in some RPGs.
FATAL had various, um, diameters.
On a more serious note I always appreciated that the Speed attribute in Palladium is literally your speed in feet per second... there's a story where this may have been accidental because the game always presents it as Speed x 20 = yards per minute (originally Palladium Fantasy had one minute turns), but 60 feet per speed point over the course of 60 seconds is extremely specific.
I ran into a few happy semi-accidents with my D12-based homebrew. Jump targets are distance in feet, wind can be rolled using the Beaufort Wind Scale, and Climb targets match the Yosemite Decimal System.
Jump for example was sort of reverse engineered from the desired result, but the math just happened to work out pretty neatly. So sort of a joint effort between intention and luck.
I'd imagine climbing and parkour would be pretty straightforward to adjudicate and narrate in a system like that. Also, sounds pretty fun/creative that there's now some system stuff out there based on the favorite die for most barbarians. (D12 needs more love, just in general.)
Quote from: weirdguy564 on March 29, 2025, 08:34:46 PMI prefer games with these bits.
1. You don't roll your stats. You just are given some that you put where you want them.
2. Warrior classes that get customization so they're just as interesting as wizards.
3. Armor as a saving throw to reduce damage or even block all of it.
4. Spells that use a skill check to pull off instead of slots.
5. Weapons and armor traits so each type has a use. None should be statistically better than the others.
I don't totally agree with #5. Weapons should be different and thus statistically better-at certain things. Longer weapons provide superior reach, lighter weapons are faster, etc. Weapons need more traits besides just damage to differentiate them.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 30, 2025, 11:51:21 AMQuote5. Weapons and armor traits so each type has a use. None should be statistically better than the others.
I don't totally agree with #5. Weapons should be different and thus statistically better-at certain things. Longer weapons provide superior reach, lighter weapons are faster, etc. Weapons need more traits besides just damage to differentiate them.
I like this idea on paper, but I've never seen a good application of it. Part of the problem is just that most RPG writers aren't also martial artists and/or HEMA enthusiasts, but most of it is that the relative merits different weapons are very complicated, nuanced and situational. Some of them you can easily model in RPG rules and some you can't. Games will end up only modeling the pros of some weapons and only the cons of others (and often they even get those wrong), and then you get a situation where some weapons have arbitrarily been made non-viable with no benefit in terms of balance or realism.
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 30, 2025, 01:39:34 PMQuote from: Exploderwizard on March 30, 2025, 11:51:21 AMQuote5. Weapons and armor traits so each type has a use. None should be statistically better than the others.
I don't totally agree with #5. Weapons should be different and thus statistically better-at certain things. Longer weapons provide superior reach, lighter weapons are faster, etc. Weapons need more traits besides just damage to differentiate them.
I like this idea on paper, but I've never seen a good application of it. Part of the problem is just that most RPG writers aren't also martial artists and/or HEMA enthusiasts, but most of it is that the relative merits different weapons are very complicated, nuanced and situational. Some of them you can easily model in RPG rules and some you can't. Games will end up only modeling the pros of some weapons and only the cons of others (and often they even get those wrong), and then you get a situation where some weapons have arbitrarily been made non-viable with no benefit in terms of balance or realism.
I would say that balance in the game is more important than realism (at least as far as fantasy goes) In purely realistic sense, a hand and a half sword is much better than a stick, assuming equal skill, but it is more important for game play that the stick offer something attractive in play else why even have it.
Quote from: KindaMeh on March 30, 2025, 11:21:11 AMI'd imagine climbing and parkour would be pretty straightforward to adjudicate and narrate in a system like that.
Especially if you yourself happen to have done it in real life. I have some climbing experience, which makes it easy for me to imagine what a "5.9" climb feels like (a.k.a. target number 9 in my system).
Quote from: KindaMeh on March 30, 2025, 11:21:11 AMD12 needs more love, just in general.
My favorite die!
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 30, 2025, 01:45:32 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on March 30, 2025, 01:39:34 PMQuote from: Exploderwizard on March 30, 2025, 11:51:21 AMQuote5. Weapons and armor traits so each type has a use. None should be statistically better than the others.
I don't totally agree with #5. Weapons should be different and thus statistically better-at certain things. Longer weapons provide superior reach, lighter weapons are faster, etc. Weapons need more traits besides just damage to differentiate them.
I like this idea on paper, but I've never seen a good application of it. Part of the problem is just that most RPG writers aren't also martial artists and/or HEMA enthusiasts, but most of it is that the relative merits different weapons are very complicated, nuanced and situational. Some of them you can easily model in RPG rules and some you can't. Games will end up only modeling the pros of some weapons and only the cons of others (and often they even get those wrong), and then you get a situation where some weapons have arbitrarily been made non-viable with no benefit in terms of balance or realism.
I would say that balance in the game is more important than realism (at least as far as fantasy goes) In purely realistic sense, a hand and a half sword is much better than a stick, assuming equal skill, but it is more important for game play that the stick offer something attractive in play else why even have it.
I agree, though I do think immersion/verisimilitude is important. I don't care much about realistic simulation, except for where the absence of it becomes jarring.
To me at least, the more your system tries to simulate, the more it invites that kind of scrutiny. Hand me a game where every weapon does the same damage, and my reaction will be "Ok, sure. Any weapon can kill you, so that makes sense." With standard D&D damage numbers, the reaction is more like "Eh, it's dumb that a scimitar does less damage than a straight sword, but whatever". Once you start adding on weapon qualities, that's where I'm like "Wait, how the flying fuck does a broadsword have a bonus to armor piercing?"
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 30, 2025, 02:52:28 PMQuote from: Exploderwizard on March 30, 2025, 01:45:32 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on March 30, 2025, 01:39:34 PMQuote from: Exploderwizard on March 30, 2025, 11:51:21 AMQuote5. Weapons and armor traits so each type has a use. None should be statistically better than the others.
I don't totally agree with #5. Weapons should be different and thus statistically better-at certain things. Longer weapons provide superior reach, lighter weapons are faster, etc. Weapons need more traits besides just damage to differentiate them.
I like this idea on paper, but I've never seen a good application of it. Part of the problem is just that most RPG writers aren't also martial artists and/or HEMA enthusiasts, but most of it is that the relative merits different weapons are very complicated, nuanced and situational. Some of them you can easily model in RPG rules and some you can't. Games will end up only modeling the pros of some weapons and only the cons of others (and often they even get those wrong), and then you get a situation where some weapons have arbitrarily been made non-viable with no benefit in terms of balance or realism.
I would say that balance in the game is more important than realism (at least as far as fantasy goes) In purely realistic sense, a hand and a half sword is much better than a stick, assuming equal skill, but it is more important for game play that the stick offer something attractive in play else why even have it.
I agree, though I do think immersion/verisimilitude is important. I don't care much about realistic simulation, except for where the absence of it becomes jarring.
To me at least, the more your system tries to simulate, the more it invites that kind of scrutiny. Hand me a game where every weapon does the same damage, and my reaction will be "Ok, sure. Any weapon can kill you, so that makes sense." With standard D&D damage numbers, the reaction is more like "Eh, it's dumb that a scimitar does less damage than a straight sword, but whatever". Once you start adding on weapon qualities, that's where I'm like "Wait, how the flying fuck does a broadsword have a bonus to armor piercing?"
The way out of that quandary is to not get too attached to the reality being simulated or to the game play or to the mechanics, but to let each one have some influence. It need not be a balanced influence, either, and in most cases won't and shouldn't be. However, when you call something a sword, give it mechanics, and attach it to something a character can do, you've automatically invoked some of all three, at least a little.
Where I see games go wrong is nearly always some variant of:
- These parts are nearly all the same. So we'll just make them exactly the same.
- These parts are different. So we need to add in all the other differences that seem like them.
- These parts are all color/flavor. So it doesn't matter how we add them.
- These parts have this mechanics. So those parts need to have the same mechanic (or maybe symmetrical one flavored to look different).
Any or all of those may actually be correct for a given design intent. None of those are automatically correct for just about any design intent. Yes, every difference adds complexity. So choose wisely lest you become the second coming of Phoenix Command. However, there's too far the other way too, given some design goals.
I find that a handful of meaningful, well-chosen differences that map to "good enough" reality are the difference between something that pulls the players into the game versus a thin veneer that wears off when it gets rubbed against one too many times.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 30, 2025, 11:51:21 AMQuote from: weirdguy564 on March 29, 2025, 08:34:46 PMI prefer games with these bits.
1. You don't roll your stats. You just are given some that you put where you want them.
2. Warrior classes that get customization so they're just as interesting as wizards.
3. Armor as a saving throw to reduce damage or even block all of it.
4. Spells that use a skill check to pull off instead of slots.
5. Weapons and armor traits so each type has a use. None should be statistically better than the others.
I don't totally agree with #5. Weapons should be different and thus statistically better-at certain things. Longer weapons provide superior reach, lighter weapons are faster, etc. Weapons need more traits besides just damage to differentiate them.
I prefer weapons to be different too, but I had to find something besides damage to vary them because in my game damage depends primarily on weapon skill, and the weapon itself doesn't play into it at all. There are about 20 different ways you can attack, so the differences mostly went there. Frex quarterstaff has +2 to defense, -1 to strike and heavy attack, and +2 to flurry and light attack. The weapon list is not long, but every one of them is unique.
The Runequest resistance roll table. I have found some interesting uses for it.
Typically, mechanics that I toy with are unpopular for very good reasons. They tend to be much more difficult to control than your standard RPG mechanics.
That said, I can think of a few.
Pushing Dice (YZE): I think this is a fantastic mechanic only held back by the fact that pushing dice really likes there to be several step dice, not just two, and that pushing works far better on the less popular step die version of YZE than the D6 pool version. It is like everyone is determined to use the worse version of the game.
Mixed Step Die Pools: This is a case where I think the design trope is probably objectively the best tool in the industry, but there are about three games using the trope, two of which have terrible politics attached and all three are pretty poor at recognizing the potential of the design trope.
Drafting or random seeds for character generation: For some reason I typically find it easier to make a character when I am given an ability by the character creation process. I don't recall doing this for any formal systems, but multiple playtests or campaigns I have been in had the GM give the players special abilities before level.
Quote from: Ruprecht on March 28, 2025, 10:34:05 AMUsage Dice.
They were designed to be used for arrows and consumables but forget that nonsense, the concept is better used for things like Sanity, replacement for spell slots, or for hireling morale. You could even use usage Die for random encounter tables, When the Usage Die drops you drop to a different encounter table, maybe more dangerous, maybe the alarms went off or the volcano is starting to blow or something.
Brilliant. Stealing this!
Quote from: Fheredin on March 31, 2025, 01:47:49 PMMixed Step Die Pools: This is a case where I think the design trope is probably objectively the best tool in the industry, but there are about three games using the trope, two of which have terrible politics attached and all three are pretty poor at recognizing the potential of the design trope.
Which games? AFAIK, Free League uses mixed step dice, but don't seem to be overtly political.
And how are these games poor at recognizing their potential?
Quote from: Godsmonkey on April 01, 2025, 12:02:37 PMQuote from: Fheredin on March 31, 2025, 01:47:49 PMMixed Step Die Pools: This is a case where I think the design trope is probably objectively the best tool in the industry, but there are about three games using the trope, two of which have terrible politics attached and all three are pretty poor at recognizing the potential of the design trope.
Which games? AFAIK, Free League uses mixed step dice, but don't seem to be overtly political.
And how are these games poor at recognizing their potential?
Free League's Year Zero Engine step die version IS the exception. I would say it's worst failing is that it holds the step die mechanics back and you don't really get to see what happens when you mix 3 or 4 mixed step dice pools with Pushes. I assume this is to keep the math mostly consistent with the vastly more popular D6 pool version of the system, but I don't know.
The other major system I know is Cortex, a generally solid narrative system, but doesn't explore the crunchy potentials of mixed step dice. The lead designer went down the Zak S hate brigade a bit too far. I am not a huge fan of that because I try to defend the rights of the accused. Further down the rabbit hole there's Sigmata, which only uses a single die step and is literally a game about fighting Nazis released into peak Trump Derangement Syndrome.
There are a number of single step die systems like Savage Worlds, and of course I can guarantee you that there are systems I don't know about (I don't pretend to know everything) but they probably aren't major market presences.
In my opinion, the mixed step die pool's biggest potential is for no-math, no-modifier crunchy gameplay because you can offload so many arithmetic operations to the dice. Optionally, you can deliver a whole lot of crunch for the amount of arithmetic you require the player to perform. I would accept that direction, as well. This is generally not how these systems are designed. YZE holds itself back a fair bit in this regard, and pretty much everything else I know of is a narrative game, often requiring arithmetic.
Quote from: Fheredin on April 01, 2025, 07:26:20 PMQuote from: Godsmonkey on April 01, 2025, 12:02:37 PMQuote from: Fheredin on March 31, 2025, 01:47:49 PMMixed Step Die Pools: This is a case where I think the design trope is probably objectively the best tool in the industry, but there are about three games using the trope, two of which have terrible politics attached and all three are pretty poor at recognizing the potential of the design trope.
Which games? AFAIK, Free League uses mixed step dice, but don't seem to be overtly political.
And how are these games poor at recognizing their potential?
Free League's Year Zero Engine step die version IS the exception. I would say it's worst failing is that it holds the step die mechanics back and you don't really get to see what happens when you mix 3 or 4 mixed step dice pools with Pushes. I assume this is to keep the math mostly consistent with the vastly more popular D6 pool version of the system, but I don't know.
In my opinion, the mixed step die pool's biggest potential is for no-math, no-modifier crunchy gameplay because you can offload so many arithmetic operations to the dice. Optionally, you can deliver a whole lot of crunch for the amount of arithmetic you require the player to perform. I would accept that direction, as well. This is generally not how these systems are designed. YZE holds itself back a fair bit in this regard, and pretty much everything else I know of is a narrative game, often requiring arithmetic.
An interesting mechanic in Twilight 2000 by Free League is the ammo dice for autofire. I've not yet had the chance to actual play test it, but it does seem a simple mechanic. Like you I would like to see more exploration of Step Dice. I have been considering adding step dice for gear for example.
I am interested in how you would expand the YZE step dice system.