Hey everyone, I've recently come up with an idea for a core rule. Action Dice. Now I'm sure everyone is familiar with "Action Points", where each combat round a character has so many points to spend, and certain tasks use up more points (like shooting and reloading a rifle as opposed to throwing a punch). My idea was to use a d10 roll-under-skill/ level of success system, combined with the concept of Action Points. But instead of using points, each d10 that you roll is considered to be an "Action Die".
Combat rounds would last 10 seconds. Each Action Die rolled or spent take up one second. So a character could decide to spend 3 Action Dice on moving close to his opponent, then 7 Action Dice to attempt a powerful melee attack. Or, that same character may spend 3 AD for movement, then divide his remaining Action Dice into multiple attacks. Unused Action Dice add to a character's defense or something.
Certain tasks subtract AD from a character's pool. Loading a new magazine into a gun may take 3 AD. Obviously, these dice aren't actually rolled, but it still means that person spent 3 seconds on this action, not including any dice he wishes to use to actually fire the gun.
Initiative is determined by how many dice a character will spend that round, with the person spending the least dice acting first. So while a marksman spends his entire 10 second round aiming and firing (using 10 AD), a gunslinger with a pistol fires off 2 quick unaimed shots, spending 1 AD on each. The gunslinger would act first this round. If characters are spending the same amount of AD, then initiative goes off the highest Speed stat, or equivalent.
Essentially, the idea here is that taking your time produces better results, but speed is also a consideration. I'm loving this idea, and was wondering what everyone thought? Is it horribly broken in some way I have yet to see? I'm also unsure what I want to do about damage. The more successes on a roll, the more damage makes sense, but I'm not sure what the best way to go about this would be. Thanks!
John,
It has potential.
The part I am unsure of is how the initiative, movement and die commitment "works"
There are a couple of pitfalls, to consider
1) Are all the dice pool for initiative? Meaning the guy who declares 3 dice for movement and 7 dice for attack, does he go on '3 and 7', 3, 7 or 10?
2) The extra dice should be more than just hit chance, iut should contribute to damage as well. Meaning that there should be an advantage to spending 7 dice on that massive melee attack other than just increasing your chance to hit. Otherwise people can figure out how many dice they need to hit and roll that and use the rest as discretionary dice, no?
3) Timing, it "sounds" like you are making everyone declare their actions, then base initiative off of that. The problem with that setup is, the actions lose context as you get later and later in the initiative order. So, its a one-on-one duel. One guy spends 3 dice on move and 7 dice on dueling his foe. His foe figures out that 7 dice will skewer him like a roast chicken, so he spends 9 dice on move. Of course, I don't know the answer to #1, but either interpretation means that one of these actions will be out of context. If big bad melee guy goes first, then the 9 move dice were wasted as he will be dead before he gets to use them. If running man gets to go first, then the move and attack guy has nothing to attack, right? Now, o course, this is a "feature" of initiative in every system. BUT, because th initive order has no random factor its more of a measure of who ever declares their action first is more likely to have their declaration made meaningless by players who declare their action afterwords. And as soon as this context sensitivity is "discovered" by the players, then there will either be the need for "secret written orders" before initiative or there will be this whole meta game with psychological drama where each player has to decide when to be a dick and declare something after another player that totally negates their stated actions.
All that being said, I think this is a brilliant mechanic and as soon as you work out the initiative kink, you are golden.
Either way, good luck with your game man!
I suppose I was a little unclear on how I had planned initiative to work. The idea was that the more dice you want to use during your turn, the lower your initiative. So let's say there's a 3 way duel.
A is a melee guy
B is a shooter
C is a shooter
A decides to use 3 AD to close with B, then attack with 4 AD (total AD used - 7)
B fires 2 quick shots at A, spending 3 AD on each (total AD used - 6)
C uses all 10 AD to line up a shot at A (total AD used - 10)
The sequence would be B (6), A (7) then C (10).
To figure out Initiative, as in the order the player's declare actions, the GM could just present the scene, give them a few seconds to decide, then go down the list: "Anybody spending 10 AD? Ok... 9 AD?" and so on, until all characters have declared their actions. Players who are spending the most AD would announce their actions first, and once you decide how many AD you wish to spend, that amount can't be changed until your next turn.
Also, I'm trying to figure out a way for #of success to be proportional to damage, but am a little lost.
John,
OK, that's a decent framework.
I still feel like there is a social component to the framework of how initiative goes down.
Let me give you an example and you can either tell me I got it wrong, or maybe it will be food for thought:
Char A is a melee monster, very strong, if he gets within sword range, you are doomed
Char B is a ranged guy, he has a little pea shooter, but he is fast, so maybe that makes up for it.
So, the GM calls, "Who is spending 10 AD this turn?"
Both players chime in and Player A declares he will spend 3 dice to move and 7 to whack Char B. Now Player B has a three choices:
1) Whine like a baby until Player A changes their declaration
2) He knows his speed stat is higher so he can declare, I use 4 dice to move (or 5 if that is what it takes to stay out of melee range) and 6 dice (or 5 is more move is required) to shoot Char A.
3) Play along die like a hero and make a new character.
Not only that, but if Player B always hesitates and waits to hear Player A's declared actions first every time, he always has these same three choices.
Of course, Player A will figure this out eventually, so he might start waiting for Player B to declare first. But even then, because the turn order is predictable, he will be left with the same three choices.
Now, suddenly, the game becomes about who is dumb enough to declare their action first and not about character stats or any other strategy, tactics or story concerns.
Don't get me wrong, I think you are super close to a great combat system, but I did see this hole and thought I would make an effort to point it out and help you brainstorm a solution.
I really like this mechanism, not least because it's similar to how my system handles conflicts. Mutual appreciation aside, here's a suggestion about how to handle initiative: Each player puts in their hand a certain number of dice (from 1 to 10), and everyone simultaneously reveals how many dice they're going to use. This determines initiative. Now people decide on their actions, either lowest-initiative first or highest-initiative first (both could work but give different tactics). If you are low-initiative and your action is obviated by someone higher-initiative, well that's the price you pay for sacrificing speed for quality.
The revealing mechanism will probably need some modification if there is a GM and he plays multiple baddies, but it's worth trying.
James
That's similar to how I was originally planning to do initiative. except that the base number of action dice would be variable. The person currently with the most dice in hand has the initiative.
So Elfo the ranger (10 dice)
vs Bluggo the Barbarian (8 dice):
Let's say 5 foot of movement costs one die and nocking or firing an arrow costs 2 dice.
Elfo goes first and spends 2 dice shooting an arrow at Bluggo. He misses and now has 8 dice)
Bluggo runs towards Elfo - the he's 20ft (or four dice) away from making contact. By the time he's run 10ft he's spent 2 dice (6 left). He'll have 4 dice when he makes contact.
Elfo has 6 dice, so with Bluggo 10 ft away he's equal. In the 2 dice it takes Bluggo to reach him he could nock (but not fire) another arrow. Instead he spends a die drawing his sword and holds back his other 5 dice.
Elfo has 5 dice for hand to hand, so he can attack first - he could throw all his dice into one attack (leaving him with nothing to defend with if he misses) or he could be more cautious. Likewise Bluggo must choose whether to spend dice dodging or whether to risk it and save his dice for the attack
In this situation Elfo has an advantage because he's both faster and at a distance with a missile weapon. If Bluggo was faster, or i Bluggo had the bow and Elfo had to charge than things would be different (of course Bluggo might have other advantages like toughness, strength and sheer craziness).
How many dice you have may come from a Speed stat or die roll (say 2D6) or both. You could also save unused dice for the next "hand" (which refreshes as soon as a player has spent all their dice).
Quote from: dindenver on November 20, 2008, 12:40:55 PM
Now, suddenly, the game becomes about who is dumb enough to declare their action first and not about character stats or any other strategy, tactics or story concerns.
Don't get me wrong, I think you are super close to a great combat system, but I did see this hole and thought I would make an effort to point it out and help you brainstorm a solution.
You make a valid point, but the game should (hopefully) not involve much player infighting, so I didn't see this as a major issue.
Quote from: Creatures of Destiny on November 20, 2008, 04:53:15 PM
How many dice you have may come from a Speed stat or die roll (say 2D6) or both. You could also save unused dice for the next "hand" (which refreshes as soon as a player has spent all their dice).
I see what you're saying here, but I think we have a different idea about initiative here. From the example you posted, both Elfo and Bluggo are moving and acting fluidly throughout the combat round, at least that's the impression I got. It looks like a "tick" system, where after each second, character positions and actions are played out. So everyone who acts on second 4, for example, gets to act at the same time. Mine was more static turn based. Once a character acts their 10 seconds out, the next character in turn may act.
In retrospect my idea seems a little sluggish (Bluggo is just standing around while Elfo runs and fires arrows?!), but I have toyed with the idea of decreasing combat rounds to 5 seconds or so. I would like to do short 3 second combat rounds, but that would only allow for up to 3 dice per turn to be spent. Unless I can come up with a fluid system where players have to ration their dice pool across several combat rounds (say 5 second combat rounds, and 30 second or 1 minute long combat "scenes" or something). This would limit the amount of actions possible in a turn, but at the same time could account for things like fatigue (spent all your dice running? time to take a breather!).
Here we go: 6 second combat rounds. 1 minute combat scene, so every 10 combat rounds your Action Dice are replenished. Characters can use 6 AD per round (1 per second still), but are limited to around 30 AD per 1 minute combat scene. This would require careful rationing. Traits and such could raise a character's maximum AD. I'm gonna ponder this idea a little longer.
Thanks for the feedback!
I've toyed with something similar in the past...
But from my perspective, I'd say that the person who revealed the lowest number of dice should have the initiative.
My reason for this is simple.
It's already been stated that the person who is spending more dice on an action is taking more time on the action for a better chance of success.
Therefore, they act faster, but have less potential to make a significant effect on their opponent.
This actually bring a level of tactics back into the game as well.
"Do I make a quick strike and hope I can damage my opponent before he gets in his calculated blow? Or do I risk the chance of him hitting me first, so that I can deal a critical strike later?"
That was just my take on the situation.
V
Quote from: Vulpinoid on November 23, 2008, 11:34:23 PM
I've toyed with something similar in the past...
But from my perspective, I'd say that the person who revealed the lowest number of dice should have the initiative.
V
I'm not sure if I was misunderstood, but the that was the idea all along. The people spending lots of dice are the ones taking their time in the hopes of achieving a better level of success.
Also, another thing that may have been misunderstood: characters who are spending more dice declare their actions first, allowing the speedier players whom are spending few dice to actually act first.
John,
Re-reading through the thread, you're right.
I was responding mostly to the following...
Quote from: Creatures of Destiny on November 20, 2008, 04:53:15 PM
That's similar to how I was originally planning to do initiative. except that the base number of action dice would be variable. The person currently with the most dice in hand has the initiative.
Though another way to read this could be...
Players have three groups of dice. Dice on their character sheet are an unspent pool. Dice in hand are currently being used. The third group are spent dice from previous actions.
Perhaps players with the highest number of dice remaining on their character sheet act first.
In the first round against equally matched combatants, the player who spends the most dice on an action will have the least number of dice on their character sheet, therefore they will act last. As the rounds progress, the combatant who has paced themselves the best will be more likely to act first.
Note that I'd also make sure that characters expend dice from this action pool for active defense.
Regarding declaration of actions, I've typically seen that declaring intentions first is a disadvantage. Why would the more methodical combatants declare their actions first and therefore allow the instinctive combatants a chance to react to thing that haven't happened yet??
As for turn based, or timing based resolution of actions. I guess it depends what type of experience your trying to mimic with the mechanics...old school D&D...Final Fantasy styled "swipe-vs-swipe"...martial arts movies...the list is endless.
If you're going for a more fluid system of action, consider the following.
The actions dice of an individual gradually replenish as actions are performed by the group.
Multiply the number of combatants by 2 (one-on-one = 2 combatants, refresh value = 4...one-on-two = 3 combatants, refresh value = 6...etc.). You might want to play with the multiplier depending on how much you want endurance to play a role in combat (the higher the number, the more quickly characters will become fatigued), or you could provide certain characters with bonuses/penalties that allow them to refresh dice at different rates.
Once all of the combatants involved in the conflict have spent a cumulative number of dice equal to the refresh value, everyone regains a single die (or more if you want the effects of fatigue to be minimized).
A character who holds off on their action is considered to have "spent" a number of dice for the purposes of refreshing the pool, but they get to keep the dice in their hand.
Other effects could regenerate in similar ways once these refresh values are met (magic points could be regained, limited duration effects could expire...etc).
It keeps things more fluid rather than simply stepped in a typical round based set-up.
Just some thoughts and ideas...
V
Quote from: Vulpinoid on November 24, 2008, 05:29:06 PM
Regarding declaration of actions, I've typically seen that declaring intentions first is a disadvantage. Why would the more methodical combatants declare their actions first and therefore allow the instinctive combatants a chance to react to thing that haven't happened yet??
V
Now that I think of it, you have a point there. Not to mention it's just plain easier to declare and act all at once, as opposed to breaking it up like I previously suggested.
I've been watching this discussion with interest. I'll now add a tangential idea of my own.
What if the need for turns was eliminated altogether, and intention was only declared when the action is resolved?
Start scene / roll for initiative
1. Every PC and NPC rolls 4d3 as their initial dice pool. (you'll need to tinker with the exact number, fast characters may get a bonus, it may need more or less randomness)
2. The character with the largest pool takes a single action (one attack, spell etc) spending dice as required.
3. Repeat step two until scene is resolved.
Characters on the receiving end of an attack may spend any number of dice from their pool on their defense.
If at any time any character falls below a dice pool of 4; every character gains 2d3 dice, which may change the expected play order.
Possible New actions:
Wait: instead of acting the character focuses on defense, the dice are moved from their main pool to a specialized defensive pool which may only be used for defense/counter attacks.
Feint: cost 2 dice, if successful the target character looses their entire defensive pool.
John,
It sounds like you are close to a really good system.
It would be a shame for you to keep yourself from making the system you want because each die has to equal one second.
Maybe dice don't equal time, they equal skill or effort. The guy with less dice gets to go first and make a faster less skillful shot and the guy with more dice makes a more deliberate/skillfull shot? and it all happens in the blink of an eye...
Quote from: Altaem on November 24, 2008, 10:34:27 PM
I've been watching this discussion with interest. I'll now add a tangential idea of my own.
What if the need for turns was eliminated altogether, and intention was only declared when the action is resolved?
Start scene / roll for initiative
1. Every PC and NPC rolls 4d3 as their initial dice pool. (you'll need to tinker with the exact number, fast characters may get a bonus, it may need more or less randomness)
2. The character with the largest pool takes a single action (one attack, spell etc) spending dice as required.
3. Repeat step two until scene is resolved.
Characters on the receiving end of an attack may spend any number of dice from their pool on their defense.
If at any time any character falls below a dice pool of 4; every character gains 2d3 dice, which may change the expected play order.
This a pretty neat idea, and I think I will try and test it out. Maybe a character's dice pool is equal to their Speed stat +1d6 or something.
Quote from: dindenver on November 25, 2008, 02:07:40 AM
John,
It sounds like you are close to a really good system.
It would be a shame for you to keep yourself from making the system you want because each die has to equal one second.
Maybe dice don't equal time, they equal skill or effort. The guy with less dice gets to go first and make a faster less skillful shot and the guy with more dice makes a more deliberate/skillfull shot? and it all happens in the blink of an eye...
Yeah, I'm not married to the idea of dice=time, but it (and my fellow Forgers) was the springboard I used to come up with these ideas. I'll definitely be dwelling on all of these thoughts for the next few weeks.
Quote from: Vulpinoid on November 24, 2008, 05:29:06 PM
Players have three groups of dice. Dice on their character sheet are an unspent pool. Dice in hand are currently being used. The third group are spent dice from previous actions.
Perhaps players with the highest number of dice remaining on their character sheet act first.
In the first round against equally matched combatants, the player who spends the most dice on an action will have the least number of dice on their character sheet, therefore they will act last. As the rounds progress, the combatant who has paced themselves the best will be more likely to act first.
Note that I'd also make sure that characters expend dice from this action pool for active defense.
This is the idea I want to try to detail a little more. The way I see it is:
3 characters enter combat. Alpha has 21 Action Dice, Bravo has 20 and Charlie has 19.
Alpha goes first, and spends 4 AD on his first action, leaving him with 17.
Bravo goes next, since he has the highest amount of unspent dice (20). He decides to spend 7. He now has 13.
Charlie spends 5, leaving him with 14.
Now, the person with the highest amount of unspent dice is Alpha with 17. He spends 4, and has 13 remaining.
Charlie goes next with his 14 unspent AD.
And so on......
Now to refresh the Action Dice pool, we basically have a few ideas to choose from:
Each character refreshes their pool when they run out of AD.
All characters refresh their AD when one player has only a small number (say 4 for now) in their pool.
All characters refresh their AD when the total amount of AD in all unspent pools equals some number based on the number of combatants.
QuoteAll characters refresh their AD when the total amount of AD in all unspent pools equals some number based on the number of combatants.
That one! It should generate the correct balance between conserving action dice and cutting loose as required.
One potential problem I can see. What happens if the first character to act chooses to use every action die in a single killing strike?
The obvious solution is to limit the number of action dice used per action.
Instead I'd like to see some option for counter attack for targets of attacks of excessive dice.
John,
If you like the counter attack idea, I'll brainstorm some ways it could work.
Quote from: Altaem on November 27, 2008, 12:19:32 AM
One potential problem I can see. What happens if the first character to act chooses to use every action die in a single killing strike?
I had an idea to add in a Focus attribute, which could change based on race or perks or what-have-you. Your Focus score is the maximum amount of Action Dice you can use on one action in a turn. Defaults to 5 (?) for humans.
This way, a character could spend a ton of Action Dice if they want to, but no more than 5 would be used on a single action. So maybe 2 heavy sword strikes using 5 AD each for example.
Not to mention I still haven't hammered out how I want the number of successes to relate to damage. I was thinking of giving weapons a Damage rating, just one digit. So a knife might have Damage 2 and a sword Damage 4. The number of successes you roll on an attack could dictate the damage dice rolled, upgrading by die-type with each subsequent success. So rolling 1 success with a knife would deal 2d4 damage, while rolling 3 could deal 2d8.
Note: I have a separate damage system (not standard hitpoints) that I believe I mentioned in an earlier thread where the number of damage dice rolled is the weapon's Wounding Potential and the die-type is the weapon's Penetration. Each die that rolls higher than the target's Armor Value would deal 1 wound, sorta like World of Darkness.
Why have a seperate damage roll? Why not just use a flat number multiplied by the successes? So a dagger does 2 per success.
The killing strike doesn't seem such a problem, since the opponent who uses less dice will have a chance to disrupt the attack - actually that should be incorporated - damaging attacks should weaken the later attack (like a boxer fending off an opponent with jabs). Alternatively, the player can always choose to use successes to count against the opponent's attackes.
Example: The first attacker rolls three successes, and chooses to use 1 to count againt the opponents 4 die attack ( which thus counts as a three die attack)
Quote from: Creatures of Destiny on November 27, 2008, 05:34:43 AM
Why have a seperate damage roll? Why not just use a flat number multiplied by the successes? So a dagger does 2 per success.
The killing strike doesn't seem such a problem, since the opponent who uses less dice will have a chance to disrupt the attack - actually that should be incorporated - damaging attacks should weaken the later attack (like a boxer fending off an opponent with jabs). Alternatively, the player can always choose to use successes to count against the opponent's attackes.
Example: The first attacker rolls three successes, and chooses to use 1 to count againt the opponents 4 die attack ( which thus counts as a three die attack)
I'm loving the idea where you can disrupt an opponent's attack. Due to the fluid combat of the system, I see it like this: Whenever a character attacks another character/NPC, the defender has an opportunity to spend dice to defend against or dodge the attack. This occurs as part of the attacker's turn. For counter-attacks, I think that might have to be a separate Perk or something. Or maybe if the attacker somehow critically fails his attack, the defender gets a free shot at him.
And I'm considering your idea on damage, too. I originally wanted melee weapons to have a Penetration, and the actual Wounding ability of the weapon would rely on the character's Strength. This is because the system (as I've been envisioning it) needs to work for guns as well. And as far as damage goes, I would say that all bullets of the same caliber, regardless of the weapon firing them, do the same damage and have the same Penetration (aside from armor piercing rounds). A character achieving several successes on a shooting attempt would boost the damage a little bit, but measures would have to be taken so that nobody dies from a single 9mm round to the arm because the expert gunslinger rolled all successes.
Quote from: John Blaz on November 27, 2008, 03:20:38 PMA character achieving several successes on a shooting attempt would boost the damage a little bit, but measures would have to be taken so that nobody dies from a single 9mm round to the arm because the expert gunslinger rolled all successes.
Who says that all successes means the gunslinger shot their intended target in the arm? Does narration of hit effect come after successes are rolled, or does intention of hit effect come before dice are resolved?
If narration occurs after the dice, then I'd allow a player to narrate the expert marksman shooting their victim in the eye socket and allow appropriate gory details of the bone shattering in their skull for an instant kill (after scoring 5+ successes). If they only scored one success, then their bullet only manages to find a neglible location to place a flesh wound (like the arm).
Of course if the player scores more successes, they don't have to do more damage, they could simply be more specific about where they place the hit (eg...I shoot the gun out of his hand, I shoot the rope hanging around his neck...etc.).
If intention of hit location occurs before the dice are rolled, I'd put forward a basic system where a minimum number of successes will need to be acquired before a more specialised hit effect can occur.
Just trying to hit them wherever there's an opening...that only takes 1 success.
Trying to hit them in the leg...that'll cost you one success from your final result.
Trying to hit the eye...that'll cost you four successes from the final result.
Bypassing their armour by aiming at a specific point...that'll cost you a variable number depending on the armour type.
Cumulative successes left over apply to damage.
In exchange for sacrificing these potential successes, you get some special effect if you manage to hit. Eye hit might blind someone, a leg hit hinders their movement, etc. Proportionally better effects to offset the lost damage potential.
V
Quote from: Vulpinoid on November 27, 2008, 04:57:09 PM
Quote from: John Blaz on November 27, 2008, 03:20:38 PMA character achieving several successes on a shooting attempt would boost the damage a little bit, but measures would have to be taken so that nobody dies from a single 9mm round to the arm because the expert gunslinger rolled all successes.
Who says that all successes means the gunslinger shot their intended target in the arm? Does narration of hit effect come after successes are rolled, or does intention of hit effect come before dice are resolved?
What I was saying is that I don't want the dice to be able to add a ton of damage. So I really think it would be better to either keep damage separate from the success level, or put a limit on the maximum damage that can be dealt by certain weapons (probably the best solution). Example: give weapons a damage per success rating (say 1 for a dagger) and then put a cap on the max damage that can be dealt due to rolling many successes. So a dagger could have Damage 1-5, where 1 is the amount of damage per success and 5 is the damage cap. This would keep ridiculous things from happening.
Also, I would make the intention come before the dice are rolled, and just subtract successes or make them spend more dice when they attempt to hit small areas (-1 for a leg,-2 for an arm, -4 for a head, -6 for an eye etc.)
Quote from: Vulpinoid on November 27, 2008, 04:57:09 PM
In exchange for sacrificing these potential successes, you get some special effect if you manage to hit. Eye hit might blind someone, a leg hit hinders their movement, etc. Proportionally better effects to offset the lost damage potential.
Here, I had planned to make this a basic feature of the combat system, where the main body parts all have Hit Points, and as they deplete, the character could lose speed or coordination and such.
Quote from: John Blaz on November 27, 2008, 09:06:33 PM
Quote from: Vulpinoid on November 27, 2008, 04:57:09 PM
Quote from: John Blaz on November 27, 2008, 03:20:38 PMA character achieving several successes on a shooting attempt would boost the damage a little bit, but measures would have to be taken so that nobody dies from a single 9mm round to the arm because the expert gunslinger rolled all successes.
Who says that all successes means the gunslinger shot their intended target in the arm? Does narration of hit effect come after successes are rolled, or does intention of hit effect come before dice are resolved?
What I was saying is that I don't want the dice to be able to add a ton of damage. So I really think it would be better to either keep damage separate from the success level, or put a limit on the maximum damage that can be dealt by certain weapons (probably the best solution). Example: give weapons a damage per success rating (say 1 for a dagger) and then put a cap on the max damage that can be dealt due to rolling many successes. So a dagger could have Damage 1-5, where 1 is the amount of damage per success and 5 is the damage cap. This would keep ridiculous things from happening.
Well a dagger could potentially kill anyone - even a guy in full armour could get on in the eye - that's always seemed silly in HP based games to me - the 10th level AD&D fighter KNOWS that the guard with a crossbow cannot kill him in one shot.
Of course it would be ridiculous to destroy a tank with a dagger, but that could simply be based on your "penetration" - remember this should be based on the weakest point - so full plate still has eye-slits but Space Marine Power Armour does not as even the visor is armoured (so a dagger could kill a knight but not a Space Marine) or even, horror of horrors - GM fiat.
Also, do you want the roll to represent a SINGLE dagger (or whatever) strike, or an attack routing (someone going to town with a dagger).
That's part of the reason for the hit locations: You can kill somebody with a blow to the head from pretty much anything, but a dagger to the arm isn't going to kill somebody outright.
And the attack roll counts as one single swipe, slam, shot, or stab with any weapon. So for a character to go to town on somebody with a dagger, they will probably want to do several small attacks using few Action Dice per attempt. The only thing is, I need to make sure there is a difference between making several 1 AD attacks, and one massive attack using several AD.
How about this?
When rolling 1 die or multiple dice...the highest scoring die determines whether a hit is scored, the number of other dice meeting a certain threshold value determine how much damage is applied. Everything still comes down to a single roll of the dice, but reading it in two different ways gives the variability between hit and damage.
Rolling one die will only ever generate a single hit success, and regardless of whether if this die meets the threshold, it won't contribute to extra damage.
When rolling five dice, any one of them could end up as a success, and the remaining four can be consulted for extra damage potential.
The threshold required for doing extra damage could be determinate on the weapon, or on the body part. Or both.
The same type of system could then be applied across the rest of the game to determine extra degrees of success for any type of skill action.
More to write but gotta go..
V
Quote from: Vulpinoid on December 01, 2008, 04:05:58 PM
How about this?
When rolling 1 die or multiple dice...the highest scoring die determines whether a hit is scored, the number of other dice meeting a certain threshold value determine how much damage is applied. Everything still comes down to a single roll of the dice, but reading it in two different ways gives the variability between hit and damage.
Rolling one die will only ever generate a single hit success, and regardless of whether if this die meets the threshold, it won't contribute to extra damage.
When rolling five dice, any one of them could end up as a success, and the remaining four can be consulted for extra damage potential.
The threshold required for doing extra damage could be determinate on the weapon, or on the body part. Or both.
The same type of system could then be applied across the rest of the game to determine extra degrees of success for any type of skill action.
More to write but gotta go..
V
I think I see what you're saying, but please elaborate when you get a chance, Vulpinoid.
...back...sorry about that.
Let's hypothetically say that the action dice are d10s.
Let's put forward a hypothetical situation for the purposes of explaining out some details.
Matt is playing Sgt Mort (10 dice to play with).
John is playing Jack the Quick (also 10 dice to play with).
The two players have different aims for the scene and the two characters get into a fight.
We've touched on how characters can expend dice from their pools to perform actions. More dice means a slower and more methodical action but a better chance of success. Fewer dice is relying more on instincts.
The only thing I'm not sure about here is whether added skill means a character is able to throw more dice into the situation at hand, or if it means that the dice they use will have a bonus modifier applied to them.
For the purposes of what has been discussed so far, I'd say that extra dice means extra time is spent, and since the highest die is kept, this means by default that a slower acting person is more likely to get a better degree of success. Actual skill has little to do with how much time is spent on an action, and the skill level would probably increase a die result by a flat figure.
Back to our combat...
Jack the Quick likes using single dice, or pairs at most. Sgt Mort likes to be more cold, calculating and methodical (he tends to roll four or five dice with each swing).
With two dice, Jack strikes first and declares he'll be aiming for the arm, he hopes that both dice score successes because one die of success will allow him to do a bit of damage, while a second success will allow him to disarm his opponent. He hits with one die, but since the second die didn't do anything spectacular, the opponent remains armed and is only damaged with a light wound.
Sgt Mort follows up, rolling five dice. He doesn't muck around and goes for the head. He'll need to roll higher because it's a smaller target area, but he's got more dice to play with, so there's still a good chance of a hit. Two dice hit. It starts as a standard light wound, but because the designated wound area was the head it goes up to a moderate wound, and because there's an extra die of success, this pushes it up to a critical wound.
We haven't said anything about extra damage due to specific weapon types.
I'd work off the idea that different weapon types produce extra damage depending on the natural die rolls before modifications. A dagger might increase the damage for every die that naturally rolls a "9" or better, a chainsaw might increase damage for every die that naturally rolls a "5" or better. Depending on where you hit the body, you could modify these numbers accordingly (+1 target number for arms, natural for legs, -1 for abdomen, -2 for torso, -3 for head), and the more dice that meet this modified value the more damage is done to the victim.
This is counterbalanced by the fact that the higher damage locations are harder to hit on the actual attack roll. It might be harder to hit the head; but if you do so, it'll really deal a bucket-load of damage. It's easy to hit the arms, but you'll probably need to hit them a couple of times before you start doing significant damage to your opponent.
I'm probably pushing this concept into areas completely different to what you'd thought, so I'll stop now.
V
I see what you're saying V, and it sounds like it could require a chart lookup to use effectively. But I'll outline the basic concepts as I have them written:
Action Dice are d10s.
Stats are rated from 1 to 10.
Skills are rated from 1 to 10.
Task resolution: roll x d10s equal to/less than the Skill, this counts as 1 success. If no Skill applies, use a Stat instead.
Your Stats limit the amount of successes you can get. So with a Strength of 3, melee attacks wouldn't benefit from having more than 3 successes achieved on one attempt.
Perks (feats) can raise the amount of successes allowed on an individual skill by 1 at a time. (So with 3 Strength, and the Melee Success Perk +1*, that character can achieve 4 successes at a time, and they all count)
*not working title, lol
Quote from: Vulpinoid on December 01, 2008, 10:56:59 PM
The only thing I'm not sure about here is whether added skill means a character is able to throw more dice into the situation at hand, or if it means that the dice they use will have a bonus modifier applied to them.
Added skill equals a higher skill rank, characters may use as many dice as they wish per action.
Oh, and right now, I'm going with the thought on initiative where at the start of combat, all participants roll d10 plus their Speed score, this is the number of Action Dice you get. When you run out of Action Dice, roll d10 plus Speed again. Combat goes in order of highest to lowest amount of unspent AD.
Quote from: John Blaz on December 01, 2008, 11:43:36 PM
I see what you're saying V, and it sounds like it could require a chart lookup to use effectively.
...and normally I think charts slow things down, but since you've already indicated different hit points for different parts of the body, it would be just as easy to illustrate the body with these target numbers indicated on the various parts. So I didn't think this was too much of a stretch.
V
Quote from: Vulpinoid on December 02, 2008, 12:27:47 AM
Quote from: John Blaz on December 01, 2008, 11:43:36 PM
I see what you're saying V, and it sounds like it could require a chart lookup to use effectively.
...and normally I think charts slow things down, but since you've already indicated different hit points for different parts of the body, it would be just as easy to illustrate the body with these target numbers indicated on the various parts. So I didn't think this was too much of a stretch.
V
Yeah, I gotch ya. I was starting to get a little tired there and not comprehending as well as I oughta be... Anyway I did understand your logic, and it makes sense to me. Characters declare their intent to target a part, then they need so many successes to hit it. I was just thinking of giving each main part a certain amount of Wounds it can withstand.
Head = 5
Torso = 10
Arms = 6 each
Legs = 8 each
This number is purely theoretical though, as I'm still not 100% sure of how I want to calculate damage. Somebody had suggested weapons deal x damage per success, based on the weapon.
I'm still considering a separate damage roll, though. I would like to avoid that, so can you suggest anything to do with damage for different weapons, Vulpinoid?
Why not make it that the defender chooses where to take the hit UNLESS the attacker uses success dice to attack a specific location? Each success spent this way enables them to move one body area to where they want to hit OR choose a more specific location (like a pressure point/vital spot or weak point in armour).
If you think about actual close combat or even a sport like boxing, the defender is usually choosing where to defend (like a boxer's guard covering the head) while leaving other areas exposed - so the defender choosing is not so unrealistic (a little more so in missile combat but it's a reasonable abstraction).
Body areas could be Low/Middle/High and or Legs/Torso/Arms/Head. If the defender declares that he's taking the hit to the shoulder, then it would take one success to move the hit to the head, and then another to bring it to the eye area. Any left over success indicate extra damage (my X number of damage per success).
That way you could say that a dagger has a max damage EXCEPT to a vital location, where the dagger has no maximum damage (so you can't cleave someone's arm off with a dagger, but you can poke them in the eye).
These dice should be declared BEFORE rolling (otherwise it gets very gamey as players fiddle around trying to max out the damage).
That way in one roll you've got hit/miss, hit location and damage. As a useful side effect it makes "called shots" slower (they need more dice to work) than attacks to just anywhere (which is realistic and probably balanced too).
An example:
Skipper swings his cutlass at One-Eyed Bob's remaining eye. Bob declared he'd take any hits on his peg-leg (effectively avoiding wounds). So from legs to head is 2 spaces, and then a further success is needed to hit the eye. Skipper rolls his dice and gets 3 successes. Just enough to get the eye, but with not enough to cause damage. The rules (or GM) could run this two ways - Skipper's strike glances past the eye, cutting his eyebrow but causing no damage (but blinding Bob temporarily) OR Skipper's strike hits Bob in the head (but not the eye) causing one success worth of cutlass damage (which would probably hurt quite a bit unless Bob's wearing a helmet).
That last bit could be decided either by a general rule (the last remaining success must be used for damage), by player declaration "Last die for damage/last damage for special effect (blinding in the case of this fight)", by GM fiat, or by random selection (flip a coin, roll a die).
One last note: Another cool thing about this is that it can cover other situations too - for example if the bad guy defender is holding a hostage at gun point, then he can declare that he'll take hits on the hostage! The attacker would then need to use successes to hit the bad guy and scoring less successes would have tragic consequences.
Quote from: Creatures of Destiny on December 02, 2008, 04:47:16 PM
Why not make it that the defender chooses where to take the hit UNLESS the attacker uses success dice to attack a specific location?
That's a cool idea...and it actually makes defensive actions worthwhile.
A character going "all out attack" is leaving themselves open to being hit wherever their opponent sees the opportunity. A character playing defensive on the other hand can focus the hits into their shield, or into a less volatile part of the body.
As for getting more specific, I guess it all depends how crunchy you want the combat to be.
V
New Idea.
I don't know if you've now resolved this for your system but I've just struck upon a new idea for the action dice mechanic.
Please ignore this if you've resolved a concept that works with your current ideas, but I just had to get it out.
After posting about initiative concepts...and combat notions without the need for an initiative roll, I just thought of this concept that seems to make sense with the action dice idea.
Simple Axioms:
1. Initiative always goes to the player with the highest number of action dice in their current available pool
2. In the case of a tie, Initiative goes to the character with the highest reflexes (or a random roll-off if this has already been incorporated into the number of available dice)
3. After any action, dice are immediately rerolled to see if they return to a players available pool or if they are temporarily spent.
The general idea can be picked up from the axioms above, but all actions are basically divided into three steps. First the dice are rolled to see if the action succeeds, then the dice are rolled to determine how much damage is done (if applicable, since this could easily be incorporated into the success stage), finally all the dice are rolled again to see if the return to the players pool (if a die rolls 6 or higher it returns to the pool, otherwise it remains temporarily out of play).
Pools are then compared again to see whose turn is next.
A player can also choose to have their character gain their breath, by rolling a single die after every action performed by someone else (if a player has the initiative, but chooses to gain their breath, then the player with the next highest available dice may take an action).
If a player is lucky, they could get a couple of big hits in. But the best way to maintain the initiative in combat would be to perform a number of quick hits in succession.
Just an idea that's come to me in it's rawest of forms. It needs a bit more refinement.
V
It seems like there are now two threads with exactly the same topic (my bad for nudging the other one off from where it should be!), but what I have to say seems more immediatelly relevant to what Vulpinoid just said, so here I go.
I liked it, but immediatelly felt like there'd be too many rolls in this sort of thing... Started thinking on how to limit it to one single roll.
So.
You roll whatever number of dice you want to roll. What's higher than a target number (Stat/Skill based) counts as a hit. Damage is somehow calculated off the "hit" dice.
This could possibly also be stat-based... Say, the difference between the target number (Stat/Skill higher = Target # lower) is the flat damage bonus. If you have multiple successes, having various combos of the success dice grants damage multipliers/special effects/whatever. I.e., you get one 10 and two 8s as successes for a target number of 5. The 10 gives you 5 damage, the two 8s - 3x2 (2 being the number of indentical rolls).
The stat/skill determining damage could be the same thing that determines damage or something altogether different.
And, finally... Whatever dice of the total roll are lower than your Endurance score return back to you.
Also. I'm a little bit against the "refresh whenever an opponent makes a move", as doing lots of little jabs may well benefit your opponent more than you, an effect that seems sort of counter-intuitive to me.
And basing them off the actual dice your opponent has rolled seems to have the same problem.
...And basing them off the dice *you* roll seems to have a crazy snowball effect, compounding whatever initial advantages/disatvantages you had ad infinitum.
One possible thing... You get new dice whenever you the amount of dice you roll is lower than your Speed stat or some such. The possible endless loop when someone has a couple dies more than you and keeps hitting you with one die probably could be avoided if there were some inherent dangers in rolling. Counter-attacks or whatnot else.
Quote from: DWeird on December 12, 2008, 11:42:19 AM
It seems like there are now two threads with exactly the same topic (my bad for nudging the other one off from where it should be!), but what I have to say seems more immediatelly relevant to what Vulpinoid just said, so here I go.
Yes and no.
I see this thread as delving into the manipulation of the dice refresh elements while the other thread focuses more on how specific damage events are handled. Both relate to one another, but they aren't necessarily the same thing.
If people want to consolidate the topic into a single thread then it might be a good idea to start a new one that references both of these threads.
V
Quote from: Vulpinoid on December 12, 2008, 07:30:23 PM
Quote from: DWeird on December 12, 2008, 11:42:19 AM
It seems like there are now two threads with exactly the same topic (my bad for nudging the other one off from where it should be!), but what I have to say seems more immediatelly relevant to what Vulpinoid just said, so here I go.
Yes and no.
I see this thread as delving into the manipulation of the dice refresh elements while the other thread focuses more on how specific damage events are handled. Both relate to one another, but they aren't necessarily the same thing.
If people want to consolidate the topic into a single thread then it might be a good idea to start a new one that references both of these threads.
V
I feel a little bad for taking up two topics on the front page, if there's a way to consolidate them, I'm all for it. Especially since I'm now flipping back and forth between both topics.